www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Divine Essence/Energies

All language can be ambiguous - you must find out the intended meaning of the author - that is the true meaning.

If someone wrote to you a letter - and you read it - and misinterpret some phrases in that letter - and then (later) you and the letter writer were again together and you told him how you interpreted his letter - if the author said �that is not what I meant� and then told you his intended meaning when he used those words�

would you argue with him and insist that he meant what you read and interpreted - and that he did not mean - what he claims he meant?

Word are easily twisted. They are just signs (physical) and contain no meaning (mental) in themselves. Marks on paper. Sounds in the air. It is men�s minds which assign to these marks and sounds - meaning. And all men vary as to shades of meaning for the signs. So the defining item is the intended meaning of the author.

The most important thing about words at all - is their - intended meaning. IN light of that� you must accept how the author intended to use the signs - of you will imagine him to have said something which he did not say (in meaning).

-ray

No, you post was not too aggressive.

I hereby make public apology. And it is not the first time.

I have a bit of admiration for you for sticking this thread out! Some other Easterners would slam the gate shut and never think about this troublesome area themselves. They would just accept the �party line� (referring to the Tumos that were brought up).

Read the canon, I must admit, pushed me to the edge. Quote: �Dangerous doctrine � headed to destruction�� you must realize that we Catholics who find value in our Church where we worship Christ - are - insulted by such stuff. Heretic and heretical and all that. I am aware these were not your words (and I thank you for that).

I have now regained my composure and tolerance for such stuff which has gone on far to long and far to needlessly. I assume the end of it is in sight and so that is why I am ants in the pants.

Jason� your sincerity at trying to figure this out� is admirable.

I wish I could help more.


And as a last comliment - I have always said (at the board) that the people who disagree with me usually assist me more than the people who agree with me. I love - a good oponent! It is they who force me to think in new ways and ask myself "am I wrong? did I miss something?"

It is good to examine ones own beliefs and faith from time to time (speaking of myself). I do not wish to become "too Catholic" if you know what I mean.

-ray

Ecce Jason:

Actually, that shift in emphasis doesn't change the meaning at all. I'm honestly suprised that you would think it does. Trinitarian means "pertaining to the Trinity", and therefore saying that the Father is the sole Trinitarian cause means precisely that He is the sole cause within the Trinity, since the Father can never be understood to be outside of the Trinity; the Father does not cause the Father, after all, and that's explicit in the Creed. To suggest that that's a possible reading of the document is to completely ignore the continuous and unbroken claims in the Latin Church.

That is why I say there seems to be an effort, whether intentional or not, to read contradiction into these passages. Having gone back and read previous discussions between you and Apotheoun, it seems to me that it originated with Apotheoun's insistance that mediation implied aitia on the basis of the Council of 1285, but that implication is nowhere found in that document. Another point of the document that Apotheoun continues to bring up is that:

...but this is not at all the case in the Council of 1285! No one (in this thread at least) has provided a single citation that precludes "principle" in the manner I've described. The only way that "principle" is ever precluded in the Council of 1285 is as a "causitive principle", in that they are quoting John of Damascus when he says:

The Latins absolutely agree 100% with that assesment, and always have, even at the Council of Florence and Lyons. Despite the communication break down, and the misunderstanding of the fact that aitia meant "causitive principle", the Latins never used their own term for causitive principle, namely principaliter, to describe the Son's relationship with the Holy Spirit. Not once. Nor did they ever use the term principaliter to apply to the "union" of the Father and the Son in processing the Holy Spirit.

Rather, it seems (and purely by reason of lack of sources) that a contradiction between the Eastern view and the Western view is being assumed, which is a view that even the Orthodox do not currently take.

Apotheoun: You continue to state that the Eastern theological viewpoint can not accept, in any way, the Son as principle to the Holy Spirit. I can only assume that you are speaking of a Church Father's writing on this subject, since this is not stated in the Council of 1285. Which Father, or other source, states that principle (understood as unique from aitia, despite the misunderstanding of Florence; again, they would have said principaliter if they had intended to ascribe such a connotation to the relationship between Father and Son) must be excluded from the Son?

In asking this I'm not doubting its existence, I simply can't find it myself and I want to see the source with my own eyes. So far all I see is your insistance that the miscommunication of Florence indicates that principium means something it actually does not, and can be seen to not mean that (aitia) by its use in other places; if you have brought up the specific source, I must have missed it. In fact, it would seem that even Greek recognizes an inherent difference between aitia and principle, and the distinction is made in the Council of 1285.

I want to say that this matter is extremely critical for me, as my faith in both the Orthodox and the Catholic Churches rises or falls based on the outcome of this discussion. I'm not attempting to take either side, but rather find where the actual definitions rest. It's not enough to assume in this case, and I must see these things with my own eyes. If there are conflicts, I must see them for myself, and so far I have not. That's why I ask for the sources: not in order to justify one theology over the other, but rather to see if indeed a contradiction necessarily exists.

Thank you for all your time and patience.

Peace be with you and God bless!

Ray,

First, let me thank you for having the grace to accept criticism; that is admirable of you, and your apology regarding past words is of course accepted. I hope that you will accept my own apology too, first for airing my difficulty with your post publicly (I perhaps should have PMed you) and second for the times at which I may have also been uncharitable -- it happens at times that we forget that we are discussing things with other people rather than simply trying to refute an argument, and I sometimes am guilty of forgetting just that.

Having said as much, I can certainly understand your reactions to the Tomus of 1285, for you are quite right that it declares things rather boldly! Of course -- and as you are well aware -- there were different circumstances going on at that time, particularly what was viewed as a sham, forced union at Lyons, which may have set the context for such language. As you've noticed, I haven't used those words.

I share your feelings about having a good opponent to make you always think over your own opinions, and this dialogue has certainly made me do that from time to time. So, all in all, it has been a good experience, even if we meager few have not quite managed to solve the issue completely just yet!

God bless,
Jason

Not being able to debate the Greek and Latin on the level that you guys are capable...

(I only married a Greek - I can speak it or read it with labor and several reference books)...

If interrogating the Greek and Latin of these old documents is doing good - fine and well. Researching such things by reading the opinions of others (as certified as they may be as experts) is always a task of noticing their particular bias. They usually write books to the purpose of proving what they believe. So what they write is bias to proving what they wish to prove. Not really good research. If these doctorate people had indeed discovered the problem - all things would be hunky-dory now. So I doubt that these people really got anywhere except in their own minds.

Let me throw in a little thought..


IF, the filoque of the Latin�s had meant that the Son was the cause for the hypostasis of the Holy Spirit (proceeded from the Son in a hypostatic way) � would it not be reasonable to expect that doctrine to ripple through the Latin church and show up - in many places? Yet there is no supporting evidence in that regard.

A Roman Catholic from that age of 12 - never once had I encountered any such idea. I had always understood - that the Father was the origin of both the Son and the Holy Spirit� and never once had any implication that the Son gave birth to the Holy Spirit.

As I remember it - the most descriptive way it was described to me - was �The Holy Spirit is the love that goes back and forth between the Father and the Son�.

But it had always been clear to me that within the world stage - Jesus could �send� the Holy Spirit.

The Father sends the Holy Spirit (sent to Mary, send as a dove over Jesus) and the Son sent the Holy Spirit (�I will send the parakeet��)

(a bit of humor)

And in prayer we ask the Father �send your holy spirit�� and we sometimes ask Jesus to �send the holy spirit�.

But no where at any time in my memory was there ever ever - any idea that the Son gives �birth� to the Holy Spirit or that the Spirit proceeds from the Son in way of the Son causing the person of the holy spirit to exist.

It has never ever meant that to any Catholic I have ever spoken to, hear, or read.

As far as fighting over semantics - as if language had power over men and not men having power over language - that has always seemed silly to me. My own father was a semantic-arguing person� and I could never figure out why he did not know that words - are a tool. They are a means and not an end in themselves. As such - they are used to point to an intended meaning - but the intended meaning (a mental experience) always takes precedence over the tools (words).

I suppose this has always been so with me. Sometimes I have had the occasion to assist people with psychological problems� and it is very important to learn �their language�. If one is going to communicate and understand them - one must be flexible with words and find out how they are using them and what their intended meaning is. So it has always been just an important part of human understanding to me. Tools of human communication. Tools only. They do not contain meaning nor understanding. Meaning is a mental experience and so too is understanding. The intended meaning always - takes precedence over the tools.

So, in summary�

IF - the Latin clique HAD meant at any time - that the Son was the cause of the hypostasis of the Holy Spirit - then without a doubt - that concept should run through Catholic doctrines - and it does not. In light of its absence in the etire body of Catholic teaching - it seems just plain old reason to me that it would not be the complete opposite of all other body of Catholic teaching - in the filque alone.

And _ I make the point that the Canon which we have been talking about - is not infallible - and not ecumenical. It may then be a local law (canon) which condemns a certain meaning which can be derived by some people - from the filoque - in a certain view and mind set. But - as non-infalable and non-ecumenical it has no power or authority that would allow it to condemn a thing of another independent church.

As good intended as it was by those which wished to protect Easterners from such an interpretation - the method they choose - was a mistake.

-ray

Ghosty,

I don't know what more to say here either. I'm going to do as much work as I can here with the Filioque Clarification to show you why it says what I'm saying, and then, if you're not persuaded, we're likely going to have to agree to disagree. Here is how the situation seems to stand: (1) your reading is less consistent than mine is with regard to the Filioque Clarification itself, as the clarification even suggests that what I'm saying "Trinitarian" cause means is exactly what it means (I'll give evidence for these claims in a moment), (2) your reading is less consistent with Florence and requires an unprecendented (and somewhat anachronistic) reinterpretation of words that goes against what the Latin doctrine has been taken to mean, not only by Orthodox and Catholic interlocutors through the centuries, but also by scholarship almost ever since the time it was elaborated, (3) your reading goes against the explicit wording of Florence (i.e., Florence says the Son is a cause and processes the Spirit "just like the Father", but you say He's not -- at least, not in the sense that everybody has been taking it -- and that He doesn't cause just like the Father), and here I could question your reinterpretation with arguments analogous to the ones you've been making toward me (i.e., why doesn't Rome just say that they don't mean what everyone seems to think they mean by "cause" explicitly, rather than in the ambiguous ways we've pointed out? -- obviously if they did this they would make a huge step to reunion and ease all Orthodox worries), (4) your reading goes against the way Catholic authors have interpreted the Catholic doctrine (cf. Fr. David Coffey), (5) your reading goes against the way Orthodox authors have interpreted the doctrine and the clarification (cf. Metropolitan John of Pergamon's response to the clarification, and many others), (6) your reading requires either a reinterpretation of Thomas that goes against the standard one or requires saying that Thomas simply erred here, (7) your reading is incompatible with the Eastern Orthodox Council of Blachernae. My reading suffers from none of these faults.

Before moving to the Filioque Clarification's explanation of "sole Trinitarian cause," however, let me just say that my own interpretation of it was not suggesting that the Father is the cause of the Father, as you seem to imply. Of course I don't believe that.

For simplicity's sake, here are the various phrasings that the Clarification gives to the Father:

(1) Note this language regarding "principle without principle:" "The Father alone is the principle without principle of the two other persons of the Trinity, the sole source (peghe) of the Son and of the Holy Spirit."

Just look at that. Of course the Father alone is the "principle without principle" of the other two persons in the Trinity; who else could be? The Son can't be a "principle without principle" of the other two persons, nor can the Spirit. And of course He's the sole source of the Son and of the Holy Spirit; again, who else could be? The way these phrasings are linked is certainly ambiguous to say the least, if not entirely unhelpful. If the Clarification wanted to be clear, it could have said plain and simply: "sole cause of the Holy Spirit's origin," without connecting his "soleness" to both persons -- of course he's the sole source of both.

Then, after this already ambiguous phrasing, it says:

(2) "The Holy Spirit, therefore, takes his origin from the Father alone (ἐκ μόνου τοῦ Πατρός) in a principal, proper, and immediate manner."

Okay, so the "therefore" is a logical connective tying it back to the previous statement. The previous statement is the one above, that the Father is the sole "principle without principle" of the two other persons. So because the Father is such a principle of the two Persons, the Holy Spirit originates from Him in a principal, proper, and immediate manner. Again, the modifiers here suggest the intrinsic possibility that someone else might be the cause of His origin in a mediate or non-principal manner. Absolutely nothing rules this out. In fact, connecting this back to the ambiguous and unhelpful language about the Father being the "principle without principle" of the two other persons, the only thing that is definitively stated here, especially considering that the clarification adds all these additional qualifiers ("in a principal, proper, and immediate manner"), thereby increasing the ambiguity, is that the Father is the sole ultimate source in the Trinity, because (i.e, "therefore," as the clarification itself says) He is the sole source of the other two persons, and so He is the sole ultimate and principal source of the Spirit's origin. All this seems to come straight from the clarification itself, and that's exactly the meaning I've been taking from it.

(3) "The Western tradition, following St Augustine, also confesses that the Holy Spirit takes his origin from the Father 'principaliter', that is, as principle."

Again, these are qualifiers that modify the way of understanding the origin. "Principaliter," according to my Latin dictionary (Cassell's), means "original, beginning, or first." Again, the qualifiers therefore suggest that the Son could be a cause of the Spirit's existence in a non-original or secondary way. (By the way, I'm not the only one that thinks so; see this Orthodox response). This all connects to the next point...

(4) "In this sense, therefore, the two traditions recognize that the "monarchy of the Father" implies that the Father is the sole Trinitarian Cause (Αἰτία) or Principle (principium) of the Son and of the Holy Spirit."

Again, the clarification links this type of causation to both person's of the Trinity, not just the Spirit, which suggests exactly the reading I gave it -- namely, that the Father is the sole ultimate or originating cause. It even says, "in this sense, therefore," the Father is sole cause; why doesn't it say in every sense the Father is sole cause?! And in what sense, exactly, does it mean? It means the sense expressed immediately prior to it: namely, in a principle (first, beginning), original, sense.

(5) The Clarification says that the reason the Orthodox refuse to say "and the Son" is because "ekporeusis" refers only to origin. In fact, it says "That is why . . . the Catholic Church has refused the addition [to the Creed in Greek]." In other words, the Catholic Church refuses to add it to the Greek Creed because it realizes that it implies the original cause, i.e, the origin, and clearly no one thinks that the Son is the origin of the Spirit. But this is not -- I emphasize, not -- the same as saying that He's not a cause in any sense. And there's the rub. The Clarification does not even mention that this is the Orthodox objection, so it does not even address the real issue head-on; nor does it ever say, without qualification, that the Son is not a cause in any sense. The above makes this abundantly clear.

(6) "The doctrine of the Filioque must be understood and presented by the Catholic Church in such a way that it cannot appear to contradict the Monarchy of the Father nor the fact that he is the sole origin (ἀρχὴ, αἰτία) of the ἐκπόρευσις of the Spirit."

Again, we all agree that He's the sole origin. The question is whether or not the Son can be a secondary cause, which is exactly the issue the Clarification skirts and ambiguates.

(7) To add to my case, the Clarification cites the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which pronounces exactly what I have been claiming they are professing: "'The eternal order of the divine persons in their consubstantial communion implies that the Father, as the 'principle without principle' (DS 1331) is the first origin of the Spirit, but also that as Father of the only Son, he is, with the Son, the single principle from which the Spirit proceeds' (Second Council of Lyons, DS 850)."

There you have it. The Father is the first origin (again, Ghosty, why such a strange qualifier if they mean to say he's the only cause?). But he is also, the Catechism is quick to note, together with the Son, the principle from which the Spirit proceeds. All of this once again very strongly implies that the Son is a secondary or mediate cause, who has received this causality (as suggested at Florence) from the Father as the ultimate source.

I really think I've said enough regarding the Clarification, and I am now weary of writing, to be honest.. So I'll let Apotheoun respond to you regarding the Tomus of 1285 if he'd like. I highly recommend you pick up Crisis in Byzantium by Aristeides Papadakis, however, as it is all about the history of the Council of Blachernae and the Tomus of 1285 and makes clear what's going on here.

Thanks, and God bless,
Jason

[Post deleted... Maybe?]

Jason

Ghosty,

Something else just occurred to me. The filioque historically rose as an issue ever earlier than all this, in the 9th century, at the time of St. Photios. St. Photios' response to the filioque is one of the most important statements of the Orthodox position (although it is elaborated upon at the Council of Blachernae), so you may consider reading his response to it as well. Speaking of which, you ask for evidence that the Orthodox have a problem with saying that the Spirit is a "principle" of the Son. Here's one point from Photios' Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit that may work, although I'm not sure:

"And you should consider this: if the Spirit proceeds from the Father and proceeds also from the Son � O deceiving drunkenness of impiety! � why do not the Father and the Spirit beget the Son for the very same reasons � who will atone for this blasphemous chattering which turns the monarchy into many principles and causes!"

Check out the history of the issue, too, 'cause it's maybe even more interesting. Photios got the Pope to convene a council (the so-called Photian Synod of 879-880), at which it was agreed that the addition of the filioque to the Creed was illegitimate. The council was regarded as an ecumenical council. It enjoyed full participation of Eastern bishops and papal legates and was also accepted by the Pope, but Roman Catholics tended to forget this Council after the schism with Orthodoxy and stopped counting it as ecumenical (as the work of Francis Dvornik on The Photian Schism makes clear). In fact, here are the words from that Council's declaration:

"We embrace with mind and tongue and declare to all people with a loud voice the Horos (Rule) of the most pure faith of the Christians which has come down to us from above through the Fathers [i.e., the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed without the filioque], subtracting nothing, adding nothing, falsifying nothing; for subtraction and addition, when no heresy is stirred up by the ingenious fabrications of the evil one, introduces disapprobation of those who are exempt from blame and inexcusable assault on the Fathers . . . Therefore, this holy and ecumenical Synod embracing whole-heartedly and declaring with divine desire and straightness of mind, and establishing and erecting on it the firm edifice of salvation, thus we think and loudly proclaim this message to all:

[The whole Creed is then recited, without the filioque.]

Thus we think, in this confession of faith we were we baptized, through this one the word of truth proved that every heresy is broken to pieces and canceled out. We enroll as brothers and fathers and coheirs of the heavenly city those who think thus. If anyone, however, dares to rewrite and call Rule of Faith some other exposition besides that of the sacred Symbol which has been spread abroad from above by our blessed and holy Fathers even as far as ourselves, and to snatch the authority of the confession of those divine men and impose on it his own invented phrases and put this forth as a common lesson to the faithful or to those who return from some kind of heresy, and display the audacity to falsify completely the antiquity of this sacred and venerable Horos (Rule) with illegitimate words, or additions, or subtractions, such a person should, according to the vote of the holy and Ecumenical Synods, which has been already acclaimed before us, be subjected to complete defrocking if he happens to be one of the clergymen, or be sent away with an anathema if he happens to be one of the lay people."

Photios' Mystagogy can be found here: The Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit [geocities.com]

God bless,
Jason

Dear Friends,

It's occurred to me that I'm contributing a bit too much time to these forums lately, and that I need to step back and focus more on prayer and spiritual discernment and those sorts of things. As such, the frequency of my contributions, at least to this discussion, will at least wane if not cease.

Thanks, and God bless,
Jason

In fairness, I do want to either tone down or retract entirely my contentions that Ghosty's statements regarding the decree of Florence go against what has been believed "by scholarship almost ever since the time it was elaborated," and also that his ideas require an unprecedented reinterpretation of Aquinas. Such statements are clearly over the top, as I am of course not an expert on either of these matters, and so not really in a position to know these things definitively. It's also possible, as I read over my recent post, that I may have overstated things a bit, though I do stand by the general ideas I've expressed there. Just wanted to say all of that since, on a re-reading, my post comes across to me as a bit too overly enthusiastic. Sorry about that.

In any case, forgive me for my many recent posts (the one regarding Photios, for example, may or may not be relevant to the issue here at all).

God bless,
Jason

RayK: I concur that this whole idea, that the Holy Spirit in some way derives His being from the Son, is completely novel and frankly rather odd to the ears of this particular Latin. So far we've only seen the testimony of a single Latin to this being the teaching, and this is a man under censure by the Vatican for denying that Jesus physically rose from the dead (and to my knowledge he still does). That this odd doctrine should be somehow "hidden" from all of Latin Christianity for 600 years, only to pop up in the mind of a single Jesuit scholar, coincidentally alongside denying the resurrection of Christ, seems a bit far fetched. I'm much more prone to toss this new conception out with the rest of Fr. Coffey's new conceptions. Indeed, new seems to be the operative word with Fr. Coffey, as he's also slammed Vatican II for using Scripture to support its teachings. He is a terrible "go-to" guy for Latin teachings.

Read the writings of John Paul II, or any other orthodox Latin theologian and philosopher, and you will not see this idea come up. It's as if we've suddenly discovered a heresy in our midst, being promulgated from the Vatican for 600 hundred years without anyone noticing, and nobody actually speaking in such a way.

Ecce Jason: First I will respond to your statements about my reading, but only so that others can understand where I'm coming from (EDIT: and in light of the charity and concession that your most recent post has indicated. None of what I say is directed as a personal attack on you, as you yourself have admitted that your basis of saying certain things may not have been well founded). I know you need a break, and I'm not inviting response from you. Let us just say that, given everything that's been said, your claims can stand, as can mine, and those reading our discussion can determine for themselves which is true, if either.

(1) This will be handled by me with your piece by piece analysis below.
(2) This is a claim without foundation. On the contrary, as RayK and I, as Latins, have indicated, this is a very novel notion that. Even if it has been brought up before, it has never permeated Latin thinking or teaching. I've seen nothing mentioned here to indicate otherwise, and your claim requires some citation and support. Without any support, it stands purely as opinion on your part, and stands fully against the experience of RayK and myself as Latin Catholics, and frankly every Latin I've discussed this with (one of whom is currently in the seminary). If this has indeed been the standard view of the Latins throughout history, it should be easily demonstrated, yet it has not been at all. In fact, my reading is completely consistant with everying I've (and apparently RayK) been taught as a Latin, which has always been under the shadow of Florence.
(3) This is actually false. Florence never calls the Son a cause, but rather says "according to the Greeks indeed as cause". We know that the Greeks did not claim this, and if they did they were speaking heresy as demonstrated by the Council of 1285. The Latins never ascribe the term cause to the Son in their own language, and there is ample reason to believe that they didn't grasp the nuances of the term aitia in Greek. Rather the Latins use the term principle, which can be shown to have never had the meaning of aitia (cause) in either Latin or Greek, as a new term was created (principaliter) to specify and differentiate the kind of principle that the Father was. If principle had the implication you suggest, principaliter would never have been coined as a modifier for it. Of special note is that, apparently, in Greek this modifier is required as well, as seen in the Tomus of the Council of 1285, where "causitive principle" is used to describe the Father's unique type of principle.
(4) Fr. Coffey is the only Catholic author who has been demonstrated to hold this (heretical) view, and he is a man known for innovation and heresy. He is also a man who has been publically censured by the Vatican for teaching, in spite of 2000 years of tradition and scholarship, that Jesus never physically rose from the dead. To my knowledge he has never recanted this notion, although he has ceased to publish it.
(5) While my interpretation goes against tradition Orthodox interpretation (and if it didn't, we might not be seperate Churches now), it does not seem to go against modern Orthodox interpretation, such as Bishop Ware's, that the filioque is an issue of semantics. On the contrary, my view seems to be much closer to "an issue of semantics" than the one you are proposing.
(6) My reading simply requires that certain terms be understood properly, and does not judge Thomas Aquinas' beliefs one way or another. Whether or not Thomas Aquinas' formulation of the Trinity would be heretical today is immaterial; indeed many of Thomas Aquinas' views would be considered heretical today, for example his view that the human soul only enters the fetus 40 days after conception. My reading may contradict Thomas' viewpoint, but it does not contradict his use of terms.
(7) As I've shown, this is not clearly the case. The Council in question speaks only of the Son as being incompatible with as a "causitive principle", which is the very idea I'm espousing. The Council of 1285 does not speak against the Son as a mediating principle at all. Indeed, the response to the Clarification, based on the writings of Gregory of Nyssa, seems to indicate that the Son was explicitely understood by at least one Church Father as a mediating principle.

Again, this is not meant to beg a response from you at all. I respect your wishes to bow out of the conversation, and I truly believe that both of us are set in our views. I only present this as my counter-view to your points, so that people reading our discussion can fully understand each of our stances. Now I'll continue to your enumerated points about issue (1) above.

1) While I agree that it's unhelpful when taken alone, I don't think it's unclear when taken in the context of the document itself. Indeed, later in the document it states:

Here it specifically relates the sole origin of the Spirit to the Father alone, as is the understanding of the Latin Church. While the passage you cite may be ambiguous when standing alone, it is hardly ambiguous in the context of the document.

2) You complaint here is directly related to my above point, and should be viewed in this light. The statement of the modifiers must be understood in the context of them meaning "sole origin" of the Holy Spirit. This is made explicitly clear in the document.

3) While it could be understood to be this way, such a view is a novelty in Latin thinking until proven otherwise. This is certainly a point of ambiguity, which the Orthodox rightly request clarification of, but in light of the Latin tradition that I am aquainted with, the clarification will be obvious. The Son has never been expressed as a "cause" in the sense of "aitia", but rather as a mediating principle, which does not seem to be ruled out by the Orthodox belief (despite Apotheoun's claims to the contrary).

4) It does say "in every sense" later in the document, in that it says "is the sole origin of the Spirit". That statement leaves no room for reading the Son into it, and it does not contradict the open understanding of principle, which seems to include the notion of "principle without cause (aitia)" according to the Greek. Principle without aitia is not ruled out by the Tomus of the Council of 1285, and therefore can't be used as a reason (within the context of this conversation and citations) of rejecting the Latin understandting of the filioque.

5) The issue is not whether the Latins view the Son as a "cause" in the Latin sense (which is broad and includes "by way of", as demonstrated in its use by Aquinas), but whether they view Him as the "cause" in the Greek sense, which is understood as "aitia", or sole origin. The reason that the document doesn't mention this as an objection by the Orthodox is because it's not an objection by the Orthodox. That is an assertion that has not been demonstrated in this discussion in the least. Every Greek document supplied states that the Son can not be involved in the "aitia" of the Holy Spirit, and to this the Latins readily agree (except in the case of Fr. Coffey, and he's dealt with above). The fact that the Latins relate "aitia" to "principium" is easily explained by miscommunication, espescially since even the Greeks do not understand "aitia" (cause) as "principium", as can be seen by their use of "aitia" in the term "causitive principle" in the Tomus of the Council of 1285. A causitive (or "aitian" to use an Anglification) principle is obviously not the same as a principle, or else the statement of "aitian" principle would be redundant.

6) The document does not skirt this issue, because the issue is not actually an issue at all. Sole origin eliminates the possibility of a secondary origin, at least in the sense that the Greeks object to. The Holy Spirit derives nothing of His personhood from the Son, though the whole of His personhood does flow from the Son. Therefore, the Holy Spirit's whole personhood is derived from the Father, and His whole personhood proceeds (proinai) from the Son (after all, why would only part of the Holy Spirit be blown forth from the Son? That is absurd). The terminology is not "primary" and "secondary" origin, but rather "sole" origin. This eliminates the possibility of a "secondary" origin, in the derivative and "aitian" sense, from the Son.

7) The Catechism does seem to be ambiguous on this point, but remember that we are reading a translation, and not the original Latin; it is quite possible that it is rendered differently in Latin than it appears in English. That being said, the Catechism is not an infallible document, and its statement, while ambiguous, is not definative. Without definative terms, AND infallible nature, no source can be said to rule our either of our positions, as both of our positions rest well within the ambiguous and non-infallible definitions in these cases. I will again stress, however, that the Orthodox Council of 1285 does not rule out a mediative element to the Son. That is an apparent invention that others have placed on to the document. While it does rule out a mediative "aitia", it does not speak at all of a mediative principle.

This confusion seems to stem from the Council of Florence's apparent identification of principium and aitia, an identification that, if it exists (no one has presented the Greek text of the document in question, so we can't even be sure that the Latins were using "causa" to mean "aitia"), is based on miscommunication and in no way indicates a clear understanding that would be required for such a statement to be dogmatic. In short, the Latin Church can not force a definition, in Latin, on the Greeks based on a misunderstanding of the meaning of Greek terms. If the Latins mistakenly believed that the word in Greek for "to assault" was synonymous with the Latin word for "to love", one could not interpret a Latin pronouncement that "The Greeks have said we must assault each other, and we Latins agree that we must love eachother, and so we state that all Catholics must love eachother" as a dogmatic pronouncement that Catholics must assault eachother. Such a conclusion is absolutely preposterous.

I will gladly pick up the book you mention, though I have my doubts that it will say much different from what I've already concluded of the Council of Blachernae, as I absolutely believe that it was a wholly orthodox Council, proclaiming with sincerity the orthodox view of the Trinity. Of course, by orthodox I mean the Traditional view, as shared by both the Catholics and the Orthodox.

Thank you so much for this discussion. It has been enlightening and very fruitful for me. Indeed, I believe it may be enlightening and fruitful for a great many people reading it, and I will do my best to share it with as many as possible.

Peace be with you always, and may God's Grace abound in your life!

EDIT: In response to your post about Photius, it may interest you to know that Photius has been "rehabilitated" in the Latin Church in the past century by the scholarship of Fr. Francis Dvornik. I would also point out that the reason that the Council in question can't be counted as Ecumenical is that it stated that it made invalid a previously held Ecumenical Council (Ecumenical in that it was convened and ratified by a previous Pope), which is impossible to do under any authority whatsoever. That does not mean that Photius' statements are incorrect, nor that they are correct, merely that the Council that renewed him to Communion with the Catholic Church is not Ecumenical, and therefore neither are his personal statements about the issue of the filioque. His renewal of Communion, however, is very real and was never broken afterwards.

For what it's worth, Photius' words must be understood in the context of his, let's say, over abundance of enthusiasm on the subject, and the understanding that the the ban on additions to the Creed was intended as additions in meaning, in particular those meanings that are contrary to the meaning of the original.

In short, Photius over-stated his case in a Council that can not be considered Ecumenical even though it was wholly endorsed by a Pope.

For what it's worth, I personally consider Photius to be fully Catholic, if a bit abraisive, and I feel that upon Re-Unification he should be recognized by the Catholic Church as a Saint for his (overly exuberant) defense of orthodoxy, and in light of his traditional position of Sainthood in the East.

And I want to tell of my admiration for Jason and Todd for sticking with this discussion in such a scholarly way as you did too Ghostly. The history has been well out of my area - and so I learned something from everybody. While I came into this discussion with some confidence in my ability (based upon my own research in near areas) you three ran circles around me with church history - and all three of you impressed me no end - I say - no end - with your (plural) demonstrated ability to logic! It is not often that I encounter such that can �clear the decks� and hold, and follow, some difficult thought - a thread woven through many colored fabric.

It really makes hardly any diffrence to me the out come (as if we are questioned on such high things daily). What is demonstrated is that each of you - make it your own. That is - such things as these are not simply believed because someone told us it was true - but great reflection and research is put into it - an examination of "what I believe".

Certainly God is smiling on us from heaven right now - because we four find it very uncomfotable to be seperated brothers.

There is hope for all of us.

-ray

Thank you for your kind words, RayK. I'm actually planning on archiving this discussion for future reference, as it's been very informative and has covered a LOT of ground. It's worth archiving for the links alone

God bless!

Part of the problem in this discussion is that some people are laboring under the misconceived notion that the Latin bishops at Florence were trying to simply translate the word "principium" as "aitia," when this is clearly not the case. If you read Fr. Gill's book, where he has translated the debates that took place at the council, you can see that this is not what the Latin bishops were doing. Instead, they were drawing an equivalence between "principle" (Latin: principium) and "cause" (Greek: aitia) because the West never really used the word "cause" (Latin: causa) in connection with the generation or procession of the hypostases in the Trinity. In other words, the Latin bishops were not trying to translate "principium" as "aitia"; instead, they were saying that the two sides were using these different words in an equivalent sense, i.e., that the Latins mean by principle what the Greeks mean by cause. Thus it is not a mistranslation at all, because they weren't trying to translate the words in the proper sense of the term; rather, they were declaring that these two different words were describing the same type of idea in the respective theological traditions, i.e., they were declaring that what the Latins mean by "principle" in connection with the Father and the Son, is what the Greeks mean by "cause" in connection with the Father alone. Thus, the Latin bishops triumphed at the Council of Florence, forcing upon the Greeks a conception of the Trinity that was foreign to the Byzantine tradition, and that is why the Easterners later repudiated the Council of Florence. In fact the repudiation of Florence by the East makes absolutely no sense unless the interpretation given to the council is consistent with the one that I and Jason (and Fr. Coffey) are making. Regardless, it is not a problem of translation (in the common sense of that term), and that is much is clear by simply reading the acts of the council.

Apotheoun: God bless you, and thank you for being so persistant. I must continue to differ with you, however, as I believe that what you have presented is a mischaracterization of the dialogue at Florence. Let me explain myself:

I've read the recounting of these particular discussions by Gill (numerous times, as it turns out, as I discovered that it was the same description I've been basing my understanding on for some time now, I just didn't know it came from that book or author), and what you are saying is still a matter of translation.

You see, the Greeks were arguing (or seemed to be) that in no way, shape, or form could procession be admitted to the Son, and the Latins utterly destroyed that argument time and time again. Ultimately the Latins and the Greeks adopted the term cause as synonymous with principle, but the actual implications of "aitia" as "sole originating principle" were never once broached.

At the one point this issue could have been broached (when Mark brought up Athanasius' statements about the Father being sole fount of deity), it was side-tracked by a totally different letter of Basil's that dealt with the Son's involvement in the Spirit's procession. This was because Mark was trying to use the statements of Basil and Athanasius, of the Father being the sole fount of deity, to show that the Son was in no way involved in the procession of the Spirit. Now Mark may have innocently been trying to protect only the ekporeusis of the Spirit, but the Latins weren't speaking on that. Rather, they were speaking on the proienai, and both words are translated as "procession" in Latin.

This is where translation becomes critical, because neither side could fully understand the language of the other; they were speaking through interpreters. If Mark was stressing ekporeusis it would have been completely lost on the Latins, who only heard from the interpreter "proceeds". What's more, it's not unlikely that when the Latins said "proceeds" it was being translated into Greek as ekporeusis, as that is the word used in the Greek Creed and in the Greek Bible where proceeds is used in the Latin Creed and Latin Vulgate.

Notice that the Latins never once attack the quotation by Mark of Athanasius on the issue of "sole fount of deity" specifically, but rather on whether or not it rules out procession. Indeed, that same source is used by the Latins to show that the Holy Spirit does proceed from the Son. All the Latins were trying to show is that the Holy Spirit could be said to proceed from the Son, but they never intended to infringe on the "sole fount of deity" of the Father. If they had intended for the Son to be partaking in the "sole fount of deity" along with the Father, they would have specifically said so. Rather, they continually say only that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son. Since the disctinction between ekporeusis and proienai are not made in Latin, with the single word procession for both, there was no way for them to know that Mark was defending ekporeusis on the grounds that it implies aitia, or "sole fount of deity". Likewise, if procession was being translated back into Greek as ekporeusis (which I believe is quite likely given the fact that the only mutual religious context that the word "procedere" is used in Latin is when it corresponds to ekporeusis), there was no way for Mark to know that the Latins were not speaking of the Son as partaking in the "sole fount of deity".

Again I stress: the Latins did not, and have not (except in the case of Fr. Coffey, apparently. I'm still waiting to read his actual article) challenged the concept of the Father as "sole fount of deity". They contained their argument solely to the issue of procession, which in Latin has a broad connotation, and includes both ekporeusis and proienai.

I encourage everyone to read the dialogue [praiseofglory.com] , and every time a Greek says proceeds, think proienai (general procession, including such concepts as funeral processions), and every time a Latin says proceeds think ekporeusis (procession from a single point of origin, literally "proceeds from the mouth") and you'll get the idea of what is going on. The two sides were literally speaking past eachother, and there was no way for them to know it.

What's more, the Greek delegation, with the exception of Mark Eugenicus, actually conceded to the Latin argument, and signed the agreement! There was no opportunity for the necessary correction or clarification, no way for the Latins to know that they had unwittingly backed the Greeks into a heresy. When the Decree was drawn up, it used the very general Latin words, and was designed spefically to protect the Greek/Latin understanding that there were in no way two seperate processions of the Holy Spirit.

So, to address your points directly:

This is translation, and it is mistranslation at that. The Latins didn't know what aitia implied, they only knew that they thought it meant principle. In light of the fact that the Greeks were only arguing against procession in general (from the Latin perspective, and due to the fact that procedere means what proienai does in Greek), the Latins thought they had demonstrated the equivalence purely by showing citations. The underlying implications were not discussed nor understood.

Yes, but only because the Greek argument had centered purely on showing that the Holy Spirit didn't proceed from the Son. From the Latin language, this is pure non-sense, and if the Greeks had said the same in Greek, but with proienai, it would have been non-sense as well. When the Latins showed that the Holy Spirit DID proienai from the Son (not realizing that the Greeks were hearing ekporeusis) the Greeks conceded, but wrongly given what they were hearing. The Latins stopped pushing the issue at that point because there was nothing to push against; the Greeks had conceded, and all that remained was drafting up the final document.

You are correct here, but only partially. It was rejected by the East because when the Bishops got home, they told everyone that they had agreed with the Latins that the Holy Spirit ekporeusis (sole origin and source) from the Father and the Son. They were condemned as heretics who had gone against 1400 years of orthodox thought and teaching. It was not the Decree in Latin understanding that they rejected, but rather the translation and Greek understanding of it provided by the Bishops who signed to it.

In the mean time the Latin Church continued teaching what it always had, that the Father was the sole source of deity, i.e. of the Holy Spirit and of the Son, the principaliter. Aside from Fr. Coffey (and I've yet to actually see this article you keep mentioning), no Latin has made the claim that the Son shares in the sole source of deity with the Father. We have continued to say, a la Augustine, that the Holy Spirit is a gift from the Father to the Son (obviously implying that Holy Spirit must find its absolute origin in the Father), and a la Thomas Aquinas that the Holy Spirit stands between the Father and the Son as a procession from Father to Son. This whole concept, based as it is on the Holy Spirit deriving His entire personhood from the Father, becomes one of the key foundations for John Paul II's "Theology of the Body", which is typified by the concept of "a gift given by a giver, to the receiver, so that the receiver may share it with the world". This absolutely precludes the gift taking any derivative origin from the receiver, or else it wouldn't be a gift, and this point is made explicitly by JPII of blessed memory.

In short, not only is this conception you are presenting not held by the Latins, it never has been, and would actually destroy a whole corpus of work and theology that has culminated in the "Theology of the Body", a work that has been said to put JPII in the running for title of Doctor of the Church. Hardly things that could be if your assertion is true.

You might argue that there has been an abandonment of the "hard-line" since the Council of Florence, but you'd be hard pressed to demonstrate that your interpretation, in the Latin context, was ever held. Indeed, as RayK said, it would have shaped the very essence of the Latin Church, and there would be indications of that now, rather than Theology of the Body.

Bless you for being so patient and persistant, and may God's grace shine on you always.