Anti-Filioquism from AD 850 to 1300

[Martin Paul]

Can someone cite Eastern writers between 850 and 1300 AD that speak about some sort of eternal communication of divinity from the Son to the Spirit? Eternal "manifestation" or "shining forth" a la Tomos 1285 does not seem sufficient.

It appears that Photius admitted the temporal emission of the Spirit from the Son solely as a result of the Incarnation. Some modern Orthodox theologians lament this and turn to GregPalamas for refuge from this clear departure from the Greek Fathers. Palamas came up with the idea that there is an eternal procession of divine energies from the Son to the Spirit. Now, however, some Eastern theologians that I have read do not bother with Palamas' distinction between essence and energies in this matter, and admit straight out that the divine essence proceeds from the Son to the Spirit. In each age, from the midByz period to the laterByz period to the modern period, Eastern theologians seem to soften their radical Photianism.

The Eastern church seems to be dependent on Photius until Tomos1285 and GregPalamas. I can accept that for a period lots of people overreacted against the Latins. But I cannot accept that no theologians whatsoever, I mean people who were not anathemized, admitted some sort of eternal communication of divinity from the Son to the Spirit. I would convert to the Eastern Orthodox Church if there were witnesses to this doctrine prior to Palamas. Please cite some references!

orthomartin

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Can someone cite Eastern writers between 850 and 1300 AD that speak about some sort of eternal communication of divinity from the Son to the Spirit? Eternal "manifestation" or "shining forth" a la Tomos 1285 does not seem sufficient.

It appears that Photius admitted the temporal emission of the Spirit from the Son solely as a result of the Incarnation. Some modern Orthodox theologians lament this and turn to GregPalamas for refuge from this clear departure from the Greek Fathers. Palamas came up with the idea that there is an eternal procession of divine energies from the Son to the Spirit. Now, however, some Eastern theologians that I have read do not bother with Palamas' distinction between essence and energies in this matter, and admit straight out that the divine essence proceeds from the Son to the Spirit. In each age, from the midByz period to the laterByz period to the modern period, Eastern theologians seem to soften their radical Photianism.

The Eastern church seems to be dependent on Photius until Tomos1285 and GregPalamas. I can accept that for a period lots of people overreacted against the Latins. But I cannot accept that no theologians whatsoever, I mean people who were not anathemized, admitted some sort of eternal communication of divinity from the Son to the Spirit. I would convert to the Eastern Orthodox Church if there were witnesses to this doctrine prior to Palamas. Please cite some references!

orthomartin

Here is something from St Maximus the Confessor:


St Maximos Confessor to Marinus on the Filioque

Those of the Queen of cities (Constantinople) have attacked the synodal letter of the present very holy Pope, not in the case of all the chapters that he has written in it, but only in the case of two of them. One relates to the theology (of the Trinity) and according to this, says 'the Holy Spirit also has his ekporeusis from the Son.'

The other deals with the divine incarnation. With regard to the first matter, they (the Romans) have produced the unanimous evidence of the Latin Fathers, and also of Cyril of Alexandria, from the study he made of the gospel of St. John. On the basis of these texts, they have shown that they have not made the Son the cause of the Spirit--they know in fact that the Father is the only cause of the Son and the Spirit, the one by begetting and the other by procession--but that they have manifested the procession through him and have thus shown the unity and identity of the essence.

They (the Romans) have therefore been accused of precisely those things of which it would be wrong the accuse them, whereas the former (the Byzantines) have been accused of those things it has been quite correct to accuse them (Monothelitism).

In accordance with your request I have asked the Romans to translate what is peculiar to them (the 'also from the Son') in such a way that any obscurities that may result from it will be avoided. But since the practice of writing and sending (the synodal letters) has been observed, I wonder whether they will possibly agree to doing this. It is true, of course, that they cannot reproduce their idea in a language and in words that are foreign to them as they can in their mother-tongue, just as we too cannot do.

Saint Maximos' Letter to Marinus, PG 91, 136.



I don't have time to go into this very far right now so I will just ask about whether there really is a 'radical Photianism' especially in the larger context of the Church's overall theology.

It may appear that there is such directly from St Photius' struggle against the filioque. But we need to keep in mind that the Patristic consensus is clearly that while the Holy Spirit does not proceed personally from the Son, the Holy Spirit does as St Maximus says above, in a sense 'proceed through the Son'.

Often 'by economy' is added in order to protect this from referring to personal origination & that all outward activity of God is Trinitarian. But even the inward activity of the Holy Trinity is trinitarian.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Martin Paul]

Show me a nonanathemized Eastern theologian after Photius but before Palamas that taught some sort of eternal communication of divinity from the Son to the Spirit. Vague phrases such as "shining forth" etc will not work. Phrases such as "receives from" or "dependent upon" are sufficient.

I have predetermined that once I find three theologians in this period who mention this I will convert to the Eastern Orthodox Church.

orthomartin

[Tim Grass]

Show me a nonanathemized Eastern theologian after Photius but before Palamas that taught some sort of eternal communication of divinity from the Son to the Spirit. Vague phrases such as "shining forth" etc will not work. Phrases such as "receives from" or "dependent upon" are sufficient.

I have predetermined that once I find three theologians in this period who mention this I will convert to the Eastern Orthodox Church.

orthomartin

This seems a strange thing to base someone's conversion on..... but that's not really my business. Try reading something by Symeon the New Theologian.... I can't remember off hand if there's anything there, but it could be a useful place to look.

--tim

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Show me a nonanathemized Eastern theologian after Photius but before Palamas that taught some sort of eternal communication of divinity from the Son to the Spirit. Vague phrases such as "shining forth" etc will not work. Phrases such as "receives from" or "dependent upon" are sufficient.

I have predetermined that once I find three theologians in this period who mention this I will convert to the Eastern Orthodox Church.

orthomartin

Could you explain what the thinking is behind this approach? It's a genuine question :).

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Martin Paul]

Because I know that Photius departed from the Fathers on the eternal relation between Son and Spirit. He was quite extreme. The Eastern church seemed to have been dependent upon his antifilioquism until Palamas. This is not good. I can accept that there would be a strong reaction against Latin filioquism. But I cannot accept that for several centuries the ENTIRE Eastern church did not even admit a communication of divinity from the Son to the Spirit. But if for instance three theologians admited this then this would be evidence that at least some of the Eastern church understood the Fathers on the issue.

orthomartin

[Father David Moser]

I have predetermined that once I find three theologians in this period who mention this I will convert to the Eastern Orthodox Church.


I guess I am really confused here. Are you Orthodox? You identify yourself as such in your profile. And yet you speak here as though you were not Orthodox. I'm confused.

From your other posts, I might come to the conclusion that you are a member of one of the non-Chalcedonian Churches, and yet you do not identify yourself as such (despite the opportunity to do so in the preferences.) Since this forum has specifically defined the standard that "Orthodox" means "Eastern Orthodox" or "Chalcedonian Orthodox" that only adds to the confusion.

Fr David Moser

[Bratislav]

Because I know that Photius departed from the Fathers on the eternal relation between Son and Spirit. He was quite extreme. The Eastern church seemed to have been dependent upon his antifilioquism until Palamas. This is not good. I can accept that there would be a strong reaction against Latin filioquism. But I cannot accept that for several centuries the ENTIRE Eastern church did not even admit a communication of divinity from the Son to the Spirit. But if for instance three theologians admited this then this would be evidence that at least some of the Eastern church understood the Fathers on the issue.

orthomartin

Dear in Christ Martin,

Could you please further explain what you mean by "communication of Divinity"? Perhaps, if you believe that St Photios departed from the teaching of the Fathers before him, you could share with us precisely in what way he did so. Or again, what precisely is the teaching of the fathers before 850 in your own estimation?

Also, in regards to
Palamas came up with the idea that there is an eternal procession of divine energies from the Son to the Spirit. I would think it safe to say that it would work the other way around as well if I understand what you mean by that: the Holy Spirit would also have an eternal procession of Divine Energies to the Son.

I will begin a little search for non-anathematized Eastern theologians who concur with St Photios for you. We'll see what we can't find.

Truly,
Bratislav

[Myles]

Dear in Christ Martin,

Could you please further explain what you mean by "communication of Divinity"? Perhaps, if you believe that St Photios departed from the teaching of the Fathers before him, you could share with us precisely in what way he did so. Or again, what precisely is the teaching of the fathers before 850 in your own estimation?

Also, in regards to I would think it safe to say that it would work the other way around as well if I understand what you mean by that: the Holy Spirit would also have an eternal procession of Divine Energies to the Son.

I will begin a little search for non-anathematized Eastern theologians who concur with St Photios for you. We'll see what we can't find.

Truly,
Bratislav

I'm a Roman Catholic, bored, just surfing the net to wind away the evening having a looksee through some of the threads here for anything interesting and thanks to you Martin I have found it. As Bratislav asks what exactly are you asking when you speak of 'communication of divinity'?

[Fr Seraphim (Black)]

The very pure resolution to this is to read the words of Jesus Christ. Therein, for those who are 'blind' but by grace are given sight, clarity is by Grace bestowed.

It is not 'dependent' upon St. Photius, nor St. Gregory (Palamas) for their words are simply 'echoes' of the words of the Incarnate Person (Word) of the Holy Trinity.

Upon this we base our life, theology, and repentance.

Our Lord said: 'Seek and ye shall find...'

If one demands one does not find.

The path of our pilgrimage is 'Repentance' as our Lord said after His Baptism and His temptations in the Desert.

We live in xentia, exile, we exist in a fallen state, which is only redeemed by Repentance and faithfulness to the words of Christ.

Our Lord spoke so wonderfully in parables, and his disciples were but simple fishermen - should we then turn everything into 'academic' exegisis?

Personally, I desire one day to be faithfull to the words of the Logos. The Second Person of the Holy Trinity and to spurn my individual desires and find the hypostasis, persona, to which we are called.

The simplicity of the Gospel, of the subsequent beauty of the words of our Fathers and Mothers, the paradoxes of the words of our Lord and Saviour, then open up into the energia, which is given only by repentance.

There is not one word of our Holy Fathers which departs from the saving words of our Saviour.

Let us be humble and cast aside our fallen intellect. Let us put on the garments of repentance and follow Christ.

So simple...yet our fallen intellect, with pride, demands explanations.

Intellectual pride is the last and final barrier to those who desire to follow Christ.

'Blessed are the poor'

May our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ of Nazareth, born of the Virgin Mary, by our supplication for repentance, open unto us understanding.