Did St. Patrick, the Apostle of Ireland, believe in the Filioque?

[Xavier]

Dear Brothers and Sisters, I have never seen Bishop St. Patrick, the Apostle of Ireland, discussed in connection with the Filioque. But as per an answer he gave while Evangelizing Ireland to Our Lord Jesus Christ, it seems he did believe the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. Thoughts on that from posters here?

It is well known and universally acknowledged that St. Patrick was a great champion of the Orthodox Catholic Faith in the Holy Trinity. One can say the Holy Trinity crowned his efforts and rewarded his noble preaching of Faith in the Trinity with so many blessings, conversions and miracles. Did the Saint also believe in the Filioque?

Here is the article, with the relevant portion excerpted: https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11554a.htm

"But St. Patrick, filled with the Holy Ghost, made answer:

"God, whom we announce to you, is the Ruler of all things."
"The God of heaven and earth, of the sea and the rivers."
"The God of the sun, and the moon, and all the stars."
"The God of the high mountains and of the low-lying valleys."
"The God who is above heaven, and in heaven, and under heaven."
"His dwelling is in heaven and earth, and the sea, and all therein."
"He gives breath to all."
"He gives life to all."
"He is over all."
"He upholds all."
"He gives light to the sun."
"He imparts splendour to the moon."
"He has made wells in the dry land, and islands in the ocean."
"He has appointed the stars to serve the greater lights."
"His Son is co-eternal and co-equal with Himself."
"The Son is not younger than the Father."
"And the Father is not older than the Son."
"And the Holy Ghost proceeds from them."
"The Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost are undivided."
"But I desire by Faith to unite you to the Heavenly King, as you are daughters of an earthly king."

 

[Ainnir]

So what if he did? What significant result would that automatically precipitate?

 

[hecma925]

Wow, Xavier. You win. I will go to Rome.

 

[PorphyriosK]

Once again, the early Western Fathers were not saying what the later Thomists and Latin Councils defined, as evidenced by St. Maximos:

"...they (the Western Fathers) 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..."

 

[Nathanael]

Dear Brothers and Sisters, I have never seen Bishop St. Patrick, the Apostle of Ireland, discussed in connection with the Filioque. But as per an answer he gave while Evangelizing Ireland to Our Lord Jesus Christ, it seems he did believe the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. Thoughts on that from posters here?

It is well known and universally acknowledged that St. Patrick was a great champion of the Orthodox Catholic Faith in the Holy Trinity. One can say the Holy Trinity crowned his efforts and rewarded his noble preaching of Faith in the Trinity with so many blessings, conversions and miracles. Did the Saint also believe in the Filioque?

Here is the article, with the relevant portion excerpted: https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11554a.htm

"But St. Patrick, filled with the Holy Ghost, made answer:

"God, whom we announce to you, is the Ruler of all things."
"The God of heaven and earth, of the sea and the rivers."
"The God of the sun, and the moon, and all the stars."
"The God of the high mountains and of the low-lying valleys."
"The God who is above heaven, and in heaven, and under heaven."
"His dwelling is in heaven and earth, and the sea, and all therein."
"He gives breath to all."
"He gives life to all."
"He is over all."
"He upholds all."
"He gives light to the sun."
"He imparts splendour to the moon."
"He has made wells in the dry land, and islands in the ocean."
"He has appointed the stars to serve the greater lights."
"His Son is co-eternal and co-equal with Himself."
"The Son is not younger than the Father."
"And the Father is not older than the Son."
"And the Holy Ghost proceeds from them."
"The Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost are undivided."
"But I desire by Faith to unite you to the Heavenly King, as you are daughters of an earthly king."

I wouldn't be surprided if the Roman catholic church had changed that portion of the text ^^

 

[Luke]

 

[J Michael]

Wow, Xavier. You win. I will go to Rome.

I hear it's lovely in the Spring.

 

[Stinky]

Jane Goodall says Pope Francis is a ‘reason for hope’ in the future | Crux

World-renowned English anthropologist Jane Goodall has joined her voice to the Vatican’s in calling for the defense of biodiversity, saying she sees Pope Francis as a source of hope for his stance on the environment.

cruxnow.com

Jane Goodall and the monkeys are on the same side as Saint Patrick.

 

[TheTrisagion]

If you can't believe a post on the internet about a legendary conversation that was written down 1200 years after St. Patrick died and then translated into English 200 years after that, what can you trust?

 

[Wandile]

Once again, the early Western Fathers were not saying what the later Thomists and Latin Councils defined, as evidenced by St. Maximos:

"...they (the Western Fathers) 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..."

If you ignore that the word under discussion here was the Greek word for “proceed” in the creed which means originating/primordial/ultimate causality, then bringing up St Maximus would hold some water.

Its amazing that even Mark of Ephesus and Genadios Scholarios admitted that the western fathers were teaching it when he heard their words. That’s why he alleged, together with the Greek fathers, that the Latin delegationat Florence had corruptedthe texts prior to the council.

 

[Dominika]

I'm repeating xth time in the disucsison abotu Filioque: the West does not make diference between theology and economy levels - so, becasue of this, plus linguistic stuff - as PorphyriosK has quoted, st. Maximos the Confessor said that Filioque in the West is ok if we take into considerationt hose two things. In the East no, since we have these two levels plus other understanding of some words.

 

[PorphyriosK]

If you ignore that the word under discussion here was the Greek word for “proceed” in the creed which means originating/primordial/ultimate causality, then bringing up St Maximus would hold some water.

Its amazing that even Mark of Ephesus and Genadios Scholarios admitted that the western fathers were teaching it when he heard their words. That’s why he alleged, together with the Greek fathers, that the Latin delegationat Florence had corruptedthe texts prior to the council.

And where exactly are you reading that St. Patrick was using the Greek when preaching to the Irish people in this story above?

Interestingly, there is a surviving missal from an 8th century Irish Liturgy where the Filioque is interpolated into the margin of the Creed post-Schism:

"The liturgy in the Stowe Missal is the only surviving example of the Divine Liturgy for the Celtic rites still extant...
...The Nicene Creed in the liturgy has the filioque inserted by a later hand in the margins above the line. The Stowe Missal is believed to have been in use and added to at the monastery of Lorrha in Ireland from c. 1050 AD onward, and was compiled at Tallaght in Dublin, Ireland, by Culdees associated with SaintMaelruain and Saint Aengus the Culdee. This missal is one of the many extant manuscripts of complete Western liturgies predating the Great Schism."

Stowe Missal - OrthodoxWiki

orthodoxwiki.org

 

[Wandile]

And where exactly are you reading that St. Patrick was using the Greek when preaching to the Irish people in this story above?

Nobody said this. I don’t know what you’re going on about Porphy.

Interestingly, there is a surviving missal from an 8th century Irish Liturgy where the Filioque is interpolated into the margin of the Creed post-Schism:

"The liturgy in the Stowe Missal is the only surviving example of the Divine Liturgy for the Celtic rites still extant...
...The Nicene Creed in the liturgy has the filioque inserted by a later hand in the margins above the line. The Stowe Missal is believed to have been in use and added to at the monastery of Lorrha in Ireland from c. 1050 AD onward, and was compiled at Tallaght in Dublin, Ireland, by Culdees associated with SaintMaelruain and Saint Aengus the Culdee. This missal is one of the many extant manuscripts of complete Western liturgies predating the Great Schism."

Stowe Missal - OrthodoxWiki

orthodoxwiki.org

I’m sorry but with the terrible track record that EO have when it comes to alleging forgery on western documents I’ll definitely take this with a huge amount of salt. This same reasoning was used to allege St Gregory’s text on the filioque was corrupted because the scribe added it later to the text when it turns out the scribes addition was a necessary correction to the text and that he filioque is authentic to St Gregory text. There are too many cases of this kind of sloppyness that I have seen over the past year.

 

[PorphyriosK]

Nobody said this. I don’t know what you’re going on about Porphy.

I had replied that as a 5th century Western Saint, St. Patrick was almost certainly not speaking of the Son being the source of the Spirit. To which you replied that since the original Greek was being used, the argument of St. Maximos holds false. Therefore I was simply asking how you would know the original Greek from the Creed was being used by St. Patrick, especially since it's not even clear how much Greek St. Patrick knew, let alone his knowledge about the definitions of Nicea.

EDIT: I still may not be reading the context of your comment correctly. Maybe you can clarify.

I’m sorry but with the terrible track record that EO have when it comes to alleging forgery on western documents I’ll definitely take this with a huge amount of salt. This same reasoning was used to allege St Gregory’s text on the filioque was corrupted because the scribe added it later to the text when it turns out the scribes addition was a necessary correction to the text and that he filioque is authentic to St Gregory text. There are too many cases of this kind of sloppyness that I have seen over the past year.

You're free to dismiss anything you like.

 

[hecma925]

If you ignore that the word under discussion here was the Greek word for “proceed” in the creed which means originating/primordial/ultimate causality, then bringing up St Maximus would hold some water.

Its amazing that even Mark of Ephesus and Genadios Scholarios admitted that the western fathers were teaching it when he heard their words. That’s why he alleged, together with the Greek fathers, that the Latin delegationat Florence had corruptedthe texts prior to the council.

 

[Vanhyo]

I wouldn't trust any quote papal apologist bring, there is always some kind of untold mischief involved, you have to then become a detective and try to find how are they trying to spoof you.

 

[brlon]

"The Text of the Constantinopolitan Creed in the Stowe Missal"
Dr Aidan Breen, in Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy: Archaeology, Culture, History, Literature, Vol. 90C (1990), pp. 107-121. Published By: The Royal Irish Academy

"Abstract: The text and historical importance of the Stowe missal creed have already been the subject of a number of important studies by Dom B(ernard). Capelle. However, a detailed analysis, in parts 1 and 2, of the variants in the Stowe text from the standard form of the Constantinopolitan creed does not support Capelle's hypothesis of its derivation from a Latin source, but demonstrates that in both text and use the Stowe creed shows clear evidence of direct derivation from a Greek, or Eastern, liturgical source, of certainly pre-seventh-century date. In part 3, internal palaeographical evidence relating to the alterations in the Stowe text is shown to be consistent with a date contemporary with the Carolingian council of Friuli (796/7), when a new version of the creed was promulgated, from which the alterations in Stowe derive." [Emphasis added]

This study does not appear to support any Latin allegation of forgery in the original. The Royal Irish Academy in Dublin is Ireland's leading body of experts in the sciences and humanities.

 

[rakovsky]

Several relevant issues:

1. Someone could be a saint in the Orthodox Church like Augustine while holding teachings that the EO Church doesn't generally agree with (original sin's guilt being passed down).
2. There is an orthodox and a heretical take on the Filioque from the Orthodox POV. The orthodox take is that the Spirit proceeds from the Son in the sense in Luke's Gospel whereby the Spirit, which originates in the Father, has been given to the son, after which the Son can bestow or send it.
3. One could accept the Filioque as a phrase without making it part of the Creed. Wikipedia notes:

Pope Leo rejected the request of Charlemagne's emissaries for approval of inclusion of the Filioque in the Latin Creed used in Rome. So, during the time of Pope Leo's leadership, 795–816, and for another two centuries, there was no Creed at all in the Roman rite Mass.

Although he approved the Filioque doctrine,[74][4][80][n] Pope Leo III in 810 opposed adding the Filioque to the Creed,[74] and had two heavy silver shields made and displayed in St Peter's, containing the original text of the Creed of 381 in both Greek and Latin,[4] adding: "I, Leo, have placed these for love and protection of the orthodox faith".

History of the filioque controversy - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Wandile]

I had replied that as a 5th century Western Saint, St. Patrick was almost certainly not speaking of the Son being the source of the Spirit.

Of course . The church doesn’t believe this either. The Father is the source of the trinity. "The church." Which "church" would that be, Wandile? As you have been informed several times, only one church on this forum can be referred to as "the church", and that is the Orthodox Church. Pravoslavbob.

To which you replied that since the original Greek was being used, the argument of St. Maximos holds false. Therefore I was simply asking how you would know the original Greek from the Creed was being used by St. Patrick, especially since it's not even clear how much Greek St. Patrick knew, let alone his knowledge about the definitions of Nicea.

I see you missed the point so let me try clarify. Maybe I wasn’t clear enough. The point I was making was that the whole fiasco of St Maximus the Confessor and the filioque is because the words of the pope got translated into Greek with the the Greek word for proceed in the creed, thus implying that the Pope was teaching two sources/ultimate origins. St Maximus rose to the defense of the west and the Pope understanding that that is not what the west understood by filioque (It has never taught this, ever)

St Augustine quite eloquently sums up the teaching of the western fathers. St Augustine’s teaching is almost verbatim what St Maximus was trying to tell the Greeks of his day.

 

[Wandile]

"The Text of the Constantinopolitan Creed in the Stowe Missal"
Dr Aidan Breen, in Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy: Archaeology, Culture, History, Literature, Vol. 90C (1990), pp. 107-121. Published By: The Royal Irish Academy

"Abstract: The text and historical importance of the Stowe missal creed have already been the subject of a number of important studies by Dom B(ernard). Capelle. However, a detailed analysis, in parts 1 and 2, of the variants in the Stowe text from the standard form of the Constantinopolitan creed does not support Capelle's hypothesis of its derivation from a Latin source, but demonstrates that in both text and use the Stowe creed shows clear evidence of direct derivation from a Greek, or Eastern, liturgical source, of certainly pre-seventh-century date. In part 3, internal palaeographical evidence relating to the alterations in the Stowe text is shown to be consistent with a date contemporary with the Carolingian council of Friuli (796/7), when a new version of the creed was promulgated, from which the alterations in Stowe derive." [Emphasis added]

This study does not appear to support any Latin allegation of forgery in the original. The Royal Irish Academy in Dublin is Ireland's leading body of experts in the sciences and humanities.

This indicates that the alterations are not forgeries but the implementation of a council of which the Irish clearly agreed with. Also the time of implementation of this change is consistent with the wider and increasing use of filioque in the creed by westerners.

In fact it quite strongly indicates that the filioque was inserted in to the missal to correct to the way the liturgy, more specifically the creed, was being said in that day and onwards after the council. I don’t need to explain what the use of a missal and why the scribe would have felt it necessary to make this addition.

I don’t think anyone has argued that west always had the filioque in the creed

 

[PorphyriosK]

Of course . The church doesn’t believe this either. The Father is the source of the trinity...

... thus implying that the Pope was teaching two sources/ultimate origins....that is not what the west understood by filioque (It has never taught this, ever)

I think you're mixing up our terms regarding my point about St. Patrick. I was saying St. Patrick would not have been teaching the Son as a (co)Source/ultimate Cause of the Holy Spirit (nothing about Source of the Holy Trinity).

Again, St. Maximos' statement is clarifying that the early Western Fathers never made the Son a "co-Source" or ultimate cause of the Holy Spirit. You seem to agree that this is right, insisting that the Catholic Church has never (ever) taught the Son as co-Source/ultimate cause. Is that what you're saying? Because Catholicism clearly has taught this.

1. Fourth Lateran Council (1215):
2. "The Father is from no one, the Son from the Father only, and the Holy Spirit equally from both."
3. 
   
4. The Council of Florence, session 8 (1439):
5. "The Holy Spirit is eternally from Father and Son; He has his nature and subsistence at once (simul) from the Father and the Son. He proceeds eternally from both as from one principle and through one spiration."

THIS, is exactly what St. Maximos insisted the Western Fathers weren't saying. The difference couldn't be more clear.

 

[Wandile]

I think you're mixing up our terms regarding my point about St. Patrick. I was saying St. Patrick would not have been teaching the Son as a (co)Source/ultimate Cause of the Holy Spirit (nothing about Source of the Holy Trinity).

I know. That’s exactly what I’m saying. The west does not believe that Holy Spirit is from two ultimate causes. The west has never taught such. St Maximus was explaining the same.

There’s no confusion on the wording on my end. I just don’t think you grasping what the west is really teaching when it comes to filioque

Again, St. Maximos' statement is clarifying that the early Western Fathers never made the Son a "co-Source" or ultimate cause of the Holy Spirit.

Indeed, and rightly so because the west has never and still does not teach that.

You seem to agree that this is right, insisting that the Catholic Church has never (ever) taught the Son as co-Source/ultimate cause. Is that what you're saying?

Yes

Because Catholicism clearly has taught this.

1. Fourth Lateran Council (1215):
2. "The Father is from no one, the Son from the Father only, and the Holy Spirit equally from both
3. 
   
4. The Council of Florence, session 8 (1439):
5. "The Holy Spirit is eternally from Father and Son; He has his nature and subsistence at once (simul) from the Father and the Son. He proceeds eternally from both as from one principle and through one spiration."
6. THIS, is exactly what St. Maximos insisted the Western Fathers weren't saying. The difference couldn't be more clear.

You are mistaken. Those words do not teach two ultimate causes. They don’t even touch on ultimate causality. The fifth Lateran council is quoting verbatim from from Pope St Leo II (if I’m not mistaken, it’s either St Leo II and the III ) who said this exact statement. What it means is that the procession is one and not two for if there were no equality then you would have two processions, one from the Father and one from the Son. If A ≠ B then A and B are not the same thing. It’s a very important point which was actually echoed again at Florence. That there is one and the same spiration. You see this in the full decree of Florence on the filioque.

Again obtaining his nature and subsistence from the Son has no bearing on ultimate causality as he has this mediately from the Son and immediately from the Father (St Augustine of Hippo, St Thomas Aquinas).

Ultimate causality refers to primordial origin. The Son only participates in the Spiration of the Holy Spirit because he is begotten of the Father. It is all dependent on his relationship to the Father. As the Son obtains all he is from the Father, including the property of Spiration, this means all that is found in the Son finds its ultimate origin in the Father including the property of Spiration.

This is why St Augustine taught beautifully that the Holy proceeds from the Father and the Son. That he proceeds immediately/principally from the Father and mediately from the Son.

St Maximus was arguing this point to the Greeks. First by admitting that cause and principal are not perfectly equivalent and the Latins express themselves best in their own language. He noted a translation issue as early as back then. That the Greek word in the creed distorted the meaning of what the Latins were really saying as it implied the Pope of the time was saying the Son proceeds from both ultimately.

If you read the debates at Florence this point was made quite clearly by John of Montennero.

 

[PorphyriosK]

I know. That’s exactly what I’m saying. The west does not believe that Holy Spirit is from two ultimate causes. The west has never taught such. St Maximus was explaining...

You are mistaken. Those words do not teach two ultimate causes. They don’t even touch on ultimate causality. The fifth Lateran council is quoting verbatim from from Pope St Leo II (if I’m not mistaken, it’s either St Leo II and the III ) who said this exact statement. What it means is that the procession is one and not two for if there were no equality then you would have two processions, one from the Father and one from the Son. If A ≠ B then A and B are not the same thing. It’s a very important point which was actually echoed again at Florence. That there is one and the same spiration. You see this in the full decree of Florence on the filioque.

Again obtaining his nature and subsistence from the Son has no bearing on ultimate causality as he has this mediately from the Son and immediately from the Father (St Augustine of Hippo, St Thomas Aquinas).

Ultimate causality refers to primordial origin. The Son only participates in the Spiration of the Holy Spirit because he is begotten of the Father. It is all dependent on his relationship to the Father. As the Son obtains all he is from the Father, including the property of Spiration, this means all that is found in the Son finds its ultimate origin in the Father including the property of Spiration.

This is why St Augustine taught beautifully that the Holy proceeds from the Father and the Son. That he proceeds immediately/principally from the Father and mediately from the Son.

St Maximus was arguing this point to the Greeks. First by admitting that cause and principal are not perfectly equivalent and the Latins express themselves best in their own language. He noted a translation issue as early as back then. That the Greek word in the creed distorted the meaning of what the Latins were really saying as it implied the Pope of the time was saying the Son proceeds from both ultimately.

If you read the debates at Florence this point was made quite clearly by John of Montennero.

This is just Scholasticism once again blurring and obfuscating what should be clear teaching. Either the Son (along with the Father) also originates the Spirit, or He does not. St. Maximos never split hairs between "cause" and "principal". You are putting scholastic terms and distinctions into his mouth which he never uttered.

You insist the Catholic Church has never taught the Son as co-Source of the Spirit, then when confronted with two clear, direct doctrinal statements, insist they do not say what they clearly do. The Lateran teaching is quite clearly and specifically addressing the ORIGINS of the divine Persons. "The Father is from NO-ONE. The Son is from the Father ONLY. The Holy Spirit is EQUALLY FROM BOTH." Whether you clarify that as being one shared cause instead of two separate causes doesn't change the fact it's still the Son co-originating the Spirit, creating a shared property of Causation between Father and Son in which the Holy Spirit does not share. This AGAIN is what St. Maximos condemns in his statement and assures is NOT the teaching of the Fathers.

And please, enough of these continual attempts to make this about my own personal intellectual inferiority preventing me from understanding the "actual" Filioque teaching. This is beyond old. I don't dare rely on my own fallen reasoning to understand the Trinity and neither should you. I am merely repeating the teaching and analysis by our Orthodox saints. It's them you have a problem with.

 

[Wandile]

This is just Scholasticism

This is just philosophy. You cannot ignore logical nuance because it inconveniences your argument. Ironically something the greeks were very fond of until about the 19th and 20th centuries with the rise of the school of Paris.

once again blurring and obfuscating what should be clear teaching.

Its quite a clear teaching. You just seem to want to remain in caricatures instead of genuinely attempting to understand what is being said.

Either the Son (along with the Father) also originates the Spirit, or He does not.

If we completely ignore the existence of mediate and ultimate causality then yes.

St. Maximos never split hairs between "cause" and "principal". You are putting scholastic terms and distinctions into his mouth which he never uttered.

He literally said the Latins express themselves better in their own language implying a nuance was being missed when translated into Greek. You should really familiarize yourself with details of this controversy.

You insist the Catholic Church has never taught the Son as co-Source of the Spirit, then when confronted with two clear, direct doctrinal statements, insist they do not say what they clearly do. The Lateran teaching is quite clearly and specifically addressing the ORIGINS of the divine Persons. "The Father is from NO-ONE. The Son is from the Father ONLY. The Holy Spirit is EQUALLY FROM BOTH."

Source is not the same thing as cause or principal but can be understood to be the same in certain contexts. Source is ultimate and there is only one Source in the Holy Trinity. For example the Father is properly called the Principal without Principal or source. In this sense source and principal would be equivalent but in another context like that of the Father and the Son being one principal as a compound in reference to the Holy Spirit, the equivalence is lost unless we readily admit we use "source" in a manner not rue to its meaning. See the Florentine decree below:

"The Greeks asserted that when they claim that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, they do not intend to exclude the Son; but because it seemed to them that the Latins assert that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as from two principles and two spirations, they refrained from saying that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. The Latins asserted that they say the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son not with the intention of excluding the Father from being the source and principle of all deity, that is of the Son and of the holy Spirit, nor to imply that the Son does not receive from the Father, because the holy Spirit proceeds from the Son, nor that they posit two principles or two spirations; but they assert that there is only one principle and a single spiration of the holy Spirit, as they have asserted hitherto. Since, then, one and the same meaning resulted from all this, they unanimously agreed and consented to the following holy and God-pleasing union, in the same sense and with one mind. "​

Whether you clarify that as being one shared cause instead of two separate causes doesn't change the fact it's still the Son co-originating the Spirit, creating a shared property of Causation between Father and Son in which the Holy Spirit does not share. This AGAIN is what St. Maximos condemns in his statement and assures is NOT the teaching of the Fathers.

You keep glossing over the fact that the word under debate is ἐκπορεύεσθαι which implies Ultimate causality, was the point of reference of St Maximus' argument. St. Maximus’s thought that part of the reason why the Latin teaching sounds odd to Greek ears is that the Latin phrase has been translated into Greek in a misleading way; by using the Greek term ἐκπορεύεσθαι to translate the Latin procedere, the translators of Pope Martin’s document have given the impression to their Greek-speaking readers that the Latins regard the Son as an originating cause of the Spirit in the same sense that the Father is which is what a translation usingἐκπορεύεσθαι would naturally imply . In Maximus’s own restatement of the Latin teaching, the word προϊέναι (“coming-forth”) is used instead. Bessarion, in the fifteenth century, argued that, when St. Maximus says here that the Father is the “only cause,” he means “cause” in the sense of προκαταρκτικὴ αἰτία, that is, original, initial cause. By and large, that is Bekkos’s view when investigating the controversy.

And please, enough of these continual attempts to make this about my own personal intellectual inferiority preventing me from understanding the "actual" Filioque teaching.

I just said you don't understand it which you have quite sufficiently shown, not that you haven't go the capacity to. You need to stop arguing with your ego. Then you would see that I was making no jabs at your intellectual abilities.

This is beyond old. I don't dare rely on my own fallen reasoning to understand the Trinity and neither should you. I am merely repeating the teaching and analysis by our Orthodox saints. It's them you have a problem with.

So too I and I know the saints teach in many places that the Holy Spirit is from the Father and the Son. Your own Mark of Ephesus himself understood the western fathers to be teaching it. That why he claimed they were all forged as he couldn't believe that they wrote what he heard read to him. Listen to him since you follow your saints as you say.

 

[PorphyriosK]

This is just philosophy. You cannot ignore logical nuance because it inconveniences your argument. Ironically something the greeks were very fond of until about the 19th and 20th centuries with the rise of the school of Paris.



Its quite a clear teaching. You just seem to want to remain in caricatures instead of genuinely attempting to understand what is being said.



If we completely ignore the existence of mediate and ultimate causality then yes.



He literally said the Latins express themselves better in their own language implying a nuance was being missed when translated into Greek. You should really familiarize yourself with details of this controversy.



Source is not the same thing as cause or principal but can be understood to be the same in certain contexts. Source is ultimate and there is only one Source in the Holy Trinity. For example the Father is properly called the Principal without Principal or source. In this sense source and principal would be equivalent but in another context like that of the Father and the Son being one principal as a compound in reference to the Holy Spirit, the equivalence is lost unless we readily admit we use "source" in a manner not rue to its meaning. See the Florentine decree below:

"The Greeks asserted that when they claim that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, they do not intend to exclude the Son; but because it seemed to them that the Latins assert that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as from two principles and two spirations, they refrained from saying that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. The Latins asserted that they say the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son not with the intention of excluding the Father from being the source and principle of all deity, that is of the Son and of the holy Spirit, nor to imply that the Son does not receive from the Father, because the holy Spirit proceeds from the Son, nor that they posit two principles or two spirations; but they assert that there is only one principle and a single spiration of the holy Spirit, as they have asserted hitherto. Since, then, one and the same meaning resulted from all this, they unanimously agreed and consented to the following holy and God-pleasing union, in the same sense and with one mind. "​

You keep glossing over the fact that the word under debate is ἐκπορεύεσθαι which implies Ultimate causality, was the point of reference of St Maximus' argument. St. Maximus’s thought that part of the reason why the Latin teaching sounds odd to Greek ears is that the Latin phrase has been translated into Greek in a misleading way; by using the Greek term ἐκπορεύεσθαι to translate the Latin procedere, the translators of Pope Martin’s document have given the impression to their Greek-speaking readers that the Latins regard the Son as an originating cause of the Spirit in the same sense that the Father is which is what a translation usingἐκπορεύεσθαι would naturally imply . In Maximus’s own restatement of the Latin teaching, the word προϊέναι (“coming-forth”) is used instead. Bessarion, in the fifteenth century, argued that, when St. Maximus says here that the Father is the “only cause,” he means “cause” in the sense of προκαταρκτικὴ αἰτία, that is, original, initial cause. By and large, that is Bekkos’s view when investigating the controversy.



I just said you don't understand it which you have quite sufficiently shown, not that you haven't go the capacity to. You need to stop arguing with your ego. Then you would see that I was making no jabs at your intellectual abilities.



So too I and I know the saints teach in many places that the Holy Spirit is from the Father and the Son. Your own Mark of Ephesus himself understood the western fathers to be teaching it. That why he claimed they were all forged as he couldn't believe that they wrote what he heard read to him. Listen to him since you follow your saints as you say.

Believe me, I am an ardent disciple of St. Mark.

"And we, together with the divine Dionysios, say that the Father is the sole Source of the supernatural Divinity; while they, together with the Latins, say that the Son also is the Source of the Holy Spirit, and by this clearly excluding the Spirit from the Divinity.

And we, together with Gregory the Theologian, distinguish the Father from the Son in His capacity of being Cause; while they, together with the Latins, unite them into one in the capacity of being Cause.

And we, together with St. Maximos and the Romans of that time, as well as the Western Fathers, “do not make the Son the Cause of the Spirit”; while they, in their Conciliar Decree, proclaim the Son “in Greek, ‘Cause,’ and in Latin, ‘Principle'” of the Spirit.

And we, together with the Philosopher and Martyr Justin affirm, “As the Son is from the Father, so is the Spirit from the Father”; while they, together with the Latins, say that the Son proceeds from the Father immediately, and the Spirit from the Father mediately...

...And so, brethren, flee from them and from communion with them, for they are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the Apostles of Christ...
...And in another place, the same Apostle says of them: “For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly”; and by good words and fair speeches, they deceive the hearts of the simple"...

St. Mark of Ephesus, pillar of Orthodoxy, pray to God for us

With all that being said, you can take your pompous intellectual superiority complex and stick it where the sun don't shine. How's that for clarity?

 

[PorphyriosK]

I apologize for my last sentence above. Got carried away.

 

[hecma925]

stick it where the sun don't shine

Ruby Falls? Or Carlsbad Caverns?

 

[Stinky]

Armpits n between the 4th n 5th toes.

 

[biro]

Gigantic fonts. Who doesn’t love them?

 

[xariskai]

Will the wonders never cease.

 

[DeniseDenise]

This is why we cant have nice things

 

[xariskai]

...the terrible track record that EO have when it comes to alleging forgery on western documents

"...perhaps half the legal documents we possess from Merovingian times and perhaps two-thirds of all documents issued to ecclesiastics before AD 1199 are fakes... The basic code of canon law, Gratian's Decretum, contains some five hundred forged legal texts" (Anthony Grafton, Forgers and Critics (Princeton University Press, 1990), pp. 224f.

All major contemporary historians know the massive extent of western forgeries as a fact of academic life; dismissing it as "terrible EO allegation" is either deception or rank ignorance.

 

[PorphyriosK]

Everyone acting so scandalized. Yeah, I'm a bad guy and a sinner. Big shocker.

 

[Shanghaiski]

I would doubt the authenticity of the text. There are many interpolations of heretics in patristic manuscripts and the Latins have a documented history of forgery.

 

[Wandile]

Believe me, I am an ardent disciple of St. Mark.

"And we, together with the divine Dionysios, say that the Father is the sole Source of the supernatural Divinity; while they, together with the Latins, say that the Son also is the Source of the Holy Spirit, and by this clearly excluding the Spirit from the Divinity.

And we, together with Gregory the Theologian, distinguish the Father from the Son in His capacity of being Cause; while they, together with the Latins, unite them into one in the capacity of being Cause.

And we, together with St. Maximos and the Romans of that time, as well as the Western Fathers, “do not make the Son the Cause of the Spirit”; while they, in their Conciliar Decree, proclaim the Son “in Greek, ‘Cause,’ and in Latin, ‘Principle'” of the Spirit.

And we, together with the Philosopher and Martyr Justin affirm, “As the Son is from the Father, so is the Spirit from the Father”; while they, together with the Latins, say that the Son proceeds from the Father immediately, and the Spirit from the Father mediately...

...And so, brethren, flee from them and from communion with them, for they are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the Apostles of Christ...
...And in another place, the same Apostle says of them: “For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly”; and by good words and fair speeches, they deceive the hearts of the simple"...

St. Mark of Ephesus, pillar of Orthodoxy, pray to God for us

With all that being said, you can take your pompous intellectual superiority complex and stick it where the sun don't shine. How's that for clarity?

And I hold to the Holy Ecumenical Council of Florence, a thing Mark himself acknowledged all throughout the council.

Ironically this same Mark came up stuck against the Latins at Florence, a point Besaarion made to his face... that he had been unable provide a response to any of their argument and provided an even more insufficient response to the quotations of the fathers.

Yet even this Mark that you quote her admitted the western Fathers were teaching. Heck, even Photius did.

 

[Wandile]

I would doubt the authenticity of the text. There are many interpolations of heretics in patristic manuscripts and the Latins have a documented history of forgery.

Wait until you investigate the Greeks and their touchy hands. One thing you can give the Latins is they are honest enough to expose their own forgeries. You can’t say the same about the Greeks. They just pretend they don’t exist.

Wonderful. Yes, clearly ONLY the Greeks have been duplicitous or negotiated in bad faith over the centuries. The Latins, on the other hand, have ALWAYS acted with the best of intentions. Again and again, you have been reminded that this is an Orthodox site and you are here as a guest, and expected to behave accordingly. It has already been observed by some members that your behaviour demonstrates that you have no love for the Orthodox Church or its Traditions. It certainly hasn't been conducive to encouraging ecumenical discussion based on a spirit of love, tolerance, and respect. Based on a long record of this kind of conduct over a period of 8.5 years, one has to wonder at the reasons for your presence here. You will be muted for the time being and your status may be reevaluated. During this time you will not be able to use the forum normally.

Pravoslavbob, Section Moderator

 

[Wandile]

"...perhaps half the legal documents we possess from Merovingian times and perhaps two-thirds of all documents issued to ecclesiastics before AD 1199 are fakes... The basic code of canon law, Gratian's Decretum, contains some five hundred forged legal texts" (Anthony Grafton, Forgers and Critics (Princeton University Press, 1990), pp. 224f.

All major contemporary historians know the massive extent of western forgeries as a fact of academic life; dismissing it as "terrible EO allegation" is either deception or rank ignorance.

And yet the Western Fathers, by modern methods and scholarship, have been by and large authenticated which is a big problem for the east in these kinds of arguments as their whole argument rests on the sole hope that the western fathers are forged.

 

[PorphyriosK]

And I hold to the Holy Ecumenical Council of Florence, a thing Mark himself acknowledged all throughout the council.

Ironically this same Mark came up stuck against the Latins at Florence, a point Besaarion made to his face... that he had been unable provide a response to any of their argument and provided an even more insufficient response to the quotations of the fathers.

Yet even this Mark that you quote her admitted the western Fathers were teaching. Heck, even Photius did.

I can only pray that "this Mark that I quote" will intercede and help straighten you out. I solemnly give you over to his care. I'm done trying with you.

We are now entering our holiest of days. Have some respect and take your attacks on the Church elsewhere.

 

[Alpo2]

You can’t say the same about the Greeks. They just pretend they don’t exist.

If you come to forum started by Greek Orthodox you might want to tone down your rhetorics if you want to convert anyone to your faith.

 

[Shanghaiski]

Wait until you investigate the Greeks and their touchy hands. One thing you can give the Latins is they are honest enough to expose their own forgeries. You can’t say the same about the Greeks. They just pretend they don’t exist.

So glad you're here to tell me about my faith, enemy.