• Please remember: Pray for Ukraine in the Prayer forum; Share news in the Christian News section; Discuss religious implications in FFA: Religious Topics; Discuss political implications in Politics (and if you don't have access, PM me) Thank you! + Fr. George, Forum Administrator

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

Sethrak

Protokentarchos
Joined
May 15, 2017
Messages
5,002
Reaction score
262
Points
83
Location
California & Nevada ranches
Faith
Armenian Orthodox
Jurisdiction
Etchmiadzin, Armenia
I think no one knows what Saint Patrick though in detail ~ he was as I remember taken as a slave to Ireland , It is said that he turned to his faith in captivity in fear and loneliness having no further instruction ~ his belief may have been basic ~ Jesus Is Christ ~ The Father, the Son ~ the Holy Spirit (Ghost) are one ~ and using the 4 leafed Clover as Trinity to his Captors ```
 

Sethrak

Protokentarchos
Joined
May 15, 2017
Messages
5,002
Reaction score
262
Points
83
Location
California & Nevada ranches
Faith
Armenian Orthodox
Jurisdiction
Etchmiadzin, Armenia
Patrick is said to have died in about 460 the Filioque became in about 589 if this is the case Patrick had never heard the term nor added it to his belief ```
 

Jude1:3

High Elder
Joined
Jan 23, 2014
Messages
553
Reaction score
67
Points
28
Location
USA
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
I think no one knows what Saint Patrick though in detail ~ he was as I remember taken as a slave to Ireland , It is said that he turned to his faith in captivity in fear and loneliness having no further instruction ~ his belief may have been basic ~ Jesus Is Christ ~ The Father, the Son ~ the Holy Spirit (Ghost) are one ~ and using the 4 leafed Clover as Trinity to his Captors ```

3 Leafed Clover.
 

Wandile

Archon
Joined
Nov 14, 2012
Messages
3,331
Reaction score
48
Points
48
Location
Johannesburg, South Africa
Faith
Catholic Church - Roman rite
Jurisdiction
Archdiocese of Pretoria
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.
And I entrust you to the care of St Thomas Aquinas and St Gregory Mammas.

Happy Easter and May God bless you all.
 

Wandile

Archon
Joined
Nov 14, 2012
Messages
3,331
Reaction score
48
Points
48
Location
Johannesburg, South Africa
Faith
Catholic Church - Roman rite
Jurisdiction
Archdiocese of Pretoria
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.
😘
I don’t do any converting. Only God does. I could never credit myself with that.
 

Apotheoun

OC.Net Guru
Joined
May 2, 2006
Messages
1,498
Reaction score
50
Points
48
Location
Northern California
Website
sites.google.com
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?

[. . .]

"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."
A couple of things to note: (1) this text is not taken from St. Patrick's own writings; rather, it is a quotation from a book called the "Collectanea," which was written by Bishop Tírechán over 220 years after St. Patrick's death, and so the accuracy of the quotation is historically questionable at best; and (2) even if one accepts that the quotation presented is genuine, the translation provided in this thread is not accurate. Here is a more precise translation of the original Latin text written by Bishop Tírechán:

"He [i.e., the Father] has a Son as immortal as Himself and like Himself. But the Son is not younger than the Father, nor is the Father older than the Son. And the Holy Spirit breathes in them. There is no separation between Father and Son and Holy Spirit."

Finally, here is the quotation in Latin (n.b., the Latin word translated into English in the first post in this thread as "proceeds" appears nowhere in the original Latin text):

"Filium habet coaeternum sibi, consimilem sibi; non iunior Filius Patri nec Pater Filio senior, et Spiritus Sanctus inflat in eis; non separantur Pater et Filius et Spiritus Sanctus."

Now, of course, the key phrase in Bishop Tírechán's text is, "et Spiritus Sanctus inflat in eis," which translates as, "and the Holy Spirit breathes in them." That seems to be something that an Eastern Christian could say, even if the phraseology is rather strange, because it does not imply the heretical idea that the Son participates in the Holy Spirit's hypostatic procession of origin, which is clearly from the Father alone.
 
Joined
Apr 17, 2007
Messages
2,899
Reaction score
221
Points
63
Age
58
Location
USA
Faith
Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction
Patriarchate of Antioch
I have a book, from 2001, called: Patrick in his own words by Joseph Duffy ( then Bishop of Clogher). There is a formal Trinitarian confession of St. Patrick in it but no filioque. It is a basic & seemingly cautious statement from Patrick. Most of it is an expression of Christ Who has, “ poured out the Holy Spirit on us in abundance, the gift and guarantee of eternal life, Who makes those who believe and obey, sons of God and joint heirs with Christ. We acknowledge and adore Him as one God in the Trinity of the holy name.” ( from chapter 1).


Some info says the book was published in 1972 but all info in my hard copy book say 2000, 2001, & 2004 as copyright & publication dates.
 

Apotheoun

OC.Net Guru
Joined
May 2, 2006
Messages
1,498
Reaction score
50
Points
48
Location
Northern California
Website
sites.google.com
I have a book, from 2001, called: Patrick in his own words by Joseph Duffy ( then Bishop of Clogher). There is a formal Trinitarian confession of St. Patrick in it but no filioque. It is a basic & seemingly cautious statement from Patrick. Most of it is an expression of Christ Who has, “ poured out the Holy Spirit on us in abundance, the gift and guarantee of eternal life, Who makes those who believe and obey, sons of God and joint heirs with Christ. We acknowledge and adore Him as one God in the Trinity of the holy name.” ( from chapter 1).


Some info says the book was published in 1972 but all info in my hard copy book say 2000, 2001, & 2004 as copyright & publication dates.
The text is also available online, and can be read by clicking the link below:

St. Patrick's Confessio
 

Katechon

High Elder
Warned
Post Moderated
Joined
Nov 16, 2018
Messages
522
Reaction score
256
Points
63
Location
Germany
Faith
Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction
ROC-MP
Unneccessary use of expletive and belittling of other member.
I don’t do any converting. Only God does. I could never credit myself with that.
Damn boy, we can never hope to become as pious as you are.

Katechon: You have been asked before to keep conversation polite and not to engage in personal attacks. (Referring to a man as "boy" can carry very negative connotations in English, depending on the context in which it is used.) Moreover, the member you addressed has already been muted and is not able to respond to your post. You will receive a warning of 100 points that will last for 2 weeks. During this time, you will be able to use the forum normally: your posting etc. will not be affected, as long as you do not receive more warning points. Please address any appeal to me.

Pravoslavbob, Section Moderator.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Cavaradossi

Archon
Joined
Jun 23, 2011
Messages
2,159
Reaction score
157
Points
63
Faith
Orthodox
Jurisdiction
AANA
Never mentioned is the fact that St. Maximus does not draw up these silly distinctions drawn up by Bessarion (who has gone on to reap the reward given to Arius and Nestorius and others like them after death).
 

Xavier

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Apr 5, 2015
Messages
1,276
Reaction score
23
Points
38
Age
33
Website
marianapostolate.com
Faith
Ecumenical Catholic Christian
Jurisdiction
The Pope - but my heart is for Re-Union!
Dear Friends, Happy Pascha! Hope everyone is having a pleasant Easter Season with the Risen Lord Jesus Christ. Truly, He is Risen!

Regarding St. Maximus, I want to note St. Maximus didn't believe the Procession of the Spirit from the Father was alien to the Son; rather, the Saintly Byzantine Monk believed the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son. " St Maximus the Confessor said: "By nature (jusei) the Holy Spirit in his being (kat’ ousian) takes substantially (ousiodwV) his origin (ekporeuomenon) from the Father through the Son who is begotten (di’ Uiou gennhqentoV)" (Quaestiones ad Thalassium, LXIII, PG 90, 672 C). " https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/li...arding-the-procession-of-the-holy-spirit-2349 St. Maximus would have rendered procedit in Latin as proienai in Greek and not ekporeumenon: " They know, indeed, that the Father is the sole Cause of the Son and of the Spirit, of one by generation and of the other by ekporeusiV — but they explained that the latter comes (proienai) through the Son, and they showed in this way the unity and the immutability of the essence" (Letter to Marinus of Cyprus, PG 91, 136 A-B).

The issue is that Cause is not used in the same way in the West as in the East. That the Father and the Son are One Principle of the Holy Spirit is a well known formulation in the Latin Fathers that goes back to St. Augustine. Some Latin Theologians, expressing as best they could their understanding of the Greek Fathers, believed that "Cause" was Identical with "Principle". Therefore, since the Father and the Son are One Principle of the Holy Spirit, as is indisputably contained in the Latin Fathers, they assumed the Father and the Son must be One Cause of the Holy Spirit. But the Greek Fathers don't use the term in that way. Cause to them means ultimate origination, which belongs only to the Father. Hence, the Father and the Son are One Principle of the Holy Spirit, but not One Cause. It may be better to say Father is Cause, and Son is Mediator. The Father is the Cause of His Son and of His Spirit. The Son is the Mediator of the Holy Spirit in His Procession from the Father. The Procession of the Spirit from the Father is Mediated through the Son.

Regarding the text of St. Patrick, thanks Apotheoun for the Latin text. It comes down to how we interpret " Spiritus Sanctus inflat in eis". Inflat refers to breathing or blowing. Here it is attributed to both the Father and the Son. "The Holy Spirit breathes forth from the Father and the Son". I suppose it could be disputed. For us, the Latin Fathers explain, that when Our Lord breathed the Holy Spirit and supernatural life into His Apostles after His Resurrection (like God had breathed a soul and natural life into Adam in Genesis), He declared, by a fitting sign (thus St. Augustine and St. Ambrose), that the Holy Spirit proceeds from Him as from the Father. So we consider the "Breathing of the Holy Spirit" to be from both the Father and the Son as this text seems to indicate.

God Bless.
 
Joined
Apr 17, 2007
Messages
2,899
Reaction score
221
Points
63
Age
58
Location
USA
Faith
Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction
Patriarchate of Antioch
So apparently St. Maximus was asking St. Thalassios Trinitarian questions. In vol. 2 of the Philokalia, the writings of St. Thalassios are precise on the Orthodox Trinitarian confession of no filioque. The writings of St. Thalassios are indicated as in communication with St. Maximus which seem to indicate that Maximus deferred to St. Thalassios.
 

Apotheoun

OC.Net Guru
Joined
May 2, 2006
Messages
1,498
Reaction score
50
Points
48
Location
Northern California
Website
sites.google.com
Regarding St. Maximus, I want to note St. Maximus didn't believe the Procession of the Spirit from the Father was alien to the Son; rather, the Saintly Byzantine Monk believed the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son. " St Maximus the Confessor said: "By nature (jusei) the Holy Spirit in his being (kat’ ousian) takes substantially (ousiodwV) his origin (ekporeuomenon) from the Father through the Son who is begotten (di’ Uiou gennhqentoV)" (Quaestiones ad Thalassium, LXIII, PG 90, 672 C). " https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/li...arding-the-procession-of-the-holy-spirit-2349 St. Maximus would have rendered procedit in Latin as proienai in Greek and not ekporeumenon: " They know, indeed, that the Father is the sole Cause of the Son and of the Spirit, of one by generation and of the other by ekporeusiV — but they explained that the latter comes (proienai) through the Son, and they showed in this way the unity and the immutability of the essence" (Letter to Marinus of Cyprus, PG 91, 136 A-B).
The best modern treatment on the teaching of St. Maximos as it concerns the procession of origin of the Holy Spirit can be found in A. Edward Siecienski's book entitled, "The Filioque: History of a Doctrinal Controversy," where he shows that St. Maximus - in line with all the Eastern Fathers before him - restricts causality in the Trinity to God the Father. Taking that fact into account, when one reads what St. Maximos wrote in the Quaestiones ad Thalassium and in the Quaestiones et Dubia in context it is clear that he is talking primarily about the economy of salvation and secondarily about the eternal energetic manifestation of the Spirit, and not about the hypostatic origin of the Holy Spirit as person, which he reserves to God the Father alone as the sole cause within the Godhead. Let's look, for example, at the quotation you posted above from the Quaestiones ad Thalassium, because when the quotation is place within its proper context it becomes clear that it is not focused on the origin of the Spirit as person, but concerns instead His manifestation in the economy of salvation as energy, while simultaneously affirming the co-essential communion of the persons within the Godhead. It is important to note that I am using a different translation of the text than the one quoted by Xavier, and so there are a few minor differences, but the meaning when taken in context is clear: ". . . the Spirit proceeds essentially from the Father ineffably through the begotten Son, giving its own proper energies, like lamps, to the lampstand - that is, to the Church. For in the manner of a lamp that dissolves the darkness, every energy of the Spirit is of a nature to expel and drive away the manifold manifestation of sin." From the context it is clear that St. Maximos is talking about how the Holy Spirit moves through the begotten Son, after having taken His origin from the Father as sole cause within the Trinity, or to put it more succinctly, the Holy Spirit has His existence from the Father alone, while existing through the begotten Son. Now it is also clear that the emphasis within the quotation is upon how the energies of the Spirit - described as light - pour out from the Father through the Son into the Church, and it is in this way that St. Maximus asserts the salvific power of God while also asserting the co-essential communion of the three divine persons within the Trinity. That said, the problem with the Western interpretation of all the texts found within the patristic florilegia is focused - as always - upon the erroneous idea that the Son participates in some way in the causing of the Holy Spirit as hypostasis. The robber synod of Florence is an example of this problem, because it clearly taught that the Son is a co-principle of origin in connection with the Spirit's existential procession when it said that the Son must be seen as a cause "just like the Father," and this idea has infected Roman Catholic thinking for centuries since that time. It can be historically shown that the Orthodox have never rejected the idea that the Holy Spirit as energy is mediated through the Son; in fact, the Eastern Church has explicitly taught that viewpoint for more than a thousand years (see for example the teaching of the Council of Blachernae). Sadly, what the West fails to understand is that anything that attributes causality in the hypostatic procession of origin to the Son, no matter how it is conceived, whether the Son is held to be a secondary cause or whether He is viewed as a single principle in the cause of the Spirit's person, will be rejected by Eastern Christians because it undermines the monarchy of the Father within the Trinity. Now Xavier's second quotation provided above, which comes from the Letter to Marinus, makes this all very clear when it says that at the time St. Maximos was alive the Latins knew that the Father is the "sole cause of the Son and of the Spirit," but alas approximately seven centuries later the Latins were claiming that the Son actually is a cause, as Florence said, "just like the Father." So in the centuries that intervened between the Letter to Marinus and the Council of Florence the teaching of the Latins on the monarchy of the Father had been utterly undermined and collapsed, and their understanding of the origin of the Spirit within the Godhead had become heretical. That said, it is clear that unity on this issue will only be achieved when the Latins openly and clearly repudiate the false teaching on the procession of the Spirit that was advanced at the robber Council of Florence.
 

Apotheoun

OC.Net Guru
Joined
May 2, 2006
Messages
1,498
Reaction score
50
Points
48
Location
Northern California
Website
sites.google.com
There is one point that I forgot to include in my post above, and it concerns the nature of causation within the Godhead. The Father alone has causal power within the Trinity, but not in the way that we normally think about that term, because the Father causes the Son and Spirit eternally, that is, He causes both from all eternity, and so it is impossible for either of the two eternally caused persons to participate in the causal act itself, because it is what gives each of them hypostatic existence in the first place. To put it another way, neither the Son nor the Spirit is antecedent to the other, and so neither of them can be the cause of the other within the Godhead. Thus, the Father is the sole cause within the Trinity, and He causes the Son eternally through generation, and He simultaneously (for lack of a better word) causes the Spirit eternally through procession. This is why I said in my previous post that the Spirit has His existence from the Father, while existing through the Son. To make this point clearer one could use the analogy of light coming from the rays of the sun in order to try to understand this concept better: so the sun causes both the rays of light and the light itself to exist, but the sun sends the light through the rays. The rays are the vehicle (or means) through which the sun's light is sent, but the rays are not the cause of the light, which is given existence only by the sun. Moreover, the rays of light and the light are simultaneous, and can really only exist together.
 

Apotheoun

OC.Net Guru
Joined
May 2, 2006
Messages
1,498
Reaction score
50
Points
48
Location
Northern California
Website
sites.google.com
Regarding the text of St. Patrick, thanks Apotheoun for the Latin text. It comes down to how we interpret " Spiritus Sanctus inflat in eis". Inflat refers to breathing or blowing. Here it is attributed to both the Father and the Son. "The Holy Spirit breathes forth from the Father and the Son". I suppose it could be disputed. For us, the Latin Fathers explain, that when Our Lord breathed the Holy Spirit and supernatural life into His Apostles after His Resurrection (like God had breathed a soul and natural life into Adam in Genesis), He declared, by a fitting sign (thus St. Augustine and St. Ambrose), that the Holy Spirit proceeds from Him as from the Father. So we consider the "Breathing of the Holy Spirit" to be from both the Father and the Son as this text seems to indicate.
I disagree with what you are saying here. That said, as strange as it sounds, the original Latin text seems to be asserting that it is the Spirit who is doing the breathing in the Father and the Son. It says nothing about the Spirit being "breathed forth" from the Father and the Son. Rather, it appears to be saying that the Spirit simply breathes in the other two persons, which I suppose may be interpreted as an assertion of consubstantiality, but I do not think anything else can be made of the quotation beyond that simple idea. Thus, the text does not seem to have anything to do with either the existential procession of origin of the Holy Spirit from the Father, nor does it have anything to do with the Spirit's economic progression or manifestation through the Son. To be honest, it does not seem to have much of anything to do with what is being discussed in this thread.
 

Cavaradossi

Archon
Joined
Jun 23, 2011
Messages
2,159
Reaction score
157
Points
63
Faith
Orthodox
Jurisdiction
AANA
Regarding the text of St. Patrick, thanks Apotheoun for the Latin text. It comes down to how we interpret " Spiritus Sanctus inflat in eis". Inflat refers to breathing or blowing. Here it is attributed to both the Father and the Son. "The Holy Spirit breathes forth from the Father and the Son". I suppose it could be disputed. For us, the Latin Fathers explain, that when Our Lord breathed the Holy Spirit and supernatural life into His Apostles after His Resurrection (like God had breathed a soul and natural life into Adam in Genesis), He declared, by a fitting sign (thus St. Augustine and St. Ambrose), that the Holy Spirit proceeds from Him as from the Father. So we consider the "Breathing of the Holy Spirit" to be from both the Father and the Son as this text seems to indicate.

God Bless.
For the Father and Son to be the ones doing the breathing, I think we would expect a construction more like "in Spiritu Sancto inflant" or "Spiritus Sanctus inflatur ab eis" would we not?
 

Apotheoun

OC.Net Guru
Joined
May 2, 2006
Messages
1,498
Reaction score
50
Points
48
Location
Northern California
Website
sites.google.com
The issue is that Cause is not used in the same way in the West as in the East.
It does not follow, just because the West misuses the word "cause" (αιτία), that the improper use of this term should be enshrined as some kind of doctrinal truth. It would be better for the West to correct its usage in order to conform its theology to the teaching of scripture and the conciliar tradition of the first millennium.
Hence, the Father and the Son are One Principle of the Holy Spirit, but not One Cause.
I completely reject this proposition as erroneous. God the Father alone is both the principle (ἀρχή) and the cause (αιτία) of the Holy Spirit as person.

The Son's mediation, which manifests the Spirit's energy both temporally and eternally, has nothing to do with the Holy Spirit's hypostatic origination, which - as I indicated above - comes from the Father alone as principle (ἀρχή) and cause (αιτία) of divinity. Moreover, to ascribe either of these two paternal hypostatic characteristics (i.e., ἀρχή and αιτία) to the Son is to confuse the persons of the Father and the Son, which is a form of Sabellian Modalism.
 
Top