Відео

The idea of the Father as the exclusive cause in the Trinity is the theology of the Capadocians and of the Ecumenical Councils, this is trinitarianism 101. Also, if the Son have the power to cause another Hypostasis, (i.e., the Spirit) because this power is an essential property not an hypostatic one, than the Spirit that doesn't cause another Hypostasis is lacking that power, therefore having a diferent nature.

@@Jerônimo_de_Estridão there are no "hypostatic properties" when it comes to powers, as all power is derived from nature. So if there are different powers in the divine persons, then there are different natures. And this of course is refuted both by the Cappadocian Fathers and by the councils. Thus St. Gregory of Nyssa writes, in Against Eunomius, that: "Every one knows that [...] the personality of the Only-begotten and of the Holy Ghost has nothing lacking in the way of perfect goodness, perfect power, and of every quality like that." In book 2 of the same work, he says about the persons of the Trinity that: "Their power resides in Their nature." And again: "The doctrine of the Church declares that in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost there is one power." St. Gregory of Nyssa refutes Eunomius for saying that the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit do NOT have the same power, as he says: "But the holy Eunomius comes as mediator between them and by a friendly agreement without lot assigns to the Father the superiority in power." The hypostatic properties of the divine hypostases, then, are not differing powers. They are the distinct relations, or modes of existence, between the hypostases, as St. John of Damascus says in An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith: "Because of the Father having the qualities, the Son and the Spirit have all their qualities, those of being unbegotten, and of birth and of procession being excepted. For in these hypostatic or personal properties alone do the three holy subsistences differ from each other, being indivisibly divided not by essence but by the distinguishing mark of their proper and peculiar subsistence." So it is not by different powers or essences that we distinguish their hypostatic properties, but by their relations (fatherhood, sonship, and procession) and their modes of existence (unbegotten, begotten, and proceeding). That the Father is the one cause of all Godhead is then not because he has a particular essence or power that the other divine hypostases lack - this is the Arian and Eunomian position refuted by St. Gregory of Nyssa above. It is because he is the causally first person, who grounds the divine processions and from whom the Son and the Spirit derive their being. They have this very same power, as the power in the Trinity is one, but they lack the "opportunity" to actively express it since they are not the causally first person. That is, the essential divine power of generation already in eternity is active in the hypostasis of the Father, by virtue of him being the first person, to generate the Son. And the Son who is the "product" of this generation is perfect and infinite, hence there can be no more "products" of generation in the Godhead, as anything else generated by the use of this power would just be identical with the Son. And likewise the essential divine power of spiration or procession already in eternity is active in the hypostasis of the Father, by virtue of him being the first person, to spirate the Holy Spirit. And the Holy Spirit who is the "product" of this spiration is perfect and infinite, hence there can be no more "products" of spiration in the Godhead, as anything else spirated by the use of this power would just be identical with the Holy Spirit. Hence we can not say that the Son or the Holy Spirit lack any power whatsoever that the Father has, or they would be of different natures - three gods rather than consubstantial, contrary to the Nicene creed. The reason that the Father is the one cause is not superiority in power or essence, as Arius and Eunomius said, but simply the fact that he is unbegotten and hence the first person of the Godhead. As the first person it is he who actively exercises the natural divine powers of generation and spiration, which are exhausted in the generation of the perfect and infinite Son and the spiration of the perfect and infinite Spirit. They too have this very same power, as the essence and power of the Godhead is one. But as they are not the causally first person, as they are not themselves uncaused cause but rather caused from the Father, they do not have the "opportunity" to actively use the powers of generation and spiration (as these powers exercised by the first person already eternally causes the infinite "results" who they, the Son and the Spirit, themselves are). We have to agree with St. Gregory of Nyssa that whatever power the Father has also is in his Son and his Spirit, and refute Eunomius and Arius who hold that the Father has powers of causation that the Son and the Spirit lack. Thus we can't say that the generative power is hypostatic in the Father (as there is no such thing as hypostatic powers; we would just be saying that the Father is of a different nature than the Son and the Spirit, which is precisely what Arius and Eunomius thus claimed). The reason that the Son and the Spirit do not generate more divine hypostases is not that they lack the power to do so, this power belongs to their nature which they derive whole and full and undivided from the Father, but rather that they lack the "opportunity" to actively exercise it. This active excercising of the power of causation belongs to the Father who, by virtue of being the uncaused cause and the logically first person of the Godhead, exercises both the power of begetting and of spiration to exhaustion. So the Father alone is cause, but this is because he is the first and uncaused person who thus exhausts the active use of these powers of causation. And not because he has power that the Son and the Spirit lack. To say the first is to affirm both the Fathers and the creeds, while to say that the Father has power that the Son and the Spirit lack is to deny the homoousion and to affirm Eunomius and Arius, while proclaiming three different gods of three different natures and powers. Which is why we have to agree with the Fathers that the hypostatic properties are only their relations and modes of existence, and deny any idea of difference in essence and power.

It is leading to a composition, there is no other way around. Although 'formal destinction' has to be defined properly.

@@radicalpalamite “a distinction between a thing and its formality” - dictionary of Scholastic Philosophy by BERNARD WUELLNER

@@radicalpalamite so you deny divine simplicity?

@@always.1_YTNo, I reject a formal distinction (scotist sense) in God.

The Tome of 1351 does not use scholastic terms. So, try to fit E/E distinction in these kind of distinctions is a trap. The tome use the figure of Fire and the Light that emanates from it. Fire is simple and undivided, not composite of Flame + Light/Heat, yet we can conceptually (kata epinoia) contemplate a distinction between them.

@LupinGaius-ls1or the east did object when Pope Martin included the filioque in his encylical to the east during the period of constantinople 2 I.e. in the 500s. They actually accused the Pope of heresy on the basis of the filioque and tried to discredit him because of it. At that time St. Maximos the confessor lived in Rome [being a eastern Greek who spoke both latin and greek] and he responded to the east and said the filioque was not a causal filioque as "the romans do not make the Son a cause of the Spirit [...] they know in fact the Father is the only cause of both the Son and the Spirit". So historically the east did object to the filioque, and Maximos told us it was not heretical insofar as it did not imply the spirit having the Son as his cause. Later latin theolians however re-interpreted this to mean a different type of cause in an attempt to get around what St. Maximos said.

Eternal procession of the Spirit from the Father is not the same as temporal procession of the Spirit by Christ.

The Florentine position is that of Double Procession, both Father and Son are the hipostatic Cause (Aitia) of the Spirit. We accept a eternal manifestation/through the Son where the Father alone is the Cause.

@@machinotaur That actually does not solve the issue. There is still the problem of the Son and the Father sending the Spirit, and of being unable to talk about the working of the spirit without falling back into "and the Son" coming into play. It winds up sounding like an efforts to make reconciliation more difficult by creating definitions.

@KenoKolmer yes. It distinguishes the Spirit and Son from each other as one is mediated and shines from the other while the other is the mediator from whom the mediated shines

@@TheCathodox but is it a major real distinction

@@TheCathodox is the EM on its own able to make a major real distinction between the Son and Spirit persons ?

@KenoKolmer if the criteria for a major real is just some form of relative opposition then i think EM can ground a major real distinction

@@TheuncreatedLogos I am on Twitter [X] of you l would like to contact me x.com/TheCathodox?t=_bMFUot7kP73DSGwXTVMIA&s=09

The main problem is that they don’t read the fathers of Blachernae. If they condemn through the Son, like they claim, why does st. Gregory of Cyprus use it and explain many things this way? They are just ignorants.

@yuzi6414 could you kindly cite either the quote itself or the beginning of the quote and the end of the quote as I am confused as to which quotation you are referring. Then I can better answer you. Here is the link to the letter: adamgroves.net/letter/

@@TheCathodoxsorry for the last response, the quote is: For this reason also the remarkable preacher and honey-tongued doctor Pope Saint Gregory in his Homily 26 on the holy Gospel said the following, among other things: "'When the Paraclete comes, whom I will send to you from the Father' (John 15). For if 'to be sent' ought to be understood only as 'to be incarnated', beyond doubt the Holy Spirit, who was in no way incarnated, in no way ought 'to be sent.' But his sending is his very procession, by which he proceeds from the Father and the Son. Therefore just as the Spirit is said to be sent, because he proceeds, thus also the Son is not unfittingly said to be sent, because he is begotten. When he had said this, he both blew upon them, and said to them: 'Receive the Holy Spirit' (John 20). We must inquire what is the reason that Our Lord both gave the Holy Spirit once while remaining on earth, and one while ruling in heaven." The procession of the spirit is compared to the son being begotten and if proceeding in this quote is about temporal procession then i find the argument weird like the holy spirit being sent (temporal) mean that he proceed (temporal).

Maybe I understand wrongly the text bcs i find than all the other quotes in the letter are clearly about temporal procession

@@TheCathodoxmy comment where i send you the quote seem to not be here anymore idk if you see it

@@yuzu6414 I don't see it lol

@pj_ytmt-123 I totally agree! And it is the only formula given in the ecumenical councils of the first millennium that goes beyond the Nicene Creed.

​@@TheCathodoxwill you respond to his video on the greek fathers?

@JesusPerez-wd3tq not in one video but I will respond to the quotes and arguments he uses for each individual saint but I want to also highlight how the saints are compatible with orthodoxy rather than just making rebuttals so it's a bit of both

@@Jerônimo_de_Estridão nah bro, it's only a virtual distinction! [Joking]

Good point

Doesn't the will come from nature, as St. Maximus points out? I know the will is connected to energy, for I use the energy to manifest the will, but the will is _from_ nature, are there a distinction in His nature and essence as well?

@dwong9289 if power = nature do you think God's nature temporarily is manifted in creation according to your logic? If you say yes then you disagree with the saints that the nature does not enter creation, if you say no then you affirm nature and power to he be distinct and your original argument no longer entails an eternal recieving of nature from the Son. Pick your poison ☣️

@@TheCathodox Power is a Divine attribute that is identical to the Divine being. That’s what St. Hilary thinks, as shown in my book. So the communication of power entails the communication of essence. The manifestation of power does not mean essence enters creation. That’s a non-sequiter