Speaker 1: The ass as as as ask yes, ask asks, as
as assess.
Speaker 2: Throughout the course of philosophy.
Speaker 3: We can see in history when you divorce anthropology from
this kind of a revealed framework that we're going to
talk about, what you get.
Speaker 2: Is basically disaster, and you get things like reductions and
materialism and so forth that ultimately whip where it is
to be a human person. There's no notion of a
human person. It's like a free will volition. These all
the way aside, and it could be your only rather
than if the world is a determined materialistic process, then
free will is a lust er, and so is consciousness.
Speaker 4: Ass s s sssssss.
Speaker 2: Thirty thousand, chat firds, thirty thousand, chad nerds thirty thousand Can.
Speaker 5: You hear me?
Speaker 6: Nerds?
Speaker 2: Forty thousand of you live?
Speaker 6: Thirty thousand chaff firs nerds?
Speaker 5: Are we lying?
Speaker 6: Mh welcome? Welcome? How are you? Can you hear me?
Speaker 5: Hi? Day?
Speaker 7: Yeah, Hi guys, Hello. Everybody.
Speaker 6: Price has risen, indeed, indeed he is indeed.
Speaker 7: So in the.
Speaker 2: Father, Deacon, you're you're lagging really bad. Jay, you can
do the Russian Father. You're cutting out? Can you turn
off the camera? Because it just there's no, it's not
enough bandwidth.
Speaker 5: Sir Christos was creasy is the Russian? How is that better?
Speaker 6: Yeah, it's a lot better. All right. Welcome.
Speaker 2: I'm a little tired today, so I don't have all
my normal insane autistic spurg gusto that I usually have,
so welcome everybody.
Speaker 6: Today.
Speaker 2: We are going to talk about a book that we
wanted to talk about for a long time. It was
due and I finally got a hold of it for
the Deacon as well. Lewis had read it a while back.
It is sort of the seminal work on the history
of this controversy. It's the Shasinski Philly Oquay History of
a doctional controversy book. So we're going to be covering
that as best we can in the next couple hours,
and then of course everybody can hop over to watch
David the Real Medwhite's debate, which will be starting, I
guess in around a couple hours or shows. So some channel, okay,
at Craig's channel, David's debating two.
Speaker 6: Or two coptic guys.
Speaker 2: What's the exact topics.
Speaker 5: He's debating two coptic guys. Craig Truglia if someone can
link that in the description in the chat, and he's
debating two copts at the same time on mea physis
versus diophysis, but excellent.
Speaker 2: Yeah, so that's going to be a fascinating debate. So
one thing that I want to say, just kind of
as a preliminary on my side, and then I'll let.
Speaker 6: You guys chime in, is uh.
Speaker 2: The book kind of reminds me of Father de vor
Nick's kind of classic book on Photius and his sort
of revisionist take on Philio. I mean on Photius, which
has influenced a lot of Uniates to kind of and
even perhaps modern Romancolic scholarship as a whole, to have
a more positive approach to Phocius, because of course, you know,
many Uniates revere Phocius, and so in many ways this
is similar to that in that this is not so
much polemical, but rather just kind of a survey of
both sides of the debate. What was happening in the
first millennium, the way the Latins spoke, and then what
what their conception was, how it developed a bit differently
in the East and into Byzantium, and then kind of
the departure at Lions versus Blackernet and then in the
in the west into Florence. So for me, the the
I did the chapter on the modern stuff was not
that interesting. I mean, I'm familiar with the characters to
a degree, but most interesting to me was the chapters
on like Maximus and the Franks.
Speaker 6: But anyway, yeah, yeah.
Speaker 2: That definitely we can get we can definitely get into
all that. But uh, yeah, I don't have a strong
view on I kind of think he's kind of out there.
Who's the Bulgakov like the bulg cost stuff. I don't
really care about it anyway, So what do you guys think?
What's what's your take?
Speaker 8: Initially, so, I mean, keep in mind it's not a
polemic piece, and so it reads simply is just good
scholarly material on these issues in the history. And so
I think it's good and it's it's known as one
of the best scholarly works out there in academia on
the issue the Philly okuay.
Speaker 7: Between the East and.
Speaker 8: West and the history, and so I think it's definitely
a book that could be recommended that if people ever
want kind to get into the meat the nitty gritty
of the history and the arguments of the book that
you go to.
Speaker 7: So he presents a very kind of unbiased, just kind
of historical.
Speaker 8: View of the issues, which I think a lot of
people appreciate.
Speaker 7: What is your thoughts.
Speaker 5: So I read this book about three or four years ago.
It was for me the first time I could really
understand the Filly Oquid controversy, because I know a lot
of people usually they get into kind of popular debates online,
and for me it was the first. You know, I
don't really think anyone will fully understand the controversy unless
they've done either a ton of reading in other areas
or they've read this book. So I you'll notice a
lot of people just don't understand it unless the issue
the full picture, unless they understand something about the thirteenth
and fourteenth century, fifteenth century debates, both in the East
and in the in the in the western position. So yeah,
I mean, this is the This is the most complete
history and exposition of the philioque from the New Testament
all the way to the twentieth century, last ten years.
And he says at the end that this isn't a
full history. But because he says such a work can't
even be written yet. But this is like the closest
thing I think. I can't think of anything else.
Speaker 2: One thing I would add is that a great addendum
to this book from the Orthodox perspective, more specifically in
terms of how things depart after Alliance, is Pavadocus's classic book,
which I highly recommend christis in Byzantium, which goes into
what happened in response in the East and the importance
of eternal manifestation and Orthodox doctrine. How that's not just
a theol Ofgumina, but it's actually directly connected to for us,
the essence synergy distinction. So eternal manifestation is not just like, oh, well,
we were going to come up with a way to
try to main being Orthodox and not unite at Florence.
It's it's directly a result in our view of the
usen synergy distinction. So, uh, let's start early on with
where the book begins.
Speaker 6: So we start with.
Speaker 2: What we have, like the Apostolic period and the biblical texts.
He does kind of an introductory survey of where the
book's gonna go. Procession of Spirit in the New Testament
one thing, yeah, and then he moves directly into the
Greek Father. But one thing that this book doesn't go
into is from the Orthodox perspective.
Speaker 6: That I would add as the.
Speaker 2: Importance of the Ordo theology for us beginning with.
Speaker 7: With It's only mentioned once in the book.
Speaker 2: Yeah, beginning with the priority of hypostasis. And this, as
we know, it's implicit and uh affinacious, but it really
begins to be elucidated in the Cappadocians.
Speaker 6: So you'll find in Basil.
Speaker 2: Particularly letters thirty eight, I think letter of one twenty five,
and then in Gregor and no Sianzis. In the theological
orations particularly I think three, the one of the Son,
and then Nisa in against Unomius and Nisa against a Pollinarius.
There's sections where he talks about the priority of hypostasis,
not hypstatsis is an instantiation of nature, but is not
reducible to nature. It also is more than that, and
hence the reality of the distinctions of the persons in
the triad. The son isn't just a manifestation of the
Father's nature. He truly is a proper son of the Father.
So there is a real distinction there that goes beyond
the level of instantiation anyway, that is very important for
us in how we approach a triad. And anyone familiar
with the Cappadocians, or any even of the basic scholarship
on the Cappadocians would know that that is fundamental to
Orthodox theology. And you have a different view that develops
in the West. It's not always different, it's not always
totally out of a chord, but over time it develops
in a different way.
Speaker 6: So what do you guys want to say there?
Speaker 8: Yeah, I'd say too that that's really important to emphasize.
So when you read Synthew's work, it's not theological per se.
It's taken a historical So the issues of the division
and controversy in the philio Quay is simply presented. And
this book mainly is historical, political and linguistic issues, and
I think as Orthodoxy can take and see that there's
other issues as well that it's.
Speaker 7: Really not brought up.
Speaker 8: There's a few kind of references to the Scholastic project,
but it's not really brought up that the West and
the Latins embrace of the embracing of the Greek Pagan
Hellenistic system as a system theologically and like you said,
the order of the algae, these various issues are some
of the essential factors that need to be added in
the conversation from a theological and philosophical point of view,
not simply well, it's just you know, this historical and
political and linguistic developments over time is what led to
theologically irreconcilable differences.
Speaker 7: So I would just add that that's the only thing.
Speaker 8: But he's not presenting this as a theological work, but
it's a historical.
Speaker 7: Work, so he's not to be blamed for that. It's
just something that I would add to that.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and I think that from our perspective, what's kind
of hinted at in the beginning with Athenacious is eternal manifestation.
Speaker 6: So I was happy to see that.
Speaker 2: Sarshenski even notes that Athanasius does seem to speak this
way the eternal manifestation, and this is on page thirty eight,
and then he goes on to note that in Athenasius's works,
there's never really any explicit reference to the hypostatic origin
of the spirit being the son. Yeah, the closest thing
is just the eternal manifestation.
Speaker 6: But again, in our.
Speaker 2: Theology that will be different and will be interpreted differently
than the way that the Latins will interpret that.
Speaker 5: In Athenacious, Yeah, I'm reading through his letters on the
Holy Spirit Serapion and at this point and I've not
seen anything Phidio quaysh. I would say though that I
think for me, for the first so the first chapter
is the New Testament of exegesis, and then the second
one is the Greek Fathers, so he doesn't overview the
Greek fathers, and the third one is the Latin Fathers,
and for me those kind of together because so the
point for those three chapters, one of the takeaways is
that the Greek tradition developed two different ways of expressing procession.
These two different Greek words. I don't want to say
them because I'll butcher them.
Speaker 8: I'll think, I got i Fia is procession strictly speaking,
and then Kronia is coming forth kind of in a
more general sense.
Speaker 5: Yeah, I read it as ethi and but anyway, yeah,
I mean, if.
Speaker 9: There's any correct and the the takeaway is that the
kind of the New Testament exog proof texts, at least
according to the first chapter, none of them used by
the Latins, or that in all the Greek side are
really like good arguments because it's kind of like reading
back later degrees into the New Testament.
Speaker 5: And so the Greeks had the Greek fathers had, you know,
poori Usathi was to denote like the procession, that hypostatic
procession proper, and perenni was just to denote just a
generic going forth. But the problem was that the Latin
fathers only had they only had one word by which
to or They translated both of those words as just prescheddery,
so they didn't have the same nuance. So that was
a cause for a divergence in the traditions in terms
of that, and the Greek tradition very much solidified using
one term for specifically for one thing and the other
one for another thing. And that's even admitted by Catholic
theologians a Roman Catholic Dialogue's twentieth century which at the
end of the book.
Speaker 2: Yeah, the Vatican clarification on the Philly Oquay will be
an important addendum to this book that I recommend people
should check out because there's a there's a key section
later on that will be relevant into Florence, which I'll
touch on later, but maybe a little bit of a
prelimina and moral prolagona, or I should say there's a
couple of things I would say if you want to
get maybe a stronger handle on the terminology. Lewis and
I were discussing this in our review. A lot of
the as Father Deacon and I have talked about for
a long time, the theological terms, the philosophical terms take
on a kind of a theological metamorphosis. And the Pelicon
Book if you want a good introduction to in what
sense natural theology undergoes a transformation and Greek philosophy and
it goes a transformation in not just the Cappadocians, but
even later into Maximus and these kind of later fathers,
I recommend the Pelicon Book Christology or Christianity and classical culture.
And then in terms of what we're going to get
into this really crucial for our side is the priority
of person over nature. That's not in a dialectic We're
not saying that person is dialectically in tension with nature,
but when phrases and certain theologians are used like that
that person has a supremacy or a transcendence or a
going outside of that's not ever intended to accept to
express some sort of tension or division or or weird
existential doctrine. One of the best from a scholarly vantage point.
Listen to what I'm saying here, don't misquote me. I'm
not saying that everything that this theologian says is correct,
but he is recognized as a scholar on the Cappadocians.
And in the first chapter of Being in Communion there's
a great section on just how the Cappadocians crystallize nature
in person, and then beyond that, the next best book
is Metropolitan herotheus's book person in the Orthodox tradition, and
what we'll what you see there is not just the
point we made earlier about Ordo, but the way that
this debate develops centers around the way that these terms
are understood. That's why the terminology becomes so important in
the history of this debate. So I'm glad you pointed
that out, Lewis, because that's where we get to the Cappadocians.
So were immediately we get to the Cappadocians. And I
think the most striking thing here is Skushensky's admission that
when we look at all of Basil's authentic works. There's
not a single place at all that supports the idea
that Basil taught that the sun in any way participated
in the causal relation, in the causal, in the being
the cause of the spirit hypostasis, right, just the opposite.
Speaker 7: So in the anti Younomium writing Appadocians, they're trying to
make sure.
Speaker 8: They're not confusing theology and economy with the different uses
of procession. But I found it interesting that he was
able to point out that, specifically against the kind of
anti civilian polemic which made the protection of each person's
unique hypostatic properties, especially the father's role as the soul cause.
Speaker 7: Within the godhead. I'm glad that he pointed that out.
I thought that was really important.
Speaker 5: Yeah, I mean, one of the points that's important takeaway
for me from the Greek Father's chapter with the Cappadocians
is the Eunomians, the Eunomian argument. Yeah, that you know,
if you know, if he is in generate, there are
two unoriginate beings. If he has forgotten, we can have
alternatives bigotten either from the father or from the son.
So they're talking about the hoty Spirit. This is quote
from page to forty two. And Gregory doesn't respond by
appealing to relations of opposition, right, he appeals to He says, well,
the spirit comes forth from the Father, but not in
the same way as the son, right. And that's and
then when they ask well can you explain that, he says, well,
that's a mystery. He appeals to mystery, which we would
still do today. What's the difference between begetting and proceeding?
Speaker 6: Yeah, I just sent.
Speaker 2: So that's actually in the catechetical lectures, it's in the
theological orations, and it's in on the Holy Spirit by Basil,
where it's made clear that we don't know what the
distinction between generation and the spirit's procession is in terms
of in terms of hyposthetic origin, but we know that
it is.
Speaker 6: So they stress that.
Speaker 2: And by the way, if anybody would so, if you
so against you, Unomius by Greviness says really long and
really technical. It's like eight or nine hundred pages if
you were to take the shaft set and put them
into normal pages. But but Basil does have a shorter
work which makes all of these same arguments that we're
talking about here from the Calvioln University of America set
against Unomius, and Basils against Unomius is only like one
hundred and eighty ninety pages, So it's not that it's
it's not that much of a beast, and he kind
of is going to make you know, all the same
arguments in a more concise way than Sant gregor Nissa does.
But the other thing I would stress too is that
you know, Basil's very clear in against Eunomius that there's
a single hypostatic source of the person of the spirit,
and namely it's the Father, and that can only be
the case if we're giving onto logical priority to hypostasis here.
Speaker 5: I think another important point is Thatsky intimates that the
cappaditions are the first ones to really properly start talking
about an eternal relationship between the Son and the Spirit,
which is or shining forth of the Spirit from the
Sun from eternity, and that is later interpreted in the
fourteenth century to be a reference to the energetic procession
or the eternal manifestation or the energetic manifestation, whatever you
want to call it doesn't matter.
Speaker 2: Yeah, like you said, let's be clear that Basil is
very explicit about the means to distinguish the person's being
hypostatic properties. Hypostatic properties means how it relates to the origin.
That's what it means. You can't there's no saying as
hyposthetic origin or hypesetic properties apart from the father as
the origin. Why where do we begin our hypostatic properties
with the ark of the ark of the father?
Speaker 6: Right?
Speaker 2: He is monarchia ark and are okay? He is without
cause auto unoriginal autogenis he doesn't have.
Speaker 5: A general general auto.
Speaker 2: Yeahs, I was trying to say autotheos. All of those
different terminologies are expressing basically the same notion of picking
out what the key characteristic, The key marker is for
the hypostasis of the father, and that is again related
to origin. And so you begin to see why in
the thought of the Cappadocians there couldn't be any secondary
co cause of the hypostaetic property of the hypesetic property
of the spirit.
Speaker 5: Yes, because, as is later argued, if if the father
and the son share in a in a hyposthetic property
of say, the power of spirating the spirit, then you
will confuse the persons because you've begun by distinguishing them
on the basis of these hypostatic properties in the first place.
Speaker 6: Right exactly.
Speaker 2: And we should note too that this is another issue
that I've noticed is popping up in a lot of debates, well,
a lot of times when we're interacting with Thomas or when
we were interacting with other people that are severely confused.
There's a confusion of the epistemic order with the ontological order. Yes, yes,
And this is actually mentioned here in the section on
the Cappadocians. And it's actually Basil and other people who
bring that to the fore. I mean earlier it's in
afthenacious about the Arians because they make the same confusion.
But Basil is responding to this confusion when people say, well,
if you admit number into the triad, then you're admitting
that there are separate deities. And so Basil responds by
saying that, well, we don't mean number in the sense
of ontological priority.
Speaker 6: Right.
Speaker 2: The father because he's numbered first, or because he's called
the Rka or the cause, does not mean that he
has ontological priority in the sense of created causation.
Speaker 6: So you can't read.
Speaker 2: The priority that a father has in terms of generating
his son temporally right into the relations of the Godhead.
It's an that's an analogy. It's an analogia between the
Father and a son and the human realm. And the
real pattern is the heretics do the inverse where they
read the created into the uncreated, and they try to
determine the uncreated on the basis of the created. But
it's the other way around, right, We are reflections of God,
so not everything that's true of the temporal situation of
causation of Father's exactly. There's not a one to one equivocal,
unifical correspondence. So we have to be very careful to
distinguish logical logical ordering from from ontological ordering.
Speaker 7: That's a good critique of natural as conceived in the West,
because that's exactly it's no.
Speaker 8: Coincidence that that actually happens that people tend to have
kind of isomorphic relation from reading.
Speaker 7: From the natural world of the God through analogy of.
Speaker 8: Entis because as you're pointed out earlier, the order of
theology is different.
Speaker 5: I thought it would be perton to point out which
in the first chapter, because Shchensky cites Boris Rabinski, who
is again I think an orthodox theologian who I haven't read,
but who is cited here and mentioned later, and I
don't know. Well, according to the book, I wouldn't say everything.
We should agree with everything he says. But he makes
a good point that there's he points out three economic trinities.
So he has the Father Spirit Christ schema, which is
like the spirit, the Father is first, and then the Spirit,
you know, overshadows the Virgin and then come and then
Christ comes from that overshadowing. So you know, in a
sense you could say that the Son comes from the Spirit.
And then there's the Christ Father spirit schema where I
remember this, this is on page thirty. Yeah, Christ reveals
the Father. So that's the Christ Father's spirit scheme. And
then there's the last one, which is the Johann nine one,
which is the Father Christ Holy Spirit where Father sends
Jesus and then Jesus says the Spirit.
Speaker 2: Yeah, this is this is exactly why the so a
lot of times, when if you're new to this debate,
you get into the polemics. This happened to me when
I was a Roman Catholic. When I first encountered this debate,
I went to some of the more introductory level of
polemics on it when I was a Roman Catholic, and
they would make the argument that we'll just look at
all these economic situations where you have this, this situation
of Jesus sending the Spirit. So therefore any economic situation
could be read back into the triad. But as you
just pointed out, there's different schemas listed in scripture about
what's going on in economia, and it would make total
madness of the triad to read all of those back
into theology proper, the ontological Trinity.
Speaker 6: So exactly, yeah, we have to point that.
Speaker 2: Out, and I would just add the statement again this
is so common page forty three, Gregory compared the epistemological
order through which we come to know the Trinity. We
are led by the Spirit to a knowledge of the Son,
who reveals the Father with the ontological order. Where as
Bear says, the Father alone is in generate and without beginning,
while the Son derives from the Father, and the Spirit,
who also derives from the Father, is also always contemplated
together with the Son. And then he goes on to
make the point that this has to be distinguished. We
can't confuse different orders. And this I think Father deacon,
you can say from the philosophical advantage point that this
is always necessary to keep in mind that to confuse
categories is what leads people to out of mistakes.
Speaker 5: Really, I just like to sorry, Okay, I just wanted
to pull in, just briefly, what's called the Clinging cling
Thole Memorandum, which is in the last chapter in the
twentieth century the World Council of Churches meeting, and they admit, quote,
the memorandum states quote it would be insufficient and indeed
illegitimate to read back into the Trinity only those New
Testament passages which refer to the sending of a spirit
by Jesus Christ unquote. Yeah, and this was the biggest
in theological dialogue meeting of the twentieth century, according to Schensky.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I think the back and clarification on the field, okay,
would admit that as well as I think about it.
It's a pretty long essay, but I think it would
admit that kind of a point, all right.
Speaker 8: So yeah, if we just sum up real quick there,
so if we look at the the Greek Father is
attempting to preserve the hypostatic, the unique hypostatic properties by
having the Father as the soul cause in the strict
sense of procession, and then using different Greek words to
protect that.
Speaker 7: And make the distinction between procession from the arcade, the monarchia.
Speaker 8: The father would be equaling the thei versus the coming
forth and the procession and the various forms.
Speaker 7: Of economy too.
Speaker 8: That what's going to set the stage for all of
this again is a different or theologic of starting with
person versus ousieu as you find a Greek thought. But
I think this is going to explain too if this
is on the Greek Father's mind, this is why they're
using these different words because they have a different theological project,
and they have different concerns, and they need these words
to make these distinctions.
Speaker 7: But when you get to the Latin, to simply translate
what all three of the different Greek words that we'd
call posession are coming forth from manifestation with procedere is
going to obviously set up the problem.
Speaker 8: So I think that kind of sums up from my
point of view, with what's going on in the Greek
follows and then what's going to lead into chapter three
with the Latin west starting with Augustine.
Speaker 2: And I would add to that that Sashensky notes that
that even though there is the phraseology of the son
of the spirit being in touch with the son, Sishensky
knows that Nissa does not take that to be a
co cause or a father son cause, or a one principal,
single principal cause of the hypostasis of the spirit. In fact,
Nissa is pretty explicit in many places that there is
only one cause of the hypostatus of the spirit, and
that's the person of the Father. So in touch the
spirit being in touch with the son is not about
hypostetic origin is the key here. And then we move
up into the period of the Creed. And then what
I think is relevant about the Creed here is that
when we understand the we're talking about the Constantinopolitan Creed, right,
So when we think about the notions that we had
earlier about hypostetic properties, this is how to read the Creed,
you see, right, the Creed does not do the move
of beginning with the essence right. And Sashensky will note
that with Augustine we have a shift. And this is
what we have said all along. This is why I
many years ago changed my position on Augustine when he
was like I had too high of a position of
Augusta when I was a Calvinist in Roman Catholic because
I didn't realize that there is I believe a different
developm in Augustinian metaphysics and philosophy in these questions. And
that's why when you look at the Creed, what does
it say we believe in God the Father? Right, we
begin with that hypostatic priority, We begin with the arcade
of the Father, and the Creed is therefore utilizing hyposthetic properties.
Speaker 5: Yeah. One other thing I wanted to mention was Saint Carol.
Speaker 2: Yes, this is important why we need to know he.
Speaker 5: Finds he has quoted a lot in the Latin floor
legions apparently, and yes, he has used a law online
in means.
Speaker 2: And he's probably their best case. I mean, I don't
actually think he is a supporter of what they try
to argue, but if they were to have to give
them the best possible case, it would be Cyril.
Speaker 5: Yes. But the problem is that well, first of all,
just because Carol talks about the spirit of receiving from
the Son doesn't mean he's receiving hypostatic existence of God
from the Son. Because John sixteen also talks about the
spirit receiving from the Sun. There's a different exegetics of that.
It could be about the the movement of the energies,
but it could also be about the just well the
way that even Roman Catholic exegetes today, Scott is like
Raymond Brown exegete. That is, by saying that it's just
when the Sun says that the spirit received from him,
he's just saying that the Spirit isn't going to kind
of bring some new revelation or some new teaching to
the apostles. He's just confirming what came before him as
the paraclet. And that's what the same Mark of Ephesus
responds to in the Council Florence when they bring up
John sixteen as well. He uses that argument. But also
there's the interesting thing.
Speaker 2: That's why Sishchensky notes on forty nine that while while
Cyril maintained a role for the Sun and the eternal
flowing forth of the spirit, this belief did not make him,
as the Latins later claimed, an advocate of the spirit
because eternal he said that exactly.
Speaker 5: Yeah. And also the very important case of Theodora questioning
Kirol on whether or not he believes in the Father
being cause of the Spirit right explicitly, and Kirol is
saying no, that would be heresy, and then Theodoric confirming
his orthodoxy. So yeah, I mean I think that pretty
much puts the nail in the coffin for Kirol from
my perspective.
Speaker 2: And by the way, I always forget this. So Shashensky
was a Uni e and then ended up Orthodox or
what was his when he wrote this? He was wrong?
Calolg right? Think is that correct?
Speaker 5: I don't know, Sorry, could you repeat that?
Speaker 2: Sorry when Sashenski wrote because people are gonna say, oh,
you're just quoting some Orthodox. I don't think when Sashansky
wrote this he was Orthodox, right.
Speaker 5: I don't know. I've heard he I've heard he was
still a Roman Catholic at the time. But it's kind
of irrelevant given the fact that I mean, even Ibar
a this book. So if it's good enough for you, Bar,
it's good enough for you.
Speaker 2: Okay, all right, So now we moved to the Latin fathers.
Let's move to Ertullian here. Anything relevant in uh Totullian
or Hillary you guys want to mention?
Speaker 5: Well, when I was reading the introduction, to the letter
to Serapion. Sorry this is kind of off topic, but
the scholar who did the translation, or who was part
of the translation introduction, he seemed to intimate that Totullian
and Origin began to depersonalize the Spirit, and but before
them there was a kind of concept of the Spirit
being creator, you know, like you know, God obviously, but
then Totullian and Origin begin to depersonalize the Spirit.
Speaker 2: That that does seem plausible given the fact that Basil
had to combat so much of the Noumatomachi argument. I mean,
the Basil's got, you know, many works dedicated to offending
the full deity of the Spirit, and he was criticized
because he added this kind of a thing to the
to the liturgy, and people say, oh, you're an innovator,
And you know, I think he justified his his argumentation
because the Spirit is fully divine. So you know, I mean,
that's what on the Holy Spirit is argument is that
the excuse me, well, on the Holy Spirit argues it
and then also and against you know me, as his
argument is just simply that if the if the Spirit
possesses all the same energies as the Father and the Son,
then he has the same nature because energy signifies nature.
Speaker 8: And so Tertullian's presented not as somebody that it is
not anywhere clear that he supports philioquism.
Speaker 2: Right, let me see what he says. I mean, I.
Speaker 8: Described Chewing himself as a philoquis or advocate of double procession.
His writings remain among the oldest witness the idea of
procession or through the son is interesting. So if you're Latin,
you better not used for Trulian.
Speaker 6: Yeah, I cu is not.
Speaker 2: I mean, ultimately, I don't think he's that.
Speaker 6: I mean he does.
Speaker 2: I guess he matters for you know, using the terminology
trinity early on, but for a lot of things that
you know, it's kind of irrelevant.
Speaker 5: But I mean again it comes to the question of
because he's because he he might just be. I think
Stanski intimates that he's talking about them like the sorry
not imminent, the economic But again, you another point with
the Latin Father's chapters that seems to be made is
that we're intimated, is that you can't really exactly tell
because because you because there's this question of whether you
read the Eastern Fathers and the light of the Latin
Fathers or the Latin Fathers and the light of the
Eastern Fathers. So if you start with the idea that
there's a strict there is a distinction between these different
procession terms, then when you read it which is Greek,
then when you read the Latin Fathers, if you come
with that presupposition, then you're going to read the Latin
Fathers like it's not really clear whether they mean which
procession they mean, because they just translate it all as prey.
Except for Saint Ambrose, who I think is notable. He
seems to intimate that there might be a difference. But
I'll find some highlight quotes from there in a second. Well,
you guys talk, but yeah, if you do it the
other way around, then then yeah, it's it's different.
Speaker 8: So well you're gonna have to look at different times too,
because so keep in mind in the third and fourth
century in Latin last the differences between right, the Latin
Fathers and the Greek Fathers aren't really that pronounced at all. Now,
I would say maybe the Greek Fathers had certain concerns
that they were dealing with that maybe in the Latin.
Speaker 7: West they wan't. But as far as I read.
Speaker 8: The kind of catalysts there, and I'd even give a
sort of innocence to Augustine.
Speaker 7: But I think that's really where the beginning.
Speaker 2: It is it is, and I Thinksky's take on Augustin
is correct. He sees he calls it a shift. There
is a shift with Augustine. So I would say, on Hillary.
Speaker 5: I see it kind of like this whole this is
the whole filioquy thing. Sorry if I'm even getting it ahead,
but I see it kind of like for the first
five centuries, the Greek fathers are definitely way more developed
on their intrinitarian theology.
Speaker 2: Absolutely, I don't think it's.
Speaker 5: And then, but then after Augustine and onwards, then there's
kind of a catch up. The Latin fathers catch up
with the Eastern fathers, and then you know, going into
the Schism, the Latins are are ahead of the East
until Blackney. The Latin theology is more developed than the
Eastern one in terms of the question of the procession.
And then Florence happens, and the Latins are still definitely, yeah,
they were there were definitely a lot more into it
and necessarily until later that the Greeks. So it's kind
of like two hairs racing.
Speaker 2: Well, and that was that was because they the the eventually,
because of the rise of Augustine in terms of his
dominance theologically, they were presented with the difficulty of trying
to make these two systems work based on you know,
the probably the limited for many centuries knowledge of the
Eastern fathers that they had. So even though you would
have councils being met after Augustine, uh, I think it
takes again many centuries for it to come to a
head to see, well, are these two different developments speaking
of the same thing, or are they two different developments
that are incompatible. And it takes centuries to realize that.
And I would say on Hillary, it's good to note that,
like you said, Lewis, like the phrases that he uses
don't really tell don't really tell you in which way
Hillary means them, So they don't really function as a
proof of philioque from Saint Hilary because it's unclear in
which of the senses he means it. So it's kind
of it's not really it just depends on which one
is true. It doesn't really advocate either one. Let's see
what's next.
Speaker 5: Go ahead, Yasky concludes that it's unclear whether Hillary himself
would have accepted the teaching quote unquote, and also that
he was more he was more concerned about I'm not
whether Hillary was quote, whether Hillary was attempting to communicate
the uniqueness of the spirit's eternal relation to the Father
by poreusis differentiating his procession from the Father from his
temporal sending or receiving from the Father through the son
is still open to question.
Speaker 2: But it's important to note too that already at this
period we have i mean, the Latins do have a
sort of a nascent conception of hypostyitic properties in some
of these, so they're not completely ignorant of this. But
what they don't have is a clear development on the
notion of essence energy, because remember, eternal manifestation will be
predicated and directly connected to the essence energy distinction, and
there's not I mean, that's pretty it's necessary to see
that to understand the real issue of the debate later on.
But again, as Bradshaw notes, the Latins didn't have the
vocabulary and the nuance to make that level of a distinction,
so we wouldn't necessarily immediately attribute error to all of them,
because they didn't necessarily explicate this correctly, because again it
takes many centuries for it to be evident where exactly
the departure is. So Ambrose or let's see damasists or Ambrose,
do we anything we want to note there?
Speaker 5: Damasis, he's a particular quote that I see used a
lot online. I can't I won't be able to quote out.
You can. You can read the book yourself. But he
says here the intention was simply to acknowledge the equality
of the spirit, rather than delve into the question of
the procession proper.
Speaker 2: Oh, so this is a Galaesian decreidle, which is dubious.
A lot of people doubt the Galadian de credles. So
so he notes that this is part of a later
Profilio Oquay Florilegia, and it may be.
Speaker 7: Doubted by a later editor.
Speaker 2: But he says that they could signify that already there
was beginning to be a different understanding of the term.
Speaker 5: So I know that's that I was The quote I
quote was from scholars unsure it's a either Damasus, a
treatise by Priscilla of Avala, or some synod in three.
Speaker 2: I'm looking at his fifty seven where he says.
Speaker 5: The oh I was looking at fifty six.
Speaker 2: Okay, okay, Well, he says at the end of the
Damasis section that it's a dubious text. Yeah.
Speaker 5: Yeah. He he uses two quotes, So there's the one,
there's the glacious one, and the one before just above.
Speaker 8: Okay, Ambrose and Jerome, Yeah, it doesn't seem clear. And
Ambrose the same problem too, that he doesn't seem even
though if he says proceeded potuit at o filio, he
also says the Holy Spirit proceeds.
Speaker 7: From the Sun through from the Father through the Sun.
Speaker 8: So it doesn't seem like he's actually, let's he say
here concerned with procession per se, but rather, what does
it say.
Speaker 5: The economy of salvation? Yeah? Yeah, quote. Yet in both passages,
it should be known that most scholars have traditionally maintained
that Ambrose are speaking of the first activity in the
economy of salvation, yeah, not speculating about in sharing life unquote.
And then he says quote. Although later Latin theology equated
being of the sun with the idea of being from
the sun, it is impossible to read. It is impossible
to read this view into Ambrose theology on quote.
Speaker 2: Yeah, so we see the importance of presuppositions here. And
then the role that Jerome seems to come to play
is that when he translates the Volga, he I guess
it looks like he crystallizes the pro cheedaire prochad aera
I don't know Latin in terms of John fifteen twenty six.
And that this will contribute, unfortunately, I think, to some
of the confusion because it neglects the nuance in the
Eastern conceptions of these terms. That is what he seems
to say at the end of the Jerome section. For
Jerome and subsequent generations of Latin theologians, the text the
word that Drum uses as a broader term. So you
see what I'm saying. It doesn't have the precision of
the Eastern fathers. So that will contribute to the polemics,
because people will go to Jerome and they'll see the
phrase in Jerome or in the Vulgan, and they'll go back,
and then anytime they see that in Ambrose or any
of these hillary and they'll say, oh, see, look, it's
the philioquoid in our sense. So then we get to
the section of Augustine, and.
Speaker 6: He says that.
Speaker 2: He agrees with the Bradshaw take with my take with
the modern prominent quote Palamite orthodoxyologians that tend to think
that we do begin to see this alteration more significantly
and clearly and most prominently in the character of Augustine. First,
certainly you could find predecessors, as you noted in Origins simplicity, doctrine,
first principles. Origin is pretty clear about all the attributes
being strictly identical to the essence. Augustin's very clear about that.
And on the Trinity day trenantate he says, is a shift.
It is, and this is where we begin to see
things like relations of opposition. He even notes the problem
of relation and how relations of opposition is a it
relates to diad. But the Trinity is not a diad,
so it doesn't even make sense to talk about relations
of opposition. And the problem is that it's too it's
too relativistic. Right, So the only reason that Augustine would
have to even speculate on some of these issues in
day Trentaatee would be if he had the incorrect approach
to absolute divine simplicity from our perspective, and he does
because there's a consistent presentation in Augustine's triadology, Christology, anthropology, sacramentology,
his materiology, and his eschatology that would be consistent if
the presuppositions were absolute divine simplicity. And if you presuppose
absolute divine simplicity, you get all the same conclusions that
Augustine gets. So I think that's a pretty I mean again,
how many how many scholars does it take, you know,
showing that Augustine thought these things?
Speaker 6: It's not that hard. Just you know, you can go
to on the Trinity and see what he thought.
Speaker 8: So that's why he takes the whole donum the gift
and then reads what's the quote here?
Speaker 7: Not only was the Holy Spirit the mutual love the
father and son, but their mutual gift on them, this
love poured out upon community.
Speaker 8: Since the Holy Spirit is something common to the father
and son, and thus the gift of both, Augustine can
affirm them.
Speaker 7: According to the Holy scriptures, this Holy Spirit.
Speaker 8: Is not just the fathers alone nor the sons alone,
but the spirit of them both.
Speaker 7: So there you begin, it's what is.
Speaker 8: It cuscus neck part Pas asked.
Speaker 2: This is where this is where energetic manifestation gets confused
with hypostatic property or hypostatic reality or or what am
I trying to say the Latin doctrine of confused. What
happens here is that we begin to confuse energy or
attribute with hypostasis, So the hypostats of the spirit gets
to be confused with uh with that, and then our
our take on that is just simply to say that
we don't have a problem as saying gravery Palomas says
in calling the spirit the love of the Father and
the son, but what does it mean? It means in
a sense of energetic manifestation, just like we can call
the son the reason the will of the Father. Does
that mean that he's ontologically strictly identical to the will?
Speaker 8: So that's the reason why I brought that up is
if your presupposition on starting point exactly, yes, you'll read
the donum the gift, yes, in a way that will
then lead you into a double procession or exactly.
Speaker 2: And that's why we have we always stress that love
is an attribute or an energy pro common to all
three persons. You can't reduce, you can't do a reductionist
move where you reduce one of the attributes to one
of the hypostaces. It leads to just all kinds of
silly views in this exact same move that like you
borrow and people like that do when they go to
Athanasius and they see that Athenacious will call the son
the will or the reason of the father. And we
would say, yeah, but not at the level of identifying.
It's that the it's there is a predication that is
of identity, right, It's two different things.
Speaker 6: Lewis, do you have anything on that?
Speaker 5: Yeah? I mean, for Lewis, when we're considering can you
hear me, yeap, when we're considering a presuppositions. I was
mentioning earlier the reading one set of fathers in light
of the others, or reading the other in light of
the former. It seems to me that we should read
It seems to me, at least when I was thinking
of coming to terms with that. And you guys can
disagree with me if you want, but it seems to
me that because the Kappadocians had they were there, their
theology was the foundation of the trinitarian doctrines of constantinople
One and it seems to me that we should be
reading the earlier Latin fathers before Augustine in light of
their theology. I agree, that's my take.
Speaker 2: No, I think I think that's how we should read
Hillary for example.
Speaker 6: Absolutely.
Speaker 5: Yeah. Oh and there's a great there's a great article
from Perry's blog Energetic Procession talking about Saint uh Saint Ambrose.
I think it was Saint Ambrose about whether or not
whether or not he did recognize a different and energetic
manifestation or not.
Speaker 2: Yeah, see if I I'll pull that up and put
in the chat.
Speaker 5: It's pretty good. And yeah, Perry's Perry's blog Energetic Procession
dot com is like written, has a lot of amazing material,
especially against his Protestantism.
Speaker 2: Is it? In no way? That's not it? Do you
know the title of the essay.
Speaker 5: And I'll find it you guys took.
Speaker 2: Okay, Uh, here's a good quote.
Speaker 7: The one aspect of gust and trinitarian thought that latter
Latin theologians.
Speaker 8: Especially Anselm and Aquinas adopted and adapted with the teaching
that father's son and Spirit were not absolute but rather
relative terms denoting relationships within the Trinity. Augustine had written
that quote. Although being father is different from being son,
there is no difference in substance because they are not
called these things substance wise.
Speaker 7: But relationship wise.
Speaker 8: For that reason, according to Augustine, the father is not
anything with reference to himself, and that not only has
being father, but also simply being is said with reference
to the son.
Speaker 7: So notice the emphasis is different versus hypostatic.
Speaker 8: Yeah, relations and properties versus as fans. He points out
that's adopted by Anselom and Aquinas and the later Latin theologians.
Speaker 7: Relative categories of relations of opposition.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean again, a lot of people make two
simple mistakes. Well, let's make three simple mistakes that are
made here. Word concept fallacy, confusion of categories like ontological
as opposed to epistemological, and equivocation or univical predication. These
are these are or for failing to distinguish between is
a predication and he is an identity. These are These
are very common mistakes that people make. Next up the
Hooper misdess. Uh Snsky dismisses this as a forgery. Modern
scholars do not accept.
Speaker 5: The all right, sorry, Jay, I'm putting in in the
in the I'm putting in the zoom chat. It's actually
on Saint Hilary, So I was wrong. It's not ambreys
o that one and then the other one is good
also sat Mark of ephesis on the filio also on
his blog. So I'll put I'll put both those in
the zoom chat. You can put them in the in
the YouTube chat.
Speaker 6: Okay, okay, where are we?
Speaker 2: Uh leo, No, let's see we're at like Boetheus Fulgentius
uh Gentius.
Speaker 8: Basically he wrote the spirits procession from then was the
same as the procession from your father.
Speaker 5: Know there. Well, we start seeing forgery now, by the way.
Speaker 2: Oh that's a good point.
Speaker 6: That's a good point.
Speaker 2: Yeah, this is when this thing things start getting a
little harry with forgeries exactly.
Speaker 7: And then we have the Third Council of Toledo five
eighty nine. It's King King Ricardo.
Speaker 5: Yeah, Pope Hormiss's confession to the Emperor, I think is
most Scott has doubt it's authenticity. Think it's a forgery. Yeah,
you start getting forgeries now, sixth century.
Speaker 2: Right, So now we're going to get up into Maximus.
Is there anything else we had on Toledo? I mean,
Toledo is where we start getting confusion. I mean, Toledo
in itself is a hairy one because we know that
the intention was to try to fight arianism. The problem
is that it begins to allow for more confusion, is
the problem with Toledo.
Speaker 5: I do have this quote from a twentieth and Shield.
I think it's either Losky or Stanieloi, and he tries
to vindicate.
Speaker 6: You might can make a case for that.
Speaker 2: Because at this period, again we still haven't seen precision
on what the difficulty or the departure is.
Speaker 7: So you ember worried about the falling into arianism.
Speaker 2: And yeah, exactly, and this is why Maximus in his
day will It's still not even clear in Maximus's day,
So again it does. It doesn't become clear in my view,
and I'm happy with giving as much leeway as possible.
In my view, it's not clear until Lions. I mean,
I think Phocius was correct that they were beginning to
make these serious mistakes. But in terms of dogmatic acceptance,
we should we should point to Lions, because that's where
from the Roman Catholic vantage point, it's it's indisputable.
Speaker 7: And then blatting right.
Speaker 2: Lewis thing.
Speaker 6: Then you want to add on that.
Speaker 5: Yeah, while I'm on it now, I just wanted to
grab this quote from Sergez Bulgakov which Schensky quotes, which
I think is good. He caused the idea of necessary
relational opposition within the trinity a theological absurdity.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 5: He says that relations are predicates and not subjects. For
a relation arises and exists only where the things that
are related exists. It is grounded by them and arises
between them. It does not ground them. Why.
Speaker 2: This is why, Yeah, this is why hypostasis has to
have the notion of subject. This is this is crucial
to Cyril and the refutation of Nestorius, as well as
all the other arguments that we have more recently with
people the.
Speaker 5: West had quote abolished the existence of the hypostat as such,
unquote some other people are doing.
Speaker 2: That's great, exactly they are.
Speaker 5: Yeah, I thought that was a really good argument coming
from Borgakov.
Speaker 6: Where was that, by the way, which section.
Speaker 5: Was that page twentieth and twenty.
Speaker 10: First century in what book?
Speaker 5: Well he sited, he's cited, he's citing.
Speaker 2: Yeah, but by the way, I'm not there.
Speaker 5: Here we go, Yeah, it's it's Lostky Losky believed that
while one could quote admit the possibility of the villio
quit as it first appeared at Toledo, for example, it
was the idea, what kind of the big the problem
is the idea of this father and the son being
a single principle, the father and the son being aishia
or cause that's that's the that's what the issue is. Yes,
I wish you were going to talk about.
Speaker 7: When we get to maximums.
Speaker 2: Right, And to be clear, the quote was from Lasky
or from Borgakov I which one the one that you're
talking about about how you can't?
Speaker 5: Yeah, So the Toledo one was from laws Scow on
the page just on the other side, and the one
about the relations is from Bulgakov on page one nine six.
Speaker 2: I see, so you can't, Yeah, you can't make relations.
The identic the identifier of subject doesn't make any sense. Yeah, okay,
so there we ready for Maximus. This is where it
starts to get a little more wrapped up here.
Speaker 5: Mm hmm. This is the most important bit, right.
Speaker 2: So Lewis, give us your take on this, because you've
made some really good points to me when we were
talking about this Maximus chapter. Why is this one of
the most important bit here.
Speaker 5: So Maximus, say, Maximus is the first father from the
East to interact with the concept of the procession from
the Sun in the west, and he in his letter
to Marianus is some some some eastern has got caught
wind of what was, you know, being taught in terms
of the procession in the west. So Maximus was basically
giving a defense of their view, and the way he
defends them is by saying that the Latins aren't trying
to introduce the sun has a cause, which is the
contentious issue. I can't remember what other points I made
to you. It was a while back, but if you
remember them then you can make them well.
Speaker 2: And you were just pointing out that ultimately the letter
to Marhinus doesn't function really to do much, right, because
what happens with a lot of apologetic debates is people
will go to the letter of Marihus and say, look,
why don't we all just get along. Maximus said that
the Latins weren't trying to introduce or say anything crazy.
But this ignores that there's centuries of debate after this, right,
So if you just took this section out, this is
this is so key here is that we have to
be careful not to mistake or not to exercise something
that's specific to the to the course of this debate,
because that these debates take many, many centuries. You know,
Father Deacon, you always talk about the conversation of the
history of philosophy, right, I can't just go to Hume
and grasp, Oh, Hume's got all the answers, because Hume
is responding to interacting with ideas before him, and people
after Hume will respond and critique Hume. So there's a
similar situation that goes on in the precision and debate
of theology throughout the centuries. You can't just look at
the letter to Marhinus as if that, you know, doesn't
happen centuries before the centuries the vacuum, centuries before Black,
Grene and Lyons.
Speaker 7: Yeah.
Speaker 5: So that one of the key points now I'm just
looking over my highlighted sections again, is that Maximus is
very clear about the energetic person through the sun.
Speaker 2: Absolutely, yeah, there's no question and yeah.
Speaker 5: Yeah, Shshinsky says that Maximus wouldn't accept He explicitly says
Maximus wouldn't have accepted the Florentine filioquid formulation.
Speaker 6: Right, that's great.
Speaker 2: And also keep in mind that all those other contentious
distinctions that we talk about about the logie as energies,
about the in hypostatic nature of divinity, that's all from Maximus. Right,
It's not disputed that that's very clear in Sant Maximus.
So these are issues that will will be problematic when
we compare Maximus to say Tomists. Even von Balthazar, who
wants to kind of defend and make Maximus as Tomistic
as possible, admits the limitations of this.
Speaker 5: Right.
Speaker 2: I mean, the things the logi are, the things around
the essence, they're not identical to the essence.
Speaker 7: Right.
Speaker 8: So anyway, here's a good quote on seventy eight. While
the Father, so speaking of Maximus, thought on this and
how we'd know there would be no.
Speaker 7: Way that he would support for the Oaklaism.
Speaker 8: While the father remains unorriginated cause of the spirit. He
is always the father of the son, and the spirit
comes forth from him in such a way that this
eternal relationship to the son is not excluded.
Speaker 7: The father remained the soul cause. So all this.
Speaker 8: Language and the debate is going to become important because
as we get to the Count of Florence, they're going
to try to the basically, anti unionists are going to
want to emphasize soul causes and the union those supporting
union are going to want to take that away and
be like, well, he can be a cause in you know,
a different sense. So it's important that we find Maximus
here saying the Father remain the sole cause of the
spirit's hypostasis as the one who spirates him. The spirit,
intimately aware of the Father's beginning of the sun comes
forth from the beginner through the begotten as the spirit
eternally manifesting their common nature.
Speaker 7: I thought that was a really important force right now, and.
Speaker 8: It's going to become important once we get to the
Council party.
Speaker 6: Which page is that for?
Speaker 7: That's seventy eight, Okay, I'm want to make a note
of that.
Speaker 5: A point, So yeah, I mentioned earlier. I'm just rereading
my notes. So basically, what happened was that the men
of the Queen of Cities Constantinople attacked the Sinoda letter
of the present most Holy Pope. This is from the
letter of Maximus to Marinus, so he was people from
Byzantium were critiquing the Pope's letter, and so he was
defending the Pope's letter on the basis of the procession.
Speaker 6: Right.
Speaker 5: One thing that that I didn't highlight, which I'm looking
at now though, is that this is from Serchenski quote
is it's difficult to determine how much of the Latin
theological tradition Maximus had been exposed to during his years
in Carthage. Certainly, as we have seen, by the mid
seventh century there were more than a few Latin writers
who had utilized some variant of the prechederae exfilio or
perfilium formula that proceed from the sun or through the sun. However,
if Alexander Alexikis is correct and Maximus is referring is
referencing a pre existing profilio quit flora legium, then his
knowledge of the Western teaching and the procession might have
been limited to just a few select quotations exactly.
Speaker 2: I think that makes a lot of sense.
Speaker 6: Let's see.
Speaker 2: So the next section is where we begin to have clarity. Now,
it's not dogmatic, dogmatically that clear that the two churches
are separating, But in chapter five.
Speaker 5: Can I just give the explicit quote from Maximus where
he said he says, if the pope considered the Son
as a cause of the procession of the Holy Spirit,
or believe that the Son was sort of a second cause,
or even with the Father a unique cause, Maximus would
not have considered such an opinion acceptable. Sorry, that's not
from Maximus. That's from I'm like literally just looking at
my highlighted bits. Oh, it's a scholar. Sorry, I might
find the exact quote from Maximus while you guys talk.
Speaker 2: So he says, by the ninth century, it's becoming clear
that there's two separate readings right now, it's not that
dogmatically clear yet. Of course, if you read the Misigagio
Saint Photios, which which I still think holds up, I
think it's pretty pretty solid, you can tell that there's
he sees the issues.
Speaker 5: Sorry, here's the quote I finally find it. Quote from
this the writings of the fathers, they as in the Latin,
show that they themselves do not make the Son the
cause of the Spirit, for they know that the Father
is the one cause of the Sun and the Spirit,
the one by begetting and the other by procession. But
they show the progression through him, and thus the unity
of the essence.
Speaker 2: Yeah, exactly. So ninth century it's becoming clear. It's not
dogmatically clear yet, but this is where things get really
interesting with the Franks the Carolinians. Yeah, and this is
a great chapter. We'll be doing a stream in the
next few days, by the way, with Snack about the
the Frankish thesis, because this is of course a controversial issue,
but that's going to be fascinating. The term itself, to
keep in mind, is still not yet quote Philly Oquay,
that term.
Speaker 6: Is still not yet the issue.
Speaker 2: But we're going to start to see some geopolitical problems
that arise through the Frankish papacy, through the election of Charlemagne,
which the way Shashinsky words it is it becomes a
declaration of independence in terms of.
Speaker 7: Well even prior to that, so Charlomne's father happened, you know, Pippen.
Speaker 2: He says, it's the old order destroyed.
Speaker 7: Right, Yeah, that's right.
Speaker 6: So that's very unfortunate.
Speaker 8: Now Pope is supreme authority and politically and religiously.
Speaker 6: Yes, So we have the.
Speaker 2: Debate about the level at which the procession, What does
it mean, what is through mean? Is it hypostatic? Is
it energetic, Is it substantial? What does it mean to
say that there's a relationship with the spirit coming through
the sign?
Speaker 5: Are we still from seventh to eleventh centuries?
Speaker 2: Yeah, we're going to go small page ninety and then
we go to John and then we have Yeah, Saint
JOHNA Mascus is usage here that what's interesting about this
is the Frankish theologians and the Carolinian rejection of the
Second Council of Nicia too. That's that's pretty significant, I
would say, And that's why this counts as a declaration
of independence from Byzantheum on the part of these guys.
So it's not just a political thing. It's a political
thing that results in the rejection of the of the
Seventh Ecumenical Council anyway, So akin the Council of Aacon
here is important. Coronation of Charlemagne, and then we hear
we have the pretty clear confusion of in our view,
the Holy Spirit with the bond of love. I think
that's the big problem there, because, as Palamas will later say,
reflecting on that point, the Latins confuse the Spirit's good
the energy of goodness that the Spirit manifest and shows
forth with the Spirit himself, so we can't confuse energy
with hype.
Speaker 7: That's the problem, by the way, just pointing out so
as you said that, remember Charlemagne rejects the seventh Documentical Council.
I found it interesting.
Speaker 8: Hadrian comes to the defense of Patriarch Tarsius and claims
that Tarcia had not pronounced this dogma by himself, So
this is specifically Patriarch Tarcius stated, the Holy Spirit is
not from the Father and son, according to the most
true and holy rule of faith, but proceeds from the
Father through the son.
Speaker 7: So here we're getting the issue of utiliarcure getting more pronounced. Hadrian,
since Charlemagne rejects that.
Speaker 8: Pope Hadrian comes to the defense of Patriarch Tarsius and
said he didn't pronounce this dogma by himself, but quote
he confessed it by the doctrine of the Holy Fathers.
And then he warns his readers, particularly Charlemagne, the rejection
of this teaching was up them, up to rejection of
the Ecumenical Council.
Speaker 2: And I think I would add too that that I
don't think Sishensky mentioned, which might have been a little
a bit of a scholarly error. On his part. I mean,
we can all make these mistakes. There's too much material
out there to read. But uh, he doesn't seem to
notice the Confession of Saint Sophronius, which is accepted at
the sixth Council. And that's relevant because there's no Philly Okuay.
I mean it's not even really, there's not even anything
you could kind of hint at to find the doctrine,
the later Latin doctrine in the six Ecumenical Council.
Speaker 5: So he stops his Greek fathers at Carol for some reason.
Speaker 2: So if this Confession of San Sophronius, accepted at the
sixth Council doesn't mention Philly oak Way, that's pretty significant.
Speaker 5: Well he did say it's not pleastories, that's the way out.
Speaker 2: Yeah. But the reason, the reason this matters is that
this is a document accepted at an ecumenical council, right,
and the Confession of Sophronius goes into the accepted triadology. Now,
if Philly Oquay was a doctrine taught, it would be there.
It should be there. It's not there. The father alone
is the soul.
Speaker 5: Archae It's also at the Council of archin that you
start getting this idea that the that the East was
an error for not having the philioquay.
Speaker 6: Good point, right, good point.
Speaker 2: So that would mean that that would mean that Sophronius
and the sixth Council were in error for not having
it in the confession. That's funny. Maybe we could talk
too about let's not forget Leo, because of course Leo
and the famous forbidding of Leo comes into play here.
You guys want to talk on that, I'm gonna pour
some more coffee if you guys want to talk about
Leo a little bit.
Speaker 8: In the Jerusalem controversy, I wanted to just quote from
the Council of arch and oh yeah, because it's still Leo.
Speaker 5: But are we still were ninety nine, aren't we? Yeah?
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 5: The addition of the Philioque by imperial fiat, this is
a quote seemed a direct challenge to Leo's authority as
head of the church, because Leo wasn't I think this
is Leo the third. I think he wasn't happy with it.
I said, aside from the difficulties it might cause in
the East, the pope knew that altering the creed was
not something a local council was authorized to do, even
if it did so with the empress blessing. Like Hadrin
before him, Leo was caught between Constantinople and Aiken, determined
to thwart Charlemagne's meddling in ecclesiastical affairs despite his own
strong belief in the spirit's procession from the sun. Yes,
so I don't think. I don't think Leo the third
is such a great argument because he still believed in
procession from the sun. Whether or not that was the
Florentine version is you know, up for debate. But he
was concerned mostly with the lessayity of the addition of
the clause to the Creed. He was very much against it.
Speaker 8: Yeah, and you can see how this issue of the coordination, right.
Speaker 6: That was That was my point.
Speaker 5: Lea says, he can't add, he's not permitted to add.
He is quote we do not presume in our reading
or teaching to add anything to the Creed by insersion quote.
And Eske says, since that was forbidden by the councils.
Speaker 7: Yeah, that's appeal to ephesis.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and I put this.
Speaker 5: Quote they acted upon divine illumination. Talking about the council
father's the acumen who council. They acted upon divine illumination
rather than by human wisdom. Far be it from me
to count myself there equal unquote.
Speaker 2: Another relevant essay I recommend people read in regard to
this this issue, which I've shared many times, is father
of George Dionysius Drugis. He's a pretty well known Greek
Orthodox scholar. He has a really great essay on this
very issue. So I'll put that in the Chat for
everybody to read if they want to investigate that. It
will also relate to the Franks and to There's a
great quote that to my knowledge, is not translated anywhere
else from Saint Photius here where Photius does explain that
the issue becomes the Bulgarian missionaries that are evangelizing the
Philioque right. So they're basically going into Orthodox territories and
saying you have to now accept this creed at the
best of the Carolinians, and you can't be Orthodox anymore.
Speaker 6: You have to accept this one.
Speaker 2: So that what I'm getting at is that Sashynsky backs
up that notion that the claim that Photius makes there
okay Odius go aheads.
Speaker 7: In the so called PODi Schism mm hmm.
Speaker 5: The next Oh, it's important to mention the two shields
that Leo. I don't know if you guys said that.
Speaker 2: That's why I was bringing up Leo as the shields.
Speaker 5: Yeah, so quote it was at this time that Poplo,
out of love he bore for the Orthodox faith quote unquote,
placed two silver shields in Rome with the uninterpolated Creed
in both Greek and Latin.
Speaker 2: And as I understand these, these are still there in
Rome today. And so this purportedly was part of the
basis for the Vatican allowing the Uniates to recite the
Creed without the philioquay, So within the Romancalic Church you
have two different creeds read which.
Speaker 5: And the Franks didn't listen to the Pope. They just
kept on singing the creed with the Philio who cares
about for us.
Speaker 2: This signifies that there isn't really a unified belief in
the Roman Calic communion. You have two different creeds that
can be recited, which I think if you read these
fathers in the minds of the fathers of the first millennium,
you can't have two different creeds. That's not to say
that there can't be theological writings like the Tone that
explicate the creed, but the creed itself is not subject
to these sort of constant revisions. It's not like the Constitution,
where we, oh, let's amend the Constitution. It is true
that Constantinople amended Nicea, but it's at Constantinople where we
begin to have the canonical statement that we don't want
to alter this from from here on.
Speaker 5: So, yeah, you guys can talk about the photein schism
because I haven't read the Vaornick's book, but I will
when I get to reading Furchas more. I've already read
the Mystergogy, but I want to read a secondary scholarship
or on it, because yeah, secondary scholarship is really really useful,
to put it that way.
Speaker 2: So everybody in the chat, if you would, if you
want to read more on this topic too. Also the
important essay there from Dionysius Dragas on the Folks on
the on the potune issue. And then what Dvornik does is,
as we said, he kind of uh, I guess you
could say revisionism. I mean, I don't want to over
exaggerate revisionism, because for us it's really kind of just
what happened.
Speaker 5: Revisionism is, you know, it's so sometimes it's a word
that's kind of poo pooped, but it can be good,
you know.
Speaker 2: Yeah, exactly if it's conceding points, then it could it
can be good. Exactly. So I think it's I mean,
I think even William Albrick is a big fan of
the book. Uh he you know, it's it's a Uniate
scholar who's basically said, look, you know, we can't say
that Phosius did all this wrong, you know, I mean,
there's a lot that vindicates the position of Photius. And again,
you know, we kind of see two different notions in
the Romancolic Church of Uniates who venerate Photius as opposed
to the or ultramontane trads that think he's a heretic.
So yeah, this I don't think that's really coherent. But
obviously Photius is a very strong proponent of a single
cause of the person the Father. There's not much dispute
about that. The mystigodgy is pretty clear in its argumentation,
and he follows a pretty strict train of logic too
in the mystigogy, which is interesting. I still think the
book holds up as I said. So the reason I
argue that is because in the Vatican Clarification on the Philioquay,
when it gets down to the point where it compares
the Latin and the Eastern conceptions, it admits the very
point that Photius makes, that there's still tension between these
two views, precisely on the point of causation.
Speaker 6: And so that's.
Speaker 2: What Photius elucidates in the mystagogy, and that's precisely centuries
later what Florence will make the key point of the Yes,
anybody have anything else on the Podius in this period?
Speaker 5: I mean, I think one thing that I'm going to
mention now that Oh, actually I won't spoil that. But
Pope Nicholas is the first pope, and this is unanimous
in scholarship, Pope Nicholas is the first pope to get
duped by the Studiosidaurian decree tours.
Speaker 6: Oh yeah, that's a that's a good one. I didn't
know that.
Speaker 5: So he starts doing stuff that he thinks he can
do that's in line with the canonical tradition that he has,
but it's forgeries, which doesn't mean that he was bad guy,
just means that he was in raw because he thought
what he had was like his an actual canonical tradition,
and pretty much all the majority of the canonical scholars
back then we're getting duped by it as well. There's
forgeries except for a few, yeah, which which one of
which we will be posting on Ubi Petris.
Speaker 2: Now, next few figures, I don't really they're not that important.
They're kind of minor f minor figures. I don't really
care that much about anything. You guys want to point
out about Anius or Ratrondness.
Speaker 6: They don't really matter anything.
Speaker 5: The Pope still hasn't approved the vilio quiddition in the
Cli Creed. We're in the ninth century, right.
Speaker 2: So then we move up to eleven to thirteen, things
start to get a little more interesting. This is where
it gets to the point of departure. So let's see
the key figures Peter, Peter of Peter the third of
Antioch Versus and then in the east. Then you've got
in the west people like Peter Damien and anselm.
Speaker 5: Oh and by the way, Photius died in communion with Rome.
Speaker 2: By the way, yeah, I think that Devornet makes a
good point of that. Yeah, yeah, that's a good point.
Uh so, yeah, we know figures like Anselm, you know,
they're going to follow the pretty Augustinian approach to these questions.
Peter Lombard, Richard of Saint Victor as well, if I recall,
they're pretty Augustinian. I don't think there's But what we're
starting to see is Richard began his examination examination attorney
with the person of the Father. But you'll notice this
is where we start to see more and more. It's
in the Scholastic period where where we start to see
more and more focus on essentialism, more and more movement
away from the monarchia of the father and into the
sort of philosophic approach of stressing and beginning the order
theologia with the essence of God, the substance of God. However,
even still in this early medieval period, the monarchia of
the Father is still given a place at least right,
I mean, even Aquinas does this To be fair it
Quanta still conceives of the monarchy of the Father in
a sense I don't think.
Speaker 5: We also see the secular powers begin to start strong
arming the pope a lot more. Quote Otto the First Otto,
the Great energetically involved himself in papal politics, which at
this time was largely a Roman affair, bringing about the
deposition of both the treason us John the twelfth and
his success of Benedict the fifth, and forcing the cardinals
to elect and then reconfirm that layman Pope Leo the
eighth as Pope.
Speaker 6: Yes.
Speaker 2: And then with Anselm, if I'm getting to ahead of you, guys,
let me know. With Anselm, we have the beginning of
the premacy of essentialism. There's one principle who is God.
So that statement itself implies the confusion of nature in person,
because the one principle is the father in the previous
conceptions that we've discussed here. It begins to move towards
identifying the order with the substance, and then we.
Speaker 5: Ad one last thing to the ecclesiastical thing. It is
around one thousand and nine that the pope finally puts
the filiocri clause in the creed and is never again
commemorated the tics that Constantinople. So there's a cessation of
commemoration in one thousand and nine, and then ten fifty
four is the falsechism I just wanted to bring up right.
Speaker 2: So remember, with Anselm, we get one principle.
Speaker 6: Who is God.
Speaker 2: We get the identification of the principle of unity not
in the person of the Father, but in the common substance.
Speaker 6: And then we have the notion in Anselm.
Speaker 2: Pretty explicitly that the spirit is strictly identical to the
love of the Father and the Son. So we don't
have that in Anselm's mind. We don't have that the
nuance of distinguishing between hypostatic origin and eternal manifestation.
Speaker 6: At all.
Speaker 2: And by the way, I would add two, we didn't
touch on this with Augustin, but to my knowledge, there's
not any notion of that distinction in Augustine either. There's
no conception of a distinction between hypesightic origin and energetic manifestation,
because Augustin doesn't have any notion of energies. He's pretty
clear about his conception of simplicity. Anything else. Anything on
these the next few guys, now, Bonaventure and Aquinas we
can speak to that. They're the probably the big figures here,
Lewis you have anything on these other guys.
Speaker 5: Well, there's the debate between uh, oh, we're not looking
at the same Oh, there's another Anselm. There's Anselm of Havelberg,
which I'm looking at because he has a debate with it.
This is kind of one of the earliest proper debates.
Oh okay between Anselm. It's on page and this is
when Photius's arguments finally get kind of brought to bear
on the on the Latin position.
Speaker 2: Oh okay. So yeah, my mistake, I was actually reading
one twenty two. I thought that was I didn't notice
that that was the ansel of Haberberg. You're right.
Speaker 6: Around the same time, But yeah, it is. But he
but he does the same thing that and some.
Speaker 5: Yeah he does the same thing. Yeah, yeah, yeah. He
has a debate with a Nicetis of Nicomedia. Okay, yeah,
and that's so good because I don't think and some's
so let me just read this. Nicetis asked, quote, what
or rather, what sort of thing do you think that
it is that the procession of which we speak? Does
it seem true to you that the Holy Spirit should
be said to proceed according to the common substance or
according to a separate individual person. Anselm realized that this
question was something of a trap if he said that
procession was from the divine substance, he would have to
address the critique of Photius that the spirit, being consumstantial
with the father and the son, must then cause not
only his own existence but the procession of another person.
If you claim the procession was the property of hypostasis,
then he then excluded the possibility of both the father
and the son's being involved without falling into the area
of Ara of Sabellius. And so I'm basing himself on
the Augostinian Trinitarian model claimed that as the bond of
love between father and son, the spirit proceeded not from
their persons or substance, but according to their mutual relation,
and is the one sent by both, sending a gift
from both, giving a love from both, loving and which
is like a Maga dodge in mind.
Speaker 2: This is where we'll get the problem of proceeding from nature,
proceeding from common relation, proceeding from will. Right, this is
what's problematic in later dogmatic theology like We're Ought, for example,
says that the Holy Spirit that it's dogma that the
Hoyspirit proceeds by will. Catechism of Trent also says up
by the way that that the Holy Spirit proceeds from
the will of the Father and the Son. And this
is problematic because remember Athanasius had argued that the generation
of the sun cannot be by will. The sun is
not a product or effect of the Father.
Speaker 5: That's the end of discourse three. Yeah, against the Arians,
because it makes me wonder, know, like, how is it
that the how is it that the spirit proceeds from
a relation exactly, but the sun proceeds from the person
subsistence of the Father.
Speaker 2: Because you have the confusion of relations with person and
relations with nature and relations with everything that it just
gets confused. By the way, there's a great section in
the last chapter of Stuneyeloy Volume one that makes that
argument as well. We can't forget Stuneeloyd has all these
same ads anti ads arguments. So next we have for
me I'll see bonavtchu.
Speaker 8: Wait a minute ahead, let's just say uh, just quickly
in passing to there's a short little section about the
fourth Crusade YEA, and this is a zach who you
win constable is sapped right between the from like Thersaders
and their Venetian mm HM lives under Pope innocent third
mm hmm. So, I mean it's not a large section.
Speaker 7: But just so we where we know where we are
historically situated at this point.
Speaker 2: Father Deacon, did you did you need to head out?
I don't want to keep you here. If you feel
like you need to go, you're welcome to all. We
want you to stay if you but if you're.
Speaker 7: No, no, no, it's fine, I'll stand.
Speaker 6: Okay.
Speaker 7: I didn't know how long when did we start.
Speaker 2: We've been going for one thirty so we definitely want
to get through. I mean we can do as much
as you guys want. We want to get I don't
really care so much about the modern stuff, but I
mean Philly, I mean Florence is of course.
Speaker 7: Let's get Yeah, let's get through, get through Florence.
Speaker 5: Yeah, yeah, let's just skip you guys. You have to
read this. He will be a massive advantage if you
talk Catholics about the quit if you read this from
cover to cover. If you don't read this, you're going
to just be putting pieces of shatter glass together trying.
Speaker 8: To so Bonaventure, so he defends the filio oquay for
some more argue the Holy Spirit proceeding as a mature
gift love both the father and son, and that person
is the trinity can be distinguished from one another only
by virtue of the origin. Every distinction of persons among
the divine is according to relation and origin. So this
is more of this kind of essentialism, right, that relation
origin in terms of essence rather than person. Then he
goes on to say, therefore, if the Holy Spirit does
not proceed from the sun nor the other way around,
there's no origin there. So do you see that kind
of presupposition of essentialism is what leads him to.
Speaker 7: Actually say what he does there. And then a quitness
I think is going to pick up exactly just more
nuanced and with more vigor.
Speaker 2: Right. He's also fair to Aquinas to a degree. I
think he's Uh. What my view is that Aquinas is
trying to do the same thing as Augustine. There's a
there's a tendency where on the one time, on the
one hand, he wants to stress unity and substance and
kind of give it uh ontological priority to the essence.
But then also at other places he wants to recognize
the monarchy of the father. Uh. And but we do
find the same mistakes that we would not accept in
Aquinas like the you know, identifying love with a hypostatsis
identifying attribute with hypostasis relations of opposition.
Speaker 6: Or in Aquinas UH. And then.
Speaker 2: Aquinas relying on the forgery UH known as the contra recorum,
which everybody admitses a bunch of forgeries.
Speaker 7: I'm glad you brought that up.
Speaker 2: And we covered the in the stream with me and
Snack and George if people want.
Speaker 6: To go back and hear that.
Speaker 2: But next we come to the key stuff with Lions.
So twelve seventy four Lions is of course the dogmatic
clear point of departure between the two because Lions makes
clear that there is a special situation between the father
and the son that produces the spirit in terms of
his hypostasis. So that is the key point. John Becas
tries to be a kind of Latin minded figure to
bring things together. Unfortunately he holds a unionist position exactly
and unfortunately, and.
Speaker 7: Then opposing that, you have Gregory of Cypress.
Speaker 2: Right, So Gregory Cypress, we as Orthodox, we have to
side with Gregory of Cypress. We have to we have
to accept the tomos against John Becos. So there's not
much dispute on that, and then we get that.
Speaker 5: I would say one thing is that Gregory the second
of Cypress is he does the energetic meniphest station argument
before long, but before Palamas. Palamas picks up from him.
So it seems to me that it seems to me
that if we're going to be revited, you know, rehability anything,
someone to be made a saying it shouldn't be origin,
it should be people like.
Speaker 6: Yeah, that's a great point, Lewis.
Speaker 2: I wondered too, Why isn't Gregory of Cyprus a saint?
Speaker 6: I've wondered that.
Speaker 2: So again, this is the point where everybody, if you
want to go deeper into this topic, definitely read Papadocus's
book Crisis and Byzantium. It's really really good on this
issue of Gregory Cyprus and Palomas and the Palomite Synods.
So yeah, we have the response. So we have Lions
the Latin statement, and then you have Blackerane the Orthodox
response to the Latin statement. So this is why we
can't agree as Orthodox that we're all just saying the
same thing.
Speaker 5: This is what a scholar says. This is an academic scholar.
And yet the Synod of Blackney, whose decisions were never
overturned and became and remained. The official Orthodox response to
the Latin doction of the procession is to find it
Leon and Gregory's teaching on the procession the de facto
teaching of the Orthodox Church. Yes, and obviously Patriarch Gnadios
Scolarios also thinks it's dogmatic.
Speaker 8: So great point, great point, yeah, And so those three
points from Black Nay that let's see Gregory introduces as
far as terminological distinctions, I thought was really important. So
this will become dogmatized. So our Orthodox to hold to
one eternal existence, the hypostatic existence of the spirit is
from the Father alone, eternal manifestation. The spirit's eternal illumination
or manifestation is through the sun, but not his hypostatic existence.
And three oral manifestation in the colony of salvation, the
spirit can.
Speaker 7: Be said to proceed from the Father and the Son.
Speaker 8: So that's really important now that we have that terminological in.
Speaker 2: The energetic manifestation energetic procession is there's there's nothing the
problem with using these phrases just now.
Speaker 7: That's exactly.
Speaker 5: Yes. So his a point to make important point is
if you ever see a filioquay thread discussion, and you
think you can contribute, don't just mention the fact that
there's the procession from the father alone that's hypostatic, and
the economic procession from the father and son into the world,
because any any room Catholic who's been involved in this
debate for a while is going to start posting you
quote minds of Fathers that mentioned the eternal relationship between
the son and the spirit, and you're going to get stumped.
So you have to remember that there is a third
procession that is the energetic session of the son, of
the story of the spirit from the Father through the son.
Speaker 2: And remember also that that is predicated on the essence
energy distinction. You can't have an energetic procession if you
don't believe in the it's energy distinction.
Speaker 7: Yeah, that's a good point.
Speaker 5: It's not a it's not a it's not a hypostatic procession.
It's and literally energetic procession. I think it's the best
term to I don't think a ton of a turn
of manifestation kind of notionally picks out the energies beingated Greek.
Speaker 8: I mean that's an English word manifestation, but the Greek
is actually procession.
Speaker 7: Oh okay, yeah, and energetic procession, So that's a better
Maybe they're just using that.
Speaker 8: To distinguish it for us in the English, but it's
right there in Gregory.
Speaker 7: And then let's see power mass.
Speaker 2: Well, that has its roots not just in yeah, I
mean in in Dionysius, because Dionysius says that the he
calls the energies the divine processions.
Speaker 7: Right. Yeah.
Speaker 8: But if anybody wanted the phrase where in the Father
is energy sessions, well we've got right here. Gregor is
Cyprus and then Palamas, Yeah.
Speaker 2: Which is in the Papadocus book too, by the way.
So if somebody wants an orthodox explicit source, read Cristus
and by Ante and there's two or three chapters just
on internal eternal manifestation.
Speaker 5: Yeah. I don't know what else is going to clue
you into this theology other than the Papadacus book and
this book.
Speaker 2: So all right, Florence, So here with the capstone if
we want to, if we're ready to move on.
Speaker 6: Past this, by the way, I would add two.
Speaker 2: Uh so the debate after like we sing, you know,
in the this is one of the key arguments Flerofsky
makes that this is dogmatic. I mean there's two days
you know, dedicated to this in the liturgy at least,
So we sing them about palam Mass and we sing
about the energies, and uh, you know, this is pretty
clear confirmation that the entire world Orthodox world has accepted
palerm Mass and Blackerne. So that for us would constitute
that you know, you can't yeah, you can't really say, well,
you know, this is just a theologument now within a
bunch of things.
Speaker 6: No, it's not.
Speaker 7: Yeah.
Speaker 8: Typically one of people want to make this is if
Palamas is one tradition among many that you get to
pick from.
Speaker 5: Yes, I'd like to say one thing before we start.
Florence the quote although none of the patriarchs could attend
because of Turkish occupation, so this is Florence. They did
appoint proxies to act in their steads, like legates anthonya
Heracle and Mark of Ephesus of Alexandria and Joseph of
Ephesus and Gregory the Empress Confessor for Antioch and the Sadists,
and it's for is so Mark of Ephesis is representing
one of the patriarchal sees, so his signature matters. Do
people argue about that, Well, yeah, they'll say, well, all
the patriarchs signed on to it.
Speaker 2: Yeah, exactly. That's the common sort of immediate track Catholic response.
Speaker 5: And also an interesting point, not not that it's particularly matters,
but Aquinas didn't get to attend Leon because he unfortunately
diedge I actually think it would have been a good thing.
Speaker 7: I think it would have been a good thing too.
I mean, you have kind of a.
Speaker 8: As much as you know, we can dig into Aquinas,
you have an economical spirit that I think, yeah, for
the innosdence that we wanted to bring.
Speaker 2: Well also too, if he had, you know, if the
probably part of what would have been maybe hashed out
would be if he had, if he had been relying
on against the airs of the Greeks. A lot of
what they debate at Florence is the validity of texts. Yeah,
and so the Greeks know pretty well which ones are
authentic and which ones are fake, as much.
Speaker 5: As there's lots of unfortunate historical things that happened that
sort of exacerbate the union like that, and also even
before that, the what was it, Charlemagne wanted to marry
Bysantine Empress or something like that, and it just didn't happen.
Speaker 6: Yeah.
Speaker 2: Another unfortunate thing was the forbidding of debating and energies
at Florence.
Speaker 5: That was the other one.
Speaker 8: Well, what was interesting too about Florence is that because
the Greeks weren't the best position know about corrupted or
forged texts, I found it very interesting that they they
didn't even allow that argument. It kind of reminded me
of like when people shut down people were saying, that's
a conspiracy theory. It's like, do you remember that through
Florence they were saying, yeah, that's crazy. They were like,
and you can't use the argument that these are species
texts or forgeries. And it's like, well, but what if
they are they are, wouldn't that make all the difference. Yeah,
you're not allowed. You're not allowed to do that. And
we'll get into this all the things that beyond just
the theology that seemed to be problematic about Florence and
what the Latins we're doing.
Speaker 2: All right, So I would add too, there's another great
book that's a little older. It's kind of out of print,
so you can if you want something just on Florence
from the Orthodox perspective, it's history of the Counts of
Florence by Oustromov, and that one's good because what Sishensky
does is in a lot of the texts here he
actually vindicates Oustromov. So Ostromov's Books is an older text
that discusses this as maybe one hundred years old or
something like that, but a lot of what Sishensky says
vindicates Ostromov. So that's worth noting showing that that text
is still readable and relevant. So what we get, of
course is the stressing that the father is the soul
cause by saint mark of emphasis. Of course, because for
us Mark of emphasis becomes a saint because of what
happens at Florence.
Speaker 7: Yes, good point.
Speaker 2: He stresses that the difference between generation and procession is
beyond us knowing. We know, we don't know what the
difference is, but we know that that there is a difference.
And so he says the Latins are confused, and that
they are confusing these different senses of through the sun
and from the sun and hypothetic origin, and that there's
no procession from the substance. So he will repeat a
lot of the arguments of Saint Phosius and again he
stresses the soul Monarchia. Florence does cite Augustine to try
to argue that the father and the son together are
the cause of the hypostatus of the spirit. That's the
key point of departure because we stress hyposthetic origin and
eternal manifestation. And in the final negotiations on page one
sixty two and one sixty three, anything else you guys
want to bring.
Speaker 5: Up, we start seeing forgeries.
Speaker 2: Yeah, the text.
Speaker 5: Of the creed from the Seventh Council has the phrase
ex filio added to the creed.
Speaker 2: Oh that's a good one.
Speaker 7: Let's see, we've got some debates about basil.
Speaker 5: Oh.
Speaker 2: Yeah, they had to debate which text basil were authentic
and which ones weren't. And I think modern scholarship has
vindicated that the what is it the books four and
five of what against the Eunomius, they're not authentic?
Speaker 5: Oh cool, less for me to read.
Speaker 8: So because the Latins were using that to say, like,
see basils on our side.
Speaker 2: Yeah, exactly. So, once again, for the virtue of the chat,
I will put in the saint mark of Ephesus peace
at innergetic procession. That's a great read on the union.
And by the way, one thing I've noticed too that
came to before for me when I was reading the
Austromo book was that what's happening at Florence at the time,
it's very close and mirrors the problems of the Cumanism
in our day. It's like a mirror problem of an attempt,
an attempt at union.
Speaker 5: There's nothing new under the sun.
Speaker 2: As Ecclesiastics, I mean, when I was reading Austromo, I
mean notes on that, like, this is a mirror to
our day, right, and what is the warning of Ganaudia's
right saying Ganadias says, uh, this is going to lead
to the collapse of Byzantium, and it did, right, Yeah.
Speaker 7: That's an excellent point.
Speaker 8: Should we talk of just about some of the what
I found disturbing so beyond the uh, the just the
theological arguments, was that, so what do you have You
basically have you know, these geopolitical issues going on too,
and so you have you have the cause of aples
surrounded by the Turks, and so from Byzantium you want
union because.
Speaker 7: You want help.
Speaker 8: From the West, from the Muslim automn Turks m and
so what you see throughout the Council of Florence. Is
this kind of pressure from the Yeah, the Emperor and
the patriarch too, I would say, in some sense, and.
Speaker 5: The Pope the Pope. Let us make this point clear,
lesch Chesskey makes is that Popging the fourth genuinely wanted
a reunion, like he wasn't just trying to you know,
political He obviously it would have been good for him
to have the political union, but he did want a
union of the churches as well.
Speaker 8: So what it seems like the problem is is that,
so especially with Mark, he wants to hold the view
that the Father is the sole cause of the spirit.
Then you've got those all in between. Who, well, let's
just clarify this. So there ends up being this kind
of compromising language. Okay, well we just reiterated this way.
Would you be happy with that?
Speaker 6: Right?
Speaker 8: And then there's arguments and like no, so there's this
kind of tension. No, we've got to have it exactly
like that the Father is the sole arcade cause of
And then actually Mark loses out and they agree, and
then watch what the Latins do. Well, that's not good enough.
Then they moved the gold cost. Well, you have to
say it this way now, so then there's this like
falling apart, and then they'd have to come back together.
And then they said, okay, can we agree to this?
So they agree to that, and of course Mark and
then who else is it that the one other person
that doesn't ever sign off on this? It's a Saint
Mark of emphesis, and he's got these two heroes from
the Orthodox.
Speaker 7: Do you remember?
Speaker 5: Sorry, can you repeat that lastpit? Remember what?
Speaker 2: So we have Saint Mark, the two that didn't sign off.
Speaker 5: Yeah, oh, we're already at the end. I wanted to
bring up the fact that marenis Let's to Marinus was
rejected as a forgery.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 5: It was originally proposed as a formula of union and
the Latins didn't like it, and then it was.
Speaker 7: Later rejected as a fortint.
Speaker 10: Yeah, that's a good point.
Speaker 5: It was too changing. The proposition was that the creed
could say proceed from the father through the son, but Eugene,
Pope Eugenie was like, no, it's too vague.
Speaker 10: That's right, all right?
Speaker 7: So oh, I was gonna say lastly, So eventually they
get to.
Speaker 5: Yes, sorry, sorry here Bisarion Mark tried to bring forward
the letter to Marinus's testimony on his behalf Bisarion, who
had suggested that as a reunion formula only a few
days ago, simply refused to accept its authenticity.
Speaker 8: That that's what I'm talking about, So thank you was
for bringing up that example. So a few days later,
if you produce this, we'll accept union. You produce it,
and it's like, now that's a forgery. So is this
not the theme that you keep noticing? They set forward a standard,
the Laptins. So I mean, just apart from all the
theological issues, what I thought was really interesting about the
Council of Florence was it seems that the Latins set
forth a particular theological standard, asked for that you produce it,
and it's like, no, that's not enough, and then pushed
out and eventually I think that that's what the causes.
Even those unionists that sign it, when they go back
to Constantople, they repent, like we betrayed our faith. They
probably thinking back on what the Latins actually did to
the Council Florence to.
Speaker 7: Keep moving the goal post. Among other things.
Speaker 5: Too.
Speaker 8: You have the whole stuff with the mass being celebrating
the feast that they're prepared for them on their fasting.
Speaker 2: All right, I'm gonna move on to the superchats, and
then I guess David's debate is going to be starting
here pretty soon. Let's see David g for five dollars,
he says, thank you for this exposition. It really appreciate
what you guys are doing and clarifying. Well, thank you,
David much appreciate it, and I will aid these guys
with these mirror pittance superchats.
Speaker 6: But I thank you guys for the mere pittance that
you've given.
Speaker 2: Max Power for fifty knocks, he says, good evening, dudes,
good evening to you, Max Power. Why we fight with
Justin stam ten dollars? Thank you Justin? He says, guys,
thank you for the stream question. Why does my hair
light on fire? When Thomas say quote Palaminism and when
do you think it will be outlawed from being you?
Speaker 7: That's pretty good.
Speaker 2: Yeah, well, I think that they look at it like
the way, you know, within Catholicism you can have a
lot of different schools, so to speak, and so Pallemism
is viewed as like a you know, theologumina, like an
intellectual school, like you said, father, deacon. But I think
that the case is pretty in my view, pretty pretty strong,
pretty open and shut. That palmism, it actually just is
the expression of Orthodoxy from our perspective.
Speaker 7: Especially because the use of it that you see within
the debates in the philio way. Yeah, that that it's
used as.
Speaker 8: Dogma and it comes dogmatized because the philioquay is a
dogmatic issue.
Speaker 2: And its passage into the liturgy, I mean it's just
so cool.
Speaker 7: Yeah, that's great.
Speaker 2: I mean the liturgy that the day, you know, within
lant of Saint Geria Palomas.
Speaker 5: Well also in the at the end of Florence. So
Unadius Scolarious I think attended Florence, but he succeeded mark
of ephesis to uh the patriarchal throne, and he said
the black Canae is the de facto position of the
Church on the procession. And he says gregorve Cyprus. The
second is, you know, he's no lesser than any of
our of our holy writers on the procession phra.
Speaker 2: I mean, yeah, remember who are the pillars of Orthodoxy?
Speaker 6: You know, keep that in mind.
Speaker 2: We have the icon of the pillars, so we have
to agree with the teaching of those fathers in the
icon of the Pillars of Orthodoxy, right, we can't say, oh, well,
they just had neat opinions. Friend with trees ten Canadian,
thank you for that heart. We like that little heart
and the ten Canadian much appreciate email for five. He says,
off topic, but do you think father Deacon, could you
address the Bradshaw Gough debate discussion earlier today? It would
be useful if you could break that down. That'd be great. Oh,
by the way, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, David's debate is
on Craig Trillia's channel, so not go ahead, father Deacon,
do you think you could Would you be interested in
addressing that discussion they had?
Speaker 7: Yeah, I thought that was great.
Speaker 8: I did see in the chat it seemed like a
lot of people were confused. So perhaps presenting kind of
a more summary and concise explanation would be helpful for
the listeners about what was actually going on.
Speaker 7: And this would be a jay This would be a
continuation of our kind of thing about Schotis.
Speaker 8: And I could get more into the tomism about what
a formal versus virtual distinctions versus real ontological distinctions are
and ultimately I'm going to argue that these really don't matter,
that you're going to have the same problem. So I
didn't conclude as they did that.
Speaker 7: There for because of this, the.
Speaker 8: Two positions are reconcilable. As you see, as we went
through here, I think we find out.
Speaker 5: Thought that they were, you know, reconcilable in the sense
that they were the same. Like I don't think that
was what he was saying.
Speaker 8: No, no, I know, Brad, But I think that Michael
was trying to suggest that, well, we could just adapt
our language and ye, the more.
Speaker 7: Scholasticism, and then we can just unifory. That's what it was.
Is it a church dividing issue, Well, it's the same
arguments that's going on with the phil Is it a
church dividing issue?
Speaker 2: Yeah, it ultimately it does become exactly it becomes.
Speaker 7: I don't think it started off that way. And like
you said, because of the different the.
Speaker 8: Type of theological project that they take by embracing kind
of the phil Hellenistic project and the order theol day
and the geopolitical, the linguistic differences, all these factors, and
then the things kind of double down on the debates
and stuff like that pushes things into a point of
no return and right a real church dividing issue.
Speaker 7: I would say that with the energies distinction and absolutely
mind simplicity as well.
Speaker 2: Absolutely absolutely all right.
Speaker 5: I say two things. First of all, let it be
said that this is my opinion. You guys may just
scree with. But I liked Old reason and Theology Reason
and Theology before Patchamma, because it was really just about
getting people on to talk, like on a forum. But
then when they pushed Crag out, it became very obvious
what was going on behind the scenes in my opinion
at least, and I think it's unfortunate. So I really
liked that particular interview because with BRA because it reminded
me of the old times.
Speaker 2: Well, I would say that also that one good thing
out of today was they get to reach out to
mathomat and classical theists. So we have we have met,
we have mended our all the personal issues, and we
have decided that we could you know, have fruitful discussions
if we we we simply recognize that we all know
we disagree. We don't have to go into the sort
of the personal invective and the way that we could
approach discussions is to say, look, uh, let's both sides.
Just try to understand why you have the position that
you do. And so what I told them was, look,
anything that you guys want to send me that you
want me to read, uh, you know we can do that.
I don't have any anything personal against you guys.
Speaker 6: So that was good.
Speaker 5: We're all passionate about theology. Yeah, because of that, sometimes
it gets heated and that's okay. And please, guys, for
those of you listening, please all the books J recommends.
He doesn't just recommend, just so you can like try
and absorb this gloss we do on stream like biobs muses,
actually read them, like actually read them, because that's where
you're going to get the knowledge, not from It's good
what we do here, but you need to read the books.
Speaker 2: Yeah, there's a lot of nuance that, like Lewis said,
that you'll get in the secondary scholarship, but you also
need to be familiar with the primary sources too. And
the more that you dive into this stuff, you know,
it takes a long time. There's no shortcut around, you know,
doing the readings. If you are into this, I mean
some people you're not into this, that's fine. Not everybody
is called to do the same stuff. But I think
that if we maybe rather than being excessively polemical the
way I have been in the past, maybe a better
approach for me would be to say things I'm not saying.
I won't do formal debates, but maybe a better approach
would would be for me to say, look, you know,
if you have a disagreement with me, here's the book
that I would recommend you read. You recommend to me
what book you want me to read. So maybe that'll
be a more fruitful approach than the excessive polemics.
Speaker 5: So anyway, it leaves more doors open for sure, because
you know, now you might be able to have another
chat with classical theist, which, like I said to you,
I mean like classical theist and Mathoma the basic metaphysics stuff.
I learned a lot from listening to them in terms of,
you know, the philosophy one I want, metaphysics what I want.
So I was sad when you guys were you know, fighting.
Speaker 2: Well, when you said to me too that when you
were talking about phaser and when you were talking about Tomism,
and you know, we had a lot of chats in
the discord about the areas that there are. There's plenty
of places where we would agree with these metaphysical structures
being real in the world. And you know, Maximus is
a great character because he does a similar thing to
Aquinas where he tries to synthesize ideas from the Neoplatonists,
ideas from Aristotle, ideas from Stoics, different the Porphyrian tree.
He tries to utilize truth in these different systems, but
not necessarily in a n isomorphic way. So what you
realize the deeper that you get into the topics is
that it gets more and more nuanced. Doesn't mean there's
not truth. It just means that it's not always as
easy as you know, just pull this quote out and
then you're done.
Speaker 6: Right.
Speaker 2: It's just more nuanced than that. So I don't have
any problem. I mean, there's probably areas plenty of areas
where I'm sure Mathamone knows more than I do. I
don't have a problem being corrected. You know, he said
something correct in the chat today that that he was
correct about. So if somebody's right, we just need to
be you know, we need to be right. And another
thing too, like it's okay to be wrong about something like,
it's not that big of a deal any of these topics.
Speaker 6: There's no way anybody can.
Speaker 2: Like automatically be right on all these topics. It's part
of the normal process that we're all going to be
making mistakes, we're going to get things wrong. And I
think that if we can just stru I have to
be on good terms with people, that's at least the
approach I'll want to take.
Speaker 5: Yeah, that's that's the that's the best way in my opinion.
Speaker 6: Yeah, cool beans. Anything else anybody wants to add?
Speaker 2: Remember, here is the So the debate is about to
happen over on Crags Channel in forty five minutes.
Speaker 7: By the way, this is the book. Did we pop
that up for everybody to see?
Speaker 4: Uh?
Speaker 2: Yeah, I'll put a link. Well, I've mentioned it in
the description. But there you can see Father Deacon is
showing the.
Speaker 7: How read I'm getting. Now see the divine energies.
Speaker 2: You know they're cooking, getting.
Speaker 7: Book phase turning red.
Speaker 6: You're getting cooked.
Speaker 5: H So the Debates has another book. He has another
book called It's kind of supposed to be similar style.
It's the Papacy and the Orthodox. I haven't read it.
I don't know how good it is. I've heard it's
a bit a bit two conciliatory in places, Okay, but
read it yourself, don't take my word for it.
Speaker 7: Yeah.
Speaker 2: There's also a similar book to from the Orthodox perspective.
Papa Doccas has a great book on the Eastern Church
and the schism so separate from the Crisis and Byzantium book.
Speaker 6: That's also another good book for this. All right, thank you, everybody.
Speaker 2: Be sure to go over to Craigs Channel there and
get ready for the Big David, the real med White
versus two Coptics. This is going to be fascinating, so uh,
thank you all, Thank you all. God bless everybody. Have
a good night.
Speaker 7: God bless guys.
Speaker 5: God bless