1.
By the grace of God, instructed by pious dogmas and in all things following the
Holy and Catholic Church, I believe and confess that God the Father is the one
unoriginate and uncaused, and the Source and Cause of the Son and the Spirit:
for the Son is begotten of Him, and the Spirit proceeds from Him; just as the
Son does not participate in the procession (of the Holy Spirit from the
Father), so the Spirit does not participate in the begetting (of the Son from
the Father); or, in other words, Both are "Originations" and, in that
respect, jointly with Each Other, as the theological Fathers teach. Therefore,
it is said that the Holy Spirit proceeds "through the Son," that is,
"with the Son," as the Son (proceeds from the Father), though not by
the mode of begetting (γεννητώς), as is the case with the Son; it is not said
of the Son that He is begotten "through the Spirit," because the very
name "Son" indicates a particular kind of relationship, so that it
may not be thought that He is the Son of the Spirit. The Spirit is said to be
the "Spirit of the Son" because He is one in essence with Him and
through Him is manifested and given to people; but, as Gregory of Nyssa says,
the Son is not the Son of the Spirit or named as such. If, as the new theologians
claim, the phrase "proceeds through the Son" indicates the cause (of
the existence of the Holy Spirit), and not that He is manifested and shines
forth through the Son, and generally originates together with Him and
accompanies Him, as the divine Damascene says, then all theologians in turn
would not have so explicitly removed from the Son the Cause (of the existence
of the Holy Spirit); one of them says: "The one Source (i.e., the only
Cause) of the supernatural Godhead is the Father, and by this He is distinguished
from the Son and the Spirit"[i]; another
says: "The one unbegotten and the one Source of the Godhead is the Father”[ii], i.e.,
the only Cause, as the one uncaused; another says: "Everything the Father
has, the Son also has, except the property of being the Cause"[iii]; yet
another says: "And the Romans do not make the Son the Cause of the
Spirit"[iv]; another
theologizes thus: "The one Cause is the Father"[v];
elsewhere he says: "The Son is neither called Cause nor Father"[vi]; in
another place, he says: "That which corresponds to the Source, Cause,
Parent – only to the Father should this be attributed"[vii];
and when placing "through" in relation to the Son, this most subtle
theologian – Damascene, would not have excluded "from, out of," if it
had been appropriate; for in the eighth chapter of the Theological Judgments,
he says: "We do not say that the Spirit proceeds from the Son, but we call
Him the 'Spirit of the Son' and confess that He is manifested through the Son
and given to us"[viii]; and in
the thirteenth chapter, he also says: "'Spirit of the Son' does not mean
that the Spirit proceeds from the Son, but that through Him the Spirit proceeds
from the Father: for only the Father is the Cause"[ix];
at the end of his letter to Jordan, he writes: "The hypostatic Spirit is
the Result of the Procession and Issuing Forth from the Father through the Son,
but not from the Son, for the Spirit, Who proclaims the Word, is the Spirit 'of
the mouth of God'"[x]; in the
funeral oration on the burial of the divine Flesh of the Lord, he says:
"The Holy Spirit of God and the Father, as proceeding from Him, Who, it is
said, is also from the Son, as manifested and given through Him to creation,
but not having His being from Him"[xi].
It is clear that the preposition "through," when it indicates
mediation in relation to the cause (μεσνηείαν αιτιώδη) and immediate cause, as
the Latins wish, has the same meaning as the prepositions "from, out
of," and one can replace the other with the same meaning, for example:
"I gained a man through God" (δια τον θεοί)[xii],
that is: "from God" (έχ του θεού); or "a man through a
woman" (δια γυναικός)[xiii], i.e.,
"from a woman" (εκ γυναικός). Therefore, when the preposition
"from, out of" (έχ) is excluded, it is clear that the concept of
cause is also excluded. Thus, it remains that, according to the understanding
of subtle theology, the phrase "the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father
through the Son" means that, proceeding from the Father through the Son,
the Holy Spirit is manifested or known, or enlightens, or is known as One Who
reveals Christ. "For He has this distinguishing mark of personal
hypostatic attribute," says Basil the Great, "to be known after the
Son and together with the Son, and to have His being from the Father"[xiv]. By
this, he wants to make clear that "through the Son" means "with
the Son"; for no other personal property of the Holy Spirit is attributed
here in relation to the Son than that He is known with Him; and no other is
attributed in relation to the Father than that He has His being from Him. Thus,
the Holy Spirit does not proceed from the Son and does not have His being from
Him: for what would prevent it from being said that the Holy Spirit proceeds
through the Son, as it is said: "all things were made" through the
Son? – But this is indeed said, and there the preposition "through"
stands instead of the preposition "from, out of," but this is not at
all said, and no one will find anywhere that it is said that the Spirit
proceeds through the Son, without the mention of the Father, but it is said:
"from the Father through the Son." This, however, by no means implies
the necessity of attributing the Cause (of the Spirit) to the Son; therefore,
the expression "from the Son" is found nowhere at all, and it is clear
that it is inadmissible.
2.
As for the sayings of the Western Fathers and Teachers, which attribute to the
Son the cause of the Spirit, I neither know them (for they were never
translated and were not approved by the Ecumenical Councils) nor do I accept
them, noting that they are corrupted and contain many additions, as in many
other books elsewhere, so also in the one that was presented by the Latins
yesterday and the day before yesterday – in the book of the Acts of the Seventh
Ecumenical Council, in which the Creed found in the Council's Definition
contained an addition (the Filioque).
When it was read, those who were present at the time know what shame
overtook them. But those (Western Fathers) did not write anything contrary to
the Ecumenical Councils and their common dogmas, and by no means anything not
in harmony with the Eastern Teachers, or anything not corresponding, as many of
their sayings testify. Therefore, I reject such dangerous sayings concerning
the procession of the Holy Spirit, and, in agreement with St. Damascene, I do
not say that the Spirit proceeds from the Son, even if someone else says it;
and I do not say that the Son is the Cause and Originator of the Spirit, so as
not to introduce into the Trinity another Cause, and from this it would be
understood that there are two Causes and two Origins. Being the Cause is not an
attribute of the essence, so that it would be common and one for the Three
Persons; and therefore, in no way and by no means will the Latins escape having
two origins as long as they assert that the Son is the Origin of the Spirit. To
be the Origin is a personal attribute, and by it the Persons are distinguished
(from Each Other).
3.
Thus, in all things following the Holy and Ecumenical Seven Councils and the
God-wise Fathers who shone forth at them, I— "believe in one God, the
Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and
invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Only-begotten,
begotten of the Father before all ages; Light of Light; true God of true God;
begotten, not made; of one essence with the Father; by Whom all things were
made; Who for us men and for our salvation, came down from the heavens, and was
incarnate of the Holy Spirit and of the Virgin Mary, and became man; And was
crucified for us under Pontius Pilate, and suffered, and was buried; And arose
again on the third day according to the Scriptures; And ascended into the
heavens, and sitteth at the right hand of the Father; And shall come again,
with glory, to judge both the living and the dead; Whose Kingdom shall have no
end. And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Giver of Life; Who proceedeth from
the Father; Who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and
glorified; Who spake by the prophets. In One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic
Church. I confess one baptism for the remission of sins. I look for the
resurrection of the dead, And the life of the world to come. Amen."
4.
This sacred teaching and the Symbol of Faith, proclaimed by the First and
Second (Ecumenical) Councils and sanctioned and confirmed by the other
Councils, I wholeheartedly accept and preserve, along with the Seven Councils
mentioned, and I also accept and revere the Council that was convened after
them during the reign of the Pious Emperor Basil of Rome and the Most Holy
Patriarch Photius, which was called the "Eighth Ecumenical Council."
This Council, in the presence of the legates of John, the blessed pope of Old
Rome—bishops Paul and Eugene, and Peter, presbyter and cardinal—sanctioned and
confirmed the Seventh Ecumenical Council and decreed that it should be counted
among the Councils that preceded it, restored the Most Holy Photius to his
throne, and also condemned and anathematized, as the previous Ecumenical
Councils, those who dare to make any new addition, subtraction, or any change
whatsoever to the existing Symbol of Faith. "If anyone," it says,
"dares to write another Symbol besides this Sacred Symbol, or to add or
subtract from it, or to arrogantly speak against this decree, let them be
condemned and cast out from the entire Christian community."[xv] The same
thing concerning that addition to the Symbol is stated even more broadly and
clearly by Pope John in his letter to the Most Holy Photius. This Council also
issued canons, which are found in all collections of canons.
5.
Therefore, according to the decree of this Council, as well as the Councils
before it, considering it necessary to preserve the Sacred Symbol of Faith
unaltered, just as it was issued, and accepting what they accepted and
rejecting what they rejected, I will never receive into communion those who
dare to add a novelty to the Symbol concerning the procession of the Holy
Spirit, as long as they persist in such innovation. "For whoever is in
communion with those excommunicated from communion," it says, "let him
also be excommunicated."[xvi] And the
divine Chrysostom, interpreting the words (of the Apostle): "If anyone
preaches to you a gospel other than what you have received, let him be
accursed,"[xvii] – says
this: "He did not say if they preach something contrary or entirely
corrupt, but even if they preach something small in addition to what you have
received, or perhaps alter anything – let him be accursed." And there he
also says: "Moderation is necessary, so that the law is not
violated."[xviii] And Basil the Great, in his "Ascetic
Rules," says this: "To reject something that has been written or to
introduce something unwritten is a clear departure from the faith and a sign of
arrogance; for our Lord Jesus Christ says: 'My sheep hear My voice'; and before
this He says: 'They will not follow a stranger, but will flee from him, for
they do not know the voice of strangers.'"[xix]
And in the "Letter to Monks," he says: "If some claim to profess
sound faith, yet nonetheless maintain communion with those of different
opinions, if they do not cease this after admonition, it is necessary to
consider even them as not only excommunicated but also cease to call them
brethren." And before him, Ignatius the God-bearer, in his letter to the
divine Polycarp of Smyrna, says: "Anyone who speaks beyond what is
established, even if he is worthy by faith, even if he fasts, even if he
maintains virginity, even if he performs signs, even if he prophesies, let him
be to you as a wolf in sheep's clothing, working to the destruction of the
sheep." And what need is there to say more?! – All the Teachers of the
Church, all the Councils, and all the Divine Scriptures urge us to flee from
those of different opinions and to withdraw from communion with them.
Therefore, shall I, disregarding all of them, follow those who, under the guise
of false reconciliation, call to enter into union with those who have violated
the sacred and divine Symbol and introduce the Son as a second Cause of the
Holy Spirit? For the rest of their absurdities, of which just one would be
enough to break off from them, I leave at this moment unmentioned. May it never
happen to me – O Good Comforter! – may I never depart so far from myself and
from sound judgment, but having Your teaching and the teaching from men
inspired by You, may I join my Fathers, carrying with me from here, nothing
else but Orthodoxy (την ευσέβειαν)!
Russian source: Archimandrite Amvrosy
(Pogodin). St. Mark of Ephesus and the Union of Florence. Holy Trinity
Monastery, Jordanville, N.Y., 1963. Translated by the Center for Traditionalist Orthodox Studies.
[i]
Dionys. Areopag. De div. nominibus c. 2. PG 3, col. 641.
[ii]
Athanas. Magn. Contra Sabellia nos. n. 2. PG 28, col. 97.
[iii]
Gregor. Nazianz. Oratio de adventu Ægypt. PG 36. col. 252.
[iv]
Maxim. Epist. ad. Marinum. PG 91, col. 136.
[v]
Joann. Damasc. De fide orthod. lib. I, c. 12. PG 94, c. 849.
[vi]
Ibid. col. 832.
[vii]
Ibid. col. 849 o.
[viii]
Ibid. col. 832–3.
[ix]
Ibid. col. 849 b.
[x]
PG 95, col. 60.
[xi]
PG 96, col. 605.
[xii]
Gen. 4:1.
[xiii]
Gal. 4:4.
[xiv]
PG 32, 329.
[xv]
Mansi Concil. t. XVII p. 520.
[xvi]
Second canon of the Council of Antioch ар. Pitra Juris ecclesiast. Græcorum t. I. p. 457. This canon can also
be found in the Explanation of the “Holy Apostolic Rules”: ibid. p. 421.
[xvii]
Gal. 1:9.
[xviii]
РG 61, col. 624.
[xix]
РG 31, col. 680.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.