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" [1]; another says: "The one unbegotten and the
one Source of the Godhead is the Father” [2], 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" [3]; yet another says: "And
the Romans do not make the Son the Cause of the Spirit" [4]; another
theologizes thus: "The one Cause is the Father" [5]; elsewhere he
says: "The Son is neither called Cause nor Father" [6]; in another
place, he says: "That which corresponds to the Source, Cause, Parent –
only to the Father should this be attributed" [7]; 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" [8]; 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"
[9]; 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'" [10]; 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" [11]. 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) [12], that is: "from
God" (έχ του θεού); or "a man through a woman" (δια γυναικός) [13],
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" [14].
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." [15] 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." [16] 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," [17] – 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." [18] 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.'" [19] 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)!
NOTES
1. Dionys.
Areopag. De div. nominibus c. 2. PG 3, col. 641.
2. Athanas.
Magn. Contra Sabellia nos. n. 2. PG 28, col. 97.
3. Gregor.
Nazianz. Oratio de adventu Ægypt. PG 36. col. 252.
4. Maxim.
Epist. ad. Marinum. PG 91, col. 136.
5. Joann.
Damasc. De fide orthod. lib. I, c. 12. PG 94, c. 849.
6. Ibid.
col. 832.
7. Ibid.
col. 849 o.
8. Ibid.
col. 832–3.
9. Ibid.
col. 849 b.
10. PG 95,
col. 60.
11. PG 96,
col. 605.
12. Gen.
4:1.
13. Gal.
4:4.
14. PG 32,
329.
15. Mansi
Concil. t. XVII p. 520.
16. 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.
17. Gal.
1:9.
18. РG
61, col. 624.
19. РG 31,
col. 680.
Greek (and Latin)
source:
Translated by the Center for Traditionalist Orthodox Studies, Etna, CA.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.