Both Catholics and Eastern Quote Orthodox consider St. Gregory of Nyssa to be an important early church father. He was one of the Cappadocian fathers, a significant Eastern father and early theologian. In his writings, he clearly taught in substance the doctrine of the filioque, as we will see.
That is, that the Holy Spirit eternally proceeds from both the Father and the Son. This truth is taught by the Catholic Church, but it's rejected by the Eastern Quote Orthodox. Gregory's statements on this matter constitute more powerful evidence that Catholicism, not Eastern Orthodoxy, is the one true Christian faith. This video will focus only on St. Gregory of Nyssa, but it will cover some very important points.
For a full presentation of the abundant evidence for the Filioque in Scripture, the Councils, and other Fathers, see our two-hour video called The Trinity and the Filioque. Note that when an Eastern Father such as St. Gregory of Nyssa uses the word cause to describe the eternal origin of one divine person from another in the Trinity, That does not mean created or began to be. The word in Greek is aetia.
In Greek Trinitarian theology, the word aetia or cause denotes the person from whom another person eternally comes forth. Latin theology uses the word principle rather than cause. Thus, in the eternal generation of the Son by the Father, the Father is the principle of the Son, whereas early Greek theologians would say that the Father is the cause of the Son.
The work on not three gods or two ablabius is perhaps St. Gregory of Nyssa's most mature formulation of his views on the eternal relations between the Holy Spirit and the other two divine persons in the Trinity. It was written at the end of his life, and it's dated by some to about the year 390. It states, quote, that while we confess the indistinguishable character of the nature, we do not deny the difference in respect of cause and that which is caused, whereby alone we apprehend that one person is distinguished from another, affirming this by our belief that whereas one is the cause, the other is from the cause. And again, in that which is from the cause, we recognize another distinction.
For whereas one is directly from the first, the other is through that which is directly from the first, so that the property of only begottenness remains unambiguously with the Son, and yet the Spirit's existence from the Father is not brought into doubt, for the mediation of the Son preserves his only begottenness to himself, while not debarring the Spirit from his natural relation with the Father."This passage clearly demonstrates St. Gregory's conviction in the Filioque. First, note that St. Gregory of Nyssa teaches that the persons of the Trinity, since they are indistinguishable in nature, are only distinguished from one another on the basis of causation distinctions between them. He specifies this principle by teaching that the distinctions are rooted in cause and that which is caused. And again, he says, the one is cause and the other is from the cause. Well, the Father alone begets the Son. The Father is therefore the only eternal principle, or as the Greeks would say, the only eternal cause of the Son. Since the Father is the cause or principle of the Son, and the Son is from Him, they are distinct persons. Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox agree on that. But who is the cause or principle of the Holy Spirit? According to the Eastern Orthodox, the Father alone is also the cause of the Holy Spirit, just as He alone is the cause of the Son. The Orthodox idea of Father as sole cause. But one should recognize how this contradicts St. Gregory of Nyssa's position and argument. For as we just saw, he teaches that the persons are only distinguished from one another on the basis of cause and from the cause. Hence, if the Son is not a cause of the Holy Spirit with the Father, as the Eastern Orthodox say, then the Son and the Holy Spirit would not be distinguished from one another, according to St. Gregory of Nyssa's argument, because in that case, they would both have the Father alone as cause. They would both be from the Father alone. But the Son and the Spirit are distinct persons, as St. Gregory of Nyssa taught, and the Christian Church, of course, holds. They are distinct because the Son is involved in the spiration of the Holy Spirit with the Father. It's clear from St. Gregory's principle that the persons are only distinguished on the basis of causation, that he believed the Son was involved in the eternal causation of the Spirit, just as the Father is. That's his entire argument for why the Son and the Spirit are distinct. Also note that this passage from St. Gregory, as well as the others that we will cover in this video, certainly refers to the eternal hypostatic origin of the Holy Spirit. This needs to be emphasized because Eastern Orthodox will often dishonestly attempt to dismiss proof like this for the filioque among the Fathers by claiming that the passages only refer to economia, that is to the Holy Spirit being sent to the world in time. Clearly this passage is not about the Holy Spirit being sent to the world in time. Some of them will also claim that such passages refer to the Holy Spirit's eternal manifestation, which they claim is an eternal shining forth of the Holy Spirit that's supposedly distinct from the Holy Spirit's eternal hypostatic procession. Their claims in this regard are baseless, and we will say more about eternal manifestation later. But any honest person can see that this passage from St. Gregory refers directly to the hypostatic origin of the Holy Spirit. It's about the issue of eternal causation or source within the Trinity, the Spirit's eternal existence, and why the persons are distinct. In that very context, Gregory specifically mentions the Son's role in the causation of the Holy Spirit. Quote, For whereas one is directly from the first, the other is through that. which is directly from the first."The one who is directly from the first cause is, of course, the Son, eternally begotten by the Father. The other, says St. Gregory, who is through that which is directly from the first, is the Holy Spirit, proceeding through the Son. So, while speaking of the hypostatic origin of the Holy Spirit and the notion of eternal cause in the Trinity, St. Gregory teaches that the Spirit is caused through the Son. This contradicts the Eastern Orthodox position. The Eastern Orthodox, in fact, condemn that the Son is in any way involved in the causation of the Holy Spirit.
For example, the Eastern Quote Orthodox Second Synod of Blachernae in 1285 repeatedly anathematized those who hold that the Holy Spirit is from or through the Son in regard to his hypostatic origin or causation. Here are just two quotes from that synod. Quote, To the same who say that the Father is, through the Son, the cause of the Spirit.
and who cannot conceive the Father as the cause of the hypostasis of the Spirit, giving it existence and being, except through the Son, we cut them off from the membership of the Orthodox and we banish them from the flock of the Church of God."As we can see, the position that the Spirit is caused from the Father through the Son, the very position of St. Gregory of Nyssa, is anathematized by this Orthodox council. The council also states, Even so, he the Son is not, either separately or with the Father, the cause of the Spirit. For the All-Holy Spirit's existence is not through the Son and from the Son, as they who hasten toward their destruction and separation from God understand and teach."The Eastern Orthodox hold that the Father alone is the cause of the Holy Spirit, but as we've shown, that was not the view of St. Gregory of Nyssa. In fact, after directly teaching that the Spirit is from the Father through the Son in regard to his hypostatic origin, St. Gregory follows it up by teaching that the Son has a role of mediation in the causation of the Spirit. Mediation is an active role. Thus, St. Gregory taught that both the Father and the Son have an active role in the causation of the Spirit. Notice how directly St. Gregory's actual words contradict what Eastern Orthodox heretics claim about the Greek Fathers.
The idea of mediating cause as contrasted to uncaused cause is not in the Greek Fathers. That's not in the Greek Fathers. No, it's not there at all.
It's rejected. What Photius wrote about centuries ago, which is that there's no... secondary principle. There's no secondary cause. There's no cause-cause and uncaused cause in the triad.
There's only one cause, the hypostasis of the father. Because Augustine has this idea of father as cause principality and then son as participator in some co-cause, some lesser cause, some caused-cause sense, none of that is anywhere in any of the Eastern fathers at all. We just refuted that false claim. His statement is a good example of how heretics misrepresent things. They make baseless claims that are demolished by the actual evidence and quotations.
They are deceivers. Also note that when fathers such as St. Gregory of Nyssa speak of the Holy Spirit proceeding through the Son, that does not contradict the truth that the Holy Spirit is eternally from the Father and the Son as from one principle and a single spiration. In the same work, St. Gregory of Nyssa teaches that every operation which extends from God to the creation and is named according to our variable conceptions of it, has its origin from the Father and proceeds through the Son and is perfected in the Holy Spirit. He refers to creation and he says that it's accomplished from the Father through the Son. Well, we know that all three persons create as one cause or principle of creation.
Creation is from all three persons. Thus, through the Son here is not incompatible with from the Son. In fact, in the passage we already cited, St. Gregory equates from and through because he first describes the distinctions between the persons as being cause and from the cause.
He then gives an example of that very principle by stating that the Spirit is through the Son. Hence, from and through are not incompatible. Moreover, the Orthodox Second Synod of Blachernae condemned the position that the causation of the Spirit is through the Son because they acknowledged that it would be equivalent to the Catholic position that the Spirit is from the Father and the Son.
So, why do the Fathers sometimes teach that the Holy Spirit eternally comes through the Son? The answer is that the Father is the principle without principle, as the Council of Florence teaches. Quote, Whatever the Father is or has, he does not have from another, but from himself. And he is the principle without principle. Whatever the Son is or has, he has from the Father, and is the principle from a principle.
Whatever the Holy Spirit is or has, he has simultaneously from the Father and the Son. But the Father and the Son are not two principles of the Holy Spirit, but one principle, just as the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are not three principles of the creature, but one principle." The Father alone eternally begets another divine person without himself having been begotten by, or proceeding from, another divine person. The Son indeed spirates the Holy Spirit together with the Father, but the Son has that active spiration from the Father. That's why Jesus says all things that the Father has are mine. Hence the phrase, from the Father through the Son, is simply a succinct way of capturing two truths. One, that the Holy Spirit is from both the Father and the Son, but two, that the Son has active spiration or causation of the Holy Spirit from the Father, while the Father has it from himself. As further proof that through the Son and from the Son are not incompatible, we will shortly see that St. Gregory of Nyssa elsewhere teaches that the Spirit is from the Son in regard to his hypostatic origin. Before we get to that, I want to cite again Eastern Orthodox heretic J. Dyer. Among his many utterly false, baseless, and heretical claims, which are refuted in our material, Dyer says that the Eastern Fathers did not distinguish the persons based on relations of opposition within the Trinity. That's because to the Cappadocians, there's no such thing as relations of opposition. Okay, this is a later Western idea that Augustine speculates about other ways to distinguish the persons. It is nowhere in the Cappadocians. It's not in the Eastern Fathers. Because we don't have the absolute divisibility problem that we needed to even use relations of opposition. This does not come into play until Augustine and then later on picked up by Anselm. Aquinas. According to Dyer, it's foreign to the Eastern Fathers to distinguish the persons of the Trinity based on relations of opposition. But that's nonsense like so many other things he says. We've already refuted it. We saw that in his work on not three gods, Saint Gregory of Nyssa taught that the persons are distinct on the basis of relations of opposition, namely cause and from the cause. The distinction between cause and from the cause involves a relation of opposition. There are three such relations of opposition in the Trinity, namely fatherhood, sonship, and passive spiration. That's why there are three divine persons yet one god. In God, everything is one except where a relation of opposition prevents this. But there's an even perhaps more powerful testimony from St. Gregory of Nyssa on this particular point of the relations of opposition, which also proves the filioque, in his third homily on the Lord's Prayer. This is the Greek text and a Latin translation of it. Here, Gregory is teaching that the persons in the Trinity are distinct on account of their personal property. Quote, For just as a causeless existence which belongs to the Father alone cannot be predicated of the Son and the Spirit, so conversely a caused existence which is proper to the Son and the Spirit cannot by its very nature be considered as belonging to the Father. Now since it is common to the Son and the Spirit not to exist in an unbegotten manner, to avoid the appearance of any confusion on the subject, it is necessary in turn to search for a difference in their properties that is confusion-free. so that what is common to them both may be safeguarded, and what is proper may not be confused. Now, the only begotten Son is described as being from the Father in sacred Scripture, and thus far this expression establishes a property for him. But the Holy Spirit, even as he is said to be from the Father, is also attested to be from the Son. For if any man has not the Spirit of Christ, says Scripture, then he does not belong to him. Therefore the Spirit from God is also the Spirit of God. But the Son, although he is from God, yet neither is nor is said to be. the Spirit and so the relational sequence is not inverted."In this important passage, Saint Gregory of Nyssa clearly teaches the filioque and he distinguishes the persons based on opposite relations of origin. He states that it belongs to the Father alone to have a causeless existence. That's the Father's property. The Father is the principle without principle.
Gregory then remarks that not to exist in an unbegotten manner, in other words to come from another person, is common to the Son and the Spirit. Therefore, not to exist in an unbegotten manner or to come from another divine person cannot be what personally distinguishes the Son from the Spirit. So what does distinguish the Son from the Spirit?
Gregory explains, Now the only begotten Son is described as being from the Father in sacred scripture, and thus far this expression establishes a property for him. But the Holy Spirit, even as he is said to be from the Father, is also attested to be from the Son. So according to St. Gregory, just as the Son is distinguished from the Father because he is from the Father, the Holy Spirit is distinct from the Father and the Son because he is from the Father and the Son.
The Spirit must be from both to be distinct from the Son, that's his argument, because if the Spirit were just from the Father, that would be common with the Son. And in that very context, St. Gregory says that the Spirit is from the Father and the Son. This is extremely clear proof that St. Gregory of Nyssa taught the filioque.
He is teaching that the personal distinguishing property of the Spirit is that he is from the Father and the Son. That is exactly the Catholic position. Notice also how he connects this position with the relational sequence of the persons, that is, opposite relations of origin.
He thus teaches that opposed or opposite relations of origin distinguish the persons in the Trinity, which is the Catholic position, further demolishing the false claim of the Eastern Orthodox heretic we cited. That's because to the Cappadocians, there's no such thing as relations of opposition. Okay, this is a later Western idea that Augustine speculates about other ways to distinguish the persons.
It is nowhere in the Cappadocians. It's not in the Eastern Fathers. Also notice that St. Gregory's teaching on what distinguishes the Holy Spirit directly contradicts other Eastern Orthodox heretics such as Josiah Trenum, who wrongly claims that what's unique about the Holy Spirit is that he proceeds from the Father. And the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father.
So what's unique about the Holy Spirit is not that he's on... all-powerful or all-knowing. Those are qualities of divinity that he shares with the Father and the Son. What's unique about the Holy Spirit is that he is the Spirit who proceeds from the Father.
But that false position would make the Spirit indistinguishable from the Son, since the Son also comes forth from the Father. Gregory also says that this relational sequence cannot be inverted. In other words, you may say that the third person is the Spirit of the Son because the Spirit comes from the Son as well as from the Father.
But you may not say that the second person is the son of the spirit because the son is not from the spirit in the trinity. His argument again presupposes belief in the filioque. Now it should be noted that some later manuscripts of this work read not from the Son but of the Son when St. Gregory refers to the Spirit coming from the Father and the Son.
But this is almost certainly a corruption of those manuscripts by Greek dissidents. They have a history of manipulating texts in an attempt to water down people claims and other truths. But even if of the Son were the original reading in that particular line, which is extremely doubtful, and the second ek were not present, St. Gregory would still clearly be teaching the filioque.
That's because he teaches that the persons are distinguished based on their opposite relations of origin, one being from another, and that the Spirit is distinct because he's of the Father and the Son in terms of hypostatic origination. In this context, he also teaches that the Spirit is of Christ, as we mentioned, but that one cannot reverse the relative sequence and hold Christ to be of the Spirit. His meaning is obvious, but the reading which includes the second ek, and thus says, from the Son, should be considered the original. S.M. Brandy, a Jesuit writing in the American Ecclesiastical Review in 1896, notes that the reading from the Son is preserved in an ancient manuscript going back to the 7th century.
Quote, We were anxious to compare them, moreover, with the ancient manuscript codices preserved in the Vatican Library, which were accessible to us and will be to all who are desirous of ascertaining the truth. One of these containing the magnificent testimony of St. Gregory of Nyssa, But the Holy Spirit, even as he is said to be from the Father, is also attested to be from the Son, goes back to the end of the 8th, or rather to the 7th century, that is about 200 years before the time of Photius. In fact, the second ek or from is found in the oldest Syriac translations of Gregory's work, which date to the 6th century. Gregory's third homily on the Lord's Prayer is a powerful witness to his belief in the Filioque.
Before we cover even more evidence, we should say a few things about the Eastern Orthodox position on eternal manifestation. According to many Eastern Orthodox, eternal manifestation is an eternal shining forth of the Holy Spirit that's supposedly distinct from the Holy Spirit's eternal hypostatic procession. They claim that when fathers speak of the Spirit being from and through the Son eternally, it does not refer to the hypostatic procession of the Holy Spirit, but rather to another manifestation. But their claims on this matter are baseless. The passages we covered are not about a supposed eternal manifestation of the Spirit that's distinct from his hypostatic procession.
They are clearly and without any doubt about the Holy Spirit's hypostatic origin and the issue of eternal causation in the Trinity. The same is true of all the passages we will cover. Attempts by Eastern Orthodox to explain this evidence away by referring either to economia, that is to the Spirit being sent to the world, or to their made-up doctrine of eternal manifestation, are thoroughly dishonest and without any merit. In fact, the Eastern Orthodox position on eternal manifestation was something they simply invented in a futile attempt to explain away the patristic evidence for the filioque. It's a contrived false doctrine with no support in divine revelation.
St. Gregory of Nyssa and others do use the language of the Spirit shining forth or manifesting eternally through the sun, but those references, as a careful consideration of them shows, describe the eternal procession of the Holy Spirit's person. For proof that when St. Gregory of Nyssa refers to the Holy Spirit manifesting eternally through the sun, he's simply describing the eternal procession of the Spirit's person, see his work against Eunomius Book 1 Chapter 22, Chapter 26, and Chapter 36. The shining forth of the Holy Spirit does not refer to some other supposed eternal coming forth of the Holy Spirit. Indeed, the made-up doctrine of the Eastern Orthodox in regard to eternal manifestation amounts to believing that the Holy Spirit is not immutable. or that there are two Holy Spirits.
It's an exceedingly blasphemous false doctrine. Allow me to explain why. The doctrine centers around a distinction they invented between, one, the Holy Spirit existing, and two, the Holy Spirit having existence from. Here's a quote from Papadakis, a scholar of the Eastern Orthodox Second Synod of Blachernae, writing about the explanation of eternal manifestation in the context of that synod. Quote, a distinction had to be made between existing and having existence.
One, referring to the Spirit's cause, which concerns its eternal personal mode of origin from the Father alone, the other referring to the divine life itself of the Spirit, or to its eternal manifestation, which concerns the Father and the Son."How convenient. That's part of his summary of the position on eternal manifestation as it was held by Gregory II of Cyprus, the leader of the 1285 Orthodox Second Synod of Blachernae. Frankly, the Orthodox explanation on this matter would be laughable if it weren't so serious. Since there's so much patristic evidence from both Eastern and Western fathers that the Holy Spirit is eternally from the Father and the Son, they try to come up with some explanation for how the Spirit is eternally from the Son, yet doesn't proceed from the Son. That was their attempt. It's absurd. According to their ridiculous and blasphemous false doctrine on eternal manifestation, which they simply made up, there's a real distinction between, one, the Holy Spirit's eternal existence, which can be said to be from the Father and the Son, and two, his having existence from, which is from the Father alone. But this is just a desperate attempt to circumvent the proof for the filioque in the Fathers, both Greek and Latin. Their explanation is easily refuted and proven to be heretical by considering that, according to their position, the Holy Spirit does not exist in the same way that he came forth. According to their position, the Spirit eternally came forth from the Father alone, but the Spirit exists from the Father and the Son, or from the Father through the Son. That means that, according to them, the Holy Spirit exists in a way that is different from the manner in which he came forth. They invented this horrible and blasphemous false doctrine simply in a futile effort to explain away the evidence from the fathers that the Spirit is eternally from the Son as well as from the Father. Rather than accept the truth of the filioque, they came up with this outrageous nonsense and fell into more heresies as a result. It's not a surprise that they stumbled into such theological monstrosities after their formal break with the Catholic Church. Their invention of this false doctrine in order to maintain their heretical position on the procession is similar to how they made up the quote reception theory for ecumenical councils in a futile attempt to explain why they don't accept the ecumenical council of Florence. Their explanation of eternal manifestation is false. In the passages of Saint Gregory that we cited and other passages we will cover, he's clearly discussing the hypostatic origin of the Holy Spirit, perhaps recognizing the absurdity of the aforementioned Eastern Orthodox position on eternal manifestation. Various later commentators among the Eastern Orthodox tried to explain the idea in a different way. According to some of them, eternal manifestation does not even refer to what is unique to the Holy Spirit, but rather to alleged energetic processions that belong to all three persons who have the common nature. Gregory Palamas and a number of his commentators seem to have taken that view of, quote, eternal manifestation. But that explanation doesn't help them at all, because one, Gregory II of Cyprus, whose teaching was adopted by the Second Synod of Blachernae in 1285, clearly applies the manifestation to the Holy Spirit in particular. He applies it to the manner the Holy Spirit exists in contradistinction to the way that he supposedly came forth. Quote, in certain texts of the fathers, the phrase denotes the spirits shining forth in manifestation, end quote. And two, the passages from the fathers, which teach that the Spirit is eternally from the Father and the Son, are about the Holy Spirit in particular, not about what is common to all three persons. So if they attempt to explain eternal manifestation by claiming that it does not even describe something unique about the person of the Spirit, but what is common to all three persons, then they are admitting that it has no relevance to the Father's teaching, that the Holy Spirit uniquely and eternally comes forth from the Father and the Son, or from the Father through the Son. So no matter how they attempt to explain their doctrine of eternal manifestation, it's contradictory, heretical, and made-up nonsense that deserves no respect but utter condemnation for the outrageous lie about the Holy Spirit. that it most certainly is. Now, Saint Gregory of Nyssa also teaches the filioque in his work on the Holy Spirit against the Macedonians. In this work, he's defending that the Holy Spirit is fully God, despite being mentioned third in order. In this context, he states, quote, the Holy Spirit is indeed from God and of the Christ according to scripture, end quote. He says that the Holy Spirit is from God and of the Christ in the very context of discussing the intra-Trinitarian relations and the Holy Spirit's distinctive property. He then gives an analogy of three burning torches. in a similar manner and do everything that a fire does. Now if there is nothing to prevent the third torch from being a fire, though it be kindled from a preceding flame, what is the so-called wisdom of those who for such reasons sacrilegiously think to set at naught the dignity of the Holy Spirit because he has been enumerated after Father and Son by the Word of God? End quote. St. Gregory compares the three divine persons to three torches, the first being the Father, the second or middle being the Son, and the third being the Holy Spirit. He's obviously referring to the eternal relations in the Trinity and how the divine nature, compared to the flame, is transmitted from the Father to the Son to the Holy Spirit. He teaches that the third or last torch, the Holy Spirit, is kindled or set on fire by the middle torch, the Son. That is clearly to teach the Filioque. It is to teach that the Son has an active and causal role, along with the Father, in the procession in which the divine nature is communicated, that is, the actual procession of the person of the Holy Spirit. For the second torch has an active and causal role in lighting the third torch. To deny that St. Gregory of Nyssa taught the Filioque in light of such evidence is simply to bear false witness and be a liar. The final passage from St. Gregory that we will consider is from his work against Eunomius, Book 1, Chapter 42. In this passage, St. Gregory actually uses the Greek word aetias, a form of the Greek word aetia, to describe the Son's role in the spiration of the Holy Spirit. Before we quote him, I want to play a clip from Eastern schismatics who attempt to summarize and explain this passage from St. Gregory's work. But my point is there's no evidence from the forefathers of aetia being used in this sense. If there was any evidence, I would we will see it from him but in fact conceives that there is no evidence right the closest one was from saint gregory of nissa and that's him saying that the sun is a theoretical cause in contrast to the father being the actual cause right you know what that means that means sacredness is saying that the sun is not a cause right he's saying the exact opposite right um in the end of book one against eunomius first their statement is false as we've already proven we showed that in his work on not three gods in the very context of speaking about cause and from the cause, St. Gregory teaches that the Spirit is caused through the Son, and in that context he equates being through the Son with the distinction between cause and from the cause. Thus, their claim is totally false. But in that clip we just played, they attempt to summarize a different passage, namely Gregory's work against Eunomius, Book 1, Chapter 42. According to them, that passage only calls the Son a theoretical cause and contrasts him with the Father being the actual cause. Is that what St. Gregory actually said in that passage? No, it's not. Their false statement is another example of how heretics make baseless claims and twist things without proving or providing specific evidence for their assertions. In the process, they deceive people. Contrast that with our videos and material, which provide detailed and specific proof for our assertions. The heretic is attempting to summarize the English translation of this passage from Against Eunomius, Book 1, Chapter 42, by Moore and Wilson in the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers. That translation is less than ideal, but the heretic didn't even cite it accurately. Here's the translation of Moore and Wilson in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers. Quote, So again the Holy Spirit is in touch with the only begotten, who is conceived of as before the Spirit's subsistence, only in the theoretical light of a cause. End quote. Notice that even according to this translation, the Son is not called a theoretical cause. Rather, St. Gregory refers to the theoretical light of a cause. Those are different statements. The heretics have confused one only in the theoretical light of a cause with two only in the light of a theoretical cause. Similar to how one might confuse one by virtue of being a cause with two by being a virtual cause. But my point is there's no evidence from the fathers of Aitya being used in this sense. If there was any evidence we will see it from him but he in fact concedes that there is no evidence right. The closest one was from Sankarigarh Nissa and as him saying that the sun is a theoretical cause in contrast to the father being the actual cause. Do you know what that means? That means St. Gregory of Nyssa is saying that the son is not a cause. Right. Right. In the end of book one against Eudemius. Even William Moore and Henry Wilson, who published the aforementioned translation, believed that St. Gregory's statement was an expression of his belief in the filioque. In a footnote to their translation, they state, quote, it is a direct testimony to the filioque belief, end quote. But a better translation will bring this out more clearly. In no way does the Holy Trinity exhibit disharmony within itself, and to it is glory due."According to St. Gregory's words in this passage, what could arise in man's thinking alone, but does not exist in reality, is not that the Son is a cause, but the notion that the Only Begotten precedes or comes before the Holy Spirit in time. But why might one even think that the Son precedes the Spirit in time? St. Gregory says it's on the grounds of causation.
Cataton teis aetias lagam. Well, that only makes sense if the Son is in fact a cause or principle of the Holy Spirit. That's Gregory's whole point.
Since the Son is a cause of the Holy Spirit, in our limited understanding of causality in the created world, we might be led to think that the Son precedes the Holy Spirit in time. But, Saint Gregory teaches, we need to purge our understanding of temporal considerations when considering pure causality or relation in God, and recognize that all three persons are eternal, and that differences in time have no place in God. His whole discussion indicates that he considered the Son to be a cause of the Spirit.
Indeed, in the same work a certain number of paragraphs before, he makes the same point with regard to the relation between the Father and the Son when referring to causality. Quote, What then shall we answer? that if in fact one were to posit any temporal significance to our conception of the Father as preceding the hypostasis of the only begotten, solely on the basis of causation, then rightly would our account of the Son's eternity be endangered, end quote. Here Gregory says that if we posited something temporal on the basis of the Father's causation of the Son, then the Son's eternity would be endangered.
But we must purge temporal considerations from our notion of causality in God, and maintain the true eternity of the Son. even though the Father is his cause. Is Gregory teaching that the Father is the true cause, iteia, of the Son or not? Of course, he's teaching that the Father is the true cause of the Son, and the Eastern Orthodox would admit that.
That's his whole point for why someone might wrongly think that the Father precedes the Only Begotten in time. Well, as we just saw, he makes the very same point in regard to the relation between the Son and the Spirit and the issue of causation. He says concerning the Son, who in our thinking alone on the grounds of causation, is seen as preceding the hypostasis of the Spirit."One should recognize how this statement presupposes that the Son is a true cause of the Spirit, just as the Father is the true cause of the Son. Indeed, when Gregory says, solely on the basis of causation, in this passage about the Father and the Son, the Greek words mano, to, teis, aetias, lago, are very similar to the Greek words he used in the other passage about the Son and the Spirit. He uses forms of logos and aetia in both statements. Thus, a careful consideration of his words demonstrates that St. Gregory of Nyssa believed in the filioque. He not only believed in the filioque, but he attributed the term aetia to the son as well as to the father. The son, however, is not the cause without a cause. He is a cause from a cause, or rather a principle from a principle, exactly as the Council of Florence would later correctly define. The father is principle without a principle. Moreover, even if one disregarded this last passage in Against Eunomius, it's certain from the other passages we covered that St. Gregory of Nyssa taught the concept of the filioque. The fact that St. Gregory taught the Catholic position, not the Eastern Orthodox position, on the filioque is fatal to Eastern Orthodoxy's false arguments and methodology. That's because while Catholics can acknowledge when a certain church father was wrong about something, the Eastern Orthodox typically will not grant that even one prominent Eastern father taught the filioque. or the papal primacy of jurisdiction. The idea of mediating cause as contrast to uncaused cause is not in the Greek fathers. That's not, that's not. No, it's not there at all. It's rejected. Because Augustine has this idea of father as cause principality and then son as participator in some co-cause, some lesser cause, some caused cause sense. None of that is anywhere in any of the Eastern fathers at all. Their claims in that regard are, as we've proven, false. The patristic evidence for the filioque is in fact overwhelming from Eastern and Western Fathers. It should also be emphasized that even though the Son is from the Father, and the Holy Spirit is from the Father and the Son, this does not imply any dependence of any of the divine persons of the Trinity. Each person is fully God. Each person is in fact the divine essence, having infinite life in himself. But the Son has this infinite life from the Father, and the Holy Spirit has it from the Father and the Son. Hence, in John 5.26 we read, For as the Father has life in himself, so he has given it to the Son also to have life in himself. That's why in John 16 we read that the Holy Spirit hears from the Son. Same language used in John 5 30 about the Son hearing from the Father. This obviously refers to the communication of the divine essence in the eternal procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son. John 16 also refers to the Spirit receiving from the Son. Thus the Holy Spirit eternally comes forth from the Son. St. Gregory of Nyssa also mentions this, stating that the Spirit is ever receiving from the Son, which can only refer to the eternal procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son, as well as from the Father. But note that there are not two processions of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is from the Father and the Son eternally, as from one source and one spiration or breathing. Now, before we close this video, we should refute another false argument. Some Eastern Orthodox consider the following argument to be devastating to the filioquate position. They begin by asking, is causation, such as how the Father is the eternal principle or cause of the Son, a personal property of the Father, or is it an essential property? If it's a personal property, then the Son also cannot be a cause or principle of another person, because the personal properties which distinguish the persons in the Trinity are not communicable. But if it's an essential property, it therefore belongs to all three persons who share the one essence. And in that case, the Son would generate Himself and the Spirit would spirate Himself, since the Son and the Spirit have the one divine essence. So they think they've got Catholics trapped with this argument. If causation is a personal property, it cannot belong to the Son, and if it's essential, then the Holy Spirit spirates Himself. If He's the sole cause, then He can't transfer that hypostatic causal property to the Son. This is what Phoecius says in the Mysticology. But the argument which they think is devastating is fallacious. it's refuted simply by pointing out that their major premise is false. Being a cause or a principle in any manner is not a personal or an essential property. Rather, existing without cause and being a principle without a principle is the personal property of the Father. Being a principle from a principle, which entails being begotten from the one who is without any principle, is the personal property of the Son. And proceeding from the Father and the Son is the personal property of the Spirit. Indeed, we already quoted St. Gregory of Nyssa, who stated, quote, For just as a causeless existence, which belongs to the Father alone, cannot be predicated of the Son and the Spirit, end quote. Notice, according to St. Gregory of Nyssa, the personal property of the Father is not to be a cause in any way. It is rather to exist without cause. That's a crucial difference. Gregory teaches the same thing repeatedly. But the orthoheretics and the orthopagans misrepresent this point. and falsely argue that the personal property of the Father is to be a cause in any way or fashion when that's not true. In the process, they deceive their listeners with specious argumentation. By the way, a few years ago, I challenged Jay Dyer to a debate, and he did not respond. Also, it's noteworthy that, as we covered earlier, at the Second Synod of Blachernae in 1285, the Orthodox repeatedly condemned that the Son has any role in the hypostatic origin or causation of the Holy Spirit. Well, here are clips from Eastern Orthodox heretic J. Dyer, not knowing his own position, in which he's clearly teaching that the Spirit is through the Son in terms of his hypostatic origin. In these clips, Dyer is definitely not talking about their made-up doctrine of eternal manifestation. His words are about the personal property of the Holy Spirit, that is, the Spirit's procession, properly speaking. What are the personal properties? Father is the soul of monarchy and cause. The begatter of the Son. The Son is begotten eternally. The Spirit eternally proceeding from the Father to the Son. Those are the personal properties. There is one common essence of God, but it's a common essence. The Father communicates to the Son and through that Son to the Spirit. By teaching that the hypostatic origin of the Spirit is from the Father through the Son, Dyer not only contradicts his own position and is condemned by his own Orthodox Synod, but he teaches the Catholic position because Blackerney admitted, that if the spirit is through the sun in regard to hypostatic origin, that is equivalent to teaching the filioque. So this is just another example of the astounding blindness under which that heretic and so many other heretics labor. It's sad that certain people follow such heretics and teachers to their destruction. The traditional Catholic faith is the one true Christian faith. To be a true Christian and be saved, one must be a traditional Catholic, as our material explains. St. Robert Bellarmine, quote, Some compare the Father to a fountain who gives and does not receive, the Son to a river who receives and gives, the Holy Spirit to a lake who receives and does not divert the water elsewhere.