To: gbcdoj; Aquinasfan
This is, effectively, the procession "filioque", even though the great Damascene said that the Spirit was not "from the Son".
Yeah, but Aquinas lists that as an objection. See Aquinasfan post below yours.
posted on 04/06/2005 8:18:16 AM PDT
Yes, St. Thomas actually accuses him of holding a Nestorian error! But he had not read the apologies against the Iconoclasts - my understanding is the De Fide Orthodoxa is all that had been translated at the time into Latin. The problem is solved when you realize that for Damascene, like the other Greek Fathers, procession, or "from the Son", is almost always used of procession from a first source or origin, whereas Latin theology uses the terms in a much looser sense. Properly the Spirit proceeds principally from the Father and consubstantially from the Son, as was explained to St. Maximos when he inquired:
With regard to the first matter, they (the Romans) have produced the unanimous evidence of the Latin Fathers, and also of Cyril of Alexandria, from the study he made of the gospel of St. John. On the basis of these texts, they have shown that they have not made the Son the cause of the Spirit--they know in fact that the Father is the only cause of the Son and the Spirit, the one by begetting and the other by procession--but that they have manifested the procession through him and have thus shown the unity and identity of the essence. (Letter to Marinus)
posted on 04/06/2005 10:09:29 AM PDT
(In the world you shall have distress. But have confidence. I have overcome the world. ~ John 16:33)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson