🧵 Was the Confession of St. Peter Mogila accepted by the Orthodox Church?

Metropolitan Macarius Bulgakov, Orthodox Dogmatic Theology, Vol 1. sec. 8:

“The Orthodox Confession of Peter Mohyla, reviewed and corrected at two councils - Kyiv (1640) and Iasi (1643), then examined and approved by all four ecumenical patriarchs and the Russian patriarchs - Joachim and Adrian, emerged as the first symbolic book of the Eastern Church. Here, for the first time, all its dogmas were expounded on its behalf with possible precision, and in such a way that they were directed not only against ancient heresies but also against new errors that had arisen in the West since its fall from ecumenical Orthodoxy. Here, consequently, the most detailed and at the same time most reliable guide in matters of faith was given to all Orthodox believers, and in particular to Orthodox theologians for the thorough exposition of dogmas.”

azbyka.ru/otechnik/Makar…
St. Philaret Chernigov, Orthodox Dogmatic Theology, Vol. I. sec. 5:

“The Orthodox Confession of the Catholic and Apostolic Church, approved by the Eastern Patriarchs in 1643, and the Extensive Christian Catechism of the Catholic Eastern Church composed by Metropolitan Philaret, approved by the Most Holy Synod, deserve attention primarily because they expose the later arbitrary practices of the Roman and Protestant churches.”

azbyka.ru/otechnik/Filar…

🧵 Various Eastern Fathers On The Procession Of The Holy Spirit

St. Gregory the Wonder-Worker, Expositio Fidei (PG 10:985A):

“There is One Holy Spirit, having His existence from God (ἐκ Θεοῦ τὴν ὕπαρξιν ἔχον), and being manifested through the Son (διὰ Υἱοῦ πεφηνὸς), to wit to men: Image of the Son, Perfect Image of the Perfect; Life, the Cause of the living; Holy Fount; Sanctity, the Supplier, or Leader, of Sanctification; in whom is manifested God the Father, who is above all and in all, and God the Son, who is through all.” St. Andrew of Crete, Oration VII, In Transfigurationem Domini (PG 97:955B):

“For it is not possible that the Father should be mirrored in the Son, or the Son in the Father, except in the Holy Spirit, who proceeds from the Father (παρὰ τοῦ Πατρὸς ἐκπορεύεται), and who loves to dwell substantially in, and repose in (κατ' ούσίαν ἐμφιλοχωρεῖ καὶ ἀναπαύεται), the Son—since he shares the same substance with them, and the same throne, and the same honor.”

🧵 St. Gregory of Nyssa On The Procession Of The Holy Spirit

(1) Great Catechism II-III:

“The like doctrine have we received as to God’s Spirit; we regard it as that which goes with the Word and manifests its energy, and not as a mere effluence of the breath… we conceive of it as an essential power, regarded as self-centred in its own proper person, yet equally incapable of being separated from God in Whom it is, or from the Word of God whom it accompanies, as from melting into nothingness; but as being, after the likeness of God’s Word, existing as a person, able to will, self-moved, efficient, ever choosing the good, and for its every purpose having its power concurrent with its will… For, in personality, the Spirit is one thing and the Word another, and yet again that from which the Word and Spirit is, another.” (2) St. Gregory Nyssa, Letter 35, To Peter (PG 32:329CD):

“Since, then, the Holy Spirit, from Whom all the supply of good things for creation has its source, is attached to the Son, and is inseparably apprehended with Him, and has Its being (εἶναι) derived from the Father, as cause (αἰτίας), from Whom It indeed proceeds (ἐκπορεύεται); It has this gnoristikon (γνωριστικὸν) of it’s peculiarity according to hypostasis, that It is known after the Son and together with the Son, and that It has Its subsistence from the Father (ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς ὑφεστάναι) The Son, who through Himself and with Himself reveals the Spirit proceeding from the Father (ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς ἐκπορευόμενον), who alone shines forth only-begottenly from the unbegotten light, has no commonality (κοινωνίαν) according to the individuating gnorismata (ἰδιάζον τῶν γνωρισμάτων), either to the Father or to the Holy Spirit, but alone is known by these mentioned signs. And God over all alone has a certain special gnorisma (γνώρισμα) of His own hypostasis: being the Father, and subsisting from no cause, and by this sign again He is also individually recognized.”

So what is each persons note or gnorisma?

Father - being the Father (i.e. to the Son), and alone subsists from no cause

Son - shines forth from the Father as begotten, and reveals the Spirits procession

Spirit - has its subsistence being and subsistence derived from the Father as cause, and It is known after the Son

Furthermore, the Son has no common individuating notes with either the Father or Spirit, meaning, of course, that he doesn’t share the individuating note of spirator in order for Him to be relatively opposed to the Spirit along with the Father. So, quite literally an explicit denial of the Filioque… If one wants to say “well the Son and the Spirit both have the property of being from the Father”, sure, granted. But it’s not an individuating note, since it unites the Son and Spirit (not opposes them), and the Father is termed incommunicable by being the unbegotten begetter, further, it’s not analogous to the Father and Son sharing one common note that individuates them from the Spirit, and the Spirit from them. I rest my case.

🧵 St. Basil the Great On The Procession Of The Holy Spirit

Letter 125, To Eustathius (PG 32:549AD):

“Here then [i.e. First Nicene Creed] all points but one are satisfactorily and exactly defined, some for the correction of what had been corrupted, some as a precaution against errors expected to arise. The doctrine of the Spirit, however, is merely mentioned, as needing no elaboration, because at the time of the Council no question was mooted, and the opinion on this subject in the hearts of the faithful was exposed to no attack […] One point must be regarded as settled; and the remark is necessary because of our slanderers; we do not speak of the Holy Ghost as unbegotten, for we recognise one Unbegotten and one Origin of all things (μίαν τῶν ὄντων ἀρχήν), the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ: nor do we speak of the Holy Ghost as begotten, for by the tradition of the faith we have been taught one Only-begotten: the Spirit of truth we have been taught to proceed from the Father (ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς ἐκπορεύεσθαι), and we confess Him to be of God without creation." St. Basil the Great, De Spiritu Sanctu. XVIII.46 (PG 32:152C):

“This is not our only proof that the Holy Spirit partakes of the fullness of divinity; the Spirit is described to be from God (ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ), not in the sense that all things are of God, but because He proceeds (προελθόν) from the mouth of the Father, and is not begotten (οὐ γεννητῶς) like the Son. Of course, the "mouth" of the Father is not a physical member, nor is the Spirit a dissipated exhalation, but "mouth" is used to the extent that it is appropriate to God, and the Spirit is the essence of life and divine sanctification. Their intimacy is made clear, while the ineffability of God's existence is safe-guarded. He is also called the Spirit of Christ (Πνεῦμα Χριστοῦ), since He is naturally aligned (ᾠκειωμένον κατὰ τὴν φύσιν) to Him… He is the Spirit of wisdom, revealing Christ, the power of God and the wisdom of God, in His own greatness. As the Paraclete, He reflects the goodness of the Him who sent Him, and His own dignity reveals the majesty of Him from Whom He proceeded (τὴν τοῦ ὅθεν προῆλθεν).”

Homily XXIV ‘Against the Sabellians, Arians, and Eunomians’ (PG, 31:609B, 612BC):

“For the Father exists, having perfect being (εἶναι) and unbegotten, the root and source (ῥίζα καὶ πηγὴ) of the Son and the Holy Spirit […] I acknowledge the Spirit as being with the Father, not as being the Father; I have received him as being with the Son, not as called Son; I perceive his relation with the Father (πρὸς Πατέρα οικειότητα) , because he proceeds from the Father (ἐκ Πατρὸς ἐκπορεύεται), and his relation (πρὸς) with the Son, because I hear: “If anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ (Πνεῦμα Χριστοῦ), he is not His”. For if he is not of Christ, how does he belong to Christ? But I also hear the Spirit of truth. And the Lord is the truth. And when I hear of the Spirit of adoption, I come to the understanding of the unity by nature with the Son and the Father.”

🧵 St. Maximos the Confessor On The Procession Of The Holy Spirit

Ad Domnum Marinum Cypri:

“With regard to the first matter, they (the Romans) have produced the unanimous documentary evidence of the Latin fathers, and also of Cyril of Alexandria, from the sacred commentary he composed on 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 [they use this expression] in order to manifest the Spirit’s coming-forth (προϊέναι) through him and, in this way, to make clear the unity and identity of the essence. For the Spirit’s very coming-forth from the Father through the Son is indivisibly accomplished in an ineffable way, and is known and believed to be indivisible. The expression [that the Latins use] is intended to safeguard the indivisible unity of the Trinity and the true faith.“ Scholia on Dionysius 1.4

"Note the Trinity as tri-hypostatic, and he calls the paternal fertility the procession beyond conception into the manifestation of the Son and the Holy Spirit."

2.5 (PG 4:221A):

“God the Father, moved timelessly and lovingly, advanced into the distinction of hypostases while remaining undivided and undiminished in His own wholeness, transcendent and encompassing His proper radiance that proceeded into existence as the living image. Likewise, the Holy Spirit proceeds reverently and super-eminently from the Father, as the Lord reveals mystically.”

2.7:

“The lights, as mentioned, in which it is said, “Father of lights” and “Light from Light.”

🧵 St. John of Damascus On The Procession Of The Holy Spirit

Contra Manichaeos, sec. 4:

“Even though I speak of three hypostases, I affirm one principle (ἀρχήν). For the Father is the principle of the Son and the Spirit not according to time, but according to cause (αἰτίαν). For from the Father is both the Logos and the Spirit, even if not after the Father. Just as light is from fire, and the fire of light does not precede in time–for it is impossible for fire to be unenlightened, and the principle and cause is the fire of the light – in the same way, the Father is the principle and cause (ἀρχὴ καὶ αἰτία) of the Logos and the Spirit.”

Contra Manichaeos, 5:

“Manichaean: So, according to you, did your God not change by begetting a Son and bringing forth a Spirit?

Orthodox: By no means. I do not say that the Father, being non-existent before, became a Father later. Instead, He always existed, having His own Word from Himself, and through His Word (διὰ τοῦ λόγου), His Spirit proceeds from Himself (ἐξ αὑτοῦ).” Contra Jacobitas, sec. 78:

“Perfect God the Father, perfect God the Son, perfect God the Holy Spirit […] referring to one cause (ἓν αἴτιον), the Father, from whom the Son and the Spirit derive. For one God, since there is one divinity, not three gods as there are three human beings."

🧵 On The Most Holy And Uncreated Thaboric Light

Beginning with the heretic Barlaam of Calabria, who is cited in the Synodal Tomos of 1341, sec. 8:

“The light which shone on Tabor was not unapproachable, nor was it in truth the light of divinity, nor was it altogether more sacred or more divine than that of angels, but it was inferior to and lower than our intellect itself. For all our thoughts and concepts are more worthy of respect than that light, seeing that it encounters our vision by passing through the air, comes under a sensory faculty, and shows only sensible objects to the beholder. This is because it is material, has a form, occurs in space and time, and colours the air. One moment it constitutes itself and is visible and another moment it dissolves and departs into non-being, by virtue of its being formed in the imagination, and its being divisible and finite. That is also why it was visible to those suffering a privation of intellectual activities, or rather by those who had not yet even begin to acquire them and were still impure and imperfect even in respect of that vision on the mountain, since they were not yet deemed worthy of the intellectual apprehension of deiform beings. “For we ascend from such light to mental represen- tations and objects of contemplation which are incomparably superior to that light.”Therefore those who say that the latter is beyond the mind and true and unapproachable and similar things are entirely deluded. They know nothing higher than phenomenal goods and are therefore impious and introduce very destructive doctrines into the Church.’” St. John of Damascus, Homily on the Transfiguration, §§ 2-18 :

“Today the abyss of unapproachable light, today the unbounded effusion of divine radiance shines out on the apostles on Mount Tabor; now things that may not be seen were beheld by human eyes: an earthly body shines with a brilliant radiance, a mortal body flows with the glory of divinity. For the Word became flesh and the flesh became Word, although neither abandoned its own nature. O the wonder! The glory was not added to the body from outside, but come from within, from the supremely divine divinity of the Word of God united hypostatically with it in an ineffable manner. For on that mountain the angels were unable to contemplate his glory with a steady gaze, yet on this mountain the leading apostles saw him shining with the glory of his own majesty. Here he accepts the chief apostles as witnesses to his own glory and divinity, and reveals his own divinity to them. It is fitting that those who have beheld the divine glory, the glory that transcends all things, the glory that alone in both supremely perfect and beyond perfection, should themselves be perfect. For the truly divine Dionysius, who speaks of God, says: “The way the Master will be seen by those who are his perfect servants is the way he was seen by the apostles on Mount Tabor.” He takes John as the virgin and most pure instrument of theology, because having beheld the timeless glory of the Son, he thundered: “In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” For the mother of prayer is hesychia, and prayer is the manifestation of divine glory. For when we shut off the senses and hold converse with ourselves and with God, and having been freed from the external distraction of the world come to be within ourselves, we shall see then the Kingdom of God within us. For the Kingdom of heaven, which is the Kingdom of God ‘is within us’, as Jesus who is God proclaimed. He who was always glorified in like manner was transfigured in the presence of the disciples and shone with the dazzling light of the Godhead. For having been begotten by the Father without beginning he possessed the natural ray of the Godhead that is without beginning, and the glory of the Godhead also became the glory of the body. But the glory that existed in the visible body was not apparent to those who were incapable of seeing what was invisible even to the angels, since they were fettered to the body, and was invisible. So he was transfigured not because he received something that had not previously existed, nor because he was changed into what he had not been formerly, but he was manifested to his own disciples as that which he was, opening their eyes and enabling them to see when they had been blind. This is the meaning of “He was transfigured before them”. For although he remained in the same identity by which he was visible previously, he was now seen in a different manner by the disciples. “And he shone,” it says, “like the sun”; not because he was not brighter than the sun – for it is impossible for the uncreated to be portrayed within creation in an exact manner – but in so far as the spectators were able to behold. For indeed “no one has ever seen God”, as he is in his nature, and what anyone has seen is what he has contemplated in the spirit. What “the change of the right hand of the Most High” means is this: “What no eye has seen, nor ear heard nor the human heart has ever conceived.” “And so,” in the age to come, “we will be with the Lord for ever,” and will see Christ radiant with the light of the Godhead.“

🧵On If There Is A Real Distinction Between The Divine Essence And The Divine Energy

I was asked to make thus thread, it will be long, beginning with the Fathers who used the terminology of real (πραγματι) and notional (κατ’ ἐπίνοιαν) distinctions. Firstly, St. Mark of Ephesus, in his second Tome against Manuel Kalekas:

“According to the theologians, the distinction is only notional, not real (´Η διάκρισις έπινοία μόνη κατά τούς θεολόγους, ού πραγματι)… God is not what is predicated of Him in a composite (σύνθεσιν) way, but He is said to be so and so according to diverse notions (´κατά διαφόρους έπινοίας)… However, the notion (έπινοία) is distinguished in such a way that it does not assert the same thing to be both energy and essence, as if it found 'essence' along with 'nature'… Further, we willingly accept the example of grain (Basil, Adversus Eunomium I.6,44-54), if by ‘thing’ the subjectum or the being existing per se is meant. For, in this sense, the divine predicates are not different realities (διάφορα πράγματα), namely, beings existing per se, or realities entailing composition.”

First Tome Against Manuel Kalekas’,
p. 228,19-27:

“’Being realities (πράγματα είναι)’ and ‘really differing from each other (πραγματικώς διαφέρειν)’ … is not the same. We, in accordance with the Doctors, declare and believe the former, by stating that they are naturally (φυσικώς) and substantially (ούσιωδώς) and uncreatedly inherent to the essence of God; yet we forbid to speak of ‘really differing from each other’, (πραγματικώς διαφέρειν) because this has to do with things that exist per se [i.e., the primary substances], not with things distinguished only conceptually (έπινοία μόνον διακτινομένοις).” (2) Synodal Tomos of 1351, sec. 27:

“Now just as we proclaim that the divine and eternal union is not only with the inseparable but also with many others and indeed with the sharing in common of the uncreated and uncircumscribed according to the theology of the saints, so too we recognize that we should honour the distinction and difference, again according to the theologians, as also being appropriate to God, not thereby reducing them to complete severance and division, nor conceiving of this difference and natural differentiation as something strange, or separating them from each other by an interval – God forbid! – but we have been taught by the saints to accept as such those things that are by nature causes and the products of causes, distinguishing those things which are naturally united and indivisible in reason alone (μόνῳ τῷ λογισμῷ) in a manner befitting God.”

Sec. 29

“Indeed one could say that the form (eidos) of the distinction between the divine essence and energy is unique, primary and proper to it. They differ from each other by the divine energy being participated and indivisibly apportioned and in some way named and conceived, even if dimly, from its results, whereas the essence is imparticipable, non-apportionable and nameless, as evidently completely transcending any name or concept.”

🧵 St. Gregory Palamas On Whether The Divine Energy Or The Manifestation (φανέρωσις) Begin In Time

Against Akindynos, 6.20.75:

“For giving life (τὸ ζωοποιεῖν) started and stopped when the child came back to life (Mt 9:25), but giving life is not for that reason a created energy of God. And the paralytic, having received remission of sins (Mt 9:2), no longer had need, for that purpose, of that which brought this about (τοῦ ἐνεργοῦντος). For in such things, starting and stopping belongs to manifestation (τῆς φανερώσεως), but not the energy itself, which is a divine power manifested through creatures (without the latter attaining to eternality), for the power is effortless (ἀκάματος).” Against Akindynos, 6.21.78:

“The essence of the Spirit is completely hidden, while the energy of the divine Spirit, manifested (φανερουμένη) through its effects, begins and ceases at the level of manifestation (κατὰ τὴν φανέρωσιν), without the creatures, as we have said, attaining to eternality. ... But the energy of God does not, for this reason, begin and cease unqualifiedly (πάντως). For God, who is always active, has an unceasing (ἄπαυστον) energy, ever seeing all things and providing for all things. For my Father until now is working, and I am working (Jn 5:17).”

🧵On One Energy in God

St. Gregory Palamas, On the Divine Energy, 7 (ΕΠΕ 61:140):

“And when we speak of only a single energy in God, we mean it encompassing all of them uniformly. For according to the Fathers, just as the sun by its ray both illuminates, and warms, and awakens, and nurtures, and animates, so God through a single energy works all things.” Dr. Tikhon Pino, Being and Naming God, p. 129:

“Palamas says that God’s energy is ‘not one as the… aquired energy [έπίκτητον] of an artisan’ [Union 21]. The divine energy is one in that it works all things [τά πάντα ένεργεί]. But it is also spoken of as one that encompasses the totality of diverse powers and the full range of faculties and perfections that characterize God [Akind. 1.7.24]. ‘When we say that there is only one energy in God, we understand the [one] that encompasses [περιεκτικήν] all of them” [Energ. 7]. Palamas draws an analogy for this with the sun, which has multiple energies in which it warms, illumines, enlives, and gives growth. Yet it has one activity in the sense that when one refers to its energeia in the singular, one refers to the activity that encompasses [περιεκτικήν] all…”

🧵 St. Maximos the Confessor on Theosis

Ad Thallasium 61 (& Scholia 14):

“The gospel of God is this, an entreaty and exhortation addressed by God to humankind through the Son who became incarnate and bestowed uncreated theosis on those who believe in him as the reward of reconciliation with the Father […] And by uncreated theosis I mean that specific real radiance which has no origin, but is manifested in the worthy in a manner beyond understanding.” Economic Chapters, I.7:

“God, in whose essence created beings do not participate, but who wills that those capable of so doing shall participate in Him according to some other mode, never issues from the hiddenness of His essence; for even that mode according to which He wills to be participated in remains perpetually concealed from all men. Thus, just as God of His own will is participated in - the manner of this being known to Him alone - in the surpassing power of His goodness. He freely brings into existence participating beings, according to the principle which He alone understands.”

🧵 On Natural Theology in the Orthodox Tradition:

Dr. David Bradshaw points out that early Church Fathers used philosophical arguments, “not only in apologetic works… but in works aimed at systematically presenting Christian belief to a Christian audience...”

He goes on cite St. Athanasius and other early Fathers on what exactly natural theology is, and it’s role.

academia.edu/49828852/Natur…

🧵 St. Gennadios Scholarios on what kind of distinction the Barlaamites and Akindynists made between essence and energy.

In Contre les partisans d’Acindyne 5-6 (OCGS 3:213,215):

“[…] there is an absolute distinction of reason, which is only of the subject and the predicate, in which such things exist. For this is only in the soul and not at all in the actual thing, because predication are supposition are functions of the soul…