Early Church on Spirit's Procession (Per Filium)

"[W]e therefore request that we not be constrained to a different confession [of faith], but that we remain with the one that we find expressed in the Sacred Scriptures, in the Gospels, and also in the writings of the Holy Greek Doctors, namely, that the Holy Spirit does not have two origins, nor a double procession, but that He proceeds from one origin, as from a source — from the Father through the Son"

[From the First Article of the Synod of Brest, reconciling the Ukrainian Church to the Holy Roman See]

Let it be said at the forefront, the difference between Orthodox and Catholics on the question of whether the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, or proceeds from the Father alone, has to do with terminology. For the Greeks and their theology, the word "proceed" (ἐκπορεύεσθαι), though used in a more generic way in Scripture, came to entail not a mere "coming forth from" or "out of" (as opposed to the term προϊέναι), but refer to a specific, originating source, and is a personal, hypostatic quality. In Latin, however, the equivalent word ("procedere") has a more general connotation of simply coming forth from or out of. It can entail substance (and does in context of the Filioque), but does not specifically refer to the ultimate cause from which a thing proceeds.

Given that the Greek and Latin traditions evolved differently, this work will not be concerned with the Son as the ultimate, originate, hypostatic principle from which the Spirit comes into being. Rome itself recognizes the Father as "the fount of Divinity." Rather, while acknowledging that it is the Father to whom the Spirit owes His eternal origin, this work will show that the Church Fathers believed that Son is involved and utilized in the Father’s procession of the Spirit, that it could rightly be said that the Spirit proceeds (in the Greek sense of ἐκπορεύεσθαι) from the Father through the Son. This is precisely how many of the Fathers word it, and is in this sense which the phrase “from the Son” should be understood. 

But what is the nature of this procession? What sort of relationship does the Spirit have with the Eternal Son? To adequately answer this, we must understand the true nature of the dispute, and thus must understand what exactly the majority of the Orthodox tradition is objecting to. The concerns of Byzantine Christians are nuanced, and these concerns are twofold.

1. The Orthodox, when it comes to the issue of whether the Spirit proceeds from the Son, are not concerned with a temporal procession, but an eternal one. There exists a definite distinction in their thought between the relations of the Divine Persons in time as opposed to Their relations in eternity. Therefore, it will not be enough to show that the Spirit proceeds from the Son while Christ is incarnate on earth, but will need to be shown that the Spirit proceeds from the Son from all eternity.
2. The Orthodox tradition is also informed by the Palamite doctrine, which makes a real distinction between God's essence (nature, substance) and God's energies (operations, manifestations.) It is common for Orthodox to argue that the Spirit proceeds energetically from the Father and the Son — that is, His grace and gifts — but that substantially, He proceeds from the Father alone. Their issue of contention does not concern whether the Spirit proceeds from the Son in a sort of activity, but from His very being.

Due to an unfamiliarity with these concepts, some attempts at bolstering the Catholic position fall short of addressing the main concern which the Orthodox are interested in. The Patristic quotations brought forward may speak of the Spirit being "from the Son," as though this were enough to convince the Orthodox and settle the issue, while often they are too vague or ambiguous to present a substantive argument in favor of the Filioque, when there is really no solid contextual evidence that the texts should be read in a way that differs from the development of Eastern theology which has formed the Orthodox opposition to the doctrine.

In light of these approaches to theology adhered to by the East, the excerpts here provided are intended to demonstrate that when these Fathers speak of the procession of the Spirit from the Son, they are not referring to the grace or energy, but the actual Spirit. Some of these passages will be quite explicit. Where they are less explicit or more ambiguous, or just too dense to be easily deciphered, I will provide commentary to extrapolate and argue why they should be understood in favor of the Spirit's eternal, substantial relation to the Son.

Tertullian

But as for me, who derive the Son from no other source but from the substance of the Father, and (represent Him) as doing nothing without the Father's will, and as having received all power from the Father, how can I be possibly destroying the Monarchy from the faith, when I preserve it in the Son just as it was committed to Him by the Father? The same remark (I wish also to be formally) made by me with respect to the third degree in the Godhead, because I believe the Spirit to proceed from no other source than from the Father through the Son.
(Against Praxeas 4)

Following, therefore, the form of these analogies, I confess that I call God and His Word — the Father and His Son — two. For the root and the tree are distinctly two things, but correlatively joined; the fountain and the river are also two forms, but indivisible; so likewise the sun and the ray are two forms, but coherent ones. Everything which proceeds from something else must needs be second to that from which it proceeds, without being on that account separated. Where, however, there is a second, there must be two; and where there is a third, there must be three. Now the Spirit indeed is third from God and the Son; just as the fruit of the tree is third from the root, or as the stream out of the river is third from the fountain, or as the apex of the ray is third from the sun. Nothing, however, is alien from that original source whence it derives its own properties. In like manner the Trinity, flowing down from the Father through intertwined and connected steps, does not at all disturb the Monarchy, while it at the same time guards the state of the Economy.
(Against Praxaes 12)

This is very consonant with Patristic thought. "Nothing, however, is alien from that original whence it derives its own properties", referring to the fact that the Persons are all consubstantial with one another, and that that Divine substance originates in the Father. This does not, however, prevent him from likening the Spirit as "third from God and the Son", likening the Father to the root/fountain/sun, the Son to the tree/river/ray, and the Spirit to the fruit/stream out of the river/apex of the ray. It is all one phenomenon, one being, though it occurs in degrees, or rather, with distinctions. For Tertullian (and others, as will be seen), there is nothing contradictory between the Son being seen as being a means to the substantial procession of the Spirit and still acknowledging of the Monarchia of the Holy Father.

Pseudo-Gregory Thaumaturgus

We acknowledge that the Son and the Spirit are consubstantial with the Father, and that the substance of the Trinity is one — that is, that there is one divinity according to nature, the Father remaining unbegotten, and the Son being begotten of the Father in a true generation, and not in a formation by will, and the Spirit being sent forth eternally from the substance of the Father through the Son, with power to sanctify the whole creation.
(Pseudo-Gregory Thaumaturgus, Sectional Confession of Faith 18)

St. Leotinus of Caesarea

This bishop was present at the council of Nicea, and was a friend of St. Gregory the Illuminator, apostle to Armenia.

[T]he Spirit proceeds from the Father, and is proper to the Son and gushes forth from Him.
Mansi II:868CD

St. Gregory of Nyssa

If, however, if any one cavils at our argument, on the ground that by not admitting the difference of nature it leads to a mixture and confusion of the Persons, we shall make to such a charge this answer — that while we confess the invariable character of the nature, we do not deny the difference in respect of cause, and that which is caused, by which alone we apprehend that one Person is distinguished from another — by our belief, that is, that one is the Cause, and another is of the Cause; and again in that which is of the Cause we recognize another distinction. For one is directly from the first Cause, and another by that which is directly from the first Cause; so that the attribute of being Only-begotten abides without doubt in the Son, and the interposition of the Son, while it guards His attribute of being Only-begotten, does not shut out the Spirit from His relation by way of nature to the Father.
(Gregory of Nyssa, To Abablius “On Not Three Gods”)

St. Gregory refers here to the Three Persons of the Trinity: One is "the Cause" (the Father), Another is "[directly] of the Cause" (The Son), and Another yet is "by that which is directly from the first Cause. (the Spirit)" The Casuality, in and of itself, is still referred back to the Father -- yet He is called "first Cause", and the Son is said to be "directly from the first Cause." Gregory is still assertive that the Spirit is not "shut out" from the Father in His relation to Him, but acknowledges that the Son plays an eternal role in that relationship.

Our account of the Holy Ghost will be the same also; the difference is only in the place assigned in order. For as the Son is bound to the Father, and, while deriving existence from Him, is not substantially after Him, 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. Extensions in time find no admittance in the Eternal Life; so that, when we have removed the thought of cause, the Holy Trinity in no single way exhibits discord with itself; and to It is glory due.

(Against Eunomius 1:42)

Just as the Son, while His deriving existence from the Father, is not substantially posterior to Him, so likewise is the in touch with the Son. St. Gregory of Nyssa specifically says the Son is intellectually conceived prior to the Spirit "in the theoretical light of a cause." 

(This declaration also voids the objection raised by Photius against the Filique which suggests that the doctrine incorporates the concept of time into eternity -- Nyssen claims the fact that it is eternity being discussed in the first place which eliminates a temporal understanding.)

For the plea will not avail them in their self-defense, that He is delivered by our Lord to His disciples third in order, and that therefore He is estranged from our ideal of Deity. Where in each case activity in working good shows no diminution or variation whatever, how unreasonable it is to suppose the numerical order to be a sign of any diminution or essential variation! It is as if a man were to see a separate flame burning on three torches (and we will suppose that the third flame is caused by that of the first being transmitted to the middle, and then kindling the end torch), and were to maintain that the heat in the first exceeded that of the others; that that next it showed a variation from it in the direction of the less; and that the third could not be called fire at all, though it burnt and shone just like fire, and did everything that fire does. But if there is really no hindrance to the third torch being fire, though it has been kindled from a previous flame, what is the philosophy of these men, who profanely think that they can slight the dignity of the Holy Spirit because He is named by the Divine lips after the Father and the Son?
(Gregory of Nyssa, On the Holy Spirit, Against the Macedonians 6)

Here, Gregory vouches for the co-equality of persons signified by the Divine Name (Father, Son and Holy Spirit) against those who infer, from the fact that those titles occur in a certain sequence, that there must be degradation in dignity. St. Gregory compares the Divine Nature shared by all three Persons to a Fire alight upon three Torches. Ablaze on all three torches is the same fire, signifying the oneness of Divine nature and being, but one of those torches supplies the other two with that flame. That first torch passes its fire to a second, which in turn passes that fire received from the first torch onto the third. One torch is originator of that flame, and it is the same flame among all three, but the third torch receives the first torch's light via the second torch. It is not difficult to grasp the point he is making.

St. Hilary of Poitiers:

As in the revelation that Your Only-begotten was born of You before times eternal, when we cease to struggle with ambiguities of language and difficulties of thought, the one certainty of His birth remains; so I hold fast in my consciousness the truth that Your Holy Spirit is from You and through Him, although I cannot by my intellect comprehend it.
(Hilary of Poitiers, On the Trinity 12:56) 

Hilary compares the "revelation" of the Son's eternal origin with the "truth" of the Spirit, and if he is taking this comparison to its fullest extent, then he is also be referring to the Spirit's eternal origin. A great mystery of the Christian faith is that the Son was born eternally of the Father; another great mystery of the Faith is that the Spirit is "from [the Father] through [the Son.]

Accordingly He receives from the Son, Who is both sent by Him, and proceeds from the Father. Now I ask whether to receive from the Son is the same thing as to proceed from the Father. But if one believes that there is a difference between receiving from the Son and proceeding from the Father, surely to receive from the Son and to receive from the Father will be regarded as one and the same thing. For our Lord Himself says, Because He shall receive of Mine... whether it will be power, or excellence, or teaching — the Son has said must be received from Him, and again He indicates that this same thing must be received from the Father. For when He says that all things whatsoever the Father has are His, and that for this cause He declared that it must be received from His own, He teaches also that what is received from the Father is yet received from Himself, because all things that the Father has are His. Such a unity admits no difference, nor does it make any difference from whom that is received, which given by the Father is described as given by the Son. Is a mere unity of will brought forward here also? All things which the Father has are the Son's, and all things which the Son has are the Father's. For He Himself says, And all Mine are Yours, and Yours are Mine.
(Hilary of Poitiers, ibid 8:20)

This is a significant quotation, because Hilary is actually one of the few early Latin Fathers to be familiar with the native Eastern distinction between the specific procession of the Spirit from the Father, and a more general procession of the Spirit from Father and Son. But this does not at all stop him from recognizing that the general procession concerns that of substances and origin. He rhetorically questions whether to proceed from the Father and to receive from the Son should be regarded as the same thing. For Hilary, it implies that the Spirit receives from Both all the excellencies of the Godhead. The Spirit, in proceeding from the Father, receives from both the Father and the Son.

St. Athanasius of Alexandria:

If then, as you say, 'the Son is from nothing,' and 'was not before His generation,' He, of course, as well as others, must be called Son and God and Wisdom only by participation; for thus all other creatures consist, and by sanctification are glorified. You have to tell us then, of what He is partaker. All other things partake of the Spirit, but He, according to you, of what is He partaker? Of the Spirit? Nay, rather the Spirit Himself takes from the Son, as He Himself says; and it is not reasonable to say that the latter is sanctified by the former. Therefore it is [of] the Father that He partakes; for this only remains to say.
(Four Discourses Against the Arians, ibid I:5:15) * 

The Arians apparently acknowledged that all created things, by virtue of the creatureliness, partake of God's Holy Spirit for their existence and subsistence. Athanasius, in taking Arian christology to task, essentially presses them with the question which naturally arises from their theology: if the Logos is a creature, shouldn't He then partake of the Spirit for His sanctification as well? Athanasius then immediately presents the corrective theology, crediting its truth upon the words of Christ: "Nay, rather the Spirit Himself takes from the Son, as He Himself says," juxtaposing this with the fact that "it is the Father [of which] He partakes" is all there is left to say. 

In asserting this, Athanasius rejects that the Son "partakes of the Spirit", insisting instead the reverse: that the Spirit shares in the Son, while the Son participates only in the Father. The saint is not referring to simply the inner-Trinitarian communion of grace, for all Three Persons share the Divine Energies. The only intelligible meaning available is an existential one (the existential being of the Son, of course, exactly the core concern of the Arian controversy.) In other words, Athanasius argues the Son is God because He partakes of the Father directly, and implies that He does not partake of the Spirit, but the Spirit partakes of Him.

This same notion can be found in multiple other places of his corpus. One such example:

Not then as the Son in the Father, so also we become in the Father; for the Son does not merely partake the Spirit, that therefore He too may be in the Father; nor does He receive the Spirit, but rather He supplies It Himself to all; and the Spirit does not unite the Word to the Father , but rather the Spirit receives from the Word.
(Athanasius, ibid III:25:26)

Didymus the Blind

For it is not the case that the Father announces to the Son his will as though the Son, who is Wisdom and Truth, were ignorant, since everything which [the Father] speaks he possesses in wisdom and in substance, as he is wise and truly subsisting. For the Father, therefore, to speak, and for the Son to hear, or, vice versa, for the Son to speak to the Father, signifies the identity of nature and of volition that is in the Father and the Son. And also the Holy Spirit, who is the Spirit of Truth and the Spirit of Wisdom, cannot hear the Son speaking things which he does not already know, since he himself is that which is put forth from the Son…The Lord’s words that follow confirm this opinion, when he says, “He (i.e., the Paraclete) shall glorify me, for he shall receive of mine” (Jn 16:14). Once more, this term, “to receive,” must be understood in a manner befitting the divine nature… For just as the Son, in giving, is not deprived of those things which he bestows, and does not confer upon others to his own loss, so likewise the Spirit does not receive what he did not have before…For neither is the Son anything apart from those things which are given to him by the Father, nor is there any other substance belonging to the Holy Spirit besides that which is given to him by the Son.
(Didymus the Blind, de Spiritu Sancto 36-37) 

Now, Didymus' work On the Holy Spirit has been subject to much debate. It only survives in Latin, deriving from a translation originally performed by St. Jerome. Most scholars believe the text has been tampered with, possibly interpolating commentary into the actual work itself. The parts of the work which speak overtly on the matter at hand are believed to reflect are more developed understanding of the Latin filioque doctrine.

It may reasonably be argued, however, that it is still fair to reckon Didymus as having held this view. Firstly, to my knowledge, the section I have quoted is not one of the suspect passages. Beyond that, however, which school does Didymus the Blind hail from? The Alexandrian school. Didymus’ fellow alumni and theological predecessors (Origen, St. Athanasius, and St. Cyril) have all been shown to believe likewise. Even in the light of tampered writings, it remains a reasonable conjecture that Didymus believed this doctrine, because by so doing he would simply be in line with what was taught by his theological forebearers and fellow countrymen.

Servian of Gabala

To God the Father, the Unbegotten, and to the Only-begotten Son, begotten from him, and to the Holy Spirit who proceeds from their essence, to the Three in One substance, be all glory, now and ever, and unto ages of ages. Amen.
(Servian of Gabala, Sermon on the Epiphany, c. 390)

St. Epiphanius of Salamis

But someone will say, "Therefore we are saying that there are two Sons. And how then is He the Only-begotten?" Well then. "Who art thou that repliest against God?" [Rom 9:20]. For if he calls the one Who is from Him the Son, and the one Who is from both (παρ᾽ ἀμφοτέρων) the Holy Spirit, which things we understand by faith alone, from the saints
(The Man Well-Anchored 71)

 “Christ is believed to be from the Father, God from God, and the Spirit to be from Christ, or indeed from both (παρ᾽ ἀμφοτέρων) — as Christ says, ‘Who proceeds from the Father’ (Jn 15:26), and ‘He shall receive of mine’ (Jn 16:14)” (Epiphanius, Ancoratus 67)

St. Epiphanius is arguing against those who accuse the orthodox of believing the Father has two Sons, because both the Logos and the Spirit are from Him. How does he counter this? He explains that this claim is unfounded, because the Son and Spirit come from the Father in different ways: the Son is from the Father; the Spirit is from the Father and the Son.

And we believe in the Holy Ghost, who spake in the Law, and preached in the Prophets, and descended at Jordan, and spake in the Apostles, and indwells the Saints. And thus we believe in him, that he is the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of God, the perfect Spirit, the Spirit the Comforter, uncreate, who proceedeth from the Father, receiving of the Son, and believed on.
(Creed of St. Epiphanius)

St. Ambrose of Milan

It is difficult to label Ambrose as expressing a theology which does not reflect the Filioque. Aside from the texts themselves, let it be known that he is the teacher of St. Augustine of Hippo, whom everyone knows did teach the Filioque. It is not a likely historical scenario that Augustine believed it while Ambrose did not.

Learn now that as the Father is the Fount of Life, so, too, many have stated that the Son is signified as the Fount of Life; so that, he says, with You, Almighty God, Your Son is the Fount of Life. That is the Fount of the Holy Spirit, for the Spirit is Life, as the Lord says: The words which I speak unto you are Spirit and Life, (John 6:64) for where the Spirit is, there also is Life; and where Life is, is also the Holy Spirit.
(Ambrose of Milan, On the Holy Spirit 1:15:172)

And this, again, is not a trivial matter that we read that a river goes forth from the throne of God. For you read the words of the Evangelist John to this purport: And He showed me a river of living water, bright as crystal, proceeding out of the throne of God and of the Lamb. In the midst of the street thereof, and on either side, was the tree of life, bearing twelve kinds of fruits, yielding its fruit every month, and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of all nations. (Revelation 22:1-2)
This is certainly the River proceeding from the throne of God, that is, the Holy Spirit, Whom he drinks who believes in Christ, as He Himself says: If any man thirst, let him come to Me and drink. He that believes in Me, as says the Scripture, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water. But this spoke He of the Spirit. (John 7:37-38) Therefore the river is the Spirit
(On the Holy Spirit, 3:20:153-154)

Sts. Isaac of Seleucia & Maruthas of Tagrit

We confess the living Holy Spirit, the living Paraclete, who is from the Father and the Son, in One Trinity, in One Essence, in One Will, in accordance with the creed of the 318 bishops in the city of Nicaea.
(Synod of Selucia, A.D. 410)

St. Cyril of Alexandria

The Spirit is assuredly in no way changeable; or even if some think Him to be so infirm as to change, the disgrace will be traced back to the divine nature itself, if in fact the Spirit is from God the Father and, for that matter, from the Son, being poured forth substantially from both, that is to say, from the Father through the Son.
(In Worship and Adoration in Spirit and Truth 1)

For, in that the Son is God, and from God according to nature (for He has had His birth from God the Father), the Spirit is both proper to Him and in Him and from Him, just as, to be sure, the same thing is understood to hold true in the case of God the Father Himself.
(Commentary on the Prophet Joel 35)

Since the Holy Spirit, when He is in us effect our being conformed to God, and actually proceeds from the Father and Son, it is abundantly clear that He is of the divine essence, in it in essence and proceeding from it"
(Treasury of the Holy Trinity 34, A.D. 424)

Thus, Paul knows no difference of nature between the Son and the Holy Spirit, but because the Spirit exists from Him and in Him by nature, He calls Him by the name of Lordship.
(Thesaurus 34)

The Spirit is from the essence of the Son
(Thesaurus 34, PG 75, 588A)

The Spirit has by nature His subsistence from Him [the Son], and being sent from Him upon the creature, works its renovation.
(Thesaurus; PG 75, 608)

St. Gregory the Dialogist (the Great)

But the Mediator of God and men, the Man Christ Jesus, in all things hath Him (the Spirit) both always and continually present. For the same Spirit even in Substance proceeds from Him. And thus, though He abides in the holy Preachers, He is justly said to abide in the Mediator in a special manner, for that in them He abides of grace for a particular object, but in Him He abides substantially for all ends.
(Morals on the Book of Job 2:92, A.D. 594)

For since it is certain that the Spirit, the Paraclete, always proceeds from the Father and the Son, why does the Son say that he is going to go away, so that that one (the Paraclete) may come, who is never absent from the Son?
(Dialogues on the Life and Miracles of the Italian Fathers, book 2)

St. Maximus the Confessor

Those of the Queen of cities have attacked the synodal letter of the present very holy Pope (Martin I), not in the case of all the chapters that he has written in it, but only in the case of two of them. One relates to theology, because it says he says that ‘the Holy Spirit proceeds (ἐκπορεύεσθαι) also from the Son.’... 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…
(St. Maximus the Confessor, Letter to Marinus)*

Here, Maximus argues that the Latins are not heretics for their Filioque doctrine, that it is consonant with orthodox Greek theology and teaching. They are not saying that there is more than one originate source of Godhead within the Trinity, but only saying that the Spirit's procession from the Son shows forth the likeness of Their common essence. Some may wish to argue this as merely a temporal, economic procession being referred to, due to St. Maximus using the term "coming-forth." But this is noting the tree and missing the forest; Maximus refers to "the unanimous documentary evidence of the Latin fathers, and also of Cyril of Alexandria" -- who all taught something stronger than mere mission into the world.

Further, the interpretation of his letter as referring to substance is more consonant with the Confessor's own thought as shown elsewhere in his works. To demonstrate what sort of procession is being referred to, here is some of Maximus' own theology on the matter to explain his view.

“For just as the Holy Spirit exists, by nature, according to substance, as belonging to the Father, so also does he, according to substance, belong to the Son, in that, in an ineffable way, he proceeds substantially from the Father through the begotten Son.”
(St. Maximus the Confessor, Question 63 to Thalassius)

“Just as Mind is the cause of the Word, so also it is [cause] of the Spirit, but by means of the Word. And just as we are unable to say that a word is ‘of the voice,’ so also neither can we say that the Word is ‘of the Spirit.’”
(St. Maximus the Confessor, Quaestiones et dubia, I, 34)

Andrew of Caesarea

The river of God, having been filled with waters running through the heavenly Jerusalem, is the Life-giving Spirit which proceeds from God the Father and through the Lamb, through the midst of the most supreme powers which are called throne of divinity, filling the wide streets of the holy city, that is, the multitude in her being "increased more than the [grains of] sand," according to the Psalmist [Psalm 139.18].
( Andrew of Caesarea; Commentary on the Apocalypse, )

St. John of Damascus

He Himself (the Father) then is Mind, the depth of reason, begetter of the Word, and through the Word the Producer of the revealing Spirit.
(An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith 1:12)

And the Holy Spirit is the power of the Father revealing the hidden mysteries of His Divinity, proceeding from the Father through the Son in a manner known to Himself, but different from that of generation.
(ibid 1:12)

The Holy Spirit is God, being between the unbegotten and the begotten, and united to the Father through the Son.
(ibid 1:13)

I say that God is always Father since he has always his Word coming from himself, and through his Word, having his Spirit issuing from him
(Dialogue against the Manicheans 5, c. A.D. 749)

St. Tarasius, Patriarch of Constantinople

“And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of Life, Who Proceeds from the Father through the Son, and is acknowledged to be Himself God”

ADDITIONAL QUOTATIONS:

St. Basil of Caesarea*

"Even if the Holy Spirit is third in dignity and order, why need He be third also in nature? For that He is second to the Son, having His being from Him and receiving from Him and announcing to us and being completely dependent on Him, pious tradition recounts; but that His nature is third we are not taught by the Saints nor can we conclude logically from what has been said."
[Against Eunomius 3:1 in PG 29:655A, c. A.D. 365]

Let it be acknowledged that this quotation is highly controversial. It comes from St. Basil's "Against Eunomius", and this version of the passage is not present in many editions of the work. The majority of scholars believe this quote is inauthentic, deeming it as an interpolation pertaining to a later theological controversy.

There are, however, valid foundations on which to warrant an argument for its authenticity. Firstly, it matches well with other statements from his brother and fellow Origenist, St. Gregory of Nyssa. Both were students of Origen of Alexandra, who certainly taught that the Spirit owes his origin to the Son as well as the Father.

Another aspect to take into account: as noted by Dr. Peter Gilbert, if this passage is authentic, it is only work within the Cappadocian corpus which comments on, makes reference to, John 16:14 (“He shall receive of Mine”). If it is inauthentic, an important verse concerning the Holy Spirit on the issue is strangely absent from the existent passages of the Cappadocian Fathers.

One Father, one Son, one Holy Spirit must be confessed according to the divine tradition. Not two Fathers, nor two Sons, since the Spirit neither is the Son nor is called. For we do not receive anything from the Spirit in the same way as the Spirit from the Son; but we receive him (ie. the Spirit) coming to us and sanctifying us, the communication of divinity, the pledge of eternal inheritance, and the first fruits of the eternal good."

Homilies,PG 31:1433(ante A.D. 379),in GIL,204

Basil makes the point that Christians do not receive from the Spirit in the same manner in which the Holy Spirit receives from the Son. Christians receive his sanctification, the participation in divinity and first fruits in the new creation. The Holy Spirit, by contrast, receives from the Son in a more significant way than this. This sort of line of theologizing eliminates a purely temporal way of understanding the procession of the Spirit from the Son, and also suggests that it is more than mere grace or energy.

Finally, in order to show the similarity between the Early Church (even in its Eastern lung) and later Roman Catholic theology, here are quotations from the latter’s most eminent and renowned theologians:

St. Augustine of Hippo

the Father is the beginning (principium) of the whole divinity, or if it is better so expressed, deity. He, therefore, who proceeds from the Father and from the Son, is referred back to Him from whom the Son was born (natus).
(St. Augustine of Hippo, De Trinitate IV.20.29)

St. Thomas Aquinas

Therefore, because the Son receives from the Father that the Holy Ghost proceeds from Him, it can be said that the Father spirates the Holy Ghost through the Son, or that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father through the Son, which has the same meaning. . . [I]f we consider the persons themselves spirating, then, as the Holy Ghost proceeds both from the Father and from the Son, the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father immediately, as from Him, and mediately, as from the Son; and thus He is said to proceed from the Father through the Son.
(Summa Theologiae I:36:3)

These two quotations, from the two preeminent theologians of Roman Catholic theology, are added here to lend a voice to the part of the Latin tradition which recognizes the primacy or Monachia of the Father within the Trinity, recognizing that He is the fount of divinity and root of Divine nature, and that the Spirit is referred back to Him in an ultimate sense.

The Fathers on the Necessity of Communion with Rome

"All the churches of God salute you."
Romans 16:16b

The Papacy, as it functions in the modern day, is a development. In the first millennium, its role can be compared to a Supreme Court, whereas in the second millenium it behaves more like a CEO. But, true to its name, the Papacy has always been positioned as a father, and as a rock to the whole church.

This means the Papacy’s outward framework, the pragmatic method by which it operates, has evolved as time has gone on, but that its interior animating principle, its theological purpose, is consistent with what came before it and is in harmony with its past.

The early Fathers may not utter in any explicit fashion such things that the Pope is infallible when he speaks ex cathedra, or that he holds universal and immediate jurisdiction over the whole church. But they do refer to his see as having always maintained the apostolic faith and never suffering its corruption, and that it is preeminent among and head over all the churches. They admonish that there is no unity in the Church except through unity with Rome. They record in that no theological dispute can be counted as settled, nor universal church law set into motion, without his approval.

The Pope's universal primacy over the Church serves to maintain and manifest the universal unity of faith (Eph 4:13) and bond of peace (4:3). He is the direct and preeminent successor of St. Peter, chief and head of the Apostles, the rock upon whom Christ built his Church (Mt 16), whom He commissioned to feed His sheep (Jn 21), for whom He prayed for unfailing faith and indicated that he was to strengthen the brethren (Lk 22.) Thus, the role Peter serves as established by Christ, is the one which the Pope and the Church of Rome continue to exercise.

These excerpts from the Fathers will highlight a common theme which adds weight to the papal claims.

St. Irenaeus of Lyons (c. AD 130 - 200)

Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who... assemble in unauthorized meetings by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul...  For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre-eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those who exist everywhere.
(Against Heresies 3:3:2)

Every church should agree with the church of Rome "on account of its preeminent authority", inasmuch as that church has continuously preserved the apostolic tradition.

St. Cyprian of Carthage (c. AD 210 - 258)

After such things as these, moreover, they still dare — a false bishop having been appointed for them by, heretics— to set sail and to bear letters from schismatic and profane persons to the throne of Peter, and to the chief church whence priestly unity takes its source; and not to consider that these were the Romans whose faith was praised in the preaching of the apostle, to whom faithlessness could have no access.
(Letter 58:14)

It is from the Roman Church "whence priestly unity takes its source"

St. Optatus of Milevis (c. AD 397)

You cannot then deny that you do know that upon Peter first in the City of Rome was bestowed the Episcopal Chair [Cathedra], on which sat Peter, the Head of all the Apostles (for which reason he was called Cephas), that, in this one Chair, unity should be preserved by all, lest the other Apostles might claim--each for himself--separate Chairs, so that he who should set up a second Chair against the unique Chair would already be a schismatic and a sinner.
(On the Schism of the Donatists 2:2)

The Chair of Peter is the chair against which all other chairs are held, "in this one Chair, unity should be preserved by all," "he who should set up a second Chair against the unique Chair would already be a schismatic and a sinner."

St. Ambrose of Milan (c. 340 - 397)

Your grace must be besought not to permit any disturbance of the Roman Church, the head of the whole Roman world and of the most holy faith of the Apostles, for from thence flow out to all [churches] the bonds of sacred communion.
(Letter 11:4)

It is from the Roman Church "from thence flows out of all the bonds of sacred communion." It is "the head of... the most holy faith of the Apostles."

St. Jerome (AD 347-420)

My words are spoken to the successor of the fisherman, to the disciple of the cross. As I follow no leader save Christ, so I communicate with none but your blessedness, that is with the chair of Peter. For this, I know, is the rock on which the church is built! (Matthew 16:18) This is the house where alone the paschal lamb can be rightly eaten. (Exodus 12:22) This is the Ark of Noah, and he who is not found in it shall perish when the flood prevails. (Genesis 7:23)
(Letter 15:2)

As he follows Christ, so he communes with the pope.

St. Maximus the Confessor*

For the extremities of the earth and all in every part of it who purely and rightly confess the Lord, look directly towards the most holy Roman Church and its confession and faith, as it were to a sun of unfailing light, awaiting from it the bright radiance of the sacred dogmas of our fathers, according to what the six inspired and holy councils have purely and piously decreed, declaring most expressly the symbol of faith. For from the coming down of the Incarnate Word amongst us, all the Churches in every part of the world have possessed that greatest Church alone as their base and foundation, seeing that, according to the promise of Christ our Saviour, the gates of Hell do never prevail against it, that it possesses the keys of a right confession and faith in Him, that it opens the true and only religion to such as approach with piety, and shuts up and locks every heretical mouth that speaks injustice against the truth. 

If the Roman See recognizes Pyrrhus to be not only a reprobate but a heretic, it is certainly plain that everyone who anathematizes those who have rejected Pyrrhus, anathematizes the See of Rome, that is, he anathematizes the Catholic Church. I need hardly add that he excommunicates himself also, if indeed he is in communion with the Roman See and the Catholic Church of God.

St. Theodore the Studite
According to the Fathers, the right hand of fellowship must be exchanged with the Church of Rome if one wishes to be considered to be part of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, which is the Bride and Body of Christ. Of this church, distinct from all others, St. Paul gives the unique farewell "all the churches of God salute you," (Romans 16:16) and the churches of God through the centuries have recognized the import of this salutation.

Eastern Church Fathers: "Meditate on the Sufferings of Christ"

Worth mentioning, only because modern Orthodox sometimes oppose to the notion of meditating upon the Passion of Christ because it's so associated with Western Christendom. Here are some witnesses from Early Church Fathers from the East.

St. Ephrem the Syrian, On the Passion

Learn well, brother, what it is you hear:
God who is without sin, Son of the Most High,
for you was given up.
Open your heart, learn in details His sufferings and say to yourself:
God who is without sin
today was given up,
today was mocked,
today was abused,
today was struck,
today was scourged,
today wore a crown of thorns,
today was crucified,
he, the heavenly Lamb.
Your heart will tremble, your soul will shudder.
Shed tears everyday by this meditation on the Master's sufferings.
Tears become sweet (for) the soul is enlightened that always meditates on Christ's sufferings.
Always meditating thus, shedding tears every day,
giving thanks to the Master for the sufferings that he suffered for you,
so that in the day of his Coming your tears may become your boast and exaltation before the judgment seat.
Endure as you meditate on the loving Master’s sufferings,
endure temptations, give thanks from your soul.
Blessed is the one who has before his eyes
the heavenly Master and his sufferings,
and has crucified himself from all the passions
and earthly deeds,
who has become an imitator
of his own Master. 

St. John Chrysostom, Homilies on St. Matthew 87

These things then let us read continually; for indeed great is the gain, great the advantage to be thence obtained. For when thou seest Him, both by gestures and by deeds, mocked and worshipped with so much derision, and beaten and suffering the utmost insults, though thou be very stone, thou wilt become softer than any wax, and wilt cast out of thy soul all haughtiness.
...Hearing then these things, let us arm ourselves against all rage, against all anger. Shouldest thou perceive thy heart swelling, seal thy breast setting upon it the cross. Call to mind some one of the things that then took place, and thou wilt cast out as dust all rage by the recollection of the things that were done. Consider the words, the actions; consider that He is Lord, and thou servant. He is suffering for thee, thou for thyself; He in behalf of them who had been benefited by Him and had crucified Him, thou in behalf of thyself; He in behalf of them who had used Him despitefully, thou oftentimes at the hands of them who have been injured. He in the sight of the whole city, or rather of the whole people of the Jews, both strangers, and those of the country, before whom He spake those merciful words, but thou in the presence of few; and what was more insulting to Him, that even His disciples forsook Him. For those, who before paid Him attention, had deserted Him, but His enemies and foes, having got Him in the midst of themselves on the cross, insulted, reviled, mocked, derided, scoffed at Him, Jews and soldiers from below, from above thieves on either side: for indeed the thieves insulted, and upbraided Him both of them. How then saith Luke that one “rebuked?” Both things were done, for at first both upbraided Him, but afterwards one did so no more. For that thou mightest not think the thing had been done by any agreement, or that the thief was not a thief, by his insolence he showeth thee, that up on the cross he was a thief and an enemy, and at once was changed...
Considering then all these things, control thyself. For what sufferest thou like what thy Lord suffered? Wast thou publicly insulted? But not like these things. Art thou mocked? yet not thy whole body, not being thus scourged, and stripped. And even if thou wast buffeted, yet not like this.

[Sources from the blog Western Rite Orthodoxy:

http://westernorthodox.blogspot.com/2008/03/st-ephrem-syrian-meditate-on-passion-of.html

http://westernorthodox.blogspot.com/2008/04/st-john-chrysostom-meditate-on.html?m=1

Purgatorial Fire in the Early Church Fathers

For no one can lay any foundation other than the one that has been laid; that foundation is Jesus Christ. Now if anyone builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw— the work of each builder will become visible, for the Day will disclose it, because it will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test what sort of work each has done. If what has been built on the foundation survives, the builder will receive a reward. If the work is burned up, the builder will suffer loss; the builder will be saved, but only as through fire.

1 Corinthians 3:11-15

The Catholic doctrine of Purgatory is elaborated from a passage of St. Paul's first letter to the Church at Corinth. He speaks of a man's works being gold, silver, precious stones (good works) or wood, hay, stubble (bad works), and that the fire of God's judgment tests the man's works as such, revealing their true nature. The former three materials do not perish in fire: they are righteous works. The latter three materials are burned up by it, for they are sinful blemishes which compromise the integrity of Christian life, yet are not so spiritually damaging as to forfeit salvation. The man himself, though he has works of the latter, is not condemned along with them and is saved, yet he still must pass through the fire himself. He is "... saved, but only as through fire."

The Scriptures speak of God and his Kingdom being pure and undefiled, for nothing unholy or unclean can enter heaven (Rv. 21:27). Heaven is inhabited not merely by the just, but specifically by the just made perfect. (Hb. 12:23), for without a certain level of holiness, no one sees God (cf. Hb. 12:14.)

Sin effects us both in eternity and in the here-and-now. While the eternal consequences, that is, our guilt and separation from God, having already been done washed awayin His mercy, the temporal effects of those sins often still remain upon our souls. So what should happen if someone dies having been a true Christian, and yet his process of sanctification was incomplete at the time of his departure, and still had remnants of sin in his heart? Is such a person, whom God justified, not admitted into the Kingdom? By no means! However, still not yet being perfected in his regenerated human nature, there needs to be a purgation which cleanses the man of his imperfection. This is precisely what Purgatory is: the consuming fire of God which burns away the defects of our earthly moral lives and prepares us for the eternal joys of heaven.

A useful image is that of the prophet Isaiah, who was filled with dread upon beholding the presence of God, because he knew he was guilty of blasphemy, having lived among a blasphemous people. What happened to him? A seraph approached him, carrying a burning hot coal from the altar of God, and applied it to Isaiah's lips, saying "Now that this has touched your lips, your sin has departed and your guilt is blotted out." (Isaiah 6:1-7) His guilt had to be purged away by the divine ember in order to stand worthily in the presence of God.

This understanding, though it was not given the name "Purgatory" until later, was familiar and well utilized among the fathers of the early Christian church. Though the first quote in this post comes from the mid 3rd century, it is certainly not the earliest Christian writing to comment on the concept of chastisement in the afterlife prior to entry into heaven: late 2nd/3rd century writers Tertullian and Clement of Alexandria both speak of it, as well as such documents such as the mid-late 2nd century The Acts of Paul and Thecla, and the later Martyrdom of Felicity and Perpetua, reasonably predate it.

This post will hone in on the imagery of post-mortem fire in the understanding of the Early Church. This will show that the same concept in the medieval Latin West can be found within an earlier form of Christianity: that a Christian's post-baptismal imperfections, should any remain after death, will need to be 'burned away" in order to step foot into the Kingdom of Heaven.


Origen of Alexandria (AD 184-253), Homilies on Jeremiah, c. AD 244

For if on the foundation of Christ you have built not only gold and silver and precious stones; but also wood and hay and stubble, what do you expect when the soul shall be separated from the body? Would you enter into heaven with your wood and hay and stubble and thus defile the kingdom of God; or on account of these hindrances would you remain without and receive no reward for your gold and silver and precious stones; Neither is this just. It remains then that you be committed to the fire which will burn the light materials; for our God to those who can comprehend heavenly things is called a cleansing fire.

St. Cyprian of Carthage (AD c. 200-258), Letters 51:20

For to adulterers even a time of repentance is granted by us, and peace is given. Yet virginity is not therefore deficient in the Church, nor does the glorious design of continence languish through the sins of others. The Church, crowned with so many virgins, flourishes; and chastity and modesty preserve the tenor of their glory. Nor is the vigour of continence broken down because repentance and pardon are facilitated to the adulterer. It is one thing to stand for pardon, another thing to attain to glory: it is one thing, when cast into prison, not to go out thence until one has paid the uttermost farthing; another thing at once to receive the wages of faith and courage. It is one thing, tortured by long suffering for sins, to be cleansed and long purged by fire; another to have purged all sins by suffering. It is one thing, in fire, to be in suspense till the sentence of God at the day of judgment; another to be at once crowned by the Lord.

St. Ambrose of Milan (AD 340-397), Explanation of Psalm 118, 3:14-17

There is not one baptism only. One is that which the Church administers here by water and the Holy Ghost. Another is the baptism of suffering, whereby each is cleansed by his own blood. There is also a baptism at the entrance of Paradise. This last baptism did not exist in the beginning; but after the sinner was driven out of Paradise, God set there a fiery sword…. But though there be a purgation here, there must be a second purification there, that each of us, burnt but not burnt up by that fiery sword, may enter into the delight of Paradise. But this fire whereby involuntary and casual sins are burnt away… is different from that which the Lord assigned to the devil and his angels, of which he says, Enter into everlasting fire.

St. Jerome (AD 347-420), Against Jovinianus 2:22

To the Corinthians he says: (1 Cor. 3:6-15) "I have planted, Apollos watered: but God gave the increase. So then, neither is he that planteth any thing, neither he that watereth: but God that giveth the increase. Now he that planteth and he that watereth are one: and every man shall receive his own reward according to his own labour. For we are labourers together with God, ye are God's husbandry, ye are God's building." And again elsewhere: "According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise master-builder I laid a foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let each man take heed how he buildeth thereupon. For other foundation can no man lay, than thai which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. But if any man buildeth on the foundation, gold, silver, costly stones, wood, hay, stubble: each man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall reveal it, because it is revealed in fire: and the fire itself shall prove each man's work of what sort it is. If any man's work shall abide which he built thereon, he shall receive a reward. If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as through fire." If the man whose work is burnt and is to suffer the loss of his labour, while he himself is saved, yet not without proof of fire: it follows that if a man's work remains which he has built upon the foundation, he will be saved without probation by fire, and consequently a difference is established between one degree of salvation and another .

St. Augustine of Hippo (AD 354-430), Expositions on the Psalms 38[37]:2

"O Lord, rebuke me not in Your indignation; neither chasten me in Your hot displeasure." For it will be that some shall be chastened in God's "hot displeasure", and "rebuked in His indignation". And haply not all who are "rebuked" will be "chastened"; yet are there some that are to be saved in the chastening. So it is to be indeed, because it is called chastening, but yet it shall be "so as by fire". But there are to be some who will be "rebuked", and will not be corrected. For he will at all events "rebuke" those to whom He will say, "I was an hungred, and you gave me no meat." "Neither chasten me in Your hot displeasure;" so that You may cleanse me in this life, and make me such, that I may after that stand in no need of the cleansing fire, for "those who are to be saved, yet so as by fire."Why? Why, but because they "build upon the foundation, wood, stubble, and hay." Now they should "build on it, gold, silver, and precious stones"; and should have nothing to fear from either fire: not only that which is to consume the ungodly for ever, but also that which is to purge those who are to escape through the fire. For it is said, "he himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire." And because it is said, "he shall be saved", that fire is thought lightly of. For all that, though we should be saved by fire, yet will that fire be more grievous than anything that man can suffer in this life whatsoever.

St. Caesarius of Arles (AD 470-543), Sermon 179

Although the Apostle has mentioned many grevious sins, we nevertheless, lest we seem to promote despair, will state briefly what they are. Sacrilege, murder, adultery, false witness, theft, robbery, pride, envy, avarice, and, if it is of long standing, anger, drunkenness, if it persistent, and slander are reckoned in their number. For if anyone knows that any of these sins dominates him, if he does not do penance worthily and for a long time, if such time is given him, and if he does not give abundant alms and abstain from those same sins, he cannot be purged in that transitory fire of which the Apostle spoke [1 Cor 3], but the eternal flames will torture him without any remedy. But since the lesser sins are, of course, known to all, and it would take too long to mention them all, it will be necessary for us only to name some of them. As often as someone takes more than is necessary in food or drink, he knows that this belongs to the lesser sins. As often as he says more than he should or is silent more than is proper; as often as he rudely exasperates a poor beggar; as often as he wills to eat when others are fasting, although he is in good physical health, and rises too late for church because he surrendered himself to sleep; as often as he knows his wife without a desire to have children….without a doubt he commits sin. There is no doubt that these and similar deeds belong to the lesser sins which, as I said before, can scarcely be counted and from which not only all Christian people, but even all the Saints, could not and cannot always be free. We do not, of course, believe that the soul is killed by these sins; but still, they make it ugly by covering it as if with some kind of pustules and, as it were, with horrible scabs, which allow the soul to come only with difficulty to the embrace of the heavenly Spouse, of whom it is written: ‘He prepared for Himself a Church having neither spot nor blemish’…If we neither give thanks to God in tribulations nor redeem our own sins by good works, we shall have to remain in that purgaotrial fire as long as it takes for those above-mentioned lesser sins to be consumed like wood and straw and hay. But someone is saying: ‘It is nothing to me how long I stay there, so long as I go finally to eternal life’. Let no one say that, beloved brethren, because that purgatorial fire itself will be more difficult than any punishments that can be seen or imagined or felt in this life

St. Gregory the Great (AD 540-604), Dialogues Bk 4, chp 39

But yet we must believe that before the day of judgment there is a Purgatory fire for certain small sins: because our Saviour saith, that he which speaketh blasphemy against the holy Ghost, that it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, nor in the world to come. Out of which sentence we learn, that some sins are forgiven in this world, and some other may be pardoned in the next: for that which is denied concerning one sin, is consequently understood to be granted touching some other. But yet this, as I said, we have not to believe but only concerning little and very small sins, as, for example, daily idle talk, immoderate laughter, negligence in the care of our family (which kind of offences scarce can they avoid, that know in what sort sin is to be shunned), ignorant errors in matters of no great weight: all which sins be punished after death, if men procured not pardon and remission for them in their lifetime: for when St. Paul saith, that Christ is the foundation: and by and by addeth: And if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble: the work of every one, of what kind it is, the fire shall try. If any man’s work abide which he built thereupon, he shall receive reward; if any mans work burn, he shall suffer detriment, but himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire. For although these words may be understood of the fire of tribulation, which men suffer in this world: yet if any will interpret them of the fire of Purgatory, which shall be in the next life: then must he carefully consider, that the Apostle said not that he may be saved by fire, that buildeth upon this foundation iron, brass, or lead, that is, the greater sort of sins, and therefore more hard, and consequently not remissible in that place: but wood, hay, stubble, that is, little and very light sins, which the fire doth easily consume. Yet we have here further to consider, that none can be there purged, no, not for the least sins that be, unless in his lifetime he deserved by virtuous works to find such favour in that place.

St. Maximus the Confessor (AD 580-662), Questions and Doubts, Question 10

This purification does not concern those who have arrived at a perfect love of God, but those who have not reached complete perfection, and whose virtues are mixed in with sins. These latter will appear before the tribunal of judgment, and, following an examination of their good and evil actions, they will be tried as by fire; their bad works will be expiated by just fear and pain.

Nicholas Cabasilas on the Heart of Christ

EXCERPTS FROM THE LIFE IN CHRIST by NICHOLAS CABASILAS

Yet we are such wretched material that the seal cannot remain unaffected, “for we have this treasure in earthen vessels” (2 Cor. 4:7). We therefore partake of the remedy not once for all, but constantly. The potter must constantly sit by the clay and repeatedly restore the shape which is being blurred. We must continually experience the Physician’s hand as He heals the decaying matter and raises up the failing will, lest death creep in unawares. For it says, “even when we were dead through trespasses He made us alive together with Christ” (Eph. 2:5), and “the blood of Christ shall purify your conscience from dead works to serve the living God” (Heb. 9:14). The power of the holy table draws to us the true life from that blessed Heart, and there we become able to worship God purely.

                If, then, the pure worship of God consists in being subject to Him, obeying Him, doing all things as He moves us , I know not how we are capable of being subject to God more than by becoming His members. Who, more than the head, can command the members of the body? While every other sacred rite makes its recipients into members of Christ, the Bread of Life effects this most perfectly. For, as the members live because of the head and the heart, so, He says, “he who eats Me will live because of Me” (Jn. 6:57).

So also man lives because of food, but not the same way in this sacred rite. Since natural food is not itself living it does not of itself infuse life into us, but by aiding the life which is in the body it appears to those who to eat the cause of life. But the Bread of Life is Himself living, and through Him those to whom He imparts Himself truly life. While natural food is changed into him who feeds on it, and fish and bread and any other kind of food become human blood, here it is entirely opposite. The Bread of Life Himself changes him who feeds on Him and transforms and assimilates him into Himself. As He is the Head and the Heart, we depend on Him for loving and living since He possesses life.

This the Savior Himself reveals. He does not sustain our life in the same way as food; but since He Himself has by nature He breathes it into us, just as the heart or the head imparts life to the members. So He calls Himself “the living Bread” (Jn. 6:51) and says, “he who eats Me will live because of me” (Jn. 6:57). [The Life in Christ 4:8]

It follows, therefore, that he who has chosen to live in Christ should cling to that Heart and that Head, for we obtain life from no other source. But this is impossible for those who do not will what He wills. It is necessary to train one’s purpose, as far as it is humanly possible, to conform to Christ’s will and to prepare oneself to desire what He desires and to enjoy it, for it is impossible for contrary desires to continue in one and the same heart. As he says, “the evil man out of the evil treasure of his heart knows how to produce nothing but evil” (cf. Lk. 6:45), and the good man that which is good.

The faithful in Palestine, since they desired the same things, “were,” as it says, “of one heart and soul” (Acts: 4:32). In the same way, if one does not share in Christ’s purpose but goes against that which He commands, he does not order his life according to Christ’s heart but is clearly dependant on a different heart. In contrast, God found David to be according to His heart, for he said, “I have not forgotten Thy commandments” (Ps. 119:16, 61, etc.). Since it is impossible, then, to live [in Christ] unless we depend on His heart, and one cannot depend on Him without willing what He wills, let us examine how we may love the same things as Christ and rejoice at the same things as He, in order that we may be able to live. 

[The Life in Christ 6:2]

Latin Influence on the Byzantine Liturgy

When I was attending an Orthodox Church, having walked away from the Roman Church for about a year, there were a few prayers in the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom that stood out to be on account of their beauty and profundity. One of them in particular had always really moved me, as I found it resonated with my Catholic background. 

After the Institution Narrative, but before the Epiklesis, the priest lifts up the elements and prays thus:

Thine own of Thine own we offer unto Thee, on behalf of all and for all.

There exists somewhat of a disagreement between the two Churches pertaining to exactly when and how the bread and wine is changed into the Body and Blood of Christ. The Catholic Church has settled this question dogmatically: it is by the utterance of the Christ's own words "This is my body... this is my blood," by the priest, who stands in the person of Christ, that the bread and wine become that which they signify. For the Orthodox, this answer has never been universally settled, but the common "high point" of the Eucharistic liturgy is usually said to be the epiclesis, where the Holy Spirit is invoked to descend upon the gifts offered. Generally speaking, the words of institution, as well as the priestly blessing, are deemed necessary and important as well, though some have restricted the essential aspect to the epiclesis alone.

Well, as it turns out, that prayer was actually influenced by Catholicism! Reading up on the debate concerning the Words of Institution, I found and read a great article by Michael Zheltov, entitled "The Moment of Eucharistic Consecration in Byzantine Thought." In addressing this subject and ones related to it, he mentions how the Latin dogma of consecration actually found its way into the Orthodox liturgies for a time.

Another influence, this time unquestionable, resulted in the appearance in the Byzantine rite of a ritual of elevating the discos (paten) and the chalice during the ekphonesis “offering You your own” after the words of institution and before the epiclesis. This ritual is an imitation of the latin elevation of the host and the chalice, performed after the priest has pronounced the words of institution. It was instituted in the West in order to give the catholic believers a chance to participate in the sacrament with their eyes.

In the Orthodox milieu this ritual emerged in early seventeenth-century Ukraine. The rubrics of the printed ukrainian Leitourgika of this time have undergone some reworking. In particular, the revised rubrics instructed the priest to point at the bread and the wine during the words of institution, holding his fingers in a blessing gesture (or just to bless the gifts at this moment), and to elevate the discos and the chalice thereafter (i.e., precisely during the ekphonesis “offering You your own”). This was a clear sign of a strong influence of catholic theology, including the belief in the consecration through the words of institution.

In 1655 these “cryptocatholic” Ukrainian rubrics found their place in the revised Moscow edition of the Leitourgikon. The editions of 1656, 1657 (the first), 1657 (the second), 1658 (the first), 1658 (the second), 1667, 1668, 1676, and 1684, as well as the 1677 edition of the Archieratikon, also contain them. The obvious contradiction between the views held by the Ukrainian editions and the late- and post-Byzantine Greek theological thinking concerning the moment of consecration resulted in a controversy, which emerged in Moscow in the last third of the seventeenth century and which ended only in 1690, when an official refutation of the belief in the consecratory power of the words of institution was promulgated. In the 1699 Moscow edition of the Leitourgikon the appropriate rubrics were reworked, and the prescription to bless the bread and the wine during the words of institution was omitted. Still, the ritual of pointing at the bread and the wine during the words of institution (without holding the fingers in a specific gesture) remained—as did the ritual elevation after their recitation, which is now performed by orthodox everywhere, including Greece, Georgia, etc., although its original meaning is totally forgotten.

It really makes sense. What is the Church offering to God? His own... of His own? This is of course a reference to Jesus, His only begotten Son. But had the Spirit not yet descended upon the gifts, how could the Church be offering to the Father the precious body and blood of the Son? The inclusion of this prayer implies there is a consecratory value in the part which preceded it, namely, the Institution Narrative.

This doesn't serve as an apologia for the orthodoxy of the West's position -- i just thought this was interesting.

A Closer Look: Did Jesus Have Siblings?

The one who first states a case seems right, 

until the other comes and cross-examines. 

Proverbs 18:17

One's mind cannot step forward into the doorway of truth when the door itself remains locked and unopened. The truth of Mary's perpetual virginity is a door which cannot be stepped through while the notion of Christ Our Lord having uterine siblings serves to lock it shut. If it can be adequately demonstrated that these figures, so named to be the Lord's brethren, are not actually Mary's children, then the lock is no longer fastened, and the door is there for those to open it and pass through it.

The Word "Brothers"

Let it first be said: from the Scriptures themselves, it is shown that the word "brother", even when used in reference to family, does not always denote the relationship of sharing the same parent(s). In its ancient Hebraic sense, the word does not exclusively designate those with shared parents, but is also used to refer to more generic, extended kinsman.  We can fashion multiple examples, but let this suffice: In Genesis 13:8, when peacefully dividing land for livestock between the two of them, Abram addresses his nephew Lot by saying "Let there be no strife between you and me... for we are brothers"  (as rendered in: KJV, NAS, ERV, DRA.)

Now, let's turn to the main passage in contention, the one which explicitly mentions Jesus having brothers and sisters:

He [Jesus] came to his hometown and began to teach the people in their synagogue, so that they were astounded and said, “Where did this man get this wisdom and these deeds of power? Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother called Mary? And are not his brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Jude? And are not all his sisters with us? Where then did this man get all this?” And they took offense at him. But Jesus said to them, “Prophets are not without honor except in their own country and in their own house.”
Matthew 13:54-57

"Are not his brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?" This is a good passage to utilize, insofar as the Scriptures actually tells us more about some of these men, besides them merely being mentioned the Lord's brothers. Let's delve into some of their identities, as recorded in the Bible. James and Jude are particularly notable; not only are they counted among the Lord's brothers, they are also numbered among the Twelve. James, for example, is mentioned by St. Paul in Galatians 1:19 as being the Lord's brother, as Paul reports: But I saw none of the other apostles except James the Lord’s brother.

Fast-forward fourteen chapters in Matthew's Gospel to the crucifixion and death of the Lord, certain women are counted as those who were present as witnesses, who cared for Him.

There were also many women there, looking on from afar, who had followed Jesus from Galilee, ministering to him; among whom were Mary Mag′dalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zeb′edee.
Matthew 27:55-56

Is Jesus' mother Mary one of the women listed in the passage? It is of reasonable certainty that the Mary being here referred to is not Jesus' mother, given that everywhere else she is mentioned in the Bible, she is explicitly mentioned as "the mother of Jesus" (eg: Jn 19:25.) Being His mother is a pretty noteworthy fact, and, being the most biologically relevant, would therefore be the simplest indication as to who she is. Given that there are quite a few Mary's in the life of Jesus, wouldn't it just be more straightforward to single her out as his mother specifically? Yet this other Mary is identified as "the mother of James and Joseph", not as Jesus' mother.

In Luke's account of Jesus calling the Twelve, it lists that two apostles were named James: James, son of Zebedee (whose mother was also mentioned in Matthew's account,) and...

and Matthew, and Thomas, and James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon who was called the Zealot,
Luke 6:15

Here we have it --- James, the brother of Jesus, is NOT the son of Joseph, but the son of Alphaeus! 

This Mary in Matthew 27 is said to be mother to James and Joseph, and James is said to be the Lord's brother, right? Jude was also mentioned as having been the Lord's brother, though this verse did not say that this mother of James and Joseph was also his mother. Yet in the introduction to Jude's epistle, he himself states that he is "Jude, a servant of Jesus Christ and brother of James. But who’s related to whom, and in which way? Looking at a different account of the crucifixion narrative, in the Gospel according to John, the list of women is recorded as follows:

But standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother, and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Mag′dalene.
John 19:25

This Mary, this time explicitely distinguished from Christ's mother, is reported to be her sister. (This very fact that Mary is recorded as having a sister also named Mary actually further vouches for use of word "brother/sister" as applying wider than simply the immediate family. It would be highly unlikely that Mary's parents had two daughters whom were both named Mary.) This means that James and Joseph, her children, were at the most, cousins of Jesus Christ, for their mother was Mary's sister.

You might be wondering: if James the Apostles is this Mary's son, is his father Alphaeus, or Clopas? On the one hand, the exact identity isn't quite relevant, because this has sufficiently demonstrated that this Mary is not Christ's mother, and thus James is not his uterine brother. On the other hand, it is hard not to wonder.

Fortunately, the early Christians had enough pious concern for Christ and his legacy that they actually detailed this for us. An important witness comes from a quintessential work, the Ecclesastical History by Eusebius of Caesarea. We are indebted to Eusebius for taking it upon himself to record the history of the Christian church, from Christ and his apostles up to his own time. In several different places throughout the work, he makes several references to St. James, one of the twelve and the first pastor (bishop) of Jerusalem. In Book IV, chp. 22, par 4, he records

after James the Just had suffered martyrdom, as the Lord had also on the same account, Symeon, the son of the Lord's uncle, Clopas, was appointed the next bishop. All proposed him as second bishop because he was another cousin of the Lord.

This passage even identifies Simon, listed among Christ's brethren in Mt. 13, as being the son of Clopas, and being Jesus' cousin.

Now we turn to a work very late and apocryphal, but only for the sake of clarifying exactly who's mentioned in the Gospels. This text is assigned to an apostolic father, St. Papias. It is from this reference that we are really able to break down the who's-who when referring to the many Mary's in the Bible:

(1.) Mary the mother of the Lord; (2.) Mary the wife of Cleophas or Alphæus, who was the mother of James the bishop and apostle, and of Simon and (Judas)Thaddeus, and of one Joseph; (3.) Mary Salome, wife of Zebedee, mother of John the evangelist and James; (4.) Mary Magdalene. These four are found in the Gospel. James and Judas and Joseph were sons of an aunt (2) of the Lord's. James also and John were sons of another aunt (3) of the Lord's. Mary (2), mother of James the Less and Joseph, wife of Alphæus was the sister of Mary the mother of the Lord, whom John names of Cleophas, either from her father or from the family of the clan, or for some other reason
(Papias, Fragment #10) emphasis mine)

St. Phillip & St. James (the brother of the Lord)

Some may object by arguing that identifying these brethren of the Lord Christ's brothers as not being his immediate brothers, it somehow betrays the plain sense of the Inspired texts. But it has been shown that this criticism is really unsustainable, because the Bible itself refers to the apostles James and Jude as "the Lord's brothers" and even sets them within familial contexts that include His mother. Yet it is proved, from the Scriptures themselves, that Jesus' mother is not their mother, and, furthermore, that Joseph is not their father. The historic witness of Church tradition actually does furnish us with their exact identity, but even were the testimony of tradition to not be accepted, the Biblical data alone suffices to vouch for us that they are not the offspring of Mary.


. . . And thus, off falls the lock.