Perhaps a review of the video?
I'm not keen on the theology of the Holy Spirit and the filioque. Does anyone recommend any primary sources from church fathers, regarding the Holy Spirit as well as some work to contrast, regarding the filioque? I'm imagining St Basil the Great's "On the Holy Spirit" would be one?
I also found these comments in a Orthodox Ethos video, between a RC and a few WO, and it made me curious if this is similar attempt as Monophysites and the whole "Miaphysite" arguments. According to this RC, he's saying RC affirm what we believe but it's worded differently, as well that we're strawmanning/misunderstanding the RC position on the Holy Spirit?
RC:the same saint who wrote "By nature the Holy Spirit according to the essence takes substantially his origin from the Father through the Son who is begotten and bestows on the lampstand--the church--his energies as through a lantern." --Quaestiones ad Thalassium, 63
and
"That it is not possible to say that Christ is 'of the Spirit' as, in the case of the Father and of the Son, it is said indifferently 'the Spirit of God' and 'the Spirit of Christ.'...
Just as the nous is the cause (aitios) of a word, so, also [the Father is the cause] of the Spirit through the mediation of the Logos. And just as we are not able to say that the word is of the voice, neither can we say that the Son is of the Spirit." -----Questions and Doubts --Question I, 34WO1:But we orthodox agree with the affirmations you brought here, we agree that the Holy Spirit have the Father as cause and that proceeds through the mediation of the Logos.
RC: if you mean to say you agree with Maximos that the Spirit is distinguished in the sense the Cappadocians meant by distinguished (mode of existence) by an ad extra procession toward the creation we and Saint Maximos would reject this as introducing contingency in God. Furthermore the quotes from Maximos unavoidably indicate he agreed with the Latins that the Spirit receives its essence eternally from the Father as the ultimate source (Maximos used "aitia" in this sense, but Florence used the word in the sense of general causality while maintaining the same theological principle in its definition, as the following paragraph of the Florentine definition makes clear) but mediated through the Son.
WO1:Are you orthodox or catholic? Why are you trying to prove me(a orthodox) something I already believe? We orthodox, believe that the Holy Spirit has the Father as causa and that is mediated by the Son. We don't believe in the Filioque in the sense that we don't believe that the spirit has both the Father and Son as the cause. Maximos believed in the Filioque only in the sense that the Holy Spirit does not have the son as cause.
RC: If 'cause' is defined as that by which a hypostasis receives its essence, then Maximos affirmed the Son as a mediatory cause of the Spirit, but not as the original cause (arche), which belongs solely to the Father. This is evident from the quotations above and aligns with the Latin position, which also maintains the Father as the primary source while affirming the Son's mediatory role in the Spirit's procession.
WO2: Did the Council of Florence affirm the Father and the Son as the cause of the Holy Spirit? Or did the council affirm that the Father is the sole cause of the Holy Spirit, mediated by the Son?
RC: You are reducing the term 'cause' to one meaning—that of original source (arche). The Council of Florence defined that both the Father and the Son are one principle (una principium) of the Spirit’s procession, while affirming the Father as the sole arche. The Father is the cause in the sense of being the ultimate source (arche), but the Father and Son together are cause in the sense of acting as one principle in the Spirit’s procession. This does not divide the unity of the Trinity but expresses the relational distinctions within it.
If you agree that the Son has a mediatory role in the Spirit’s procession, then you are already acknowledging causality in some sense. To mediate is to participate in the act by which the Spirit receives His essence, and this is causality—though not in the sense of arche, which belongs solely to the Father. Maximos himself uses causal language to describe the Son’s role, as evidenced by his statements:"By nature the Holy Spirit according to the essence takes substantially his origin from the Father through the Son who is begotten and bestows on the lampstand--the church--his energies as through a lantern." (Quaestiones ad Thalassium, 63)
"Just as the nous is the cause (aitios) of a word, so, also [the Father is the cause] of the Spirit through the mediation of the Logos. And just as we are not able to say that the word is of the voice, neither can we say that the Son is of the Spirit." (Questions and Doubts, Question I, 34)
These quotes clearly demonstrate that the Spirit receives His essence from the Father through the Son, affirming the Son's mediatory role in a manner consistent with causal language. Furthermore, the reception of essence is necessarily equivalent to or implies enhypostasization.
To receive essence necessarily implies enhypostasization because a hypostasis (person) is the concrete instantiation of a nature (essence). In the Trinity, the divine essence does not exist in abstraction; it exists only as fully possessed by the hypostases of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Each hypostasis possesses the one divine essence according to its unique mode of existence (its hypostatic distinction):
The Father possesses the essence as unbegotten.
The Son possesses the essence as begotten.
The Spirit possesses the essence as proceeding.
Thus, when the Spirit receives His essence from the Father through the Son, this necessarily includes His enhypostasization—His realization as a distinct hypostasis in the Trinity. The Spirit's hypostatic distinction (His procession) cannot be separated from His reception of the divine essence, which comes 'from the Father through the Son,' as Maximos explicitly states. This is why acknowledging the Spirit’s reception of essence through the Son is necessarily to acknowledge that the Son plays a role in the Spirit's enhypostasization, or His hypostatic realization.