Saint Gennadios Scholarios, First Treaties On the Procession of the Holy Spirit

Translation

[If there are any repeating parts, or something weird or off, please let me know]

In which the divergences in the explicit statements of the saints are harmoniously resolved with the positions and statements of the heterodox, which they eagerly use as arguments in support of their own views.

CHAPTER I. That the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone, not from the Son, just as the Son is not begotten from the Spirit, but from the Father alone.

1. That the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone, not from the Son, just as the Son is not begotten from the Spirit, but only from the Father.

2. That God the Father, in leading forth His own Word into a distinct hypostasis, similarly leads forth His holy Spirit into a distinct hypostasis, both of which, as having their existence from Him, have a natural and essential unity, with the Son being begotten and the Spirit proceeding in a certain ineffable and incomprehensible manner. And their procession, as revealed to us by the truth, is referred back to Him, the Father, as one cause, in the unity of the same essence; not as in the case of men, where all have their existence not from the same person, according to the immediate sense, but nevertheless, they have their being in the same way, multiplying, like causes, the causes. Concerning the divine Word is not our present concern, but rather the Holy Spirit.

Thus, the Holy Spirit proceeds or exists (hypostatically) from the paternal hypostasis, which is like a prototype light, from which both the cause of existence and the hypostasis of each of the consubstantial and homoousian lights have their being. Both the Son of God and the Holy Spirit, through the manifestation of the transcendent nativity, which is a hypostasis unbegotten and uncaused in itself, possess in their essence a unity that is beyond reason, surpassing even the rationale of their own Word and Spirit, as a source, a spring, and a source of divine generation of light. The Father alone possesses these, and not the Son or the Spirit. Thus, we believe that the Spirit proceeds from the Father alone, by cause and by hypostasis, affirming that it proceeds from the Father alone, as the cause and source, and not from the Son in this way. Therefore, what we know is holy. Let none of those familiar with the Church's teachings deceive us, whose books we possess and whose expressions we examine.

CHAPTER II. That the Holy Spirit proceeds temporally, that is, is given and shared through the Son; but it is said to proceed from the Son, as it is given and communicated chronologically by Him.

It is indeed said at times that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son, but it is believed more specifically that He proceeds from the Father, for it is said to originate from the Father, that is, to have its existence and being from Him. By this expression, the existence of the Spirit is distinguished, as indicated by the tradition in the Gospels. Yet, it is also said to proceed from the Son, and from both, from the Father through the Son, just as He is sent, supplied, given, breathed, and poured out. However, this occurs into a hypostasis and form of creation, not into His own hypostasis, but into that one willed by the Logos. For the Spirit gives Himself in the sense that He is understood in those expressions, and breathes Himself, sends Himself, and supplies Himself. In the eternal procession, He does not proceed from Himself, unless He exists from Himself. In the eternal realm, He receives; in the temporal, He gives. From the former, He gives freely; in the latter, He gives due to a cause. In the former, He gives to Himself; in the latter, to us and in us.

Therefore, the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father eternally, that is, exists from Him. Yet, He proceeds temporally from both, that is, is poured forth, supplied, given, and shared not only by

Himself but through Him, by His spiritual grace. It is, in fact, shared by both the Son and the Father, as they both enter, namely, into human nature, i.e., into the attainable communion of the entire divinity. This is achieved through their common grace, which is conveyed to us, both illuminative and enlightening.

CHAPTER III. That to be sent through the Son is not causatively intended to mean existence through Him.

Therefore, the Spirit, being generated from the Father, is nevertheless said to be sent and has been sent through the Son, being conceived in two ways: in our understanding of being sent, and by those who have spoken. Firstly, and especially, it is known through the Son, that is, by the Son making it known. The uniqueness of the divine person, which His name reveals, distinguishes it from another divine person. This distinction, clearly revealing itself, and what it distinguishes, is manifest in its own activity, like a certain light that draws closer to us the understanding of the divine hypostases through revelation, dispelling the natural darkness of our minds and guiding us. Therefore, the recognition of the Son's hypostasis, having been made more evident to us through the characteristic attributed to the Father in the naming, presents to us more clearly the distinctiveness of the Spirit, by which it is distinguished from the only-begotten Son. Since, through the Son's manifestation and procession in the Word, the discourse concerning the Spirit is made more explicit to us, allowing us to know and believe it in a different way—not as begotten unutterably and incomprehensibly from the Father, but with the mode of its procession being preserved. Therefore, through these means, the Spirit is known to us more after the Son, and it is rightly said to have been sent through Him.

Moreover, it proceeds from the Father with the Son and through Him, just as the Son is begotten from the Father. Thus, it proceeds from the Father as projected through Him.

Chapter IV: That the Son's Mediation does not compel the Son to be the source and projection towards the Holy Spirit.

The mediation of the Son, as we confess in the divine baptism, does not force Him to be the source and projection towards the Holy Spirit. Through this mediation, as we express in the divine baptism, we are baptized into the composition of such divine names. It reveals Him as the only-begotten, and it does not exclude the Spirit's natural relation to the Father, meaning the immediate reference to the cause of procession. For it is neither said nor can it be said that the Spirit stands closely by the Son, as the heretics mistakenly think. They imagine that the Spirit works through the Son, and they falsely claim that the third is a third in nature and rank, suggesting that the Spirit proceeds and is created by the Son alone. We reject such an idea and uphold the sequence of names, expressed among us as a third, to prevent confusion of properties and degrees of nature or worth. Some believe, like the Arians, that the Spirit proceeds into the Son through the creative or operative power, emptied of all and exhausted by the Father. Thus, they claim that the mediation of the Son and the third in the Trinity, according to their terminology, are akin. Yet, they fail to understand the unchanging doctrines of faith. For the Son of God and the Spirit of God, like twin rays from the sun, a twin-flowing river from one source, or two flowers that happen to demonstrate the Spirit and the Son jointly and manifestly associate with the common cause from which the second comes, bearing the second only as the cause, not sharing in anything else, in such a way that it shows the Spirit and the Son as co-existing and conjoined in the perspective of the common cause, from which they share the second. It is brought forth only as the cause, not being involved in anything else among themselves. Thus, they seem to be justified as coming from God and the Father, indicating them as the cause and origin. These are the points that the understanding of faith should preserve, guarding against deviations from the unchanging doctrines of faith. If the Son of God and the Spirit of God were thought to mediate in any other way, they would not be referred to as the only one from us. Thus, the objections raised by Eunomius against the unity in the Trinity persist. He

invented a novel division in the unity of nature by separating the pre-vision and pre-determination according to the cause and manner of causation. He confused the distinctions of hypostases into oppositions and hypotheses, and in this way, he distorted the doctrine through unwarranted interpretations. Another way in which the Holy Spirit is thought to have manifested is by appearing to humanity. His energy and grace were first given through the breathing, then more completely and fully through the appearance of fiery tongues. These were poured out and mingled, representing the grace of God the Father, and indeed of the Spirit himself. The pouring out, the pouring through, the manifestation of grace, and the communication of the divinity of the Father, the Son, and the Spirit working together, are spoken of through the Son, said to be revealed through Him and to be passed down to creation.

I appreciate your encouragement! Translating theological and philosophical texts can be intricate due to the nuanced language used. Here is the continuation of the translation:

Chapter V: However, since it is said that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son, even if this is rarely mentioned, the unity of essence and inseparability is signified, not the relation of causality by the preposition "through." As the Latins wish, saying that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son, and other things mentioned in the Florentine Synod.

Yet, since it is also said to proceed from the Father through the Son, albeit rarely mentioned, we are compelled to understand this piously due to our cautiousness toward the sensitive matters. Even if we do not make this proclamation, it is not necessary. We must only understand it piously as a doctrine, as it has been stated by those who spoke it.

Since procession, receiving, existence, and being led into individual subsistence have been assigned to this, it is understood perpetually in this discourse. However, not that the Holy Spirit subsists through the Son, as beings are said to come into existence through the Son when they contribute nothing, and saying that they come into existence through the Son and other things on the Florentine mountain.

For if this were true, that the Holy Spirit proceeds through the Son, one could straightforwardly say, just as beings are said to come into existence through the Son, that it also proceeds through the Son. But it is neither so through the Son nor ever said, but it is always said to proceed through the one who is associated with the Father, albeit rarely. Otherwise, never, lest in any way the Spirit be misunderstood in something having come into existence through the Son. For the Son alone is the beginning with the Father and the Spirit, and it is the first towards them, although because of being the beginning, He is not called the first. Neither is the Spirit the second or third cause, but only the Father is said to be the first cause, the source and origin of divinity. For just as the Father is the cause of all things with the Son and the Spirit as God, so also the Son and the Spirit alone are the causes of paternity, i.e., of fertility.

Let us say, therefore, that the Holy Spirit subsists from the Father and proceeds through the Son. This means that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son due to the extreme unity of essence, as it would not be outside the Son but comes forth in Him from the Father. That is, it exists in Him, exists with the Father, serves in the Son by the Father, and through the Son, it proceeds and is rightly understood to both proceed and emanate, as there is no other way to demonstrate the absolute communion of nature. As someone might say, fully distinct from the Son’s subsistence, yet not entirely separated from His essence. For if the Holy Spirit were the cause of the Son, it would sufficiently indicate the communion of essence, for it would naturally exist in Him, just as the Father and the Son's unity is demonstrated by the fact that the Son is begotten by Him

and the Spirit's natural unity with the Father is shown by the fact that it proceeds from Him. Since, however, it is not said that the Spirit proceeds from the Son, it necessarily is not said that it subsists from the Son or that the Holy Spirit's existence is based on the Son. Similarly, the Son's advocate, the Son's origin, His projection through the Son, and anything of the sort is not said, to avoid any misunderstanding about things having come into existence through the Son. For these are the only principles: the Son is one beginning with the Father and the Spirit, and is the first with regard to them, although He is not said to be the first by essence, nor the second, nor is the Spirit the second or third cause. Only the Father is said to be the first cause, as the source and origin of all causes. For just as He is the cause of all things with the Son and the Spirit as God, so He is the only cause of paternity, that is, of fertility.

Let us say, therefore, in Him, that the Holy Spirit subsists from the Father, emanates through the Son. This means that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son due to the extreme unity of essence, as it would not be outside the Son but emanates in Him from the Father. That is, it is present in Him from the Father, is existent in Him, serves the Father through the Son, and through the Son, it proceeds divinely, being understood to both proceed and emanate in this way. Because there is no other way to demonstrate the absolute communion of nature. As someone might say, fully distinct from the Son’s subsistence, yet not entirely separated from His essence. For if the Holy Spirit were the cause of the Son, it would sufficiently indicate the communion of essence, for it would naturally exist in Him, just as the Father and the Son's unity is demonstrated by the fact that the Son is begotten by Him and the Spirit's natural unity with the Father is shown by the fact that it proceeds from Him.

Since the Spirit is not said to proceed from the Son, it does not, therefore, subsist, exist, or receive existence through the Son. It also does not exist through the Son and is not led into subsistence through the Son. These things are avoided to prevent any misunderstanding about the Spirit coming into existence through the Son. Therefore, the Spirit exists from the Father and proceeds through the Son. It is neither said that the Holy Spirit subsists through the Son, nor that its existence or being led into subsistence is through the Son. As a result, the Spirit neither exists through the Son nor is led into subsistence through the Son, and this is avoided to prevent any misunderstanding about the Spirit coming into existence through the Son.

Chapter VI: How the Spirit of the Son is spoken of and distinguished from the Son as consubstantial, not as having its existence from the Son, but from the Father and through both. For He alone is the sole Begetter of the Son and the projector of the Spirit.

If, indeed, it is understood and presented as dependent on the Son and spoken of in this manner, the Spirit of the Son is said, but in a certain way, it is connected both to the Son and to the Father. It is related to the Son in the sense of being embraced by Him, known through Him, and, as mentioned earlier, related to the Father as having its existence drawn from the paternal cause. For that which is embraced is said to be known through one another by a certain similarity existing among them, and that which is from one to the other is related to this one. Brothers, for example, are connected to each other as equals because they know each other through one another. This analogy is appropriate for understanding the relationship between the Father and the Son among humans, not only in the sense of being connected to each other but also because each one has the being of the other. This is fitting and in agreement with the divine Apostle, saying that the Spirit is of God, spoken of from God, and following the Son and the Spirit, only to the one who adheres to the leadership of our sacred truth. The Spirit, being the Spirit of truth, is said to have its existence from the Father and to proceed through Him. Even after Paul, those who followed him explained these references in this way, identifying the Spirit as the Holy Spirit of the Son, as being familiar by nature, as proper, as not foreign according to the essence, as consubstantial with the Son and of the same essence, and, in

general, due to the natural kinship of divinity. 'The Spirit of the Father,' however, is acknowledged as naturally existing and having its being from the Father, and through this, the unity of essence is maintained. Therefore, confessing the Holy Spirit as from the Father and attributing it through the Son, we follow those teachers who have spoken and thought in this manner, both in word and thought, yet not as having its existence from the Son. For the Father alone is the cause. The Son is not the cause of the procession of the Holy Spirit but possesses everything related to the Fatherhood except the causality, meaning the ability to bring about the divine hypostasis. For He is the beginning of all things as the cause and creator. How could He, who is the Son entirely and alone, have the cause of divinity, and how could the Father, who is only the Father, be the sole begetter and projector? This property of the Father's hypostasis is suitable for Him as the fount, cause, and begetter, for this characteristic of the Fatherly hypostasis, the leading progress of the congenital graces in Him through His fecundity, is distinct and prevents any disturbance among those with understanding. Otherwise, the Son might appear, according to the nature of the Father, to have this characteristic of hypostasis, and the uniqueness, especially concerning the divinity, might not be maintained. Therefore, using many examples might present how the Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son, but it suffices to use the examples of the saints. Therefore, just as the radiance of the sun comes forth through its rays, being with it and in it and clearly spread by it, so the Holy Spirit is from the Father through the Son and, furthermore, through the Son, it is in the Father, meaning it is not separated from the Son, nor is it separate from Him, but remains in Him no less than proceeding with Him and existing from the Father, because it receives the same nature and essence from the Father as the Son and is united and distinctly differentiated in a purely natural unity with Him.

CHAPTER VII: Few from many things, or from which the Latin Creed comes, which are all rejected.

Therefore, those who assert these things, since it is said that the Spirit is in God and the Father and that the Son is the cause, we will ask, because it was said in God, that it exists through the Son. Some people, ignorant of this purpose, improperly substitute this intention with that of existence and the cause, violently asserting everywhere, just like those who unjustly conduct business in matters, the wiser ones perform by laws. Thus, believing in the eternal manifestation of the Holy Spirit from God and the Father, setting the unity of essence in the Son and the Spirit, either concerning eternal existence or the spiritual nature and the grace of the mind, I reject the heretical mixture in one person. I reject the greatest, the greater, and the great in the Trinity, Apollo's formula. I reject the concept of God existing from two persons, from whom the Spirit proceeds to the Holy Trinity and the dualism from there. I do not accept the first thinking of God, then wanting the rejected marriage of Ptolemy and Valentinus, wrongly and submissively. I also reject the first and second actualizations in God, and the various signs of the mind, whether considered useless and empty, or, if they are considered to be present in the word, they do not differ at all from the strange positions that have been recently rejected by the Church. I reject the distinction of hypostatic forms in divine substances, and the substances examined or followed by them. I do not accept that the Son and the Spirit are not distinguished unless one proceeds from the other. I reject the first, second, third, and extreme terms, and the mediations that constitute the Son of God, the cause of the Holy Spirit, and the ill-advised and wrong uses of them. For such positions are unacceptable, strange, and lead to nothing healthy, but are only invented for the construction of a doctrine praised in advance by those who now prefer it rather than in accordance with the sound doctrine of the word. And persuading only those who accept them through simplicity, or wickedness, or inexperience, they set them up instead of the tested and ancient and primary mindset. I hate the misunderstandings that some, attributing the words of the saints, put forth, which I said in the rhetorical struggles with the need for reasoning. They distort these words, making them a doctrine and faith.

CHAPTER VIII: That not understanding or not desiring, that some saints speak agonistically and do not wish these teachings to be doctrines, and others instructively, those who wish these to be doctrines, has given rise to the slander of the adversaries, to revile the saints and present them as inconsistent.

I yield to the great Basil, in the matter of faith, thus expressing himself about himself and similarly about the other saints: 'So then,' he says, 'to struggle against the emerging heresies in their time was necessary, following the precedents set, leading to the prevention of impiety sown by heretical ideas, or even overturning the imposed blasphemies at times, as the needs of the sick compelled, and sometimes using unwritten words, yet not deviating from the pious intention according to the Scriptures. Just as the Apostle has often used Greek words to serve his purpose, not refusing to adopt them for the common goal of both you and us, I thought it appropriate, with the simplicity of sound faith, to fulfill the command of your love in Christ, and to say what I have learned from the divine Scripture, being sparing with names and bringing related words to the divine Scripture, preserving in them the pious meaning. However, whatever introduces a foreign language and an alien concept to our faith, and what cannot be found preached by the saints, we completely reject as strange and foreign to true faith.'"

And a little later: "So, avoiding any alien voice and meaning to the teaching of Christ, we all know and now recognize that it differs significantly from those assumptions under which we were sometimes compelled to write or speak differently according to the needs of the time. Because at that time, the refutation and overthrow of heresy, and the confession and manifestation of sound faith were studied. Now the simple statement and revelation of sound faith is presented, therefore neither does the same language fit the occasion then and now. For a man would not take the same tools with his hands, fighting and farming; for the tools of those engaged in a livelihood, struggling for their livelihood, and the other weapons of those being deployed in war are different. Thus, the speaker urging in the sound doctrine uses one kind of discourse, and the one refuting opponents uses another. For I was speaking another type of constructive speech, and another is the paracletic (encouraging, supportive) speech; the simplicity of those confessing piety in peace, and different are the efforts of those standing against the oppositions of the false knowledge. Therefore, in this way, managing our words, we will use them everywhere, either to break down those attempting to destroy it in the method of the devil, resisting more aggressively, or to those who want to build in it, explaining it more simply and intimately, and not doing anything else than what the Apostle has said, knowing how we ought to answer each one individually."

I know, therefore, this great Basil conceding to Eunomius the third place in dignity, as if turning it around in this way, from his abundance pays the falsehood. I also know the theologian Gregory saying something similar about the greater in his discussions against the Arians: “It is clear that the greater is the cause, but the equal is the nature, and we receive this with much gratitude, sitting obviously by the word, so that we can refute you in this way.”

Chapter IX: That it is foolish, impious, or contentious to prefer the opinion of one or two saints over the consensus of Scriptures, councils, common theology, and the confession of many teachers.

Even if something has been clearly stated by one of the saints, unless it aligns with common understanding, we have the capability, with the help of a certain mechanism, to accept it in accordance with the true rule of truth, without rejecting it due to personal bias. Thus, Augustine wisely advises in his letter to Fortunatus: “Let even the discourses of well-known and celebrated individuals, though they may be regarded by us as canonical Scriptures, be received with due honor, so that we may not, in the zeal for our own opinions, despise what is their due, if we should ever

happen to find anything in their writings different from our own sentiments or from the truth as manifested by God either through others or ourselves.”

In this way, I am in relation to the writings about the saints, desiring them to be such as I want our own [writings] to be. Therefore, Thomas, finding Augustine saying that the soul of man was created with the angels before the body, and afterwards, by its own choice, returned to the body to serve the will, even though he seems to think differently about the fates of souls, still attempts to reform the opinion for the better. Thus, I find him judicious, placing him more in line with other saints who glorified the true doctrine. Similarly, concerning celestial bodies, Thomas does not rightly understand Jerome and Augustine, for he considers them to be animate, but more so Jerome, who aligns himself with the views of Basil and Damascene, knowing that these are the opinions of the universal Church. He did not forget that according to the Fifth Council, the pre-existence of human souls, the celestial bodies being animate, the Ideas, and the downright false doctrines of Origen were anathematized, especially those of the Manichaeans and Plato.

Gregory of Nyssa in harmony with the blessed Augustine in his defense of the Hexaemeron, says, “Let our own views, like a sort of exercise, be considered by those who happen to encounter them, causing no harm to anyone if they find anything in our statements contrary to common opinion. For we do not make our discourse a dogma, giving occasion to those who would attack; and we acknowledge that we exercise our minds with the presented ideas, not providing explanatory instruction to those who follow.”

In gratitude for this, Augustine and Gregory of Nyssa, despite the honors bestowed upon them, have been honored with the honors of the blessed, even though the opinions of some have been rejected. This would not have been the case if they stubbornly resisted their own opinions."

So, adhering to this rule, we examine the words of the teachers, considering personalities, times, and needs, those spoken by the saints, and the truth. With God as our witness, we do not fall away. Therefore, we openly and convincingly present those statements of the teachers that some may sophisticate or misunderstand, as if, in the present situation of our faith, all our needs are well served, just as in a logical debate, where every argument and struggle is well handled, dispelling foreign ideas and adding our own, all as part of a single chain of proof, established by the saints for every necessity. And with God's help, nothing of our own is spoken; all are the steps and doctrines of the teachers.

Chapter X: Whatever our Fathers, after the schism of the Latins, glorified in accordance with the aforementioned and judged as their decrees, is more significant for the confirmation of my conscience.

I do not align with my own opinion, but I embrace the sayings of the ancient teachers, not only those preceding me during the time of the schism, who, by accepting the expressions of the teachers, considered the addition to the Symbol as blameless. They demonstrated this in their own writings, securing their own faith, foreseeing the future controversy or indifference towards the faith of future generations, from which many now either ignorantly or disdainfully neglect our ancestral dogma.

I bear witness to the wise teacher, Neílos of Rhodos, the chosen vessel, the most wise king and Christian Manuel, the blessed Neílos of Thessaloniki, the Neílos of Constantinople, Patriarch Kallistos, Patriarch Philotheos, the Theophanes of Nicaea, Patriarch Gregorios, men surpassed by none of the most ancient, who convened the holy synod under his leadership, consisting of more than seventy members, condemning certain dogmas now praised by some of ours. I mention the blessed Gregorios of Thessaloniki, the Germanos, Patriarch of Constantinople, and Eustratios of

Nicaea. I acknowledge Ioannis of Russia, rightly named Christian, Leon of Bulgaria, Theophylaktos of the same, Nikolaos of Methoni, Niketas, the universally acknowledged teacher, Psellon, foremost among philosophers, numerous others, up to the wise King Leon and the blessed Photios, versed in every order and form.

All these, recorded in many noble books still extant, refute those who declare the Son of God to be the beginning or cause of the Holy Spirit, as proclaimed in the Symbol of Faith, and believe the previously anathematized statements made in Florence. Of such writings, some have been preserved since our city was liberated from Italian servitude, while others, having eluded the hands of the Latins, survived through the diligence of the ancients. How many works could have been produced under the Latins, who ruled the city for over sixty years back then? I did not intend to examine them, reproving them with great severity. As for those who did not write, who can enumerate them, and I do not say that the ancients, having great lineage and power at that time, would have fallen short, but those born shortly before or after us, like Nikolaos Kabasilas, a man equaled in spirit and wisdom to the most ancient, Patriarch Euthymios, the chartophylax Balsamon, foremost in all wisdom, Isidoros of Thessaloniki, and even Simeon, others countless, we who are now considered worthless.

Therefore, we would be ridiculous, as Plato said in Theaetetus, to speak ill of us, considering us to be uttering something trifling while condemning the ancients as old and wise men. Nevertheless, we risk so much. If someone mentions Kydonia and Kallikan, it is not astonishing in the spiritual turmoil of the Church, where thistles and thorns grow, and evil seeds sprout and germinate. Bekkos also sprouted, but over seventy representatives of the Church nullify his doctrines, declared void by the vote, convicting those who succeeded him, imitating him to such an extent that they have become like him, perhaps even worse, since they have forgotten what kind of people they are. Therefore, let us pay attention to the thistles, leaving the wheat. We shall be satisfied with the blooming meadow of Christ, which, for several years, has been blooming continuously, producing flowers of two or even three types, enough for those who are cut down and trampled.

However, we would accept that Kydonia and his follower Kallikan be expelled from the Akindinian heresy and also for the sake of Barlaamitidos, to find refuge with the Latins and those who have the doctrines about the procession, for they have nowhere else to go. For they found Latins rejoicing in the heresy and even more so in Kydonia, being more fervent for the teachings of Thomas the Latin. Before this, the teachings of the Romans about the procession were deemed to be unsound. Thus, the writings of our current leaders have such power.