The Procession of the Holy Spirit according to Gregory Palamas

M. A. Orphanos, The Procession of the Holy Spirit according to certain Greek Fathers, Athens 1979, pp. 70-80

Gregory Palamas (1) discusses the issue of the Procession of the Holy Spirit mainly from two points of view: a) His καθ' ὕπαρξιν procession from the Father alone, and b) His procession κατ' ἐνέργειαν from the Father through or from the Son.

As far as the Spirit's causal procession is concerned, Gregory follows the Greek patristic tradition and argues that the hypostasis of the Father is the unique cause, origin and source of the Son's and the Holy Spirit's divinity and existence (2). The Father is the cause of the divine unity not only because His nature is one, but also because the Son and the Holy Spirit coming out from the Father, go back to this one and unique Person (3).

According to Gregory Palamas, the procession of the Holy Spir­it from the Father alone is based on John 15,26 and the Tradition of the Church (4). Of course, the Creed of Nicea-Constantinople, Palamas admits, does not say plainly that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone, as it does not state that the Son is begotten from the Father alone. Nevertheless, it is self-evident (5) because the Father is the only cause of being of the two other Persons of the Trinity who are caused ( αἰτιατά ) (6).

The « ἐκπόρευσις », explains Gregory, is a property of the hypos­tasis of the Father and not of the divine essence (7). If it is accepted as a common property of the nature, the Holy Spirit should then also proceed from Himself. In this case, however, the Holy Trinity becomes four Persons (8). On the other hand, if this (ἐκπόρευσις)is a common property of the Father and the Son, and the Holy Spirit is deprived of it, then the Holy Spirit is alienated from the divine nature (9).

Gregory goes on to say that because the procession of the Holy Spirit is a hypostatic act of the Father, the double procession introdu­ces two causes and origins into the Holy Trinity, since the Father and the Son are two distinctive hypostases (10). The threat of introducing into the Holy Trinity two origins is in no way ruled out by the assertion that the Father and the Son constitute a sole origin of the Holy Spirit (11). This is absolutely contrary to the « θεογόνον » which is an incommuni­cable hypostatic property of the Father (12). « Πῶς ;», Gregory states, « ἐπί τῆς ἀνωτάτῳ τριάδος αἱ δύο... τοῦ ἑνός ἁγίου πνεύματος μία εἰσίν ἀρχαί, ἐν ᾗ μηδαμῶς ἐστι κατά τό θεογόνον κοινωνία ; Μόνος γάρ τεθεολόγηται θεότης θεογόνος ὁ πατήρ... Μέχρι γάρ ἄν ἐκ τοῦ υἱοῦ ἤ ἐξ ἀμφοτέρων λέγωσιν, ἀλλ ' οὐκ ἐκ μόνου τοῦ πατρός, οὔκ ἔστι μίαν εἶναι τῆς θεότητος τοῦ ἑνός πνεύματος ἀρχή » (13). On the other hand, if the « θεογόνον » were to be attribut­ed to the Son, it would lead to another misconception, namely, that the Son is of the same hypostasis as the Father (14).

Therefore, Gregory points out, the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father alone safeguards the Monarchia and rules out the danger of introducing into the Holy Trinity two principles and causes (15).

Gregory Palamas points out that it is necessary to distinguish between the origin of the Holy Trinity, which is the Father alone, and the origin of the creation, which is the Triune God. Palamas' argument runs thus: « Ἀλλ' εἶς ἡμῖν θεός καί μοναρχία τό προσκυνούμενον... Ἡ δημιουργική ἀρχή μία ἐστιν, ὁ πατήρ καί ὁ υἱός καί τό πνεῦμα τό ἅγιον . .Ὁ δε πατή ρ πρός τῷ πηγή τῶν πάντων εἶναι διά τοῦ υἱοῦ ἐν ἁγίῳ πνευμάτι καί πηγή καί ἀρχή ἐστι θεότητος «θεογόνος» ὤν μονώτατος»(16).

According to this distinction, the Father alone is the origin and root of the Holy Trinity ( 17). The Father sends out the Son by way of generation and the Holy Spirit by way of procession (18). The Father as the unique « ἀρχή » ( 19) is the cause of the unity of the Holy Trinity and its hypostatic differentiation (20). The three divine Prosopa as a trihypostatic principle (21), Palamas argues, create together (22), because they pos­sess one sole energy and will (23). Their activity from the Father through the Son is realized in the Holy Spirit (24). On the basis of the distinction between the « πατρική ἀρχή » and the « Τριαδική ἀρχή », the statement of Gregory of Nazianzus that the Son is « ἡ ἐκ τῆς ἀρχῆς ἀρχή » (25) does not mean that the Son is the origin of the Holy Spirit but the origin of the creation, which comes into being by the common act of the three di­vine hypostases (26).

Any confusion of these two principles results in the confusion be­tween the divinity and the creation, for either the creatures have the same mode of being as the Prosopa of the Holy Trinity, or the divine hypostases - and particularly the Holy Spirit - come into being like the created order (27), namely, by the will and energy of God (28).

The idea of the double procession of the Holy Spirit, Gregory maintains, leads to the same misconception, because the statement «tanquan ab uno principio» refers to the divine « economy », namely, the participation of the Son in the creation of the world, and not to « theology » (29).

On the contrary, the clear distinction between the « πατρική ἀρχή » and the « Τριαδική ἀρχή » presupposes the participation of the Son in the act of the creation and excludes any notion of the Son's participa­tion in the causal mode of being of the Holy Spirit (30). « Ἐκεῖ, Palamas goes on, μέν ἡ δημιουργοῦσα δύναμις κοινή, ἐνταῦθα οὐ κοινόν το θεογόνον » (31).

Over and over again Gregory refers to the hypostatic procession of the Holy Spirit and His manifestation (32). The mode of being and the manifestation of the Holy Spirit, Gregory argues, are two aspects of the mystery of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit derives His exis­tence from the Father, yet He exists eternally in the Son and rests in Him (33). The Son participates in the « ἔκφανσις » and manifestation of the Holy Spirit (34). Therefore, Gregory continues, the Spirit pours Himself out from the Father through the Son and, if you like, from the Son (35). Gregory, comparing the hypostatic procession of the Holy Spirit with His « κατ ' ἐνέργειαν » procession, maintains that, the Holy Spirit belongs to Christ by essence and by energy, because Christ is God. Nevertheless, according to essence and hypostasis He belongs but not proceeds, whereas, according to energy, He belongs and proceeds (36). Be­cause of the perichoresis and the consubstantiality of the hypostases, the Son and the Holy Spirit are « τοῦ ἄλλου )) but not « ἐξ ἄλλου » (37). The Holy Spirit is of the Son but not from the Son.

On account of the difference between the causal and the ἐκφαντορική procession of the Holy Spirit, Palamas explains, when certain Fathers assert that the Holy Spirit comes forth ctfrom both» or ((through the Son» or «from the Son», they are referring to the common energy of these hypostases and not to the mode of existence of the Holy Spirit (38). Therefore, Palamas suggests, when you understand that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the two, because it comes essentially from the Father through the Son, you should understand this teaching in the following sense: it is the powers and essential energies of God which pour out and not the divine hypostasis of the Spirit (39).

The hypostasis of the Holy Spirit, Gregory continues, does not come out from the Son, nor is it « μεθεκτή », i.e. it is not communica­ted to any creature (40). Only the divine grace and energy are « μεθεκταί » (41). On the other hand, when the Fathers speak about the proces­sion of the Holy Spirit through or from the Son, they connect this pro­cession with the divine essence and not with the hypostasis of the Son ( 42). Everything, however, which comes out commonly from the divine essence is energy and not hypostasis (43).

Gregory Palamas goes on to say that because the divine essence as well as the hypostases are « ἀ μέθεκτοι » and only the divine energies « μεθεκταί » (44), on Pentecost and in other cases where the Holy Spirit was bestowed by Christ, it was not the hypostasis of the Holy Spirit but His charismata that were transmitted (45). The granting of the divine energies is a common act of the Holy Trinity which starts from the Father, comes through the Son and is realized in the Holy Spirit (46).

On account of this distinction between the divine essence and the divine uncreated energies, the Holy Scriptures referring to the Holy Spirit speak on the one hand of the Spirit with the definite article and on the other hand of «spirit» without the article. In the first case the essential derivation is implied while in the second the gifts of the Holy Spirit, i.e. His energies. Therefore, when our Lord infused the disciples with the Holy Spirit He did not say (receive « the Holy Spir­it » (47), (as is commonly translated in English) but simply receive ye the Holy Spirit) that is to say « βραχύ τι τοῦ Πνεύματος » (48), His energy and by no means His essence or hypostasis (49).

Thus the participation of the Son can be accepted only in the sense of the « κατ ' ἐνέργειαν » procession of the Holy Spirit and by no means can it be transferred by induction to His mode of existence. The energies of the Holy Spirit are a result of the common free will and activity of the Holy Trinity (50) ; the hyparxis, however, of the Holy Spirit is an act of the hypostasis of the Father (50). Therefore the Son participates in the mission and the energies of the Holy Spirit, but the Holy Spirit owes His existence to the Father alone (51).

According to Gregory Palamas, the « κατ ' ἐνέργειαν » procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father through the Son is eternal and it becomes temporal when the Father and the Son will. «T ό γάρ πέμπειν ἔχειν τό πνεῦμα - Gregory states - τό ἅγιον πρός τούς ἀξίους κοινόν ἐστιν ἐξ ἀϊδίου τῷ πατρί καί τῷ υἱῷ · πέμπει δέ χρονικῶς ἑκάτερος, ἀμφότεροι δε μᾶλλον ὁπότε δέοι » (52).

The energy as uncreated pre-exists before its realization and manifestation, therefore, « ἐπί τοῦ υἱοῦ προθεωρεῖται το εἶναι αὐτοῦ πνεῦμα τοῦ ἐξ αὐτοῦ εἶναι, εἰ μή καί κατά χρόνον » (53).

In order to illustrate the eternal existence of the common ener­gies in the Holy Trinity and their temporal manifestation, Gregory Pa-lamas uses for the first time in the Greek patristic tradition the ana­logy of « love» (ἔρως)which was introduced in the West by Augustine (54) and used by others (55). Thus, according to Palamas, the Spirit of the Word from on high is like a mysterious love of the Father towards the Word mysteriously begotten: it ' s the same love as that possessed by the Word and the well-beloved Son of the Father towards Him Who begat Him; this He does in so far as He comes from the Father con­jointly with this love and this love rests, naturally, on Him (56 ).

Gregory, referring to the Incarnate Logos argues that the Holy Spirit is indeed the Spirit of the Son as well, but He receives this, too, from the Father, because of His attribute as the Spirit of Truth, Wis­dom and the Word; since truth and Wisdom are words appropriate to the Genitor (57).

Gregory Palamas is here obviously referring on the one hand, to the eternal relations within the Holy Trinity and particularly to the mu­tual « χρῆσις » of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son, and on the other hand to the Holy Spirit's temporal mission. This «love», how­ever, which comes from the Father conjointly with this love, by no means is the hypostasis of the Holy Spirit coming into existence from the Father and the Son, because in His χρῆσιν the Son already pos­sesses the Holy Spirit and this «love» abides in Him (58). But the Son possesses the Holy Spirit because He comes out from the Father in His existence (59).

If we take into account that, according to Palamas, every name applied to God refers to His energy and not to His essence or hypostasis (60), this characterization of the Holy Spirit as «love» which is used by the Father and the Son, applies not to the hypostasis of the Holy Spirit but to the common energy. This common energy is the love of the Tri­une God (61). It exists eternally in God and is manifested in time coming out from the Father through the Son and in the Holy Spirit.

That Gregory Palamas by this image of love, strange to the Eastern tradition, is referring to the procession « κατ ' ἐνέργειαν » of the Holy Spirit and not to His causal existence is clear from his explana­tion that the Holy Spirit is the preeternal joy of both, i.e. Father and Son, as common to both as concerns its use « χρῆσις » hence it is sent by both only to those who are worthy, but being only of the Father, as far as its existence is concerned. Therefore, the Holy Spirit proceeds alone from the Father as concerns its existence (62).

By this clear distinction between the « καθ ' ὕπαρξιν » procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father alone and His « κατ ' ἐνέργειαν » from the Father through the Son or from the Father and the Son, Palamas excludes the idea of Filioque. The double procession of the Holy Spirit to Palamas' judgment introduces confusion or relativism of the Hypostases and their hypostatic properties. In the case in which the Father and the Son, as one principle, proceed the Holy Spirit, then they are confused into a φυσικῇ ἀδιακρισία and the Holy Spirit Himself-as the unity of the two hypostases-is not clearly distinguished as a hypostasis. On the other hand the distinction between the « καθ ' ὕπαρξιν » and « κατ ' ἐνέργειαν » procession of the Holy Spirit safeguards man's participation in the uncreated grace i.e. the common energies of the Triune God and at the same time excludes the danger of polytheism (63).

ΣΗΜΕΙΩΣΕΙΣ

(1) On Gregory Palamas' doctrine on the Procession of the Holy Spirit, see J. MEYERDORFF, A Study of Grecory Palamas,pp. 228-232; A. RADOVIC, Το μυστήριον τῆς ἁγίας Τριάδος κατά τόν Ἅγιον Γρηγόριον Παλαμᾶν, pp. 143-201; MJUGIE, Thelogiadogmatica christianorum orientalium ab Ecclesia Catholica dissidentium,Paris 1933, pp. 383- 386. A. PAPADOPOULOS, "Ἡ περί ἐκπορεύσεως τοῦ Ἁγίου Πνεύματος διδασκαλία Γρηγο""ου τοῦ Παλαμᾶ ", Τό Ἅγιον Πνεῦμα, Thessaloniki 1971, pp. 70-84.

(2) Λόγος 'Aποδεικτικός2.61. ΒΟΒRΙΝSΚΥ,ΣΓΠ, 1, p.. 133, 25-28: «μία πηγαία θεότης ὁ πατήρ καί μόνος ἀρχή καί μόνος ἀγέννητος... καί μόνος πηγή θεότητος καί μόνος θεότητος θεογόνος. Cf. also, Ibid.1.30, BOBRINSKI ,ΣΓΠ, 1, p. 458, 20-25; 'Eπιστολήπρός 'Aκίνδυνον1.5, ΜΕΥΕRDΟRFF,ΣΓΠ, 1, p. 207,24-26; Ὁμολογία,MATSOUKAS, ΣΓΠ, 2, p. 494,20-22.

(3) Gregory Palamas relying on Gregory of Nazianzus ( Oratio 42,SupremumVale 15 ,PG. 36, 476 AB ) n asks Akindynos : « Πρός δέ, εἰ καί ἐκ τοῦ υἱοῦ τό πνεῦμα καί δι ' αὐτοῦ τήν ὕπαρξιν ἔχει κατά σέ, αὐτός ἐστιν ἕ νωσις Πατρός καί πνεύματος. Πῶς οὖν ὁ αὐτός μέγας ἐν θεολογίᾳ Γρηγόριος φησίν... «φύσις δέ τοῖς τρισί μία· ἕνωσις δέ ὁ πατήρ, ἐξ οὗ καί πρός ὅν ἀνάγεται τά ἐξῆς, οὐχ ὡς συναλείφεσθαι, ἀλλ ' ὡς ἔχεσθαι ;». Λόγος Ἀποδεικτικός1. 37, BOBRINSKY, ΣΓΠ, 1, p. 52, 4-9; Cf. also Ibid.1. 37, Β0BRΙΝSΚΥ,ΣΓΠ, 1, p. 68, 23-26.

(4) Λόγος 'Aποδεικτικός1, Β0BRΙΝSΚΥ,ΣΓΠ, 1, pp. 26-30.

(5) Λόγος 'Aποδεικτικός1, Β0BRΙΝSΚΥ,ΣΓΠ, 1, pp. 31, 4-17. Cf. also Ibid.1,3, Β0ΒRΙΝSΚΥ,ΓΠΣ, 1, p. 31, 20-26.

(6) Λόγος 'Aποδεικτικός1, Β0BRΙΝSΚΥ,ΣΓΠ, 1, pp. 66, 4. Cf. also Ibid. 1,33, Β0BRΙΝSΚΥ,ΣΓΠ, 1, p. 62, 25-26 ; Λόγος Ἀποδεικτικός 2.15, Β0ΒR1ΝSΚΥ,ΣΓΠ, 1, pp. 92, 28-93, 1; Ibid.2. 36, Β0ΒRΙΝSΚΥ,ΣΓΠ, 1, p. 110, 18-25; Ibid. 2. 50, Β0ΒRΙΝSΚΥ,ΣΓΠ, 1, p. 124, 19-22; Ibid. 2. 54, Β0ΒRΙΝSΚΥ,ΣΓΠ, 1, p. 128, 10.

(7) Λόγος Ἀποδεικτικός1. 6, Β0ΒR1ΝSΚΥ,ΣΓΠ, 1, pp. 33-28-234,5: « Ἐπεί οὖν καί τό πνεῦμα τό ἅγιον ἐκ τοῦ πατρός, ἐκ τῆς θείας οὐσίας καί αὐτό κατά τήν πατρικήν ὑπόστασιν ἐκπορευόμενόν ἐστιν · ἡ γάρ οὐσία πάντη τε καί πάντως μία τῶν τριῶν. Οὐκοῦν τό ἐκπορεύειν τῇ πατρικῇ ὑποστάσει ἐφαρμόζεται καί οὐκ ἔστιν εἶναι τό πνεῦμα καί ἐκ τοῦ υἱοῦ, οὐ γάρ ἐστι τά τῆς πατρικῆς ὑποστάσεως ἔχειν τόν υἱόν ». Cf. also, Ibid. P. 24, 10-15.

(8) Λόγος 'Aποδεικτικός1. 15, Β0ΒRΙΝSΚΥ,ΣΓΠ, 1, p. 43, 23-26: « Εἰ μέν κοινόν ἐστι πατρί τε καί υἱῷ τό ἐκπορεύειν, κοινόν ἔσται τοῦτο καί τῷ πνεύματι, καί τετράς ἔσται ἡ τριάς · καί τό πνεῦμα γάρ ἐκπορεύσει πνεῦμα ἕτερον ».

(9) Ἐ πιστολήπρός Ἀκίνδυνον4. 7, ΜΕΥΕΝDΟRFF,ΣΓΠ, 1, p. 209, 15-19; Λόγος 'Aποδεικτικός1. 14, Β0ΒRΙΝSΚΥ,ΣΓΠ, 1, p. 43.

(10) Λόγος 'Aποδεικτικός1. 7, Β0ΒR1ΝSΚΥ,ΣΓΠ, 1, p. 34, 15-19: « οὐκοῦν ἔνι τι τῶν τῆς πατρικής ὑυποστάσεως ἔχειν τόν υἱόν · εἰ δ' ἔχει ,ἤ δύο ἔσονται τά αἴτια, ὡς ἐν δυσίν ὑποστάσεσι τοῦ ἐκπορεύειν ὄντος, οὕτω γάρ δύο καί τά αἰτιατά, ὡς τοῦ αἰτιατοῦ, ἐν δυσίν ύποστάσεσι θεωρουμένου, ἤ συνδραμοῦνται εἰς μίαν τήν ὑπόστασιν ὁ πατήρ καί ὁ υἱός ».

(11) Ἐπιστολήπρός Ἀκίνδυνον1. 6-7, MEYE Ν DORFF ΣΓΠ, 1, pp. 208-210; Λόγος Ἀποδεικτικός 1. 37, Β0ΒRΙΝSΚΥ,ΣΓΠ, 1, p. 68, 20-23; Ibid. 2, 67, Β0ΒRΙΝSΚΥ,ΣΓΠ, 1, p. 136, 17-19.

(12) Gregory Palamas remains adamant on this point. Cf. ΛόγοςἈποδεικτικός, 1, 15, Β0ΒRΙΝSΚΥ,ΣΓΠ, 1, pp. 43, 16-41,24; ΛόγοςἈποδεικτικός2, 67-68, Β0ΒRΙΝSΚΥ,ΣΓΠ, 1, p. 139, 16-29; Ἐπ ιστολήπρόςἈκίνδυνον1. 7, ΜΕΥΕΝ D Ο RFF, ΣΓΠ, 1, p. 210, 16-19.

(13) ΛόγοςἈποδεικτικός, 1. 14, ΒΟΒRΙΝSΚΥ,ΣΓΠ, 1, ρ. 42, 15-18, and Ibid. pp. 42, 28-43, 2.

(14) Λόγος 'Aποδεικτικός1. 22, Β0ΒRΙΝSΚΥ , ΣΓΠ, 1 , p. 81, 28-30.

(15) Λόγος 'Aποδεικτικός 1. 40, Β0ΒRΙΝSΚΥ,ΣΓΠ, 1, p. 70, 16-19.

(16) 'Eπιστολήπρός 'Aκίνδννον,1.5, ΜΕΥΕΝDORFF,ΣΓΠ, 1, p. 207, 14-26.

(17) Ὁ μολογία, 1,MATSOYKAS,ΣΓΠ, 2, p. 494, 20-22: «μόνος αἰτία καί ρίζα καί πηγή τῆς ἐν υἱῷ καί ἁγίῳ πνεύματι θεωρούμενης θεότητος ». Cf. also, ΛόγοςἈποδεικτικός,1, 44, Β0ΒRΙΝSΚΥ,ΣΓΠ, 1, p. 41, 3-5; Ibid. 2. 26, ΒΟΒRΙΝSΚΥ,ΣΓΠ, 1, 102, 12-15; Ἐ πιστολήπρός Ἀκίνδυνον1.5, ΜΕΥΕΝDORFF,ΣΓΠ, 1, pp. 207-208.

(18) Λόγος 'Aποδεικτικός2., 41, ΒΟΒR1ΝSΚΥ,ΣΓΠ, 1, p. 115, 26-30; Λόγος 'Aποδεικτικός1. 8, Β0ΒRΙΝSΚΥ,ΣΓΠ, 1, p. 36, 15-20.

(19) Λόγος 'Aποδεικτικός1.20, ΒΟΒRΙΝSΚΥ,ΣΓΠ, 1, p. 48,25-30: « οὐδ ' ἡ μονάς εἰς μονάδα κινηθεῖσα καί εἰς ἑτέραν αὖθις μονάδα ἡ δυάς, ἀλλ ' ἡ μονάς θεοπρεπῶς εἰς δυάδα κινηθεῖσα, μέχρι τριάδος ἔστη '. Καί εἷς ἡμῖν θεός· οὐ μόνον ὅτι μία θεότης, ἀλλ ' ὅτι καί εἰς ἀμφότερα τά ἐξ αὐτοῦ την ἀναφοράν ἔχει » Gregory Palamas again depends on Gregory Nazianzus ( Oratio 29, Theologica3, DeFilio 2, PG. 36, 763 D and Oratio31, Theologica 5, DeSpirituSancto, PG. 36, 148-149 A ).

(20) Λόγος 'Aποδεικτικός 1. 12, Β0ΒRΙΝSΚΥ,ΣΓΠ, 1, p. 39, 15; 'Eπιστολήπρός Ἀκίνδννον1.3 , ΜΕΥΕΝDΟRFF, ΣΓΠ, 1, p. 205,9-10.

(21) Ἐ πιστολήπρός Ἀκίνδυνον1.5, ΜΕΥΕΝDORFF, ΣΓΠ, 1, p. 207, 14-24; «Ἡ δημιουργική ἀρχή μία ἐστίν, ὁ πατήρ καί ὁ υἱός καί τό πνεῦμα τό ἅγιον. Ὅταν οὖν ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ τά ἐκ τοῦ μή ὄντος προηγμένα λέγωμεν, τήν τε ἀγαθότητα, δι ' ἥν τό εἶναι ἔσχον... ἀρχήν καί πηγήν καί αἴτιον καί τόν υἱόν ἐν ἁγίῳ πνεύματι φαμέν, οὐχ ἑτέραν, ἄπαγε, ἀλλά τήν αὐτήν, ὡς τοῦ πατρός δι ' αὐτοῦ ἐν ἁγίῳ πνεύματι καί προάγοντος καί ἐπανάγοντος καί συνέχοντος καλῶς τά πάντα». Cf also, Λόγος 'Aποδεικτικός1. 14, ΒΟΒRΙΝSΚΥ,ΣΓΠ, 1, pp. 40, 24-41, 2..

(22) Περί ἑνώσεως καί διακρίσεως21, ΜΑΝΤΖΑRIDES,ΣΓΠ, 2, p. 84,13-15: «μία γάρ ἡ τοῦ θείου θελήματος κίνησις ἐκ προκαταρτικοῦ αἰτίου τοῦ πατρός ὁρμώμενη καί διά τοῦ υἱοῦ προϊούσα καί ἐν ἁγίῳ πνεύματι προσφαινομένη ».

(23) Ἐ πιστολήπρός Ἀκίνδυνον1.5, ΜΕΥΕΝDORFF, ΣΓΠ, 1, p. 207, 24-25; Λόγος Ἀποδεικτικός1.24, ΒΟΒRΙΝSΚΥ,ΣΓΠ, 1, p. 41,4-4; Ἐ πιστολήπρός Βαρλαάμ1-21, ΜΕΥΕNDORFF,ΣΓΠ, 1, p. 237,2-3.

(24) Oratio45 In Sanctum Pascha 9,, ΡG.36, 633C.

a mong others Barlaam, recalling this statement of Gregory Nyssa, argued that the Son is a second cause and principle of the Principle of the Holy Spirit. Nevertheless, because this second principle comes out from the first i.e. the Father, the Father remains the unique principle and for this reason the monarchia is safeguarded. For Barlaam's views see, BARLAAM CALABRO, EpistoleGreche, Ep. 1, SHIRO, Palermo 1954, p. 77 and for Gregory Palamas ' criticism, ΛόγοςἈποδεικτικός 1,13. ΒΟΒRΙΝSΚΥ,ΣΓΠ, 1, pp. 39ff; Ἐ πιστολήπρόςἈκίνδυνον 1.2-3, ΜΕΥΕRDORFF, ΣΓΠ, 1, pp. 204ff; Ἐ πιστολήπρόςΒαρλαάμ 1, 14- 16, ΜΕΥΕΝDORFFΣΓΠ, 1, p. 335.

(25) Ἐ πιστολήπρόςἈκίνδυνον1,5, ΜΕΥΕΝDORFF, ΣΓΠ, 1, p. 207, 28-21: Ὅταν οὖν ἀκούσῃς ὅτι ὁ υἱός ἡ ἐκ τῆς ἀρχῆς ἀρχή... τῶν δημιουργημάτων νόει ».

(26) Λόγος 'Aποδεικτικός1. 14, ΒΟΒRΙΝSΚΥ,ΣΓΠ, 1, p. 41, 15-18: T οῦ δέ πνεύματος τόν υἱόν ἀρχήν ἐπί τῆς σημασίας ταύτης πῶς ἄν φαίη τις, εἰ μή καί τό πνεῦμα δοῦλον καί κτιστόν ; Ἀλλ ' ἐπεί θεός τό πνεῦμα, οὐκ ἀρχή αὐτοῦ κατά τοῦτο ὁ υἱός, εἰ μή ἄρα ὡς θεότητος ἀρχή. Cf also, Ἐ πιστολή πρός Ἀκίνδυνον1,5 ΜΕΥΕΝDORF ΣΓΠ 1, p. 208, 36; Λόγος 'Aποδεικτικός1. 15, ΒΟΒRΙΝSΚΥ,ΣΓΠ 1, pp. 44, 29-34.

(27) Ἐ πιστολή πρός Ἀκίνδυνον1,5, ΜΕΥΕΝDORFF, ΣΓΠ, 1, pp. 24-5; Λόγος 'Aποδεικτικός1, Ἐπίλογος, ΒΟΒRΙΝSΚΥ,ΣΓΠ 1, p. 74.

(28) Λόγος 'Aποδεικτικός1, 15, ΒΟΒRΙΝSΚΥ,ΣΓΠ, 1, pp. 44, 1-2; Ibid.16, 2-3, ΒΟΒRΙΝSΚΥ,ΣΓΠ, 1 p. 45, 13

(29) Ἐ πιστολή πρός Βαρλαάμ1,21,ΜΕΥΕΝDORFFΣΓΠ, 1, pp. 236, 25, 237, 3. And Palamas goes on, ἐπί γάρ τήν κτίσην ἦλθε διά μέσης ὁ θεός θεότητος, ἀλλ' οὐκ ἐπί τήν θεότητα τοῦ πνεύματος...τρόπος γάρ ἕτερος δημιουργικῆς ἐστιν ἀρχῆς καί τῆς κατ' αὐτήν μοναρχίας καί τῆς ἀρχῆς καί τῆς μοναρχίας ἐκείνης ἕτερος, ἤ τῆς θεογονίας ἐστιν ἐπώνυμον, ὅς καί σώζεται τῷ τόν υἱόν καί τό πνεῦμα τήν ὕπαρξιν ἔχειν ἐκ τοῦ πατρός, ὥσπερ ἐκεῖνος τῷ δι' υἱοῦ ἐν ἁγίῳ πνεύματι δημιουργόν εἶναι τόν πατέρα.

(30) Ἐ πιστολή πρόςΒαρλαάμ 1,21 ,ΜΕΥΕΝDORFFΣΓΠ, 1, pp. 236, 15-16.

(31) Λόγος 'Aποδεικτικός2, 79, ΒΟΒRΙΝSΚΥ,ΣΓΠ, 1, pp 149, 22-25: Καλῶς ἄρ' ἔφημεν, ὡς τό ἐκπορευόμενον ἐπί τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος οὐκ ἁεί τήν ἐκ τοῦ πατρός προαιώνιον ὕπαρξιν δηλοῖ, ἀλλ' ἔστιν ὅτε και τήν ὕστερον φανέρωσιν, καθ' ἥν καί ὁ υἱός κοινωνήσει τῷ πατρί. Cf also, Ibid.2.82-83, p. 152; Ibid.2.78, p. 148, 15-18; Ibid.2.29, p. 105, 1-2.

(32) Λόγος Αποδεικτικός2. 73, Β0ΒRΙΝSΚΥ,ΣΓΠ, 1, p.144,14-21: «Τό πνεῦμα τό ἅγιον... ἰδιαίτατον μέν ἔχει τῆς ἰδιοτρόπου ὑπάρξεως τό ἐκ τοῦ πατρός ἐκπορεύεσθαι... καί τῷ υἱῷ οὐχ ἧττον ἥνωται οὐσιωδῶς τε καί ἀδιαστάτως, αὐτῷ τε ἐπαναπαυόμενον και ἴδιον αὐτοῦ ὑπάρχον καί ἐν αὐτῷ φυσικῶς διατελοῦν ἁεί. Cf. also Ibid.2.74, p. 146, 3-4; Ibid..2,26 p. 103,10-20; Ibid..1.25, Β0ΒRΙΝSΚΥ,ΣΓΠ, 1, pp. 52,25-53, 2.. This idea however, goes back to Gregory of Nyssa ( Orato Catechetica2, PG 45, 178) and John of Damascus ( Expositio fideiI, 7, KOTTER, p. 16, 15-21).

(33) ΛόγοςἈποδεικτικός2.75, Β0ΒRΙΝSΚΥ,ΣΓΠ, 1, p. 146,20-24: ἔστι δέ καί ὡς δι ' υἱοῦ καί ἐξ υἱοῦ τοῖς ἁγίοις χορηγούμενον... εἰ δέ βούλει ἐκπορευόμενον, ἀλλ ' ἡνίκα ληφθῆναι καί φανερωθῆναι εὐδόκησε καί ὡς εὐδόκησε διδόμενόν τε καί φανερούμενον. Cf. also Ibid.2.77-78, p. 148; Ibid.2, 60, p. 132 22-24; Ibid.1.31, BOBRINSKY,ΣΓΠ, 1, p. 59.

(34) ΛόγοςἈποδεικτικός1.29, Β0ΒRΙΝSΚΥ,ΣΓΠ, 1, p. 54, 23-24.

(35) ΛόγοςἈποδεικτικός2.29, Β0ΒRΙΝSΚΥ,ΣΓΠ, 1, p. 105,17-21: οὕτω καί τό πνεῦμα τό ἅγιον τοῦ Χριστοῦ ἐστιν ὡς θεοῦ καί κατ ' οὐσίαν καί κατ ' ἐνέργειαν. Ἀλλά κατά μέν τήν οὐσίαν καί τήν ὑπόστασιν αὐτοῦ ἐστιν, ἀλλ ' οὐκ ἐξ αὐτοῦ·

(36) Λόγος Ἀποδεικτικός2,29, ΒΟΒRΙΝSΚΥ,ΣΓΠ, 1, p. 105,2-3.

(37) Λόγος Ἀποδεικτικός2, 62, Β0ΒRΙΝSΚΥ,ΣΓΠ. 1, pp. 134-5.

(38) Λόγος Ἀποδεικτικός2. 20, ΒΟΒRΙΝSΚΥ,ΣΓΠ, 1, p. 16,23-28. Cf also J. MEYENDORFF, A Study of Gregory Palamas,,p. 230.

(39) Λόγος 'Aποδεικτικός,2., 27, Β0ΒRΙΝSΚΥ, ΣΓΠ, 1, p. 102,24-26 ; Cf .also Ibid.2,64, p. 135,24-28: ἀλλά καί πάρεστιν ἁεί οὐσιωδῶς ἡμῖν , πάντως δέ καί καθ' ὑπόστασιν, κἄν ἡμεῖς τῆς οὐσίας ἤ τῆς ὑποστάσεως ἥκιστα μετέχομεν.

(40) Λόγος Ἀποδεικτικός2, 48, Β0ΒRΙΝSΚΥ,ΣΓΠ, 1, p. 122,14-17: μή τήν ὑπόστασιν τοῦ παναγίου πνεύματος εἶναι καί ἐκ τοῦ υἱοῦ, μηδέ δίδοσθαι ταύτην, μηδέ λαμβάνεσθαι παρ' οὐδενός, ἀλλά τήν θείαν χάριν καί τήν ἐνέργειαν». Cf also HagioriticusTomos,PG 150, 1299 D.

(41) Λόγος 'Aποδεικτικός2,67-68, Β0ΒRΙΝSΚΥ , ΣΓΠ, 1, pp, 138-140.

(42) Λόγος Ἀποδεικτικός2, 69, ΒΟΒRΙΝSΚΥ,ΣΓΠ, 1, pp. 140,19-141,3. Cf also, Ibid.pp. 141-142. Gregory Palamas develops this notion by recalling similar views of anciente Fathers such as Athanasius (= PS. ATHANASIUS) Contra Macedonianos dialogus 1, PG 28, 1308 B; 1309A; 1312 CD; 1316C, Dionysius the Areopagite (= PS. DIONYSIOS) De Divinis nominibus11, PG.3, 953CD- 956AB and CHRYSOSTOM, In Joannem hom.30,2, PG. 58, 174.

(43) Θεοφάνης,20, ΜΑΝΤΖΑRIDES,ΣΓΠ, 2, p. 245,13-16: Εἰ κατά τούς ἡμῖν ἀντικειμένους ἡ οὐσία τοῦ θεοῦ μετέχεται κατά ταῦτα παρά πάντων, μηκέτι τρισυπόστατον αὐτήν, ἀλλά μυριοϋπόστατον ὑπάρχειν.

(44) Λόγος Ἀποδεικτικός2.6, Β0ΒRΙΝΚΥ,ΣΓΠ, 1, pp. 82-83.

(45) Περί ἑνώσεως καί διακρίσεως21, ΜΑΝΤΖΑRIDESs,ΣΓΠ, 1, P. 84,10-15; Περί θείων ενεργειῶν23, ΜΑΝΤΖΑRIDΕS,ΣΓΠ, 2, pp. 113-114.

(46) John20,13 .

(47) Λόγος Ἀποδεικτικός2..6, ΒΟΒRΙΝSΚΥ,ΣΓΠ, 1, p. 83,3.

(48) Λόγος Ἀποδεικτικός2..6, ΒΟΒRΙΝSΚΥ,ΣΓΠ, 1, p. 83,3-6; Σαφές οὖν ὡς μερικήν τοῦ πνεύματος ἐνέργειαν διά τοῦ ἐμφυσήματος ἔδωκεν, οὐκ αὐτοῦ τήν φύσιν ἤ τήν ὑπόστασιν· ἀμερής γάρ παντάπασιν ἡ τοῦ θείου πνεύματος φύσις τε καί ὑπόστασις.

(49) Περί ἑνώσεως καί διακρίσεως21, ΜΛΝΤΖΑRIDES,ΣΓΠ, 2, p. 84,2.5-28; Ἀ ντεπιγραφαί εἰς ἐπιγραφάς Βέκκου,3, ΡΑΡΑYAGGELOY,ΣΓΠ, 1, p. 105,5-15.

(50). Λόγος Ἀποδεικτικός1. Ευχή, Β0ΒRΙΝSΚΥ,ΣΓΠ, 1, p. 25.

(51) Λόγος 'Aποδεικτικός2.26, ΒΟΒRΙΝSΚΥ,ΣΓΠ, 1, p. 102,10-15; Λόγος Ἀποδεικτικός1. Ευχή, Β0ΒRΙΝSΚΥ,ΣΓΠ, 1, p. 25,6-10: πνεῦμα τό ἅγιον, τό κύριον, τό ἐκ Θ εοῦ πατρός ἐκπορευτῶς τήν ὕπαρξιν ἔχον, καί δι' υἱοῦ τοῖς ὀρθῶς πιστεύουσιν εἰς σέ καί διδόμενον καί πεμπόμενον καί φαινόμενον. Cf. also, Ὁ μολογία3, ΜΑΤSOUKAS,ΣΓΠ, 2, p. 495, 30-31.

(52) Λόγος Ἀποδεικτικός2.14, Β0ΒRΙΝSΚΥ,ΣΓΠ, 1, p. 92,1-3.

(53) Λόγος Ἀποδεικτικός2.74, Β0ΒRΙΝSΚΥ,ΣΓΠ, 1, p. 146,7-9.

(54) De TrinitateIX. 190. 15, PL. 142, 269: Cum itaque se mens novit et amat, jungitur ei amore verbum eius. Et quoniam amat notitiam et novit amorem et verbum in amore est, et amor in verbo, et utrumque in amante atque dicente.

(55) Cf. ANSELM OF CANTERBURY, Monologion49-54; ΑΙ, ΒΕ R Τ ΤΗΕ GR ΕΑΤ, Summa Theologiae, Ι. tr. 7.q.31.2; THOMAS AQUINAS, Summa Thelogica, 1a. 27, 2-4.

(56) Capitaphysicatheologica36, PG 150, 1145Α: Ἐκεῖνο δέ τό Πνεῦμα τοῦ ἀνωτάτω Λόγου, οἶόν τις ἔρως ἐστίν ἀπόρρητος τοῦ Γεννήτορος πρός αὐτόν τόν ἀπορρήτως γεννηθέντα Λόγον· ᾧ καί αὐτός ὁ τοῦ Πατρός ἐπέραστος Λόγος καί Υἱός χρῆται πρός τόν Γεννήτορα· ἀλλ' ὡς ἐκ τοῦ Πατρός ἔχων αὐτόν συμπροελθόντα, καί συμφυῶς ἐν αὐτῷ ἀναπαυόμενον.

(57) Ιbid.

(58) For a discussion on this topic see : A. RADOVIC, Tό μυστήριον τῆς ἁγίας Τριάδος κατά τόν ἅγιον Γρηγόριον τόν Παλαμᾶν,pp. 168-174; IDEM, «Ὁ τριαδολογικός χαρακτήρ τῆς ὀρθοδόξου πνευματολογίας» Περί τοῦ ἁγίου Πνεύματος.Εισηγή­σεις, Athens, 1971, pp. 28-30.

(59) Λόγος Ἀποδεικτικός2.26, Β0ΒR1ΝSΚI,ΣΓΠ, 1, p. 102,12-15.

(60) Ὑ πέρ τῶν ἱερῶς ἡσυχαζόντων3 .2. 10, BROBRINSKI, ΣΓΠ 1, p. 664, 25-27; Ιbid.3.2.9, p. 662, 25-28; ΈπιστολήπρόςἈκίνδυνον3.4, ΜΕYENDORFFΣ ΓΠ, Ι, p. 296, 5-6.

(61) Τ his notion of love was also interpreted in this sense by the Council held at Constantinople in 1772. Thus in its Encyclical letter to the Orthodox people of Antioch, it remarks : « ὁ ἔρως καί ἡ ἀγάπη καί και ἐπί τῶν τριῶν προσώπων λέγεται... Εἰ δ' ὁ Θεός Αγάπη, εὔδηλον ὅτι καί τά τρία πρόσωπα». (Ι. Κ ARMIRIS, Τά Δογματικά καί Σνμβολικά μνημεῖα τῆς Ὀρθοδόξου Καθολικῆς Ἐκκλησίας,vol. 2., Α thens 1953, p. 847).

(62) Capitaphysicatheologica36, Ρ G. 150, 1145Α: Αὕτη γάρ ἡ Πατρός τέ καί Υἱοῦ προαιώνιος χαρά τό Πνεῦμα τό ἅγιον ἐστίν, ὡς κοινόν μέν αὐτοῖς κατά τήν χρῆσιν (δι' ὅ παρ' ἀμφοτέρων καί πρός τούς ἀξίους πέμπεται) μόνον δέ τοῦ Πατρός καθ' ὕπαρξιν ὑπάρχον. Δι' ὅ καί παρ' αὐτοῦ μόνον ἐκπορεύεται καθ' ὕπαρξιν.

(63) Θεοφάνης,20-21, MANTZARIDES, ΣΓΠ, pp. 245- 248.