From: Subject: Romanides - Filioque Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2006 00:01:59 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/related; type="text/html"; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0009_01C6F311.CC56EC00" X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2962 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0009_01C6F311.CC56EC00 Content-Type: text/html; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Location: http://www.geocities.com/trvalentine/orthodox/romanides_filioque.html =EF=BB=BF Romanides - Filioque var PUpage=3D"76001081"; var PUprop=3D"geocities"; =

Formatting notes: This is the format for = quotations. =E2=80=94=20 Endnotes appear in this format. =E2=80=94 M= ore=20 information.

Note: Your browser must have access to a Unic= ode=20 font for the polytonic (non-Demotic) Greek to be rendered properly.

Fr. John S. Romanides

Filioque

Because the question of the Filioque played = such an=20 important role in the centuries long conflict between the Frankish and = Roman=20 worlds, the author's study originally prepared as the Orthodox position = paper=20 for the discussions on the Filioque between Orthodox and = Anglicans at=20 the subcommision meeting in St. Albans, England in 1975 and at the = plenary=20 commission meeting in Moscow in 1976, is presented here in a revised = form. It=20 was first published in Kleronomia, 7 (1975), 285-34 and = reprinted in=20 Athens in 1978.

Historical Background

One must take note from the very beginning that there = never was a=20 Filioque controversy between the West and East Romans. There were = domestic=20 quarrels over details concerning the Christological doctrine and the = Ecumenical=20 Synods dealing with the person of Christ. The West Romans championed the = cause=20 of Icons defined by the Seventh Ecumenical Synod, but they never = supported the=20 Frankish Filioque, either as doctrine or as an addition to the = Creed.=20 The Filioque controversy was not a conflict between the Patriarchates of = Old=20 Rome and New Rome, but between the Franks and all Romans in the East and = in the=20 West.

As we saw in Part 1, there is strong evidence that the = cause of=20 the Filioque controversy is to be found in the Frankish = decision to=20 provoke the condemnation of the East Romans as heretics so that the = latter might=20 become exclusively Greeks and, therefore, a different nation from = the=20 West Romans under Frankish rule. The pretext of the Filioque=20 controversy was the Frankish acceptance of Augustine as the key to = understanding=20 the theology of the First and Second Ecumenical Synods. That this = distinction=20 between cause and pretext is correct seems adequately clear in the = policy=20 manifested at the Synod of Frankfurt in 794 which condemned both sides = of the=20 iconoclastic controversy so that the East Romans would end up as = heretics no=20 matter who prevailed.

The Franks deliberately provoked doctrinal differences = in order to=20 break the national and ecclesiastical unity of the Roman nation, and = thus=20 separate, once and for all, the revolutionary West Romans under their = rule from=20 the East Romans. The free Romans supposedly have changed their=20 nationality by becoming heretics, by moving their capital from Old Rome = to New=20 Rome, and preferring Greek over Latin. So goes the argument of Emperor = Louis II=20 in his letter to Emperor Basil I in 871, as we saw.

Because of this deliberate policy, the Filioque = question=20 was about to take on irreparable dimensions. Up to this time, the=20 Filioque was a Frankish political weapon which had not yet = become a=20 theological controversy because the Romans hopefully believed that the = Papacy=20 could dissuade the Franks from their doctrinal dead-end approach. When = it became=20 clear that the Franks were not going to retreat from these = politico-doctrinal=20 policies, the Romans accepted the challenge and condemned both the=20 Filioque and the Frankish double position on icons at the = Eighth=20 Ecumenical Synod of 879 in Constantinople-New Rome.

During the ensuing centuries long course of the = controversy, the=20 Franks not only forced the Patristic tradition into an Augustinian mold, = but=20 they confused Augustine's Trinitarian terminology with that of the = Father's of=20 the First and Second Ecumenical Synods. This is nowhere so evident as in = the=20 Latin handling of Maximos the Confessor's description, composed in 650, = of the=20 West Roman Orthodox Filioque at the Council of Florence = (1438-42). The=20 East Romans hesitated to present Maximos' letter to Marinos about this = West=20 Roman Orthodox Filioque because the letter did not survive in = its=20 complete form. They were pleasantly surprised, however, when Andrew, the = Latin=20 bishop of Rhodes, quoted the letter in Greek in order to prove that in = the time=20 of Maximos there was no objection to the Filioque being in the = Creed.=20 Of course, the Filioque was not yet in the Creed. Then Andrew = proceeded=20 to translate Maximos into Latin for the benefit of the pope. However, = the=20 official translator intervened and challenged the rendition. Once the = correct=20 translation was established, the Franks then questioned the authenticity = of the=20 text. They assumed that their own Filioque was the only one in = the=20 West, and so they rejected on this ground Maximos' text as a basis of = union.

When Maximos spoke about the Orthodox Filioque, = as=20 supported with passages from Roman Fathers, he did not mean those who = came to be=20 known as Latin Fathers, and so included among them Saint Cyril of=20 Alexandria.

The fanaticism with which the Romans clung to the = Papacy, the=20 struggle of the Romans to preserved this institution, and the hierarchy = within=20 the confines of the Roman nation are very well-known historical facts = described=20 in great detail in Medieval histories.

However, the identity of the West Romans and of the East = Romans as=20 one indivisible nation, faithful to the Roman faith promulgated at the = Roman=20 Ecumenical Synods held in the Eastern part of the Empire, is completely = lost to=20 the historians of Germanic background, since the East Romans are = consistently=20 called Greeks and Byzantines.

Thus, instead of dealing with church history in terms of = a united=20 and indivisible Roman nation, and presenting the Church a being carved = up in the=20 West by Germanic conquerors, European historians have been sucked into = the=20 Frankish perspective, and thereby deal with church history as though = there were=20 a Greek Christendom as distinguished from a Latin Christendom. Greek = Christendom=20 consists of supposedly, the East Romans, and Latin Christendom, of the = Franks=20 and other Germanic peoples using Latin plus, supposedly, the West = Romans,=20 especially Papal Romania, i.e. the Papal States.

Thus, the historical myth has been created that the West = Roman=20 Fathers of the Church, the Franks, Lombards, Burgundians, Normans, etc., = are one=20 continuous and historically unbroken Latin Christendom, clearly = distinguished=20 and different from a mythical Greek Christendom. The frame of reference = accepted=20 without reservation by Western historians for so many centuries has been = the=20 Greek East and the Latin West.

A much more accurate understanding of history presenting = the=20 Filioque controversy in its true historical perspective is = based on the=20 Roman viewpoint of church history, to be found in (both Latin and Greek) = Roman=20 sources, as well as in Syriac, Ethiopian, Arabic, and Turkish sources. = All these=20 point to a distinction between Frankish and Roman Christendom, and not = between a=20 mythical Latin and Greek Christendom. Among the Romans, Latin and Greek = are=20 national languages, not nations. The Fathers are neither Latins nor = Greeks but=20 Romans.

Having this historical background in mind, one can then = appreciate=20 the significance of certain historical and theological factors = underlying the=20 so-called Filioque controversy. This controversy was = essentially a=20 continuation of the Germanic or Frankish effort to control not only the = Roman=20 nation, but also the rest of the Roman nation and Empire.

In order to expand on this historical approach, we would = point out=20 the following:

The doctrinal differences which exist between Saint Ambrose and = Saint=20 Augustine are a summary of the differences between Frankish and Roman=20 theological method and doctrine. This is indeed a strange discovery, = since one=20 is given the impression that Augustine was a student and friend of = Ambrose,=20 and that the latter instructed and baptized the former. After = comparing the=20 two, I have come to the conclusion that Augustine did not pay much = attention=20 to the sermons of Ambrose and evidently read little of Ambrose's = works.=20

The two differ radically over the questions of the Old = Testament=20 appearances of the Logos, the existence of the universals, the general = framework of the doctrine of the Trinity, the nature of communion = between God=20 and man, the manner in which Christ reveals His divinity to the = apostles, and=20 in general, over the relation between doctrine and speculation, or = revelation=20 and reason. Ambrose clearly follows the East Roman Fathers, and = Augustine=20 follows the Bible interpreted within the framework of Plotinus, and = under the=20 pressure of his Manichaean past.=20
The province of Gaul was the battleground between the followers of = Augustine and of Saint John Cassian, when the Franks were taking over = the=20 province and transforming it into their Francia. Through his monastic = movement=20 and his writings in this field and on Christology, Saint John Cassian = had a=20 strong influence on the Church in Old Rome also. In his person, as in = other=20 persons such as Ambrose, Jerome, Rufinus, Leo the Great, and Gregory = the=20 Great, we have an identity in doctrine, theology, and spirituality = between the=20 East and West Roman Christians. Within this framework, Augustine in = the West=20 Roman area was subjected to general Roman theology. In the East Roman = area,=20 Augustine was simply ignored.=20
In contrast to East and West Roman theology, the Frankish = theological=20 tradition makes its appearance in history reading and knowing in full = only=20 Augustine. As the Franks became acquainted with other Latin-speaking = or=20 Greek-speaking Roman Fathers, they subordinated them all to the = authority of=20 Augustinian categories. Even the dogmas promulgated at Ecumenical = Synods were=20 replaced by Augustine's understanding of these dogmas.=20
This theological frame of reference within the framework of = feudalism=20 gives the Franks confidence that they have the best theology, not only = because=20 they have what Latin (i.e. Frankish) Christendom ever since has = considered the=20 greatest Father of the Patristic period, but also because the Franks = and the=20 other Germanic peoples are, by the very nature of their birth, a noble = race=20 superior to the Romans, Greeks (East Romans), and Slavs. The = natural=20 result of this superiority is that the Germanic races, especially the = Fanks,=20 Normans, Lombards, and, finally, the Germans, should produce a = theology better=20 than that of the Romans. Thus, the scholastic tradition of the = Germanic Europe=20 surpasses the Patristic period of the Romans. I personally can find no = other=20 justification of the claim, so popular until a few years ago in the = West, that=20 scholastic theology succeeded and surpassed patristic theology.=20
This distinction has its derivation in a second factor which has = gone=20 unnoticed in European, Russian, and modern Greek manuals = because of the=20 identification of Germanic or Frankish theology with Latin-language = Roman=20 theology under the heading Latin Christendom.

The = historical appearance of Frankish theology coincides with the = beginnings of=20 the Filioque controversy. Since the Roman Fathers of the Church took a = strong=20 position on this issue, as they did on the question of Icons (also = condemned=20 initially by the Franks), the Franks automatically terminated the = patristic=20 period of theology with Saint John of Damascus in the East (after they = accepted the Seventh Ecumenical Synod) and Isidore of Seville in the = West.=20 After this, the Roman Empire no longer can produce Fathers of the = Church=20 because the Romans rejected the Frankish Filioque. In doing = so, the=20 Romans withdrew themselves from the central trunk of Christianity (as = the=20 Franks understood things) which now becomes identical with Frankish=20 Christianity, especially after the East Franks expelled the Romans = from the=20 Papacy and took it over themselves.=20
From the Roman viewpoint, however, the Roman tradition of the = Fathers was=20 not only not terminated in the eighth century, but continued a = vigorous=20 existence in free Romania in the East, as well as within Arab-occupied = areas.=20 Present research is now leading to the conclusion that the Roman = Patristic=20 period extended right in tot he period of Ottoman rule, after the fall = of=20 Constantinople New Rome. This means that the Eighth Ecumenical Synod = (879),=20 under Photios, the so-called Palamite Synods of the fourteenth = century, and=20 the Synods of the Roman Patriarchate during the Ottoman period, are = all a=20 continuation and an integral part of the history of Patristic = theology. It is=20 also a continuation of the Roman Christian tradition, minus the = Patriarchate=20 of Old Rome, which, since 1009 after having been captured, ceased to = be Roman=20 and became a Frankish institution.=20
Without ever mentioning the Franks, the Eighth Ecumenical Synod of = 879=20 condemned those who either added or subtracted from the=20 Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, and also those who had not yet = accepted the=20 Seventh Ecumenical Synod.

It must first be emphasized = that this=20 is the first instance in history wherein and Ecumenical Synod = condemned=20 heretics without naming them. In this case, the heretics are clearly = the=20 Franks.

It is also significant that Pope John VIII's=20 Commonitorium to the Synod does not mention the need to = condemn those=20 who either add or subtract from the Creed.

There is, = however, a=20 letter of John to Photios, which is usually published at the end of = the acts=20 of the Synod, in which the Filioque is vigorously condemned, = and is=20 described as something added not long ago, but never in the Church of = Rome.=20 The letter also requested that admonition from the pope be used for = its=20 removal, since a harsher approach may lead to its addition by force.=20

It has been argued that the surviving version for the = letter is=20 a product of the fourteenth century. However, the existing version = fits in=20 perfectly with the conditions of Papal Romania under Frankish = domination at=20 the time of John VIII, which could not have been known by either a = Frank or an=20 East Roman in the fourteenth century.

The power of the = Franks=20 over the Papacy, although not completely broken after the death of = Charlemagne=20 in 814, was in any case weakened with the dissolution of his Empire, = and, in=20 turn, neutralized by the reconquest of South Italian Romania from the = Saracens=20 by the Roman army beginning in 876. However, Roman power had not been = so=20 strongly established that the Papacy in 879 could afford an open = doctrinal war=20 with the Franks. Such an open conflict would have led to the = transformation of=20 papal Romania into a Frankish duchy, and of the Roman population into = the=20 condition of the Romans conquered in other parts of Western Romania by = the=20 Franks and other Germanic nations and, of course, also would have = meant the=20 addition of the Filioque to the Creed by force, as pointed = out by=20 John.

At the same time, the Roman popes, after the death = of=20 Charlemagne, seem to have gained a real influence over the Frankish = kingdoms=20 which recognized the magical powers of the popes to anoint an emperor = in the=20 West, thus making him equal to the emperor in the East. John VIII = seems to=20 have been extraordinarily successful in this regard, and there is not = doubt=20 that his request to Photios to be allowed to use persuasion for the = removal of=20 the Filioque was based on a real possibility of success.=20
It is always claimed by Protestant, Anglican, and Latin scholars = that=20 since the time of Hadrian I or Leo III, through the period of John = VIII, the=20 Papacy opposed the Filioque only as an addition to the Creed, = but=20 never as doctrine or theological opinion. Thus, it is claimed that = John VIII=20 accepted the Eight Ecumenical Synod's condemnation of the addition to = the=20 Creed and not of the Filioque as a teaching. =

However,=20 both Photios and John VIII's letter to Photios mentioned above testify = to this=20 pope's condemnation of the Filioque as doctrine also. Yet the = Filioque could not be publicly condemned as heresy by the = Church of=20 Old Rome. Why? Simply because the Franks were militarily in control of = papal=20 Romania, and as illiterate barbarians were capable of any kind of = criminal act=20 against Roman clergy and populace. The Franks were a dangerous = presence in=20 papal Romania and had to be handled with great care and tact.=20

Gallic Romania and Italic Romania (including papal = Romania) are=20 for the Romans one continuous country, identical with East Romania. = The=20 conquering movements of the Franks, Lombards, and Normans into the = free=20 sections of Romania are seen from the Roman viewpoint as a united = whole, and=20 not from the viewpoint of the Germanic European conquerors, who see = the Romans=20 as happy to be conquered and liberated from the so-called = Greeks, or=20 now, Byzantines, so that once conquered, they are of no concern = to the=20 Romans of free Romania.=20
That the above is the correct framework for understanding the = historical=20 context of the Filioque controversy and the place of the = roman popes=20 with this conflict, from the time of Pepin till the descent of the = descent of=20 the Teutonic or East Franks into the papal scene in 962-963, and their = removal=20 of the Romans from their papal ethnarchy finalized in 1009, can be = seen in a)=20 the doctrinal positions of Anastasios the Librarian, the chief advisor = of the=20 pro-Frank Nicholas I and also of John VIII, in preparation for the = Eighth=20 Ecumenical Synod of 879, representing the newly restored Roman power = over the=20 Papacy, and b) in the attitudes toward the Filioque of = anti-Pope=20 Anastasios the Librarian (855-858) and Pope Leo III.

It is obvious that Anastasios the Librarian did not at = first=20 understand the Frankish Filioque, since on this question he = reprimands=20 the Greeks for their objections and accuses them of not accepting = Maximos=20 the Confessor's explanation that there are two usages of the term; the = one=20 whereby procession means essential mission, wherein the Holy Spirit = proceeds=20 from the Father and Son (in which case the Holy Spirit participated in = the act=20 of sending, so that this is a common act of the whole Trinity), and the = second,=20 whereby precession means casual relation wherein the existence of the = Holy=20 Spirit is derived. In this last sense, Maximos assures Marinos (to whom = he is=20 writing), that the West Romans accept that the Holy Spirit proceeds = casually=20 only from the Father and that the Son is not cause.

There is every reason to believe that this reflects the = position=20 of Nicholas I on the question.

However, this was not the position of the Franks who = followed, not=20 the West Romans on the question, but Augustine, who can easily be = interpreted as=20 teaching that the Holy Spirit receives not only His essence, but His = existence=20 from the Father and the Son.

But this also means that the Romans in the West could = never=20 support the introduction of the Filioque into the Creed, not = because=20 they did not want to displease the Greeks, but because this would = be=20 heresy. The West Romans knew very well that the term procession in the = Creed was=20 introduced as a parallel to generation, and that both meant causal = relation to=20 the Father, and not energy or mission.

It was perhaps as a result of the realization that the = Franks were=20 confused on the issue and were saying dangerous things that led = Anastasios to a=20 serious reappraisal of the Frankish threat, and to the support of the = East Roman=20 position, as clearly represented by Photios the Great and John VIII at = the=20 Eighth Ecumenical Synod of 879.

This interpretation of the Filioque, given by = Maximos the=20 Confessor and Anastasios the Librarian is the consistent position of the = Roman=20 popes, and clearly so in the case of Leo III. The minutes of the = conversation=20 held in 810 between the three apocrisari of Charlemagne and = Pope Leo=20 III, kept by the Frankish monk Smaragdus, bear out this consistency in = papal=20 policy. Leo accepts the teaching of the Fathers, quoted by the Franks, = that the=20 Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, as taught by Augustine = and=20 Ambrose. However, the Filioque must not be added to the Creed = as was=20 done by the Franks, who got permission to sing the Creed from Leo but = not to add=20 to the Creed.

When one reads these minutes, remembering the Franks = were a=20 dangerous presence in Papal Romania capable of acting in a most cruel = and=20 barbarous manner if provoked, then one comes to the clear realization = that Pope=20 Leo III is actually telling the Franks in clear and diplomatic terms = that the=20 Filioque in the Creed is a heresy.

What else can Leo's claim mean but that the Second = Ecumenical=20 Synod, and the other synods, left the Filioque out of the Creed = neither=20 by oversight nor out of ignorance, but on purpose by divine = inspiration?

This theological position is that of Pope Hadrian I = (772-795) also=20 and of the Toledo Synods where the Filioque is not in the Creed = but is=20 in another context.

Once the Franks secured their hold on Papal Romania, the = Papacy=20 became like a mouse caught in the paws of its traditional enemy = the cat.=20 The Franks knew very well what they had captured. They began developing = theories=20 and church policy which would put this Roman institution to good use for = the=20 fostering of Frankish control over territories formerly under the = control of the=20 Romans, and of aiding in new conquests. The West Franks continued in the = steps=20 of Charlemagne, but in a weak manner. The Romans regained full control = of the=20 papacy after 867, but then the East Franks entered the papal scene = beginning in=20 962, with the known results.

The attitudes of the West and East Franks toward the = Papacy and=20 the Filioque were different, the first being mild, and the = second=20 fanatically hard. One of the important reasons for this is that, after = 920, the=20 new reform movements gained enough momentum to shape the policies of the = East=20 German Franks who took over the Papacy. When the Romans lost the Papacy, = the=20 Filioque was introduced into Rome for the first time in either = 1009, or=20 at latest by 1014.

In the light of the above, we do not have the situation = usually=20 presented by European, American, and Russian historians in which the=20 Filioque is an integral part of so-called Latin = Christendom with=20 a Greek Christendom in opposition on the pretext of its = introduction into=20 the Creed. (The addition to the Creed was supposedly opposed by the = popes not=20 doctrinally, but only as addition in order not to offend the = Greeks.)=20 What we do have is a united West and East Roman nation in opposition to = an=20 upstart group of Germanic races who began teaching the Romans before = they really=20 learned anything themselves. Of course, German teachers could be very = convincing=20 on question of dogma, only by holding a knife to the throat. Otherwise,=20 especially in the time of imposing the Filioque, the = theologians of the=20 new Germanic theology were better than their noble peers, only because = they=20 could read and write and had, perhaps, memorized Augustine.

The cleavage between the Roman and Frankish Papacy is = nowhere so=20 clearly apparent as in the fact that, when at the Pseudo-Union Council = of=20 Florence (1439), the Romans presented to the Franks Saint Maximos the=20 Confessor's interpretation of the Filioque as a basis of union. = The=20 Franks not only rejected this interpretation as false and not in keeping = with=20 Franco-Latin doctrine, but also they were not aware of its correct = reading.

The Theological Background

At the foundation of the Filioque controversy = between=20 Franks and Romans lie essential differences in theological method, = theological=20 subject matter, spirituality, and therefore, also in the understanding = of the=20 very nature of doctrine and of the development of the language or of = terms in=20 which doctrine is expressed. Of all the aspects dealt with in my = published=20 works, I will single out the following as necessary to an elemental=20 understanding of the Roman attitudes to Frankish pretensions on the=20 Filioque. Although we have named the second part of this paper = The=20 Theological Background, we are still speaking about theology within=20 historical perspective, and not abstractly with extra contextual = references to=20 the Bible.

When reading through Smaragdus' minutes of the meeting = between=20 Charlemagne's emissaries and Pope Leo III, one is struck not only by the = fact=20 that the Franks had so audaciously added the Filioque to the = Creed and=20 made it into a dogma, but also by the haughty manner in which they so=20 authoritatively announced that the Filioque was necessary for=20 salvation, and that it was an improvement of an already good, but not = complete,=20 doctrine concerning the Holy Spirit. This was in answer to Leo's strong = hint at=20 Frankish audacity. Leo, in turn, warned that when one attempts to = improve what=20 is good he should first be sure that in trying to improve he is not = corrupting.=20 He emphasizes that he cannot put himself in a position higher than the = Fathers=20 of the Synods, who did not omit the Filioque out of oversight = or=20 ignorance, but by divine inspiration.

The question arises, Where in the world did the newly = born=20 Frankish theological tradition get the idea that the Filioque = is an=20 improvement of the Creed, and that it was omitted from creedal = expression=20 because of oversight or ignorance on the part of the Fathers of the = Synod?=20 Since Augustine is the only representative of Roman theology that the = Franks=20 were more or less fully acquainted with, one must turn to the Bishop of = Hippo=20 for a possible answer.

I think I have found the answer in Saint Augustine's = lecture=20 delivered to the assembly of African bishops in 393. Augustine had been = asked to=20 deliver a lecture on the Creed, which he did. Later he reworked the = lecture and=20 published it. I do not see why the Creed expounded is not that of=20 Nicaea-Constantinople, since the outline of Augustine's discourse, and = the Creed=20 are the same. Twelve years had passed since its acceptance by the Second = Ecumenical Synod and, if ever, this was the opportune time for assembled = bishops=20 to learn of the new, official, imperially approved creed. The bishops = certainly=20 knew their own local Creed and did not require lessons on that.

In any case, Augustine makes three basic blunders in = this=20 discourse and died many years later without ever realizing his mistakes, = which=20 were to lead the Franks and the whole of their Germanic Latin = Christendom into a=20 repetition of those same mistakes.

In his De Fide et Symbolo, Augustine makes an=20 unbelievable naive and inaccurate statement: With respect to the Holy = Spirit,=20 however, there has not been, on the part or learned and distinguished=20 investigators of the Scriptures, a fuller careful enough discussion of = the=20 subject to make it possible for us to obtain an intelligent conception = of what=20 also constitutes His special individuality (proprium).

Everyone at the Second Ecumenical Synod knew well that = this=20 question was settled once and for all by the use in the Creed of the = word=20 procession as meaning the manner of existence of the Holy Spirit = from the=20 Father which constitutes His special individuality. Thus, the Father is=20 unbegotten, i.e. derives His existence from no one. The Son is = from the=20 Father by generation. The Holy Spirit is from the Father, not by = generation, but=20 by procession. The Father is cause, the son and the Spirit are caused. = The=20 difference between the ones caused is the one is caused by generation, = and the=20 other by procession, and not by generation.

In any case, Augustine spent many years trying to solve = this=20 non-existent problem concerning the individuality of the Holy Spirit = and,=20 because of another set of mistakes in his understanding of revelation = and=20 theological method, came up with the Filioque.

It is no wonder that the Franks, believing that = Augustine had=20 solved a theological problem which the other Roman Fathers had = supposedly failed=20 to grapple with and solve came to the conclusion that they uncovered a=20 theologian far superior to all other Fathers. In him the Franks had a = theologian=20 far superior to all other Fathers. In him the Franks had a theologian = who=20 improved upon the teaching of the Second Ecumenical Synod.

A second set of blunders made by Augustine in this same = discourse=20 is that he identified the Holy Spirit with the divinity which the = Greeks=20 designate =CE=98=CE=B5=CE=BF=CF=84=CE=B7=CF=82 and explained that = this is the love between the Father=20 and the Son.

Augustine is aware of the fact that those parties = oppose this=20 opinion who think that the said communion, which we call either Godhead, = or=20 Love, or Charity, is not a substance. Moreover, they require the Holy = Spirit to=20 be set forth to them according to substance; neither do they take forth = to them=20 according to substance; neither do they take it to have been otherwise=20 impossible for the expression God is Love to have been used, = unless love=20 were a substance.

It is obvious that Augustine did not at all understand = what the=20 East Roman Fathers, such as Saint Gregory Nyssa, Saint Gregory the = Theologian,=20 and Saint Basil the Great, were talking about. On the one hand, they = reject the=20 idea that the Holy Spirit can be the common energies of the Father and = Son known=20 as =CE=98=CE=B5=CE=BF=CF=84=CE=B7=CF=82 and love since these are not an = essence or an hypostasis, whereas the=20 Holy Spirit is an hypostasis. Indeed, the Fathers of the Second = Ecumenical Synod=20 required that the Holy Spirit not be identified with any common energy = of the=20 Father and Son, but they did not identify the Holy Spirit with the = common=20 essence of the Father and Son either.

The Holy Spirit is an individual hypostasis with = individual=20 characteristics or properties not shared by other hypostases, but He = does share=20 fully everything the Father and Son have in common, to wit, the divine = essence=20 and all uncreated energies and powers. The Holy Spirit is an = individuality who=20 is not what is common between the Father and Son, but has in common = everything=20 the Father and Son have in common.

All his life, Augustine rejected the distinction between = what the=20 persons are and what they have (even though this is a Biblical = distinction) and=20 identified what God is with what He has. He not only never understood = the=20 distinction between 1) the common essence and energies of the Holy = Trinity and=20 2) the incommunicable individualities of the diving hypostases; but = completely=20 failed to grasp the very existence of the difference between a) the = common=20 divine essence and b) the common divine love and divinity. He himself = admits=20 that he does not understand why a distinction is made in the Greek = language=20 between =CE=BF=E1=BD=90=CF=83=CE=AF=CE=B1 and = =E1=BD=91=CF=80=CF=8C=CF=83=CF=84=CE=B1=CF=83=CE=B9=CF=82 in God. = Nevertheless, he insisted that his=20 distinctions must be accepted as a matter of faith and rendered in Latin = as=20 una essentia and tes substantiae. (De = Trinitate,=20 5.8.10; 7.4-6)

It is clear that St. Augustine accepted the most = important aspect=20 of the Trinitarian terminology of the Cappadocian Fathers and the Second = Ecumenical Synod.

However, not aware of the teaching of such Fathers, like = Basil and=20 the two Gregories mentioned, who do not identify the common = =CE=98=CE=B5=CE=BF=CF=84=CE=B7=CF=82 and the = =CE=B1=CE=B3=CE=B1=CF=80=CE=B7=20 of the Trinity with the common divine essence of the Trinity, Augustine = has the=20 following peculiar remarks:

But men like these should make their heart pure, so far = as they=20 can, in order that they may have power to see that in the substance of = God there=20 is not anything of such a nature as would imply that therein substance = is one=20 thing, and that which is accident to substance (aliud quod accidat = substantia)=20 another thing, and not substance; whereas whatsoever can be taken to = be=20 taken therein is substance.

Once these foundations are laid, then the Holy Spirit as = that=20 which is common to the Father and Son exists by reason of the Father and = Son.=20 Thus, there can be no distinction between the Father and Son sending the = Holy=20 Spirit, and the Father causing the existence of the Holy Spirit. What = God is by=20 nature, how the three hypostases exist by nature, and what God does by = will,=20 become confused. Thus, it is a fact that for Augustine both generation = and=20 procession end up being confused with the divine powers and energies = and,=20 thereby, also end up meaning the same thing. The Filioque thus = is an=20 absolute necessity in order to salvage something of the individuality of = the=20 Holy Spirit. God, then, is from no one. The Son is from one. The Holy = Spirit=20 must be from two. Otherwise, since generation and procession are the = same, there=20 would be no difference between the Spirit and the Son since they would = both be=20 from one.

The third and most disturbing blunder in Augustine's = approach to=20 the question before us is that his theological method is not only pure=20 speculation on what one accepts by faith (for the purpose of = intellectually=20 understanding as much as one's reason allows by either illumination or = ecstatic=20 intuition), but it is a speculation which is transferred from the = individual=20 speculating believer to a speculating church, which, like an individual, = understands the dogmas better with the passage of time.

Thus, the Church awaits a discussion about the Holy = Spirit=20 "Full enough or careful enough to make it possible for us to obtain = an=20 intelligent conception of what also constitutes His special = individuality=20 (proprium)...

The most amazing thing is the fact that Augustine begins = with=20 seeking out the individual properties of the Holy Spirit and immediately = reduces=20 Him to what is common to the Father and Son. However, in his later = additions to=20 his De Trinitate, he insists that the Holy Spirit is an = individual=20 substance of the Holy Trinity completely equal to the other two = substances and=20 possessing the same essence as we saw.

In any case, the Augustinian idea that the Church = herself goes=20 through a process of attaining a deeper and better understanding of her = dogmas=20 or teachings was made the very basis of the Frankish propaganda that the = Filioque is a deeper and better understanding of the doctrine = of the=20 Trinity. Therefore, adding it to the Creed is an improvement upon the = faith of=20 the Romans who had allowed themselves to become lazy and slothful on = such an=20 important matter. This, of course, raises the whole question concerning = the=20 relationship between revelation and verbal and iconic or symbolic = expressions of=20 revelation.

For Augustine, there is no distinction between = revelation and=20 conceptual intuition of revelation. Whether revelation is given directly = to=20 human reason, or to human reason by means of creatures, or created = symbols, it=20 is always the human intellect itself which is being illumined or given = vision=20 to. the vision of god itself is an intellectual experience, even though = above=20 the powers of reason without appropriate grace.

Within such a context, every revelation is a revelation = of=20 concepts which can be searched out by reason for a fuller and better=20 understanding. Suffice it that faith and the acceptance of dogmas by = virtue of=20 the authority of the Church always forms the starting point. What cannot = now be=20 fully understood by reason based on faith will be fully understood in = the next=20 life. And inasmuch as, being reconciled and called back into = friendship=20 through love, we shall be able to become acquainted with all = the secret=20 things of God, for this reason it is said of the Holy Spirit that He = shall=20 lead you into all truth. What Augustine means by such language = is made=20 very clear by what he says elsewhere, I will not be slow to search = out the=20 substance of God, whether through His scripture or through the = creature.

Such material in the hands of the Franks transformed the = purpose=20 of theology into a study or searching out of the divine substance and, = in this=20 respect, the scholastic tradition far surpassed the tradition of the = Roman=20 Fathers who consistently taught that not only man, but even the angels, = neither=20 know, nor will ever know, the divine essence which is known only to the = Holy=20 Trinity.

Both Orthodox and Arians fully agreed with the inherited = tradition=20 that only God knows His own essence. This means that He who knows the = divine=20 nature is himself God by nature, Thus, in order to prove that the Logos = is a=20 creature, the Arians argued that the Logos does not know the essence of = the=20 Father. The Orthodox argued that the Logos does know the essence of the = Father=20 and, therefore, is uncreated. The Eunomians threw a monkey wrench into = the=20 agreed rules for proving points with their shocking claim that, not only = does=20 the Logos know the essence of God, but man also can know this essence.=20 Therefore, the Logos does not have to be uncreated because He knows this = essence.

Against the Arian and Orthodox position that creatures = cannot know=20 the divine uncreated essence, but may know the uncreated energy of God = in its=20 multiple manifestations, the Eunomians argued that the diving essence = and=20 uncreated energy are identical, so that to know the one is to know the=20 other.

Strangely, Augustine adopted the Eunomian positions on = these=20 questions. Therefore, when the Franks appeared in the East with these = positions=20 they were accused of being Eunomians.

In contrast to this Augustinian approach to language and = concepts=20 concerning God, we have the Patristic position expressed by Saint = Gregory the=20 Theologian against the Eunomians. Plato had claimed that it is difficult = to=20 conceive of God but, to define Him in words is an impossibility. Saint = Gregory=20 disagrees with this and emphasizes that it is impossible to express = Him, and=20 yet, more impossible to conceive Him. For that which may be conceived = may=20 perhaps be made clear by language, if not fairly well, at any rate=20 imperfectly...

The most important element in Patristic epistemology is = that the=20 partial knowability of the divine actions or energies, and the absolute = and=20 radical unknowability and incommunicability of the divine essence is not = a=20 result of the philosophical or theological speculation, as it is in Paul = of=20 Samosata, Arianism, and Nestorianism, but of the personal experience of=20 revelation or participation in the uncreated glory of God by means of = vision or=20 theoria. Saint Gregory defines a theologian as one who has reached this = theoria=20 by means of purification and illumination, and not by means of = dialectical=20 speculation. Thus, the authority for Christian truth is not the written = words of=20 the Bible, which cannot in themselves either express God, but rather the = individual apostle, prophet, or saint who is glorified in God.

Thus, the Bible, the writings of the Fathers, and the = decisions of=20 Synods are not revelation, but about revelation. Revelation itself = transcends=20 words and concepts, although it inspires those participating in divine = glory to=20 accurately express what is inexpressible in words and concepts. Suffice = it that=20 under the guidance of the saints, who know by experience, the faithful = should=20 know that God is not to be identified with Biblical words and concepts = which=20 point to Him, albeit infallibly.

Thus, we find that Saint Gregory the Theologian does not = only=20 point to the revelatory experience of the prophets, apostles, and saints = in=20 order to set out the theological foundations for confuting the Arians,=20 Eunomians, and Macedonians, but also to his own experience of this same=20 revelation of divine glory.

What is this that has happened to me, O friends, and = initiates, and=20 fellow lovers of the truth? I was running to lay hold of God, and thus I = went up=20 into the Mount, drew aside the curtain of the Cloud, and entered away = from=20 matter and material things, and as far as I could I withdrew within = myself. And=20 then when I looked up, I scarcely saw the back parts of God; although I = was=20 sheltered by the Rock, the Word that was made flesh for us. And when I = looked a=20 little closer, I saw, not the first and unmingled Nature known to = itself, to the=20 Trinity I mean; not that which abideth within the first veil, and is = hidden by=20 the Cherubim; but only that (Nature), which at last even reaches to us. = And that=20 is, as far as I can learn, the Majesty, or as holy David calls it, the = Glory=20 which is manifested among the creatures, which It has produced and = governs. For=20 these are the Back Parts of God, which are after Him, as tokens of=20 Himself...

This distinction between the first Nature and the = uncreated glory=20 of God, the first known only to God and the other to those to whom God = reveals=20 himself is to be found not only in the Orthodox Fathers but also in Paul = of=20 Samosata, the Arians, and the Nestorians all of whom claimed that God is = related=20 to creatures only by will, and not by nature, since natural relations = mean=20 necessary relations which would reduce God to a system of emanations = like that=20 of Valentinus. Paul of Samosata and the Nestorians argued that in = Christ, God is=20 united to humanity not by nature, but by will, and the Arians argued = that God is=20 related to the hypostatic Logos not by nature, but by will.

Against these positions, the Orthodox Fathers argues = that in=20 Christ, the Logos is united to His humanity by nature or hypostatically, = and the=20 Father generates His Son not by will only, but by nature primarily, the = will not=20 being in contradiction to what belongs to God by nature. Thus, God = generates the=20 Logos by nature and by will. The Holy Trinity creates and is related to=20 creatures with the exception of the Logos who by nature unites himself = His own=20 humanity.

In any case, the Eunomians and Augustine obliterated = this=20 distinction between what God is by nature and what God does by will. In=20 Augustine this led to a failure to distinguish between generation and = procession=20 (which are not energies of the Father) and such acts as knowing sending, = loving,=20 and giving, which are common energies of the father, Son and Holy = Spirit, but=20 not he radically incommunicable manners of existence and hypostatic = properties=20 of generation and procession.

Because the Franks, following Augustine, neither = understood the=20 Patristic position on this subject, nor were they willing from the = heights of=20 their majestic feudal nobility to listen to Greek explain these=20 distinctions, they went about raiding the Patristic texts. They took = passages=20 out of context in order to prove that for all the Fathers, as supposedly = in the=20 case of Augustine, the fact that the Father and the Son send the Holy = Spirit=20 means that the Holy Spirit derives His existence from the Father and = Son.

In concluding this section, we note that the Fathers = always=20 claimed that generation and procession are what distinguish the Son from = the=20 Holy Spirit. Since the Son is the only generation begotten Son of God,=20 procession is different from generation. Otherwise, we would have two = Son, in=20 which case there is no only begotten Son. For the Fathers this was both = a=20 biblical fact and a mystery to be treated with due respect. To ask what=20 generation and procession are is as ridiculous as asking what the divine = essence=20 is. Only energies of God may be know, and then only in so far as the = creature=20 can receive.

In contrast to this, Augustine set out to explain what = generation=20 is. He identified generation with what the other Roman Fathers called = actions or=20 energies of God which are common to the Holy Trinity. Thus, procession = ended up=20 being these same energies. The difference between the Son and the Spirit = was=20 that the Son is from one and he Holy Spirit from two.

When he began his De Trinitate, Augustine = promised that=20 he would explain why the Son and the Holy Spirit are not brothers. After = completing his twelfth book, his friends stole and published this work = in an=20 unfinished and uncorrected form. In Book 15, 45, Augustine admits that = he cannot=20 explain why the Holy Spirit is not a son of the Father and brother of = the Logos,=20 and proposes that we will learn this in the next life.

In his Rectractationun, Augustine explains how = he=20 intended to explain what had happened in another writing and not publish = his=20 De Trinitate himself. However, his friends prevailed upon him, = and he=20 simply corrected the books as much as he could and finished the work = with which=20 he was not really satisfied.

What is most remarkable is that the spiritual and = cultural=20 descendants of the Franks, who pricked and swelled Roman livers for so = many=20 centuries, are still claiming that Augustine is the authority par=20 excellence on the Patristic doctrine of the Holy Trinity.

Whereas no Greek-speaking Roman Father ever used the = expression=20 that the Holy Spirit proceeds = (=E1=BC=90=CE=BA=CF=80=CE=BF=CF=81=CE=B5=CF=8D=CF=83=CE=B8=CE=B1=CE=B9) = from the Father and Son, both=20 Ambrose and Augustine use this expression. Since Ambrose was so = dependent on=20 such Greek-speaking experts as Basil the Great and Didymos the Blind,=20 particularly his work on the Holy Spirit, one would expect that he would = follow=20 Eastern usage.

It seems, however, that at the time of the death of = Ambrose,=20 before the Second Ecumenical Synod, the term procession had been adopted = by=20 Didymos as the hypostatic individuality of the Holy Spirit. It had not = been used=20 by Saint Basil (only in his letter 38 he seems to be using procession as = Gregory=20 the Theologian) or by Saint Gregory of Nyssa before the Second = Ecumenical Synod.=20 Of the Cappadocian Fathers, only Saint Gregory the Theologian uses very = clearly=20 in his Theological Orations what became the final formulation = of the=20 Church on the matter at the Second Ecumenical Synod.

The first fully developed use of procession as the = manner of=20 existence and the hypostatic property of the Holy Spirit is to be found = in the=20 Pseudo-Justin collection of works, which probably came out of the = Antiochene=20 tradition. It reached Cappadocia via Saint Gregory the Theologian and = Alexandria=20 via Didymos the Blind. Saint Ambrose however, did not pick up this = tradition.=20 Augustine picked it up in a confused manner.

It is clear that, in the third or fourth century, the = term=20 generation, used with regard to the Logos and God, changed from = signifying the=20 Holy Trinity's relation to creation and the incarnation whereby the = already=20 existing God became Father, having generated the already existing Logos, = who=20 thus became the Son, so that He may be seen and heard by the prophets = and become=20 man) to signifying the manner of existence of the Logos from the Father. = The=20 question of the Holy Spirit's manner of existence and hypostatic = attribute arose=20 as a result of this change.

With the exception of Antioch, the prevailing tradition = and,=20 perhaps, the only tradition, was that the Father is from no other being, = that=20 the Logos is from the Father my means of generation, and the Holy Spirit = is from=20 the Father also, but not by generation. Saint Gregory of Nyssa initially = seems=20 to have put forth the idea that the Holy Spirit differs from the Son in = so far=20 as the Son receives existence from the Father, and the Spirit received = existence=20 from the Father also, but through the Son. The Father is His only = principle and=20 cause of existence, since these pertain to what is common, belonging to = all=20 three persons. Saint Gregory's usual usage is the not by = generation. To=20 this not by generation was added by procession in Antioch. = This=20 gained enough support to be put into the Creed of the Second Ecumenical = Synod.=20 However, this term procession neither adds nor subtracts anything = from=20 the patristic understanding of the Holy Trinity, since the Fathers = always=20 insisted that we don not know what generation and procession mean. The = Fathers=20 evidently accepted the term in the Creed because it was better than = inserting=20 such cumbersome and negative expressions as from the Father not by=20 generation. In combining Saint Gregory Nyssa's through the Son with = the=20 final settlement, we get Saint Maximos the Confessor's and Saint John of = Damascus' procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father through the=20 Son.

It is obvious that the Greek-speaking Fathers before = this=20 development used procession as the Bible does, and so spoke of the Holy = Spirit=20 as proceeding from the Father, and never from the Father and the Son. It = seems,=20 however, that in the Latin-speaking tradition procedure is used = for=20 =E1=BC=90=CE=BA=CF=80=CE=BF=CF=81=CE=B5=CF=8D=CE=BF=CE=BC=CE=B1=CE=B9, = but sometimes also for = =CE=B5=CE=BE=CE=B5=CF=81=CF=87=CE=BF=CE=BC=CE=B1=CE=B9, and even for = =CF=80=CE=B5=CE=BC=CF=88=CE=B9=CF=82. In any case,=20 when Saint Ambrose used procedure, he does not mean either = manner of=20 existence or hypostatic property. This is clear from his insistence that = whatsoever the Father and the Son have in common, the Holy Spirit also = has. When=20 the Father and the Son send the Spirit, the Spirit sends himself. What = is=20 individual belongs to only one person. What is common is common to all = three=20 persons.

Evidently, because Augustine transformed the doctrine of = the Holy=20 Trinity into a speculative exercise of philosophical acumen, the simple, = schematic and biblical nature of the doctrine in the Roman tradition had = been=20 lost sight of by those stemming from the scholastic tradition.

Thus, the history of the doctrine of the Trinity has = been reduced=20 to searching out the development of such concepts and terminology as = three=20 persons or hypostases, one essence, homoousios, personal or hypostatic=20 properties, one divinity, etc.

For the Fathers, the Arians and the Eunomians, however, = the=20 doctrine of the Trinity was identical to the appearances of the Logos in = His=20 Glory to the prophets, apostles, and saints. The Logos was always = identified=20 with the Angel of God, the Lord of Glory, the Angel of Great Council, = the Lord=20 Sabbaoth and the Wisdom of God who appeared to the prophets of the Old = Testament=20 and became Christ by His birth as man from the Virgin Theotokos. No one = ever=20 doubted this identification of the Logos with this very concrete = individual, who=20 revealed in himself the invisible God of the Old Testament to the = prophets, with=20 the peculiar exception of Augustine, who in this regard follows the = Gnostic and=20 Manichaean traditions.

The controversy between the Orthodox and Arians was not = about who=20 the Logos is in the Old and New Testament, but about what the Logos is = and what=20 His relationship is so the Father. The Orthodox insisted that the Logos = is=20 uncreated and unchangeable, having always existed from the Father, who = by nature=20 generates the Logos before the ages. The Arians insisted that this same = Logos is=20 a changeable creature, deriving His existence from non-being before the = ages by=20 the will of the will of the Father.

Thus the basic question was, did the prophets see in = God's=20 uncreated glory a created Logos, or an uncreated Logos, a Logos who is = God by=20 nature and, therefore, has all the energies and powers of God by nature, = or a=20 God by grace who has some, but not all, the energies of the Father and = then only=20 by grace and not by nature.

Both Orthodox and Arians agreed in principle that, if = the Logos=20 has every power and energy of the Father by nature, then He is = uncreated. If=20 not, He is a creature.

Since the Bible is a witness of whom and what the = prophets and=20 apostles saw in the glory of the Father, the Bible itself will reveal = whether or=20 not the Logos has all the energies and powers of the Father by nature. = Thus, we=20 will know whether the prophets and apostles saw a created or an = uncreated Logos=20 =E1=BD=81=CE=BC=CE=BF=CE=BF=CF=8D=CF=83=CE=B9=CE=BF=CF=82 with the = Father.

Once can see clearly how, for the Fathers, the = con-substantiality=20 of the Logos with the Father is not only the experience of the apostles = and=20 saints, but also of the prophets.

One of the most amazing things in doctrinal history is = the fact=20 that both Arians and Orthodox use both the Old and New Testaments=20 indiscriminately. The argument is very simple. They make a list of all = the=20 powers and energies of the Father. They do the same for the Son. Then = they=20 compare them to see if they are identical or not. The important thing is = for=20 them to be not similar, but identical.

Parallel to this, both Arians and Orthodox agree against = the=20 Sabellians and Samosatenes that the Father and Son have individual = hypostatic=20 properties which are not common, although they do not completely agree = on what=20 these are. When the controversy is extended into the question of the = Holy=20 Spirit, the exact same method of theologizing is used. Whatever powers = and=20 energies the Father and Son have in common, the Holy Spirit must also = have both=20 in common and by nature, in order to be God by nature.

However, parallel to this argumentative process is the = personal=20 experience of those living spiritual masters who themselves reach = theoria, as we=20 saw expounded by Saint Gregory above. This experience verifies or = certifies the=20 patristic interpretation of the Bible, which witnesses to the = uncreatedness of=20 the Logos and the Holy Spirit and their oneness nature with the Father = and the=20 identity of their uncreated glory, rule, grace, will, etc. This personal = experience of the glory of God also certifies the biblical teaching that = there=20 is absolutely no similarity between the created and the uncreated. This = means=20 also that there can be no uncreated universals of which creatures are = supposedly=20 copies. Each individual creature is dependent upon the uncreated glory = of God,=20 which is, one the one hand, absolutely simple, yet indivisibly divided = among=20 individual creatures. All of God is present in each and every energy=20 simultaneously. This the Fathers know by experience, not by = speculation.

This summary of the Patristic theological method is = perhaps=20 sufficient to indicate the nonspeculative method by which the Father = theologize=20 and interpret the Bible. The method is simple and the result is = schematic.=20 Stated simply and arithmetically, the whole doctrine of the Trinity may = be=20 broken down into two simple statements as far as the Filioque is = concerned. 1)=20 What is common in the Holy Trinity is common to and identical in all = three=20 persons or hypostases. 2) What is hypostatic, or hypostatic property, or = manner=20 of existence is individual, and belongs only to one person or hypostasis = of he=20 Holy Trinity.

Thus, we have =CF=84=CE=B1 = =CE=BA=CE=BF=CE=B9=CE=BD=CE=B1 and =CF=84=CE=B1 = =CE=B1=CE=BA=CE=BF=CE=B9=CE=BD=CF=89=CE=BD=CE=B7=CF=84=CE=B1, what is = common and what=20 is incommunicably individual.

Having this in mind, one realizes why the Romans did not = take the=20 Frankish Filioque very seriously as a theological position, = especially=20 as one which was supposed to improve upon the Creed of the Second = Ecumenical=20 Synod.

However, the Romans had to take the Franks themselves = seriously,=20 because they backed up their fantastic theological claims with an = unbelievable=20 self-confidence and with a sharp sword, What they lacked in historical = insight,=20 they made up with nobility of descent, and a strong will to back = up their=20 arguments with muscle and steel.

In any case, it may be useful in terminating this = section to=20 emphasize the simplicity of the Roman position and the humor with which = the=20 Filioque was confronted. We may recapture this Roman humor = about the=20 Latin Filioque with two syllogistic jokes from the Great = Photios which=20 may explain some of the fury of Frankish reaction against him.

Everything, therefore, which is seen and spoken of in the = all-holy=20 and consubstantial and coessential Trinity, is either common to all, or = belongs=20 to one only of the three: but the projection = =CF=80=CF=81=CE=BF=CE=B2=CE=BF=CE=BB=CE=B7 of the Spirit, is neither=20 common, but nor, as they say, does it belong to anyone of them alone = (may=20 propitiation be upon us, and the blasphemy turned upon their heads). = Therefore,=20 the projection of the Spirit is not at all in the life-giving and = all-perfect=20 Trinity.

In other words, the Holy Spirit must then derive His = existence=20 outside of the Holy Trinity since everything in the Trinity is common to = all or=20 belongs to one only.

For otherwise, if all things common to the Father and the = Son, are=20 in any case common to the Spirit,...and the procession from them is = common to=20 the Father and the Son, the Spirit therefore will then proceed from = himself: and=20 He will be principle (=CE=B1=CF=81=CF=87=CE=AE) of himself, and both = cause and caused: a thing which=20 even the myths of the Greeks never fabricated.

Keeping in mind the fact that the Fathers always began = their=20 thoughts about the Holy Trinity from their personal experience of the = Angel of=20 the lord and Great Counselor made man and Christ, one only then = understands the=20 problematic underlying the Arian/Eunomian crisis, i.e. whether = this=20 concrete person derives His existence from the essence of hypostasis of = the=20 Father or from non-being by the will of the Father. Had the tradition = understood=20 the method of theologizing about God as Augustine did, there would never = have=20 been and Arian or Eunomian heresy. Those who reach glorification = (theosis) know=20 by this experience that whatever has its existence from non-being by the = will of=20 God is a creature, and whoever and whatever is not from non-being, but = from the=20 Father is uncreated. Between the created and the uncreated, there is no=20 similarity whatsoever.

Before the Cappadocian Fathers gave their weight to the=20 distinction between the three divine hypostases = (=CF=85=CF=80=CE=BF=CF=83=CF=84=CE=B1=CF=83=CE=B5=CE=B9=CF=82) and the = one divine=20 essence, many Orthodox Church leaders avoided speaking either about one = essence=20 or one hypostasis since this smacked of Sabellian and Samosatene = Monarchianism.=20 Many preferred to speak about the Son as deriving His existence from the = Father's essence and as being like the Father in essence = (=E1=BD=81=CE=BC=CE=BF=CE=BF=CF=8D=CF=83=CE=B9=CE=BF=CF=82) . Saint=20 Athanasios explains that this is exactly what is meant by = =E1=BD=81=CE=BC=CE=BF=CE=BF=CF=8D=CF=83=CE=B9=CE=BF=CF=82 =E2=80=94=20 coessential. It is clear that the Orthodox were not searching for a = common faith=20 but rather for common terminology and common concepts to express their = common=20 experience in the Body of Christ.

Equally important is the fact that the Cappadocians lent = their=20 weight to the distinction between the Father as cause = (=CE=B1=CE=B9=CF=84=CE=B9=CE=BF=CF=82) and the Son and=20 the Holy Spirit as caused (=CE=B1=CE=B9=CF=84=CE=B9=CE=B1=CF=84=CE=B1). = Coupled with the manners of existence=20 (=CF=84=CF=81=CF=8C=CF=80=CE=BF=CF=82 = =E1=BD=91=CF=80=CE=AC=CF=81=CE=BE=CE=B5=CF=89=CF=82) of generation and = procession, these terms mean that the Father=20 causes the existence of the Son by generation and of the Holy Spirit by=20 procession or not by generation. Of course, the Father being from no one = (=CE=B5=CE=BE=20 =CE=BF=CF=85=CE=B4=CE=B5=CE=BD=CE=BF=CF=82) derives His existence = neither from himself nor from another. Actually,=20 Saint Basil pokes fun at Eunomios for being the first to say such an = obvious=20 thing and thereby manifest his frivolousness and wordiness. Furthermore, = neither=20 the essence nor the natural energy of the Father have a cause of manner = of=20 existence. The Father possesses them by His very nature and communicates = them to=20 the Son in order that they possess them by nature likewise. Thus, the = manner by=20 which the uncaused Father exists, and by which the Son and the Holy = Spirit=20 receive their existence from the Father, are not be confused with the = Father's=20 communicating His essence and energy to the Son and the Holy Spirit. It = would,=20 indeed, be strange to speak about the Father as causing the existence of = His own=20 essence and energy along with the hypostases of the Son and the Holy = Spirit.

It also must be emphasized that for the Fathers who = composed the=20 creeds of Nicaea and Constantinople neither generation nor procession = mean=20 energy or action. This was the position of the heretics condemned. The = Arians=20 claimed that the Son is the product of the will of God. The Eunomians = supported=20 a more original but bizarre position that the uncreated energy of the = Father is=20 identical with His essence, that the Son is the product of a single = energy of=20 the Son, and that each created species is the product of a special = energy of the=20 Holy Spirit, there being as many crated energies as there are species.=20 Otherwise, if the Holy Spirit has only one created energy, then there = would be=20 only one species of things in creation. It is in the light of these = heresies=20 also that one must appreciate that generation and procession in the = Creed in no=20 way mean energy or action.

Augustine did not understand generation and procession = in this=20 manner since he clearly identifies them with energies. It is this which = allowed=20 him to speculate psychologically about the Holy Trinity, a luxury which = was=20 methodologically impossible for the Fathers. Thus, Augustine did not use = and=20 neither was he aware of the conciliar and especially East Roman = understanding of=20 generation and procession. He identified these terms with the Father's=20 communication of being, i.e. essence and action to the Son and = the Holy=20 Spirit, an aspect which exists in all the Fathers, but not to be = identified with=20 generation and procession, at least after the First and Second = Ecumenical Synod.=20 It is within such a context that Augustine should be understood when he = speaks=20 about the Holy Spirit as receiving His being (essence) and as proceeding = principally from the Father, but also from the Son. This is exactly what = the=20 East Roman Fathers mean by the Holy Spirit receiving His essence and = energy from=20 the Father through or even and (St. Gregory Palamas) the Son = simultaneously with=20 His procession or reception of His proper or individual existence of = hypostasis=20 from the Father. Neither the essence nor the essential energy of the = Father are=20 caused, nor are they the cause of the existence of the Son and the Holy = Spirit.=20 The Father's essence and energy are communicated and common = (=CE=BA=CE=BF=CE=B9=CE=BD=CE=B1) to the Holy=20 Trinity which is thus one cause of creation. However, neither the = Father's nor=20 the Son's, nor the Holy Spirit's hypostasis is communicated. The = hypostases are=20 incommunicable = (=CE=B1=CE=BA=CE=BF=CE=B9=CE=BD=CF=89=CE=BD=CE=B7=CF=84=CE=B1). Thus, = the persons of the Holy Trinity are one, not=20 by union or identity of persons, but by the unity and identity of = essence and=20 energy, and by the Father being the sole cause of the existence of the = Son and=20 the Holy Spirit.

In the experience of illumination and glorification in = Christ, one=20 is aware that God is three absolutely similar realities, two derived = from one=20 and co-inhering in each other, and at the same time one identical = reality of=20 uncreated communicated glory, rule = (=CE=B2=CE=B1=CF=83=CE=B9=CE=BB=CE=B5=CE=B9=CE=B1) and grace in which = God indivisibly=20 divides himself in divisible things, His one mansion = (=CE=BC=CE=BF=CE=BD=CE=B7) thus becoming many=20 while remaining one. The divine essence, however, is not communicated to = creatures and, therefore, can never be known.

Augustine did not approach the doctrine of the Holy = Trinity in the=20 manner of the other Fathers. However, the other West Roman Fathers each = have=20 their parallels in the developing East Roman tradition. Augustine also = accepted=20 the settlement of the Second Ecumenical Synod and the Fathers who forged = it as=20 we saw. Thus, the East Roman Fathers became West Roman Fathers. To speak = about a=20 Western doctrine of the Holy Trinity is, therefore, a falsification of = how the=20 West Romans themselves understood things. It is within such a context = that=20 procession in the West came to have the two meanings as explained by = Maximos the=20 Confessor and Anastasios the Librarian.

However, when the Franks began raiding the Fathers for = arguments=20 to support their addition to the Creed, they picked up the categories of = manner=20 of existence, cause and cause, and identified these with Augustine's = generation=20 and procession, thus transforming the old Western Orthodox = Filioque=20 into their heretical one. This confusion is nowhere so clear than during = the=20 debates at the Council of Florence where the Franks used the terms = cause=20 and caused as identical with their generation and procession, and = supported their claim that the Father and the Son are one cause of the=20 procession of the Holy Spirit. Thus, they became completely confused = over=20 Maximos who explains that for the West of his time, the Son is not the = cause of=20 the existence of the Holy Spirit, so that in this sense the Holy = Spirit does=20 not proceed from the Father. That Anastasios the Librarian repeats = this is=20 ample evidence of the confusion of both the Franks and their spiritual = and=20 theological descendants.

We end this section with the reminder that for the = Fathers, no=20 name or concept gives any understanding of the mystery of the Holy = Trinity.=20 Saint Gregory the Theologian, e.g. is clear on this as we saw. = He=20 ridicules his opponents with a characteristic taunt: Do tell me what = is the=20 unbegotteness of the Father, and I will explain to you the physiology of = the=20 generation of the Son and the procession of the Spirit, and we shall = both of us=20 be frenzy-stricken for prying into the mystery of God. Names and = concepts=20 about God give to those who reach theoria understanding not of = the=20 mystery, but of the dogma and its purpose. In the experience of = glorification,=20 knowledge about God, along with prayer, prophecy and faith are = abolished. Only=20 love remains (1 Cor. 13, 8-13; 14,1). The mystery remains, and will = always=20 remain, even when one sees God in Christ face to face and is known by = God as=20 Paul was (1 Cor. 13.12).

The Significance of the Filioque Question

Smaragdus records how the emissaries of Charlemagne = complained the=20 Pope Leo III was making an issue of only four syllables. Of course, four = syllables are not many. Nevertheless, their implications are such that = Latin of=20 Frankish Christendom embarked on a history of theology and = ecclesiastical=20 practice which may have been quite different had the Franks paid = attention to=20 the Greek.

I will indicate some of the implication of the = presuppositions of=20 the Filioque issue which present problems today.

Even a superficial study of today's histories of dogma and = biblical=20 scholarship reveals the peculiar fact that Protestant, Anglican, = Papal, and=20 some Orthodox theologians accept the First and Second Ecumenical = Synods only=20 formally. This is so because there is at least an identity of teaching = between=20 Orthodox and Arians, which does not exist between Orthodox and Latins, = about=20 the real appearances of the Logos to the Old Testament prophets and = the=20 identity of this Logos made flesh in the New Testament. This, as we = saw, was=20 the agreed foundation of debate for the determination of whether the = Logos=20 seen by the prophets is created or uncreated. This identification of = the Logos=20 in the Old Testament is the very basis of the teachings of all the = Roman=20 Ecumenical Synods.

We emphasize that the East Roman = Fathers=20 never abandoned this reading of the Old Testament theophanies. This is = the=20 teaching of all the West Roman Fathers, with the single exception of=20 Augustine, who, confused as usual over what the Fathers teach, rejects = as=20 blasphemous the idea what the prophets could have seen the Logos with = their=20 bodily eyes and, indeed, in fire, darkness, cloud, etc. =

The=20 Arians and Eunomians had used, as the Gnostics before them, the = visibility of=20 the Logos to the prophets to prove that He was a lower being than God = and a=20 creature. Augustine agrees with the Arians and Eunomians that the = prophets saw=20 a created Angel, created fire, cloud, light, darkness, etc., but he = argues=20 against them that none of these was the Logos himself, but symbols by = means of=20 which God or the whole Trinity is seen and heard. =

Augustine did=20 not have patience with the teaching that the Angel of the Lord, the = fire, the=20 glory, the cloud, and the Pentecostal tongues of fire, were verbal = symbols of=20 the uncreated realities immediately communicated with by the prophets = and=20 apostles, since for him this would mean that all this language pointed = to a=20 vision of the divine substance. For the bishop of Hippo this vision is = identical to the whole of what is uncreated, and could be seen only by = a=20 Neoplatonic type ecstasy of the soul, out of the body, within the = sphere of=20 timeless and motionless eternity, transcending all discursive = reasoning. Since=20 this is not what he found in the Bible, the visions therein described = are not=20 verbal symbols of real visions of God, but of creatures symbolizing = eternal=20 realities. The created verbal symbols of the Bible became created = objective=20 symbols. In other words, words which symbolized uncreated energies = like fire,=20 etc,. became objectively real created fires, clouds, tongues, etc.=20
This failure of Augustine to distinguish between the divine = essence and=20 its natural energies (of which some are communicated to the friends of = God).=20 led to a very peculiar reading of the Bible, wherein creatures or = symbols come=20 into existence in order to convey a divine message, and them pass out = of=20 existence. Thus, the Bible becomes full of unbelievable miracles and a = text=20 dictated by God.=20
Besides this, the biblical concept of heaven and hell also becomes = distorted, since the eternal fires of hell and the outer darkness = become=20 creatures also whereas, they are the uncreated glory of God as seen by = those=20 who refuse to love. thus, one ends up with the three-story universe = problem,=20 with God in a place, etc., necessitating a demythologizing of the = Bible in=20 order to salvage whatever one can of a quaint Christian tradition for = modern=20 man. However, it is not the Bible itself which need demythologizing, = but the=20 Augustinian Franco-Latin tradition and the caricature which it passed = off in=20 the West as Greek Patristic theology.=20
By not taking the above-mentioned foundations of Roman Patristic = theology=20 of the Ecumenical Synods seriously as the key to interpreting the = Bible,=20 modern biblical scholars have applied presuppositions latent in = Augustine with=20 such methodical consistency that they have destroyed the unity and = identity of=20 the Old and New Testaments, and have allowed themselves to be swayed = by Judaic=20 interpretations of the Old Testament rejected by Christ himself.=20

Thus, instead of dealing with the concrete person of the = Angel=20 of God, Lord of Glory, Angel of Great Council, Wisdom of God and = identifying=20 Him with the logos made flesh and Christ, and accepting this as the = doctrine=20 of the Trinity, most, if not all, Western scholars have ended up = identifying=20 Christ only with Old Testament Messiahship, and equating the doctrine = of the=20 Trinity with the development of extra Biblical Trinitarian terminology = within=20 what is really not a Patristic framework, but an Augustinian one. = Thus, the=20 so-called Greek Fathers are still read in the light of = Augustine, with=20 the Russians after Peter Mogila joining in.=20
Another most devastating result of the Augustinian presuppositions = of the=20 Filioque is the destruction of the prophetic and apostolic=20 understanding of grace and its replacement with the whole system of = created=20 graces distributed in Latin Christendom by the hocus pocus of the = clergy.=20

For the Bible and the Father, grace is the uncreated = glory and=20 rule (=CE=B2=CE=B1=CF=83=CE=B9=CE=BB=CE=B5=CE=B9=CE=B1) of God seen by = the prophets, apostles, and saints and=20 participated in by the faithful followers of the prophets and the = apostles.=20 The source of this glory and rule is the Father who, in begetting the = Logos,=20 and projecting the Spirit, communicates this glory and rule so that he = Son and=20 the Spirit are also by nature one source of grace with the Father. = This=20 uncreated grace and rule = (=CE=B2=CE=B1=CF=83=CE=B9=CE=BB=CE=B5=CE=B9=CE=B1) is participated in by = the faithful=20 according to their preparedness for reception, and is seen by the = friends of=20 God who have become gods by grace.

Because the Frankish=20 Filioque presupposes the identity of uncreated divine essence = and=20 energy, and because participation in the divine essence is impossible, = the=20 Latin tradition was led automatically into accepting communicated = grace as=20 created, leading to its objectification and magical priestly = manipulation.=20

On the other hand, the reduction by Augustine of this = revealed=20 glory and rule (=CE=B2=CE=B1=CF=83=CE=B9=CE=BB=CE=B5=CE=B9=CE=B1) to = the status of a creature has misled modern=20 biblical scholars into the endless discussion concerning the coming of = the=20 Kingdom (=CE=B2=CE=B1=CF=83=CE=B9=CE=BB=CE=B5=CE=B9=CE=B1 = should rather be rule) without realizing its identity=20 with the uncreated glory and grace of God.=20
In order not to extend ourselves into more detail, we end this = section and=20 this paper by pointing out what the presupposition of the = Filioque=20 have done to the matter of authority on questions of biblical = interpretation=20 and dogma.

In this patristic tradition, all dogma or = truth is=20 experienced in glorification. The final form of glorification is that = of=20 Pentecost, in which the apostles were led by the Spirit into all the = truth, as=20 promised by Christ at the Last Supper. Since Pentecost, every incident = of the=20 glorification of a saint, (in other words, of a saint having a vision = of God's=20 uncreated glory in Christ as its source), is an extension of Pentecost = at=20 various levels of intensity.

This experience includes = all of=20 man, but at the same time transcend all of man, including man's = intellect.=20 Thus, the experience remains a mystery to the intellect. Thus, the = experience=20 remains a mystery to the intellect, and cannot be conveyed = intellectually to=20 another. Thus, language can point to, but cannot convey, this = experience. The=20 spiritual father can guide a person to, but cannot produce, the = experience=20 which is a gift of the Holy Spirit.

When, therefore, the = Fathers=20 add terms to the biblical language concerning God and His relations to = the=20 world, like hypostasis, ousia, physis, homoousios, etc., they are not = doing=20 this because they are improving current understanding as over against = a former=20 age. Pentecost cannot be improved upon. All they are doing is = defending the=20 Pentecostal experience which transcends words, in the language of = their time,=20 because a particular heresy leads away from, and not to, this = experience,=20 which means spiritual death to those led astray.

For the = Fathers, authority is not only the Bible, but the Bible plus those = glorified=20 or divinized as the prophets and apostles. The Bible is not in itself = either=20 inspired or infallible. It becomes inspired and infallible within the=20 communion of saints because they have the experience of divine glory = described=20 in the Bible.

The presuppositions of the Frankish=20 Filioque are not founded on this experience of glory. Anyone = can=20 claim to speak with authority and understanding. However, we follow = the=20 Fathers and accept only those as authority who, like the apostles, = have=20 reached a degree of Pentecostal glorification.

Within = this frame=20 of reference, there can be no institutionalized or guaranteed form of=20 infallibility, outside of the tradition of spirituality which leads to = theoria, mentioned above, by St. Gregory the Theologian.

As a heresy, the Filioque is as bad as = Arianism, and this=20 is borne out by the fact that the holders of this heresy reduce the = Pentecostal=20 tongues of fire to the status of creature as Arius had done with the = Angel of=20 Glory. Had Arius and the Scholastics been gifted with the Pentecostal=20 glorification of the Fathers, they would have known by their experience = that the=20 Logos who appeared to the prophets and the apostles in glory, and the = tongues of=20 fire are uncreated; the one an uncreated hypostasis, and the other the = common=20 and identical energies of the Holy Trinity emanating from the new = presence of=20 the humanity of Christ by the Holy Spirit.

What is true of the Bible is true of the Synods, which, = like the=20 Bible, express in symbols that which transcends symbols and is known by = means of=20 those who have reached theoria. It is for this reason that the Synods = appeal to=20 the authority, not only of the Fathers in the Bible, but also to the = Fathers of=20 all ages, since the Fathers of all ages participate in the same truth = which is=20 God's glory in Christ.

For this reason, Pope Leo III told the Franks in no = uncertain=20 terms that the Fathers left the Filioque out of the Creed = neither=20 because of ignorance nor by omission, but by divine inspiration. = However, the=20 implications of the Frankish Filioque were not accepted by all = Roman=20 Christians in the Western Roman provinces conquered by Franco-Latin = Christendom=20 and its scholastic theology. Remnants of Roman biblical orthodoxy and = piety have=20 survived all parts may one day be reassembled, as the full implications = of the=20 Patristic tradition make themselves known, and spirituality, as the = basis of=20 doctrine, becomes the center of our studies.

Validated as Strict HTML 4.01 =E2=80=94 before = Geocities got hold of=20 it!

=20

------=_NextPart_000_0009_01C6F311.CC56EC00 Content-Type: application/octet-stream Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Location: http://www.w3.org/Icons/valid-html401 iVBORw0KGgoAAAANSUhEUgAAAFgAAAAfCAMAAABUFvrSAAAB0VBMVEUAAAAMCQQLCwsRDQYWEQgb FQoeGAwUFBQcHBwkHQ4sIxExJxM1KhUjIyMoKCg0MzI7OztCNBpHOBxNPR5OSz9XRSJbSCRjTyds VitvWCx1RzlyWy1+ZDFOTk5ST0tWUk1VVVVcXFxqXUplZWVra2tya2FwcHB7e3sAWpwIX58JYJ8O Y6ERZaIVaKQaa6Yebaghb6klcqopdawxea82fbE4frI+grRFhrZMi7pVkb1alL9dlsBkm8NoncRt ocZ0pcl8qsyWBAOZAACcCASIIBmdNiegDge3PB6mPiqFajWJbTaTdTqWeDyffz+6QiG/TCahclPA TifBUCjIXy/QbzfWej3Yfj+Rh2ujgkGui0WxjUa0gVi2kUi6lEq/mEyjkmuzn2e7pnLEnE7eikXO pFHQplPWq1XarlbesVjjlUrmm03poFDtqVTjtVrmuFzsvF70w2H5xmL+y2WDg4OXl5eYmJippZ61 rZisrKy0tLS/v7+Crs6FsNCLtNKQt9SWu9aYvNebvtifwdqjw9uox92ryd6yzeG20OPCwsLMzMzU 1NTA1ufG2ujN3+zT4+7d6fL/7Mbn5+fs7Ozl7vXp8fbu9Pj09PTy9/r1+Pv+/v7MzMx5jUMsAAAA m3RSTlP///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////AJVWkpgAAAABYktH RACIBR1IAAAACXBIWXMAAABIAAAASABGyWs+AAADJ0lEQVRIx+2W+08TQRDHp1ogQBGkgqmIgmKY SisvEUuAQusLKajxxUVEgQYqsdzdShSChGAD8kYpbW79a529bY+WyCMN+pPf5Ob22uzntt+dmS2s nbo+/xKCNX68frCTa/Tdtf/g3MBaOMJYNKzpYVPTbIIu+jSsMVWMcgaHwcmYC5QImHKxfHAw1gcQ ZgNw+RBwrNFPsxeaFgQk4XY3kpp8nCc/1a3zOSMLrI+MOGBgZJLAMMbyjgbvoJeI37FNgJdRqocb 1QBn1kvXU+CiUOg8KDS1HCYo5tsdlQo4jwTzFtyi6ME9ih3oi8eX0Jvks3CuvqzgzG4KbCoTPADF TtfRYD/OU2zFGEUv7nCjWQyry8iF6/WWx7rmygLrdnh7DHgDb3O+h0i+bmIL2W26UiC+MpLZm5cB Zv2VTIIrFGUsAxwIWFnRQC58Q2zgvAf9fO8mbtLWlfwpK0zwJMU8u8AI8JDwyLEPvhcQZAn20U/3 YStukN0bvBPd3Qnau0ywHlEZUyMaTZ2O6BSjUYFRaaxFSFYqj94PCKXAMfQZDbeW0R9HD73Gi9hq 8JmcKu9RQEqCE+hZwa6Eu2UJO8TzpgeX+Wou4Ccpbrry2siHFd6OMjM478LOw3uFrh3PTYO/IroN ygbEhPm8gs0HwQpARNy1SgCnyqrsUG69afCjHDyzuGnwFuJdUYJ4R6KWsXFXjpJJCVbzbBKsQFUf 9LNQyALrDwMPpvbX2xvIbEKNuGiW4AJf7DCtaF+V5LpVCa50VkjwRVCZyD3VAgte8EN6vb2Xsrpb F8bNEtymZPMnYh6MGbU/Bdcme4VydjoFLgSqDhtZkga/NHnBcckNPs1umyutIm40UYZ40Y2iFNcK ampLYEZ6XOQMOaBPM+tDY7bijBXrgwFLweCbA/3YmDdvPXRtd3u9nWIP12sKSmdTm1doE/U1+djF +mE4LLrDvhXWnhF4KoejqQKizAEsSk3YPkELJw2lyM8tbi5nXnhYo4uWqgyp4olkFfKLNPfUD9NX Ke7pn9LjQZP7F47/qal/9r9i7lh9eX9yvb6RBlefQBdOrqtXSk3wb5pxjmKbvWqoAAAAAElFTkSu QmCC ------=_NextPart_000_0009_01C6F311.CC56EC00 Content-Type: application/octet-stream Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Location: http://visit.geocities.yahoo.com/visit.gif?us1161234068 R0lGODlhAQABAOMAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAACH5BAEAAAAALAAAAAABAAEAAAQCEEQAOw== ------=_NextPart_000_0009_01C6F311.CC56EC00 Content-Type: application/octet-stream Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Location: http://geo.yahoo.com/serv?s=76001081&t=1161234068&f=us-w61 R0lGODlhAQABAIAAAP///wAAACH5BAEAAAAALAAAAAABAAEAAAICRAEAOw== ------=_NextPart_000_0009_01C6F311.CC56EC00 Content-Type: text/css; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Location: http://www.geocities.com/trvalentine/style.css BODY { MARGIN-LEFT: 15px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 15px; FONT-FAMILY: Arial Unicode = MS,Palatino Linotype,Code2000,TITUS Cyberbit Basic,Athena Roman, Athena } H1 { MARGIN-TOP: 0px; FONT-WEIGHT: bold; MARGIN-BOTTOM: 0px; TEXT-INDENT: = 0px; TEXT-ALIGN: center } H2 { MARGIN-TOP: 8px; MARGIN-BOTTOM: 0px; TEXT-ALIGN: center } H3 { MARGIN-TOP: 0px; MARGIN-BOTTOM: 0px; TEXT-ALIGN: center } H4 { MARGIN-TOP: 4px; MARGIN-BOTTOM: 0em } H5 { MARGIN-TOP: 0px; FONT-SIZE: 110%; MARGIN-BOTTOM: 0px; TEXT-ALIGN: = center; FONT-VARIANT: small-caps } P.norm { MARGIN-TOP: 0px; FONT-SIZE: 90%; MARGIN-BOTTOM: 7px; TEXT-INDENT: 20px; = TEXT-ALIGN: justify } P.comment { FONT-SIZE: 80%; BACKGROUND: azure } P.clear { CLEAR: both; MARGIN-TOP: 0em; MARGIN-BOTTOM: 0em } P.head { FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 110%; MARGIN-BOTTOM: 0em } P.menuhead { MARGIN-TOP: 2px; FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 100%; MARGIN-BOTTOM: 2px } P.menu { MARGIN-TOP: 0px; FONT-SIZE: 80%; MARGIN-BOTTOM: 0px; MARGIN-LEFT: 7px } P.nonind { FONT-SIZE: 90%; TEXT-ALIGN: justify } P.nonind2 { MARGIN-TOP: 0em; FONT-SIZE: 90%; COLOR: #00e; TEXT-ALIGN: justify } P.nonind3 { MARGIN-TOP: -1em; FONT-SIZE: 90%; COLOR: #00e; TEXT-ALIGN: justify } P.smap { FONT-SIZE: 90%; TEXT-ALIGN: right } P.utf { FONT-SIZE: 90%; BACKGROUND: #ff0; MARGIN-BOTTOM: 3em; MARGIN-LEFT: 20%; = COLOR: #f00; MARGIN-RIGHT: 20%; TEXT-ALIGN: center } P.alert { FONT-SIZE: 90%; BACKGROUND: #ff0; MARGIN-BOTTOM: 3em; MARGIN-LEFT: 7%; = COLOR: #f00; MARGIN-RIGHT: 7%; TEXT-ALIGN: center } P.auth { MARGIN-BOTTOM: 0px; TEXT-ALIGN: center } P.intro { MARGIN-TOP: 0px; FONT-SIZE: 80%; TEXT-ALIGN: center } P.cen { MARGIN-TOP: 0.5em; FONT-WEIGHT: bold; MARGIN-BOTTOM: 0.5em; TEXT-ALIGN: = center } P.intre { MARGIN-TOP: 0.5em; FONT-SIZE: 90%; MARGIN-BOTTOM: 0.2em } P.quo { MARGIN-TOP: -0.5em; FONT-SIZE: 80%; MARGIN-LEFT: 20%; MARGIN-RIGHT: = 20%; TEXT-ALIGN: justify } P.quocont { FONT-SIZE: 80%; MARGIN: -0.5em 20% 0em; TEXT-ALIGN: justify } P.afterquo { MARGIN-TOP: 0em; FONT-SIZE: 90%; TEXT-ALIGN: justify } P.middlequo { MARGIN-TOP: 0em; FONT-SIZE: 90%; MARGIN-BOTTOM: 0.5em; TEXT-ALIGN: = justify } P.quoquo { MARGIN-TOP: -0.5em; FONT-SIZE: 80%; MARGIN-LEFT: 30%; MARGIN-RIGHT: = 30%; TEXT-ALIGN: justify } P.quoquoquo { MARGIN-TOP: 1em; FONT-SIZE: 80%; MARGIN-LEFT: 20%; MARGIN-RIGHT: 20%; = TEXT-ALIGN: justify } P.quo2 { FONT-SIZE: 80%; MARGIN-BOTTOM: 0em; TEXT-ALIGN: center } P.quo3 { MARGIN-TOP: -0.1em; FONT-SIZE: 70%; MARGIN-RIGHT: 10%; TEXT-ALIGN: = right } P.quocen { FONT-SIZE: 80%; TEXT-ALIGN: center } P.foot { MARGIN-TOP: 0.2em; MARGIN-BOTTOM: 0em; TEXT-INDENT: 1.5em } .smcap { FONT-VARIANT: small-caps } .fnote { FONT-SIZE: 90%; BACKGROUND: #ddd } .comment { FONT-SIZE: 90%; BACKGROUND: #ff0; COLOR: #f00 } .blue { COLOR: #00e } #copyrt { MARGIN-TOP: 0em; FONT-SIZE: 70%; MARGIN-BOTTOM: 0em; MARGIN-RIGHT: = -15px; TEXT-ALIGN: right } #home { FONT-SIZE: 100%; MARGIN-BOTTOM: 2em; TEXT-ALIGN: center } TABLE.menu { LEFT: 0px; WIDTH: 170px; POSITION: fixed; TOP: 0px } TABLE.center { MARGIN-TOP: 0.5em; MARGIN-LEFT: auto; MARGIN-RIGHT: auto } TABLE.centre { MARGIN-LEFT: 10%; MARGIN-RIGHT: 10% } TABLE.left { MARGIN-LEFT: auto; MARGIN-RIGHT: auto } TH { FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 110% } TD { FONT-SIZE: 90% } TD.papaya { FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 110%; BACKGROUND: papayawhip; COLOR: = blue; HEIGHT: 50px; TEXT-ALIGN: center } TD.verse { FONT-SIZE: 80%; VERTICAL-ALIGN: middle; TEXT-ALIGN: center } TD.year { FONT-SIZE: 90%; TEXT-ALIGN: right } TD.em { FONT-SIZE: 90%; FONT-STYLE: italic } A:link { BACKGROUND: mistyrose; COLOR: red } A:visited { COLOR: maroon } A:hover { BACKGROUND: yellow; COLOR: blue; TEXT-DECORATION: none } Q { quotes: "=91" "=92" "=93" "=94" } Q:unknown { content: open-quote } Q:unknown { content: close-quote } SUP { FONT-WEIGHT: bold; COLOR: #f00 } OL { MARGIN-TOP: 0em } OL.lcase { LIST-STYLE-TYPE: lower-alpha } OL.ucase { COLOR: #00e; LIST-STYLE-TYPE: upper-alpha } OL.lrom { LIST-STYLE-TYPE: lower-roman } LI { MARGIN-TOP: 0.5em; FONT-SIZE: 90% } ------=_NextPart_000_0009_01C6F311.CC56EC00 Content-Type: text/css; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Location: http://us.geocities.com/js_source/div.css .y_gcss_ovrtr_au { BORDER-RIGHT: #000000 1px solid; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; BORDER-TOP: = #000000 1px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 0px; Z-INDEX: 2; VISIBILITY: visible; = PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; MARGIN: 0px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 1px solid; WIDTH: = 195px; PADDING-TOP: 0px; BORDER-BOTTOM: #000000 1px solid; POSITION: = absolute; TOP: 0px; BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff } .y_gcss_ovrtr_au_cbox { PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; BORDER-TOP: #cccccc 1px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 0px; = PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; MARGIN: 0px; WIDTH: 175px; PADDING-TOP: 0px; = BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff } .y_gcss_ovrtr_msthd { BORDER-RIGHT: #000000 1px solid; BORDER-TOP: #000000 1px solid; = Z-INDEX: 1; VISIBILITY: visible; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 1px solid; WIDTH: = 195px; BORDER-BOTTOM: #000000 1px solid; POSITION: absolute; TOP: 0px; = BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff } .y_gcss_ovrtr_cntr { PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 0px; FLOAT: right; VISIBILITY: = visible; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; MARGIN: 0px; WIDTH: 195px; PADDING-TOP: = 0px; TOP: 0px; BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff } ------=_NextPart_000_0009_01C6F311.CC56EC00 Content-Type: application/octet-stream Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Location: http://www.geocities.com/js_source/pu5geo.js =0A= var PUisIE_NAV4 =3D false;=0A= if (parseFloat(navigator.appVersion) >=3D 4) {=0A= PUisIE_NAV4 =3D true;=0A= }=0A= =0A= var PUwinWidth=3D'740';=0A= var PUwinHeight=3D'300';=0A= =0A= var PUtimes =3D 1; /* number of times to show ad. if > times, then = redirect thru */=0A= var PUtheDomain =3D ".geocities.com";=0A= var PUexpiresIn =3D 4/24; /* days between shows of the ad */=0A= =0A= function PUsetCook(t,expIn) {=0A= var cook;=0A= var PUexDate;=0A= PUexDate =3D new Date;=0A= PUexDate.setTime(PUexDate.getTime() + expIn*24*60*60*1000);=0A= cook =3D "PU=3Dt=3D"+t+"; expires=3D" + PUexDate.toGMTString() +"; = domain=3D"+PUtheDomain + "; path=3D/";=0A= document.cookie =3D cook;=0A= }=0A= =0A= var PU_NO_COOKIES =3D 2;=0A= =0A= function PUgetCook(x) {=0A= var i,j,a,b,s,e,d,f;=0A= a =3D document.cookie;=0A= //if (a =3D=3D "") return PU_NO_COOKIES;=0A= s =3D a.indexOf(x + "=3D");=0A= if (s =3D=3D -1) return false;=0A= s +=3D x.length+1;=0A= e =3D a.indexOf(';',s);=0A= if (e =3D=3D -1) e =3D a.length;=0A= return a.substring(s,e);=0A= }=0A= =0A= /* check cookies - if cookies are off or if user saw it X times, then we = redirect thru */=0A= =0A= var PUd;=0A= var PUb=3DPUgetCook("PU");=0A= var PUoverTimes =3D 0;=0A= =0A= if (PUb =3D=3D PU_NO_COOKIES) {=0A= PUoverTimes =3D 1;=0A= } else {=0A= if (PUb !=3D false) {=0A= PUb =3D PUb.split('&');=0A= for (PUi=3D0; PUi PUtimes) {=0A= PUoverTimes =3D 1;=0A= } else {=0A= PUsetCook(PUd[1],PUexpiresIn);=0A= }=0A= } else {=0A= PUsetCook(1,PUexpiresIn);=0A= }=0A= }=0A= =0A= function PUlaunchPU(){=0A= var PUwin;=0A= var addIt =3D PUisIE_NAV4 ? ',top=3D5000,left=3D5000' : '';=0A= PUwin=3Dwindow.open('about:blank','PUwin', = 'width=3D'+PUwinWidth+',height=3D'+PUwinHeight+',location=3Dno,menubar=3D= no,titlebar=3Dno,status=3Dno,toolbar=3Dno,scrollbars=3Dyes,resizable=3Dno= '+addIt,true);=0A= PUwin.blur();=0A= return PUwin;=0A= }=0A= =0A= if (PUoverTimes < 1) {=0A= document.write('