DOI 10.1515/bz-2020-0044 BZ 2020; 113(3): 1041–1068
Anne-Sophie Vivier-Mureșan The eternal manifestation of the Spirit through the Son: ahypostatic or energetic reality?
Inquiryinthe worksofGregory of Cyprus and Gregory Palamas
Abstract: The theological formulation of the “eternal manifestation of the Spirit through the Son”,developed by the patriarch of Constantinople Gregory of Cy- prus in the 13th century,has been the subject of numerous studies in the 20th century and playedanimportant role in the renewal of Trinitarian Orthodox the- ology. The interpretations are however diverging.Most theologians see in this for- mulation the manifestation of the uncreated energy,which would have been for- malizedlater by Gregory Palamas. Others understand it as ahypostatic reality concerning the third Person of the Trinity. This paper contributes to the discus- sion by re-analyzingthe main texts of Gregory of Cyprus and of Gregory Palamas on this matter.Inafirst step, we defend the thesis thatinthe thoughtofthe By- zantine patriarch, this expression trulyconcerns the hypostasis of the Spirit.Ina second step, we question the existenceofthe themeofan“eternal manifesta- tion” of the uncreated energy in the work of Gregory Palamas.
Adresse: Anne-Sophie Vivier-Mureşan, ISEO, Institut CatholiquedeParis, 21 rue d’Assas, 75006 Paris, France;[email protected]
The 20th century witnessed renewed interest in late Byzantine writers.The works of Gregory of Cyprus (1241–1290) and Gregory Palamas (1296–1359), among others, have been extensively re-examined, edited and translated. This rediscov-
We would liketothank Michel Stavrou, whose remarksand advice have been very helpfulinthe elaboration of thisstudy. – This researchisextractedfrommyPhD Thesis (Le dialoguedel’amour trinitaire. Perspectivesouvertespar Dumitru Stăniloae), written under the direction of the Pr.Jean- LouisSouletie and defended at the Institut Catholique de Paris in February . 1042 Byzantinische Zeitschrift Bd. 113/3, 2020: I. Abteilung ery of late Byzantine thoughtstimulated the Trinitarian reflection of manyOrtho- doxtheologians. In this context,the theme of the eternal “shiningforth” (ἔκλαμ- ψις)ofthe Spirit through (διά)the Son, developed by Gregory of Cyprus, was highlighted as anecessary complement to the Photian formulation of the Spirit’s procession from the Father alone. It is alsoregarded by manyasthe right under- standing of the Spirit’sprocession by/through (διά)the Son as stated by the Greek Fathers,and appears as the most advanced Orthodoxposition in the Fil- ioque discussions. This issue,however,ismarked by adivergence of interpreta- tion. Most Orthodox theologians and Byzantinists¹ consider thatthe eternal man- ifestationofthe Spirit through the Son does not concern the very hypostasis of the divine third Person, but the uncreated energy stemmingfrom the essence, which in divineeconomyreacheshumans from the Father,through the Son, in the Spirit.This interpretation, which is based on the distinction, actuallypresent in the works of Gregory of Cyprus and of Gregory Palamas after him, between the hypostasis of the Spirit and his gifts assimilated to uncreated energies, seems to have been formulated for the first time by V. Lossky:
The distinction between the unknowable essenceofthe Trinity and its energetic proces- sions,clearlydefined by the great councils of the 14th century,allows the Orthodoxthe- ology to firmlyaffirm the different character of the tri-hypostatic existenceinitself and in the commonmanifestationoutside the essence. In his hypostatic existence, the Holy Spirit
V. Lossky,Laprocession du Saint-Esprit dans la doctrine trinitaire orthodoxe,inidem, Al’i- mage et àlaressemblancedeDieu. Paris , –.This text was first deliveredataconfer- enceinOxfordin;J.Meyendorff,Introduction àl’étude de GrégoirePalamas. Paris ; O. Clément,Grégoire de Chypre, “De l’ekporèse du Saint-Esprit”. Istina /– (), – ;V.Palachkovsky,Lacontroverse pneumatologique. Messager de l’Exarchat du Patriarche russe en Europe occidentale – (), –;A.Radović,Le‘Filioque’ et l’énergie incréée de la Sainte Trinitéselon la doctrine de Saint GrégoirePalamas. Messager de l’Exarchat du Pat- riarche russe en Europe occidentale – (), –;G.Patacsi,Palamism before Pala- mas. Eastern Church Review (), –;M.Orphanos,Laprocession du Saint-Esprit selon certains pères grecs postérieurs au VIIIe siècle, in L. Vischer (ed.), La théologie du Saint-Esprit dans le dialogueentrel’Orient et l’Occident.Paris , –;B.Bobrinskoy,Lemystère de la SainteTrinité. Paris , –;A.Papadakis,Crisis in Byzantium. Crestwood, NY ;J-.C. Larchet in his introduction to:Lavie et l’œuvre de Georges/GrégoiredeChypre. Paris , ;A.Theodoros,The eternal manifestation of the Spirit ‘through the Son’ (‘διὰ τοῦ Υἱοῦ’)according to Nikephoros Blemmydes and Gregory of Cyprus,inM.Habets (ed.), Ecumenical perspectivesonthe filioque for the twenty-first century.London/New York , –;M.Stavrou,Une réévaluation du Tomos du IIe Concile des Blachernes (): commentaire, tradition textuelle, édition critique et traduction, in C. Gastgeber et al. (eds.), The PatriarchateofConstantinople in context and comparison. Vienne , –.This read- ing is adopted by the DominicanJ.Lison in L’Esprit répandu, la pneumatologie de Grégoire Pal- amas.Paris , –. A.-S.Vivier-Mureșan, The eternalmanifestation of the Spirit 1043
proceedsfromthe Father alone and this ineffable processionallows us to confess the absolute diversity of the three Persons,that is our faith in the Tri-Unity.Inthe framework of the natural manifestation, the HolySpirit proceedsfromthe Father through the Son διὰ υἱοῦ,after the Verb, and this procession reveals us the commonglory of the Three, the eternal splendor of the divine nature. It is interesting to note that the distinction between the hypostatic existenceofthe Holy Spirit,proceeding from the Father alone, and his eternal shiningforth – εἰςαἷδιον ἔκφανσιν – through the Son, has been formulated during the discussions which took place in Consantinople at the end of the 13th century,after the Council of Lyon.We can grasp here the doctrinal continuity:the defenceofthe procession of the HolySpirit fromthe Father alone requires clarification on the διὰ υἱοῦ,and that latter opens the waytothe distinction between essenceand energies.Itisnot a “dogmatic development” but one and same tradition defended on different points by the Orthodoxtheologians,fromsaint Photius to Gregory of Cyprus and saint Gregory Palamas.²
Some theologians,onthe other hand,read in the eternal shiningforth of the Spi- rit through the Son amanifestation of the very hypostasis of the Spirit. The young J. Meyendorff and S.Verkhovsky,instudies published in 1951³,understand in this waythe texts of Gregory of Cyprus and recognize adevelopment of this theme in apassageofTheOne Hundred and Fifty Chapters of Gregory Palamas: the Spirit is described as “love” (ἔρωϛ)ofthe Father for the Son, which the Son uses in turn towards the Father.According to them,this “use” of the Spirit by the Son towardsthe Father must be considered as the eternal shining forth of Spirit’s hypostasis. The samereadingislargely developedbyD.Stăniloae in several studies.⁴ Recentlyand more briefly, J. VanRossum also defends the thesis
Lossky,Procession (as footnote above), –.Personal translation. Notethat Lossky is very elliptic and does not detail his reference to Gregory of Cyprus and Gregory Palamas. Other Byzantinists will develop later his reading, notably A. Papadakis for the works of Gregory of Cyprus,and J. Meyendorff for the works of Gregory Palamas.Wewill discuss them later. J. Meyendorff,Laprocession du Saint-Esprit chez les Pères orientaux. Russie et Chrétienté – (), –;S.Verkhovsky,Laprocession du Saint-Esprit (as footnote above), –.Asnotedinfootnote above, the positionofJ.Meyendorff seems to have changed after this study. In his book on Gregory Palamas, he adopts the idea that Gregory of Cyprus and Palamas distinguish between the eternal procession (from the Father alone) of the Spirit’s hypostasis and the eternal procession (fromthe Father through the Son) of the Spirit as divine energy:J.Meyendorff,Introduction (as footnote above), –. D. Stăniloae,Trinitarian relations and the life of the Church, in idem, Theology and the church. New York , –; idem, La procession du Saint-Esprit et sa relation avec le Fils comme base de notredéification et adoption, in L.Vischer (ed.), La théologie du Saint-Esprit dans le dialogueentre l’Orient et l’Occident.Paris , –; idem, Le Saint Esprit dans la théologie byzantine et dans la réflexion orthodoxe contemporaine, in: Credo in Spiritum Sanc- tum. Atti del Congresso teologico internazionale di Pneumatologia I. Vatican , –. 1044 Byzantinische Zeitschrift Bd. 113/3, 2020: I. Abteilung that,inthe writings of Gregory of Cyprus, the eternal shiningforth of the Spirit concerns his hypostasis.⁵ In this paper we propose to comparethese two divergent interpretations and their arguments by re-exploring in turn the works of Gregory of Cyprus and Greg- ory Palamas. This way, we will defend the theory that the second readingseems nearer to the literalsense of these Byzantine texts.Our studywill first analyze the theological writingsofGregory of Cyprus; for Gregory Palamas’ work, we will essentiallyfocus on the texts mentioned in the debate, which also seem, after research, the ones more directlyconcerned by our investigation: TheOne Hundred and Fifty Chapters and the Apodictic Treatises on the Holy Spirit.
The eternal manifestation of the Spirit through the Son in the work of Gregory of Cyprus
Gregory of Cyprus, in several texts,evokes an eternal shining forth, also called manifestation, of the Spirit through the Son, distinct from the procession of the Spiritfrom the Father alone. Here is one of the most significant passages, ex- tracted from the Tomus:
To the same, whoaffirm that the Paraclete, which is from the Father,has its existence through the Son and from the Son, and who, again, propose as proof the phrase “The Spirit exists through and from the Son”.Incertain texts [of the Fathers], the phrase denotes the Spirit’sshiningforth and manifestation. Indeed, the very Paracleteshines forth and is manifest eternallythrough the Son, in the same waythat light shines forth and is manifest through the intermediary of the sun’sray;itfurther denotesthe bestowing,givingand sendingofthe Spirit to us.Itdoes not,however,mean that it subsists through the Son and from the Son, and that it receivesits beingthrough him and from him.⁶
What does the Spirit mean when evoked in eternity?The hypostasis of the third Person or the uncreatedenergy?Wewill begin by listeningtothe different argu- ments. At the start of his studyofGregory of Cyprus, D. Stăniloae brieflyrejects the hypothesis thatthe eternal manifestation of the Spirit would not designatethe hypostasis of the third Person. Taking the counterpoint of V. Rodzianko, who af-
J. van Rossum,Gregory of Cyprus and Palamism. Studia Patristica (), –. Gregory of Cyprus,Tomus,PG, C–D, trans. Papadakis,Crisis (as footnote above), . A.-S.Vivier-Mureșan, The eternalmanifestation of the Spirit 1045 firmed that the manifestation of the Spirit through the Son is basedontheir unity of essence⁷,the Romanian theologian shows that Gregory of Cyprus clearlyrec- ognizesinthis manifestation acharacteristic of the third divine Person: the very hypostasis of the Spirit is therefore trulyinvolved. We quote this important text:
Beforeweattemptany such explanation we should not neglect to mention that according to Gregory the shiningforth of the Spirit through the Son is not the expression of the identity of essencebetween Son and Spirit but the expression of apersonal relation. If it weretrue that this relation resulted exclusively fromtheir essential identity,itwould no longer dis- tinguish the Spirit from the Son and the Father,because therecould then be ashiningforth of the Spirit fromthe Father,orofthe Son from the Spirit and the Father or of the Father from the Spirit and the Son. Gregory is categorical about this,however,and appeals to St. Gregory of Nyssafor support: “Now Gregory of Nyssaadds to the individual personalat- tributes of the Spirit which distinguish him from Father and Son the fact that he is man- ifested and shines forth through the Son”.Hegoes on to say: “If, therefore, younever know the Paracleteapart from his individual personal attributes (τῶναὐτοῦἰδιωμάτων χωρὶς), youwill not deny, if youare sensible,that his manifestation through the Son as aproper characteristicofhimself as eternal (ὡς ἴδιον αὐτῷ τῷ αἰδίῳ προσὸν)isitself also eternal”.⁸
These lines support the statements of the Romanian theologian in adecisive way. Nevertheless, we must also listen to the arguments presented by A. Papadakis⁹,whose interpretationdiffers on this point.Onthe one hand,A.Pa- padakis emphasizes that Gregory of Cyprus’ work mentions in fact the dual def- inition of the Spirit as hypostasis and as energy.Onthe otherhand, he stresses that the terminologyand the expressionsused by the patriarch, belongingtothe lexicalfield of the light and the radiance, must be relatedtothe theologyofun- created light,which is the manifestation of the divine life; atheologythatPala- mas’ work formalizedafterwards. If the distinction between the Spirit as hypostasis and as energy is really present in the Cypriot’swork, we must note that it is never mentioned concerning the eternal manifestation of the Spirit.Its use aims at explaining the patristic for- mulations of the Spiritasthe “Son’senergy” or the “Son’sgift”,orofthe Son as “Spirit’ssource”,interpreted by the latinophrones in away supportive of the Fil-
See V. Rodzianko, Как разрешитьпроблему ‘Филиокве? Messager de l’Exarchat du Patri- archerusse en Europe Occidentale (), –. Stăniloae,Trinitarianrelations (as footnote above), . Papadakis,Crisis (as footnote above), –.The arguments of A. Papadakis arealso developed by M. Stavrou and J.-C.Larchet in their works on Gregory of Cyprus:Stavrou,Rééval- uation (as footnote above), –.See in particular his commentary,p.;Larchet,more polemical, in: Vie(as footnote above), . 1046 Byzantinische Zeitschrift Bd. 113/3, 2020: I. Abteilung ioque. This distinction relates thereforetothe context of apossible causal rela- tionship between the Son and the Spirit: in this frame, the Spirit is considered as meaning divine energy.All these texts concern an economic perspective.In other words: the Spirit can mean the divine energies in the economic gift of the Spirit by Christ to the apostles;itisonlyinthis context that the Fathers have recognized in the Spirit “the Son’senergy” or in the Son “the Spirit’s source”. To support our statements, we will quote just one passage, the most decisive because it is extracted from the Tomus,but all are along the same lines.¹⁰ Discus- sing the latinophrones’ use of the patristic expression of the Son as “sourceof life”,Gregory of Cyprus comments, in aparallel with Mary,who became source of life by the birth of her son:
As for the Son, he is the fountain of life, because he became the cause of life for us who weredead to sin; because he became as an overflowingriver to everyone; and because, for those who believeinthe Son, the Spirit is bestowed as from this fountain and through him. This grace of the Spirit is poured forth, and it is neither novel nor alien to Scripture, wereit to be called by the same name as Holy Spirit.For,sometimes,anact [ἐνέργεια]isidentified by the name of the one whoacts,sincefrequentlywedonot refuse to call “sun” the sun’s own luster and light.¹¹
Admittedly, in the Antirrhetic discourse,Gregory of Cyprus indiscriminatelyuses the term “manifestation” (φανέρωσις)onthe eternal level one one hand,onthe economic level on the other as asynonym for “bestowing, sending,giving”. ¹² We can therefore understand thatmanytheologians mayhaveinferred astrict correspondence between the economic manifestation and the eternal one and mayhaverelated the latter to the uncreated energy.Nevertheless, acrucial pas- sageofthe same Discourse shows that Gregory distinguished in fact between the manifestation of the Spirit in the economy, and his eternal one. Commenting on the expression “by/through the Son”,the Byzantine theologian states:
Thus,the HolySpirit,because of the bestowingand the sharingofthe charisms which emanatefromhim, could be said to be derivedfromthe Father through the Son. Indeed, what the Spirit bestows to humans,[Gregory of Nazianzus] says,isbestowed fromthe
See the Antirrhetic discourse,§, , , , , .Werefer to the recent French edition, in Larchet,Vie (as footnote above). Gregory of Cyprus,Tomus,PG, D–A, trans. Papadakis,Crisis, . Gregory of Cyprus, Antirrhetic discourse,§ et § ,inLarchet,Vie (as footnote above), and . A.-S.Vivier-Mureșan, The eternal manifestation of the Spirit 1047
Father through the Word.But we could conceive him also just as the light derivedfromthe sun in its rays and through its rays for it can make obvious the eternal union of the Spirit with the Son from the Father.And it would reveal also the manifestation of the Spirit through the Son, in anymanner youconceive this manifestation: as aimingatrevealing itself for us by its benefits,orasthe shiningforth and the distinction,sotospeak indis- cernible, and the illuminationofthe Spirit through the Son; that is by this illumination,the other Paraclete,the Spirit of Truth, that we receive the light,asfar as we can conceive it. ¹³
Here, Gregory distinguishes between the “charisma” and “benefits”“which em- anate from” the Spirit,are “bestowed by him” and which undoubtedlymust be understood as the divine energies, and the manifestation of the Spirit himself. The fact that the eternal manifestation concerns the Spirit’shypostasis appears in the expression mentioning the union of the Spirittothe Son and his proces- sion from the Father.Certainly, the temporal gift of the Spirit’scharisma by the Son and his eternal manifestation are linked, as Gregory clearlywrites at the end of this passage, but the distinction between the Spirit as hypostasis and as en- ergies (in its charisma, benefits), seems to become operative in the transition from theologytoeconomy. We understand in this wayGregory’sstatement: the eternal manifestation of the Spirit’shypostasis through the Son extends on the economic level in the bestowing,bythe Son, of the Spirit’sbenefits, or energies, to those who are worthytoreceive them. Secondly, Gregory’suse of the imageofthe light does not necessarilyconsti- tute the clue to an “energetic” understanding of the Spirit. On one hand, he never expresslyaffirms such an equivalence, on the other hand, in his writings this imageoftenrefers to the hypostasis of the Spirit.Wegivehere twoquotes which illustrate this:
The Spirit is another light similar to [the Son’s] in the same way: he is not separated by a time interval from the unbegotten light,but it is throughit[Son’slight] that he shines forth and that is from the archetypal light that he has the cause of his hypostasis.¹⁴ As one says that the light comesfromthe sun throughthe ray, light which has the sun as its natural principle,cause and source of its being; yetthe light passes,emergesand shines through the ray, from which it has not its existence[ὕπαρξις]nor its essenciation [οὐσίωσις]; on the one hand the light emergesfromthe ray, as we said, but on the other hand it does not receive from it or through it the principle of its beingbut it receivesit purelyand without intermediary from [ἐκ]the sun, from which [comes] the rayitself, through which the light is manifest and emanates.¹⁵
Gregory of Cyprus, Antirrhetic discourse, § , in Larchet,Vie (as footnote above), – .Personal translation. Gregory of Cyprus, Apology, PG , C, personaltranslation. Gregory of Cyprus, Confession of faith,PG, A–B, personal translation. 1048 Byzantinische Zeitschrift Bd. 113/3, 2020: I. Abteilung
In the first passage, the distinction established between the light of the Spirit and the “Son’sone” or the “archetypal light” clearlyshows thatthe term “light” refers to the respective hypostatic reality of the threedivine Persons. In the sec- ond quotation, applying the terms “existence” and “essentiation” to the light in- dicates in the same waythatthis light means the very hypostasis of the Spirit, especiallythat this existenceand this essentiation are said to stem directly from the sun and not from the rays (while the divine energy,emanatingfrom the essence, is tri-hypostatic). In other words, the imageofthe light is not re- served to the manifestation but also concerns the cominginto beingofthe Spirit (from the Father alone). It does not seemingly refer to a “manifestation of God” (understood as the manifestation of the triune God in his energy) ¹⁶,distinct from the hypostatic procession of the Spirit. Finally, and this is our main argument: since Gregory knows the distinction between the Spirit’shypostasis and energy and is not reluctant to use it in some texts,wemay legitimatelywonder whyhedoes not put it at the heart of his dem- onstration, if that constitutes the base of his doctrine. Whydoes he strive instead to subtlydistinguish between “to have his existence” (ὕπαρξιν ἔχειν)(from the Father)and “to exist” (ὑπάρχειν)(through the Son), between “cominginto being” and “manifestation”/ “revelation”/ “shining forth” (φανέρωσις, ἔκφανσιϛ, ἔκλαμψις), endorsing here the argumentation of Nicephore Blem- mydes, whereas he knew his work was disputed?¹⁷ Could we not saythat the dis- tinctionbetween hypostasis and energy does not hold, in his theology, the key role thatA.Papadakis and others give to it?Wetend to think thatthe Byzantine patriarch does not distinguish between a “hypostatic” and an “energetic” proces- sion of the Spirit.¹⁸ From our reading emergesinstead the idea (non explicited by
Papadakis,Crisis (as footnote above), .Notethat the words “God’smanifestation”, used by him, can not be found in the text of Gregory of Cyprus,who does not know any other manifestation than that of the Spirit See M. Stavrou,Lethéologien Nicéphore Blemmydès (–v. ), figure de contradic- tion entreOrthodoxesetLatinophrones. OCP (), – (here et ). See also Papadakis,Crisis (as footnote above), –,who notesthat Blemmydes did not distin- guish, in his formulation, between hypostasis and energy of the Spirit. In support of his proposition, A. Papadakis quotes atext of the Confession,which he trans- lates by introducingadistinctionbetween “immediateprocession” and “procession throughthe Son”: “We saythat the Holy Spirit exists immediatelyfromthe Father and through the Son. Whatever our opponents maysay,the fact remains that we do not abolish the procession through the Son by acceptingthe immediateprocession, anymorethan we suppress the imme- diateprocessionbyacceptingthe procession through the Son” (Papadakis,Crisis,asfootnote above, ). However,areturn to the Greek textshows that this double use of the term “proces- sion” is not noticeable. Gregory of Cyprus writes, in an elliptical way, “the immediately” (τὸ A.-S.Vivier-Mureșan, The eternal manifestation of the Spirit 1049
Gregory,which makeshis interpretation difficult), thatineconomydivineener- gies reach the human from the Father by the Son in the Spirit because, in eter- nity,the hypostasis of the Spirit,who – with the Father and the Son – holds the energies, shines forth and manifests himself from the Father through the Son. As we believe, another passage, extracted from the Apology and on which A. Papadakis,among others, relies,must be understood in this sense. While he seeks to demonstrate the eternity of the Spirit’smanifestation, Gregory of Cyprus explicitelylinks the economic gift of the Spirittoits eternal manifestation:
The Spirit is imparted, given, and sent through the Son, to those whoare well-disposed to accept him; and he manifests himself, shines forth and reveals himself eternally.¹⁹
Certainly, Gregory of Cyprus affirms in another text of the Apology that the Spirit, in his economic bestowing, refers to divine energies. We then understand thatA. Papadakis mayinfer that the eternal manifestation also relates to these energies. However,two objections maybemade.First,Gregory of Cyprus, here, does not explicitelyintroduce the topic of divineenergies. Secondly, he continues with
ἀμέσωϛ), and “the through the Son” (τὸ δι’ Υἱοῦ)(PG , D–A).Hemeans here, accord- ing to us,the two verbal expressions per se (as two complementary aspects of asame proces- sion), and not two “processions” which should be distinguished. The Frenchtranslation of F. Vinel, closer to the literal sense of the text,makes it apparent: “Quant ànous, nous affirmons àlafois que l’Esprit existesans intermédiaireàpartir [ἐκ]duPère, et [qu’il est] par le Fils. Et en disant que l’Esprit est sans intermédiaire, nous ne refusons pas de dire, comme nos adversaires, [l’expression] ‘par le Fils’,mais nous ne récusons pas non plusl’expression ‘sans intermédiaire’ en reconnaissant qu’Il est ‘par le Fils’” (Confession de foi, in Larchet,Vie, as footnote above, ). – In the same page aformulation appears that could support A. Papadakis’ reading:in- deed, Gregory of Cyprus specifies that the Spirit has its existenceimmediatelyfromthe Father “in terms of hypostasis” (καθ’ ὑπόστασιν). Nothingshows,however,that we should oppose this immediateprocessionfromthe Father in terms of hypostasistoanenergetic procession which would be mediate. The followingwords, indeed, statestraightaway “and totallyhis very being” (καὶὅλως αὐτὸ δὴ τὸ εἶναι)then continue to affirm the fact,for the Spirit,tobe both immediatelyfromthe Father and through the Son, without introducingany mention of the notion of divine energy.Inthese lines,wefind in particular the image of the light derived from the sun by the ray, that we have analyzed above, showingthat it does not mean the uncre- ated energy but the very hypostasisofthe Spirit. Gregory of Cyprus, Apology,PG, C. We give here apersonaltranslation,distinct from Papadakis’ one, that we will discuss below (footnote ). See Papadakis, Crisis (as footnote above), .Werelyonthe Frenchtranslation of Françoise Vinel: “[L’Esprit] est dispensé, donné et envoyé par le Fils quand sont àmême de l’accueillir ceux àqui Il est envoyé,dispensé et donné; et Il se manifeste, brille et Se révèle éternellement”.See Larchet,Vie (as footnote above), . 1050 Byzantinische Zeitschrift Bd. 113/3, 2020: I. Abteilung patristic quotations which clearlyconcern the Spirit’shypostasis. Indeed, we find, among them, the lines cited by D. Stăniloae in support of his reading:
The Son, St.Basil says,makes known throughhimself and with himself the Spirit who proceedsfromthe Father.Thereforeifthe Spirit is always known with the Son, from whom he is never separated,then he is always through him. Now Gregory of Nyssaadds to the individualpersonal attributes of the Spirit which distinguish him fromFather and Son the fact that he is manifested and shines forth through the Son. If, therefore, younever know the Paraclete apart from his individual personal attributes, youwill not deny, if youare sensible, that his manifestation throughthe Son as aproper characteristic of himself as eternal is itself also eternal. ²⁰
We must admitthat this passage, as awhole, presents adifficulty.Wecan under- stand that the economic gift of uncreated energies in the Spirit through the Son is linked to the eternal manifestation through the Son of the Spirit’shypostasis. Such an interpretation can relyonthe fact thatGregory,inthe verbs used (and to alesser extent in the grammatical voices), distinguishes the economy from the eternity:inthe economy, the Spirit is said imparted, bestowed (χωρη- γεῖται), given(δίδοται), sent (ἀποστέλλεται), while he is manifested/manifests himself (ἐκϕαίνεται)²¹,shines forth (ἐκλάμπει), is revealed/reveals himself (ϕανεροῦται)²² in eternity.Toreservethe vocabulary of the manifestation for eter- nity maybethe means of subtlydistinguishing,while articulating,between di- vine energies in economyand the Spirit’shypostasis in eternity.Adistinction that would strengthen the syntactic parallelism introducedbythe prepositions …μὲν …δὲ,which articulatesthe two sentences.²³
Gregory of Cyprus, Apology. PG , D–A, personaltranslation. According to A. Bailly,Dictionnairegrec-français. Paris , ,this verb in the passive voice can take an active and reflexive meaning. The translation of F. Vinel takesitinto account (cf supra). Forthis verb, we can hesitatebetween the passive voiceand the middle one. Here also, F. Vinel adopts the active reflexive meaning(cf translation supra). We rely on F. Vinel, whoopts for the active voiceinher translation of the three verbs which concern the divine eternity (cf supra). A. Papadakis prefers the passive voice(except for the verb ἐκλάμπει,ofcourse). Furthermore, he introducesthe adverb “likewise” between the twoparts of the phrase, interpreting this waythe Greek words …μὲν …δὲ,whose meaningismoreopen and can indicateadistinctionbetween the two propositions which are paralleled.F.Vinel opts for a moreneutral translation, by the simple coordinatingconjunction “et” (cf supra). See Papadakis, Crisis (as footnote above), : “The Spirit is [economically] imparted, given, and sent through the Son to those whoare well disposed to accept it… Likewise, it is manifested, shines,and re- vealed eternally[in its eternal existence]”. A.-S.Vivier-Mureșan, The eternal manifestation of the Spirit 1051
It is noteworthythatinthe Tomus,wefind avery similar formulation:asimilar balancing introduced by …μὲν …δὲ drawsaparallel (while distinguishing) be- tween the eternal manifestation and shining forth of the Spirit through the Son, on one hand, and his sending,giving,bestowing in the economy, on the other hand.The terms usedare exactlythe same:
To the same, whoaffirm that the Paraclete, which is from the Father,has its existence through the Son and from the Son, and who,again, propose as proofthe phrase “the Spirit exists throughthe Son and from the Son”.Incertain texts [of the Fathers], the phrase denotes [μὲν]the Spirit’sshiningforth and manifestation – indeed, the very Paraclete shines forth and is manifest eternallythrough the Son, in the same waylight shines forth and is manifest through the intermediary of the sun’srays; it also [δὲ]denotes the be- stowing,giving, and sendingofthe Spirit to us. It does not,however,mean that it subsists through the Son and from the Son, and that it receivesits beingthrough Him and from Him.²⁴
The same parallelism introduced by …μὲν …δὲ,accompanied by the samelexical distinction, is also to be found in the Confession of Faith. Commenting on the ex- pression “by/through the Son”,Gregory affirms:
We know that [these words] mean for the saints [Fathers] [μὲν]the eternal manifestation [of the Spirit] by the Son, his shiningforth and his revelation, and [δὲ]the bestowing,sending and giving[of the Spirit] to us.²⁵
From these textswecan infer – but this remains an assumption – that Gregory of Cyprus has been graduallyled to clarify aterminologystill loose in the Anti- rrheticdiscourse.²⁶ He ultimatelyreserved the vocabulary of manifestation and shining forth to eternity (and to the hypostasis of the Spirit) and clearlydistin- guished, while articulating,which refers to eternity on the one hand, and to economyonthe other.Atthe end of this inquiry,wewould rather join the voices that are raised to affirm that the said Palamite doctrine of adouble eternal pro- cession of the Spirit as hypostasis and as energy cannot be found in the writings
Tomus, ..Our translation reliesonA.Papadakis’ one, but is personalinsome points (Pa- padakis,Crisis,asfootnote above, ). Fortranslating “δὲ”,wepreferred “also”,which is used in the French translation by Stavrou,Réévaluation (as footnote above), –. Gregory of Cyprus, Confession of faith,PG, BetC,personal translation. In the light of morerecent research, the Antirrhetic discourse appears to be the first work of Gregory on this subject.See C. Sabbatos,IntroductionauDiscours antirrhétique,inLarchet,Vie (as footnote above), – (here –). 1052 Byzantinische Zeitschrift Bd. 113/3, 2020: I. Abteilung of Gregory of Cyprus.²⁷ From there, we can, like V. Palachkovsky²⁸,consider the thoughtofGregory as incomplete. But we can also, like D. Stăniloae, take it as it is and assume it as such. We are not entitled to decidethis question but we be- lievetohaveshown that the readingofD.Stăniloae and others does not betray the text of the Byzantine patriarch.
The eternal relationship of the Spirit to the Son in the worksofGregory Palamas
We will continue our inquiry by analyzingthe writingsofGregory Palamas, which are alsointerpreted in different ways.
The One Hundred and Fifty Chapters
We will start with the text of TheOne Hundred and Fifty Chapters which is in the centreofthe discussions. In these lines, Gregory Palamas “describes” adouble orientation of the Spirit,from the Father to the Son, and from the Son to the Fa- ther:
But that Spirit of the supreme Word is likeanineffable love[ἔρωϛ]ofthe Begetter towards the ineffablybegotten Word himself. The beloved Word and Son of the Father also expe- riences [χρῆται = “uses” in litt.sense] this lovetowards the Begetter,but he does so in- asmuch as he possesses this loveasproceeding fromthe Father together with him and as resting connaturallyinhim. ²⁹
Palachkovsky,Controverse (as footnote above), ;and aboveall J. vanRossum, who, in abrief study, preciselyseeks to show that the texts of Gregory of Cyprus have been inappropri- atelyinterpreted according to aPalamitereading grid; he explicitelyrecognizes that the shining forth of the Spirit throughthe Son concernsthe person of the Spirit and not the divine energy: van Rossum,Gregory of Cyprus and Palamism(as footnote above), –.J.-C.Larchet answers him that he has not taken into account the first writings of the Cypriot,and especially the Antirrhetic discourse,whereitisclearlystatedthe distinction between the uncreated energies and the hypostasis of the Spirit (Larchet,Vie, as footnote above, ,footnote ). The criticism, however,isunfoundedbecause J. van Rossum notes this distinction made by Gregory of Cyprus but does not consider relevant to applyittothe eternal manifestation of the Spirit through the Son. Palachkovsky,Controverse (as footnote above), . Gregory Palamas, Theone hundred and fifty chapters,trans. R.E. Sinkewicz,§.Toronto , . A.-S.Vivier-Mureșan, The eternal manifestation of the Spirit 1053
We mentioned in the introduction that(the young) J. Meyendorff, S. Verkhovsky and D. Stăniloae read in this passageanexpression of the eternal shining forth of Spirit’shypostasis, who rests from the Father on the Son and returns to the Father through the Son.³⁰ On the contrary,A.Radović recognizes in the “Spirit” which is mentioned in these lines the uncreated energy.³¹
Therefore, Palamas, when he names the Spirit “love” of the Begetter for his Word ineffably begotten, “by which” the Son also “is in relation with the Begetter”,just formulates a fundamental Biblical truth: “God is love” (agapè). […]Itisclear that this charity (agapè) can not be ahypostaticproperty.Itiscommon to the Trinity (“God’sreturn to himself”), it is one and in the same time “threefold” eternal glory,energy,and flame of the divine Being, that is of the one and tri-hypostaticessenceofGod.³²
To arguehis point,A.Radović first emphasizes thataccording to Palamas, “God’swork without beginning”,that is the dynamismofdivine life understood as “God’sreturn to himself”,corresponds to the “movement” of “the eternal common energy”.³³ We do not pretend to question this specific point of the Pal- amite doctrine. However,wecan notice thatPalamas alsodescribes areturn to the Father of the hypostases of the Son and the Spirit themselves. In the prologue of his first Apodictic Treatise,Palamas addresses aprayertothe Trinity,wherehe states,evoking the “onlyprinciple, beyond all principle” (hence the Father): “the onlymonad without cause from which come [litt. “are produced, brought to the outside”: προάγεσθον]and to which return [litt. “are brought back”: ἀνάγεσθον], outside time and without cause,the Son and the Spirit”.³⁴
Meyendorff,Procession(as footnote above); Verkhovsky,Procession (as footnote above); Stăniloae,Trinitarian relations (as footnote above). – Notethat J. Lison considers this text as concerningthe hypostasis of the Spirit,evenifheadopts the views of V. Lossky about an eternal manifestation of the divine energy (in the Spirit) through the Son: Lison,L’E- sprit répandu (as footnote above), –. Just mention that,morerecently, M. Orphanoshas developed areadingsimilar to that of A. Radović (and referringtohim): Orphanos,Procession (as footnote above), . A. Radović,LemystèredelaSainteTrinitéselon Saint Grégoire Palamas.Paris , . Personal translation.Note that Radović givesatranslation different to Sinkewicz’sone. Indeed, the word “χρῆται” also means “avoir commerce” (in French), that we have translated: “to be in relation with”. Radović, Le Filioque (as footnote above), ;See also Radović,Mystère (as footnote above), –.Wedonot develop the position of M. Orphanos,who just repeats the argu- ments of A. Radović on this point: Orphanos,Procession (as footnote above), –. Gregory Palamas, Apodictic treatise I, prologue, personal translation;E.Perrella (ed.), Gre- gorio Palamas,Attoeluce divina. Scritti filosofici eteologici. Milan , . 1054 Byzantinische Zeitschrift Bd. 113/3, 2020: I. Abteilung
Secondly, A. Radović relies on the metaphor of love(ἔρωϛ)used to name the Spirit(“as alove[τιϛ ἔρωϛ]ofthe Father to the Son”): in Palamas’ work (as more generallyinthe doctrine of uncreated energy inheritedfrom his predecessors), the names can refer to the energy but not to the essence nor to the hypostases, transcendingall knowledge.These lines concern then “not the person of the Spi- rit but his eternal and manifested power”.³⁵ The argument is not without force. However,itisweakened if we admit that the term eros,here, does not name the being of God as “love” (usuallyrather named by the word ἀγάπη in reference to 1Jn4,8)but onlyconstitutes a “defi- cient image” (to use the words of A. Radović himself), that aims at describingthe person of the Spirit in his relations to the Father and to the Son. Indeed, the pat- ristic tradition does not ignorethe use of images to describe the divine persons and their reciprocal relations within the Trinitarian life. We can mention,for ex- ample,Cyril’simageofthe Spirit as nous (νοῦϛ)ofthe Son, that Palamas himself assumes³⁶,or, in different terms, the nous – logos – pneuma triad developedby the Cappadocians to enlighten the relations of the three Persons³⁷,orlastlythe imageofthree nestedsuns pouring asingle light,used by Gregory of Nazianzus to describe the paradoxofTrinitarian unity.³⁸ Moreover,aprecise analysis of the context of this text makes the hypostatic character of the Spirit unmistakable in his very designation of eros of the Father and the Son. Indeed, the two preceding chapters are preciselyconcerned with representing the Person of the Father as nous (§ 34) and the person of the Son as logos (§ 35), and defining in this framework the bond thatunites them. Chap- ter 36 concludes this Trinitarian development by presentinginturn the person of the Spirit as eros in his relationship to the Father-nous and the Son-logos. We
We quotehere the whole passage: “If we take into account the view of the saint,according to which every name applied to God refers to what is ‘participated’,that is to the ‘energy’ of the Trinity – the essencecan absolutelynot have anyname (the essenceand the hypostasis are named from the energy which reveals them), we will easilyunderstand that the Spirit “like an ineffable love” does not refertothe hypostasis of the Spirit but to his eternal and manifested power.” Radović,Mystère (as footnote above), .Personal translation. Indeed, Palamastakesonand comments on this imageinhis Apodictic Treatise II, § :Per- rella,Gregorio Palamas (as footnote above), .Herefers to Cyril of Alexandria, Thesau- rus,§. On the historical development of this analogy and its reception, see M. Stavrou,L’Esprit Saint accompagne le Verbe. Récurrenced’une formule pneumatologique dans l’histoire de la théologie byzantine, in G.Vergauwen/A. Steingruber (eds.),Veni, SancteSpiritus! Contributions théologiques àlamission de l’Esprit.Festschrift für BarbaraHallensleben zum .Geburtstag. Münster , – (ici ssq.). Gregory of Nazianzus,Oration ,§. A.-S.Vivier-Mureșan, The eternal manifestation of the Spirit 1055 quote here the first lines introducing the chapter 36,lines sufficientlyexplicit in themselves. In particular, the illustrative statusthat Palamas giveshere to the term eros is visible:
Sincethe goodnesswhich proceeds by generation from intellectual goodness[τῆϛνοερᾶϛ ἀγαθότητοϛ]asfrom asource is the Word [λόγοϛ], and sincenointelligent person could conceive of awordwithout spirit,for this reason the Word,God from God, possesses also the HolySpirit proceedingtogether with him from the Father.But this is spirit not in the sense of the breath which accompanies the word passingthroughour lips (for this is abody and is adapted to our word through bodilyorgans); nor is it spirit in the sense of that which accompanies the immanentand the discursive words within us, even though it does so incorporeally[…]. But that Spirit of the supreme Word is like an ineffable love[τιϛ ἔρωϛ]of the Begettertowards the ineffablybegotten Word himself. ³⁹
The reading of the chapter 37 confirms this analysis.Indeed, by repeatingthis designation of the Spirit as eros,Palamas can state:
Therefore, this love[ἔρωϛ]isthe Holy Spirit and another
Here, the word eros can hardlyrefer to areality other thanthe hypostasis of the Spirit, since the text develops the paradoxofthe one God in threePersons. More- over,the mentions of the name of Paraclete and of the procession from the Fa- ther (alone)can onlyapplytothe hypostasis of the third person. Lastly, our anal- ysis is confirmed by an evident parallel with the end of the chapter 35:this latter, which aims at characterizingthe person of the Son-logos in his relation to the Father-nous,concluded indeedinanalmost identical formulation:
Therefore, the supreme Word is also the Son and is so named by us,inorder that we may recognize him as beingperfect in aperfect and proper hypostasis,sinceheisderivedfrom the Father and is in no wayinferior to the Father’ssubstance but is indistinguishably identicalwith him, though not in hypostasis, which indicates that the Word is derivedfrom him by generation in adivinelyfitting manner.⁴¹
Translation of Sinkewicz, The one hundred (as footnote above), –. Ibid., . Ibid., . 1056 Byzantinische Zeitschrift Bd. 113/3, 2020: I. Abteilung
We must admit thatPalamas develops here, perhaps underAugustine’s influence⁴²,ananalogical representation of the Trinity as nous-logos-eros; there- fore, the metaphor of the eros of the Father for the Son and of the Son for the Father clearly refers to the person (hypostasis) of the HolySpirit.⁴³
The Apodictic Treatises on the Holy Spirit
More broadly, what about the distinction between the hypostatic procession and an eternal energetic manifestation of the Spiritinthe Apodictic Treatises on the Holy Spirit ?The question is delicate and should be studied in detail. The texts which mention the Spiritasdivineenergy (and they are numerous) visiblyconcern onlythe economy, that is the gift and the sending of the Spirit to humans⁴⁴.Acrucial passageshows it clearlybydrawingaparallel between the procession of the Spirit as energy (in the economy) and the procession of the Spi- rit as hypostasis (in eternity):
Indeed, the procession [ἐκπόρευσις], in every waywetalk about it,isprocessio [πρόοδος] and movement [κίνησις]related to whoisthe source of procession and to whoisproceeded. The processio [πρόοδος]ofthe Spirit is proclaimed double by the divinelyinspired Scrip- ture:indeed, the Spirit comes from the Father through [διά]the Son but also, if youwant, from [ἐκ]the Son, upon all those whoare worthy, on whom he rests and in whom he dwells. […]Concerning the processio [πρόοδος]ofthe Spirit fromthe Father through the Son, that we talked about,itisalso named benevolenceofthe Father and the Son, because it is totallydone for the loveofhumans,but also mission, gift,descent,and it always happens in time in favour of some, for aspecific cause, to sanctify,toinstruct,toremind and to admonish the rebels;this movement,this processio [πρόοδος]ofthe Spirit is one [of both movements/processio/processions]. There is also the procession [ἐκπόρευσις], the movement [κίνησις], the processio [πρόοδος]ofthe Spirit,which is eternal, without cause, free,superior to benevolenceand
It is now proved that Theone and hundred chapters contains, in chapters –,some quotes from the Greek translation of Augustine’s De Trinitate. R.E. Sinkewicz thereforecon- cludes that the chapters – “must be consideredalso now to bear the imprint of Augustine’s influence”:R.E.Sinkewicz,Gregory Palamas,inC.G.Conticello /V.Conticello (eds.), La théo- logie byzantine et sa tradition II. Turnhout , –. The analogical dimension of the development is then verified: in chapter ,Palamas ap- plies the tripartition of mind, wordand eros to the angelic structure. Forthe Greek text see Perrella,Gregorio Palamas (as footnote above), –. – Apo- dictic treatise I, § , ; Apodictic treatise II, § à , –;§, –;§–, –;§ and , – and –;§–, –;§, ;§, – ;§, –,§, ;§, –,§, –. A.-S.Vivier-Mureșan, The eternal manifestation of the Spirit 1057
lovefor human, because it emanates eternallyfromthe Father,not by an act of will, but by nature.⁴⁵
Examining how to understand this “indescribable and incomprehensible move- ment”,Palamas relies on the episode of baptism in the GospelofJohn,inwhich the Spirit is said to “descend upon” and to “abide in” Christ (Jn1:32–33), to af- firm thatitrefers to the rest of the Spirit on the Son. Quoting John of Damascus⁴⁶, he alsorelies on Gregory the Theologian to describe the Son as “intendant” (τα- μίας)ofthe Spirit.⁴⁷ He immediatelydistinguishesthis eternal procession, from the Father alone, from the processio of the energies, from the Father and the Son, which belongstothe economy.
Therefore, in this procession, this eternal and incomprehensible processio from the Father, the HolySpirit,who rests on the Son, how would he have this processio [πρόοδος]through [διά]the Son on whom he rests ?Then, if yousay,fromadoctrinal point of view,that he comes [προέρχεσθαι]also from the Son, it can not mean the same processio,but an other, which is amanifestation [ϕανέρωσις]directed to us and agift to those whoare worthyto receive it.⁴⁸
Palamas uses here the word “manifestation” (φανέρωσις)for the procession on the economic level, which concerns the divine energies. In other lines, he clearly states:
Forweknow that the manifestation(φανέρωσις)istemporal and that all that is temporal has come through the Son; and this is preciselywhy we saythat the Spirit manifests himself (φανεροῦσθαι), but does not proceed fromhim and through him.⁴⁹
Gregory Palamas, Apodictic treatise I, § ,inE.Perrella (ed.), Gregorio Palamas, Atto e luce divina (as footnote above), –.The translation is apersonal one. Notethat the Frenchtranslation of the same page by Yvan Koenigisnot exact: indeed, this latter translates sometimes ἐκπόρευσις or πρόοδος by “revelation”, “manifestation”,which does not help to clar- ify Palamas’ thought. We have opted for remainingasclose as possible to Greek terminology. To translate πρόοδος,wehavechosen the Latin word “processio”,which can designate the origin of the Son as wellasthe origin of the Spirit.For the Greek text: Perrella,Gregorio Palamas (as footnote above), and . “We also believeinone Holy Spirit,the Lord and GiverofLife: whoproceeds from the Father and rests in the Son”:John of Damascus, An exact exposition of the Orthodoxfaith, I, . Gregory Palamas, Apodictic treatise I, § ,inPerrella,Gregorio Palamas (as footnote above), . Gregory Palamas, Apodictictreatise I, § ,inPerrella, –;personal translation. Gregory Palamas, Apodictictreatise II, § ,inPerrella, ;personal translation. 1058 Byzantinische Zeitschrift Bd. 113/3, 2020: I. Abteilung
Palamas thus distinguishesadouble procession of the Spirit,ashypostasis and as energy,but it does not correspond exactlytothe “double procession” evoked by V. Lossky.For the latter, thereisadouble eternal procession: hypostatic pro- cession of the Spirit from the Father alone and ‘manifesting’ (or energetic) pro- cession of the Spirit from the Father through the Son⁵⁰.Infact,wefind in Pala- mas’ text the distinctionbetween an eternal procession, from the Father on the Son, which concerns the hypostasis of the Spirit,and an economic procession (or rather a “processio”⁵¹) – alsocalled manifestation – from the Father through the Son, which concerns the (tri-hypostatic) energies of the Spirit.⁵² On this point,J.Meyendorff, who developedlater in his book on Palamas the argument of V. Lossky,has visiblyalso overlooked the temporalaspect of the Spirit’sprocession “through the Son” as energy.Indeed, when he states that Pal- amas takes over in the Treaties the topic of the eternal shining forth of the Spirit (understood by J. Meyendorff as divine energy),⁵³ first developedbyGregory of Cyprus, he relies on quotes that,accuratelytranslated and seen in their proper context,clearlyrefer to the economic giving of the Spirit:
The hesychast doctor explains in that sense the patristic passages, notably those of saint Cyril of Alexandria, whereitisaffirmed that the Spirit comesfromboth (“ἐξ ἀμφοῖν”), or “from the Son” or “through the Son”. “When youhear him [Cyril of Alexandria] say, Pal- amas writes, that the Holy Spirit proceedsfromboth because he comesessentiallyfromthe
In the above-mentioned pages(as footnote above), V. Lossky writes: “The poverty of the vocabulary makes sometimes difficulttoknow if is mentioned the hypostaticprocession of the Holy Spirit or the manifestingprocession: both areeternal […].” Personal translation. To qualify the origin of the Spirit as energy,Palamas uses rather the term “processio” (πρόο- δος). However,heaccepts,inabrief passage, that it maybecalled “procession” (ἐκπόρευσις) “ sincewewill not arguefor words”.Gregory Palamas, Apodictic treatise I, § ,inPerrella,Gre- gorio Palamas (as footnote above), and . The purelyeconomic dimension of the manifestation of divine energies as formulated in the Apodictic Treatises is also notedbyPalachkovsky,Lacontroverse (as footnoteabove ), ; and Radović,Lemystère (as footnote above), and (note that Radović preciselycom- ments this passageand the “double procession” of the Spirit it describes). Morerecently, M. Knežević has highlighted it morepreciselybyanalyzing the distinct use of “ἐκ” and “διά” in Palamas’ writings.Heshows that the use of “ἐκ” is generallyrestrictedtothe theological level to mean the hypostaticorigin (of the Son and the Spirit) fromthe Father,and the use of “διά”,generallyrestricted to the economic level, to describe the mediation of the Son in the gift/manifestation of the Spirit (as uncreated energy): M. Knežević, Ἐκ and διά in ‘Apodictic trea- tises on the procession of the Holy Spirit’ of Gregory Palamas, in C. Athanasopoulos (ed.), Triune God: Incomprehensible but knowable – the philosophical and theological significanceofSt Gregory Palamasfor contemporary philosophyand theology.Newcastle , – (here ). Meyendorff,Introduction(as footnote above), –. A.-S.Vivier-Mureșan, The eternalmanifestation of the Spirit 1059
Father through the Son, youmust understand his teachinginthis way: what is given[‘ce qui s’épanche’ in J. Meyendorff’stranslation] arethe powers and the essential energies of God, not the divine hypostasisofthe Spirit”. “The hypostasis of the very Holy Spirit does not comefromthe Son; it is not givennor receivedbyanyone, but onlythe divine grace and the divine energy”.⁵⁴
The first quote, which is taken from the second Treaty,§20,refers in fact to an economic context.Itconcludes apassageinwhich Palamas explains thateach one of the three divine Persons has manifested himself successively in time and has granted the divine energies to mankind in thatmanifestation. It is worth noting that J. Meyendorff translatesonlyapproximately, with the French word “épanchement” (which could refertothe eternal procession of the energy), the Greek word μετάδοσις,which accurately means “gift”, “sharing” and there- fore clearlyrefers to the economyofsalvation. The verbs usedinthe second quote (δίδοσθαι, λάμβεσθαι)alsoobviously refer to economy. Moreover,this phrase is taken from apassageofthe second Treaty (§ 48), wherePalamas unambiguously writes about the gift of the energy to mankind. Indeed, in the previous lines of the sameparagraph, Palamas states:
“Therefore,while it is often said of the divine-human Word,and then of the theophoremen, that the Spirit is sent and givenby/through the Son, he [the Spirit] has never be said without cause nor without aperson to receive him, aperson for whom he has also been sent.”⁵⁵
However,since the energies are uncreated, it is legitimate to suppose that their economic manifestation maybetransposed on the eternal level. Asingle text in the Apodictic Treaties addresses this question. It is part of along comment on a representation of the Spirit as mind (νοῦς)ofthe Son, accordingtoanimagein- herited form Cyril. We quote these lines because theircorrect understanding is crucial:
In the same way, the Holy Spirit belongs to Christ as God, as wellinessenceasinenergy. But this is in terms of essenceand hypostasis that he is to him [αὐτοῦ], but not from him [ἐξ αὐτοῦ]; in terms of energy he is to him [αὐτοῦ]and from him [ἐξαὐτοῦ]. […]
Meyendorff,Introduction(as footnote above), . Gregory Palamas, Apodictic treatise II, § ,inPerrella,Gregorio Palamas(as footnote above), .Personal translation. 1060 Byzantinische Zeitschrift Bd. 113/3, 2020: I. Abteilung
Do yousee that the Spirit is said fromthe Son as bestowed [χορηγούμενον]and manifested[ϕαινόμενον]byhim ?Thus,the Spirit is and is said from the Son without be- ginning; but the Son has also the power to bestow [αὐτὸ τὸ χορηγεῖν ἔχειν ἔχει]without beginning, because there is herenoaddition nor deletion, as for the beings subject to time, whoassumed in time the ability to bestow.⁵⁶
The Son is here called the eternal bestower of the Spirit and we could therefore infer atransposition of the economic manifestation of the energy through the Son into eternity.Thismay be the step taken by V. Lossky and his heirs, notably J. Meyendorff.⁵⁷ However,itisdifficult to affirmitfrom this brief passagealone. Indeed, the Byzantine author does not write that the Son eternallybestows the energy of the Spirit but rather,inaquite awkwardphrase, thathehas the power to do so (αὐτὸ τὸ χορηγεῖν ἔχειν ἔχει), as if he wanted to avoid formally recognizinganeternal manifestation of the Spirit through the Son. In this formu- la (αὐτὸ τὸ χορηγεῖν ἔχειν ἔχει), should we not rather see the image, borrowed from Gregory the Theologian,ofthe Son as “intendant of the Spirit”?⁵⁸ In this case, reference is made to the eternal rest of the Spiritonthe Son. In other words, the articulation between the theological level and the economic one is here designated: thatisbecause the Spirit, in his hypostasis, rests eternallyon the Son and abides in him that, in the economy, the divine energies are sent in the Spirit from the Father through the Son.⁵⁹ Other texts seem to confirm it:
Gregory Palamas, Apodictic treatise II, § et ,inPerrella, –.Personal transla- tion. V. Lossky,onthis point,does not detail his reference to Palamas.J.Meyendorff explicitlyre- fers to these lines and then concludes: “The distinction between the essenceand the energy al- lows the hesychast doctor to be moretolerant than manyother Greek theologians towards the Latin formulations: as energy, ‘the Spirit comesfromthe Father through the Son but also, if you want,from[ἐκ]the Son, upon all those whoare worthy’ […]Itisthe Orthodoxmeaningthat we can give to the Latin Filioque: while savingthe personalismofthe Fathers and the traditional position of the Byzantins concerning the ‘economic’ procession of the Spirit from the Son, Pal- amas,because he regards the energies as uncreated and eternal, does not limit this ‘economy’ to atemporal order”.Meyendorff,Introduction (as footnote above), –.Personal trans- lation. Gregory Palamas, Apodictic treatise I, § ,inPerrella,Gregorio Palamas (as footnote above), . It is in this sense that D. Stăniloae understandsPalamas in his studyof: “La procession du Saint Esprit du Pèreetsarelation avec le Fils comme base de notre déification et adoption”. Stăniloae,Procession (as footnote above), –.A.Radović develops similar views: “D’une part,lamanifestation et la dispensation de l’Esprit s’accomplit dans le temps,duFils et par le Fils, d’autre part,lefait de dispenserest la propriété éternelle du Fils,qui al’Esprit éternellement reposant en lui”.Hethen quotes Palamas, whostresses the equal powertobestow the Spirit of the Father and the Son: “The powertosend the HolySpirit on those whoare worthy A.-S.Vivier-Mureșan, The eternal manifestation of the Spirit 1061
In fact,the Son sends the Spirit and giveshim to us preciselybecause he co-exists with him [ἔχων συνυφεστὼςτὸπνεῦμα]fromall eternity.⁶⁰
On the one hand, the Spirit has eternallyfrom the Father the existential processio [τὴν ὑπαρτικὴνπρόοδον], while, on the other hand, existinginthe Son eternally, he comes from him to manifest himself [εἰςτοὐμϕανὲς]tousand among us by acomingwhich is revealing but not existential [κατ’ἐκϕαντικὴνκαὶοὐχὑπαρκτικὴνπροέλευσιν].⁶¹
Avariant of the formula mentioned above, as it appears in the first Apodictic Treatise,bringsout the distinction between the economic and theological levels. After having presented the Spirit as mind (νοῦς)ofthe Son and the implications of this imagefor the distinction between hypostasis and energy,heconcludes:
On the one hand, in terms of energy,he[the Spirit] is to him [the Son] and fromhim, as breathed [ἐμϕυσώμενον], sent [πεμπόμενον]and manifested [ϕανερούμενον]; but on the other hand, in terms of existenceand hypostasis,heistohim without beingfromhim, but from the one whobegot him.⁶²
Placing on the same level the terms “manifested”, “insufflated” and “sent” shows that this manifestation is economic. The word “insufflated” directlyrefers to the text of the Gospel of John whereJesus breathes the Spirit on the apostles (John 20,22).Let’sremember that Palamas, following Gregory of Cyprus, relies on this text to demonstrate that the economic gift of the Spirit concerns the di- vine energies and not his very hypostasis.⁶³ Unless we consider thatthe thought of Palamas has marked astageinthe second Apodictic Treatise – which is not
is eternallycommon to the Father and the Son. Each of them sends him in time, but both send him rather when it is appropriate” (Gregory Palamas, Apodictic treatise II, § ,inPerell,Gre- gorio Palamas,asfootnote above, ): Radović,Mystère (as footnote above), .More recently, M. Knežević,analyzing the Apodictic Treatises,reaches the same conclusion: “To put it otherwise, the inner-trinitarian relation between the Son and the Spirit,owingtowhich the Spi- rit,asnaturallyexistingfromthe Father in the Son, has all the energy of the Son, and thanks to which the Son is called ‘the treasurer of the divine Spirit’,isakeyprerequisitefor the possibility of givingthe Spirit on the part of the incarnated Son in the domain of the economyofsalvation”: M. Knežević, Ἐξ ἀμφοῖν.Cyril of Alexandria and the polemics over filioque of Gregory Palamas, International Journal for Philosophy and Theology (), – (here ). Gregory Palamas, Apodictic treatise II, § ,inPerrella,Gregorio Palamas(as footnote above), Gregory Palamas, Apodictictreatise II, § , in Perrella, ;personaltranslation. Gregory Palamas, Apodictictreatise I, § ,inPerrella, ;personal translation. Gregory Palamas, Apodictictreatise II, § ,inPerrella, –. 1062 Byzantinische Zeitschrift Bd. 113/3, 2020: I. Abteilung impossible⁶⁴ – the manifestation of the Spirit through the Son here clearlyap- pears limited to its economic dimension.⁶⁵ Even while remainingwithin the framework of the second Treatise,other el- ementsquestion the interpretation givenbyV.Lossky and J. Meyendorff. In fact, Palamas emphasizes that the manifestation of energies was done first by the Fa- ther in the history of the Old Covenant,laterbythe Son at the Resurrection, and then by the Spirit at Pentecost:
Our Lord Jesus Christ,who wants to reveal his consubstantiality with the Father and the Spirit in his divinity,gives to his disciples by grace the natural energy of the divinity,asthe Father had previouslygiven to the prophets some of these energies.And the Spirit,for its part,came down after the ascension of the Saverand gave also such energies to the dis- ciples,revealingthat he is also consubstantial with the Father and the Son.⁶⁶
In othertexts,Palamas states thatthe Spirit as energy sends himself as much as he is sent by the Father and the Son, since the energy,comingfrom the divine essence, is tri-hypostatic.⁶⁷ Even if we recognized with V. Lossky and J. Meyen- dorff the idea of an eternal “energetic” procession of the Spirit from the Father and the Son, this one would be onlythe incompleteassertion of an eternal pro- cession of the Spirit from the Father,the Son and himself and could not be as- similated to the theme of the manifestation of the Spirit through the Son devel-
That is neither impossible,nor evident.Indeed, in the “Epilogue” of the first Treatise,where he summarizes his thought chapterafter chapter, Palamas takes, for the chapter ,the same phrase without its economic frame (“the Spirit […]interms of energy (ἐνέργεια)istohim and from him, but in terms of hypostasis,heisnaturallytohim but not from him, but from the Fa- ther alone”.Gregory Palamas, Apodictic treatise I, Epilogue, in Perrella,Gregorio Palamas (as footnote above), ), then strictlysimilar to the lines he writes in his second Treatise. We can thereforeconsider that when he writes these words, either in the “Epilogue” or in the second Treatise,henaturallypresupposes the economic dimension,alreadyexplicited in the full text of the first Treatise. That is this waythat A. Radović comments on these texts of Palamas,understanding the words “from him” as related onlytoeconomy: A. Radović,Mystère (as footnote above), – and .Let us remember,toreadhim rightly, that accordingtohim Palamas evokes amanifestation of the Spirit onlyinthe frame of economy. Gregory Palamas, Apodictic treatise II, § ,inPerrella,Gregorio Palamas(as footnote above), ;personaltranslation. See also Gregory Palamas, Apodictictreatise II, § ,inPer- rella,Gregorio Palamas (as footnote above), : “The power to send the Holy Spirit on those whoare worthyiseternallycommontothe Father and the Son. Each of them sends him in time, but both send him rather when it is appropriate”. Gregory Palamas, Apodictic treatise II, § and § ,inPerrella,Gregorio Palamas(as footnote above), and . A.-S.Vivier-Mureșan, The eternal manifestation of the Spirit 1063 oped by Gregory of Cyprus, in which the relation of the Spirit to the Son appears specific, structuring.⁶⁸ Finally, Palamas does not formulate anyeternal relationship in God involv- ing a “by/through” the Son, where “through” is understood in its literal sense. He unequivocallyaffirms, commenting on what he sees as the first patristic occur- renceofa“being” of the Spirit through/by the Son (and here we are in the sec- ond Apodictic Treatise) ⁶⁹:
Do yousee to what extent we must understand and saythat the Spirit is through the Only Son ?Onlytothe extent that he is manifested to men throughhim. […] But if instead of “through” [διά], youwanted to put the preposition “from” [ἐκ], we would not blame youatall, as long as youthink and presuppose onlythe truth: it is from the Son that the Spirit has manifested himself to us.⁷⁰
If Palamas accepts the equivalencedevelopedbythe Latins between “by/ through” (διά)and “from” (ἐκ)provided that it is restricted to the economy, he refuses,onthe theological level, to understand the “by/through” other than in
See some lines of the Apology,mentioned above, where the manifestationofthe Spirit is said to be related to the hypostatic properties of the Spirit: Gregory of Cyprus, Apology,PG, D–A. – To be exhaustive,wemust add to our discussion the analysisofsome lines of another Palamitetext, which could support the views of V. Losskyand J. Meyendorff (but are not quoted by them): “One is in fact the movement of the divine will, which comes from the cau- sality of the Father – which is the principle of everything – and moves forwardthrough the Son and manifests itself [προφαινομένη]inthe Holy Spirit”:Gregory Palamas, Unity and distinction, § (personal translation); for the Greek textsee Perrella,Gregorio Palamas (as footnote above), . “The divinity is in atrue sense the divine energy,which comesfromthe Father through the Son in the Spirit and reveals itself [ἀποκεκαλυμμένη]through the works accom- plished”:Gregory Palamas, Unity and distinction,§ (personal translation.); for the Greek text see Perrella,Gregorio Palamas(as footnote above), .Inthese lines,itisnot clear if the movement of the energy from the Father through the Son in the Spirit is eternal. It maybe. But we must note two things: .These lines areisolated and appear in the framework of the distinction between essence, hypostasis and energy;the context is not at all adiscussion on the Filioque and on the patristic formulations which affirm aprocession of the Spirit through the Son. Palamas does not conclude anythingconcerning this matter here. .The energies are not identified with the Spirit.These lines describe aprocession of the energy ‘through the Son in the Spirit’ and not aprocession of the Spirit as energy through the Son. Thereforewecan not concludethat Palamas has identified on the theological level the processionofthe energy with aprocession of the Spirit (throughthe Son) as energy. It is aphrase of Gregory Thaumaturgus: “One is the Holy Spirit,who has also his existence from the Father and whohas been manifested through the Son, that is to humans”:Gregory Thaumaturgus, Expositio fidei. PG , A; personal translation. Gregory Palamas, Apodictic treatise II, § and ,inPerrella,Gregorio Palamas (as foot- note above), ;personal translation. 1064 Byzantinische Zeitschrift Bd. 113/3, 2020: I. Abteilung the sense of a “with”.Commenting on asentenceofGregory of Nazianzus defin- ing the Spirit as “being with the principle” ⁷¹,hewrites:
Therefore, when youhear that the Spirit proceedsthrough the Son [διὰ τοῦὑἱοῦἐκπο- ρεύεσθαι], understand that he accompanies the Word [ὡϛσυμπαρομαρτοῦντῷλόγῳ]. For thus youwill understand the “through” [διά]not in the sense of “from” [ἐκ], which is false, but in the sense of “with” [μετά], in agreement with the eponym of the theology [follows a quotation of John of Damascus, An exact Exposition of the OrthodoxFaith,VII: “the Spirit of God, whoisthe companion of the Word and the revealer of his operation”].⁷²
In this “being with” the Son of the Spirit⁷³,wemustsee the rest of the Spirit on the Son as indicated by the lines that immediatelyfollow.⁷⁴ M. Knežević has shown more largely that when διά is usedbyPalamas on atheological plan (and not in economy), it means the co-existenceand consubstantiality of the Son and the Spirit⁷⁵.Indeed, otherpassages of the Apodictic Treatises develop the interdependance of the Son and the Spirit in eternity,interpreting the “being with the Son” of the Spirit in terms of consubstantiality and circuminces- sion:
“simultaneouslyfromthe eternity areboth the Son and the HolySpirit,[as] the one existing within the other and [as] the one belongingtothe other and [as] the one dwellingwithin the other,without anyconfusion and blending[…]”.⁷⁶
“The beingwithout principle,the principle and the beingwith the principle areone God”: Gregory of Nazianzus, Oration , . Gregory Palamas, Apodictic treatise I, § ,inPerrella,Gregorio Palamas (as footnote above), ;personal translation. The same argument is repeated in the same terms in the Trea- tise II, § ,inPerrella,Gregorio Palamas (as footnote above), . Gregory Palamasrefers to aconsecrated formulation (“the Spirit accompanies the Word”), elaborated by Gregory of Nazianzusand Gregory of Nyssaand adopted by John of Damascus in the Exact exposition of the Orthodoxfaith. On this issue and for these references, see Stavrou, L’Esprit saint (as footnote above). Indeed, Palamas quotes Cyril who writes that “the Spirit passes from the Father in the Son [παρὰ πατρὸϛδιήκειν ἐνυἱῷ]”.Gregory Palamas, Apodictictreatise II, § ,inPerrella,Gregor- io Palamas (as footnote above), . Knežević, Ἐκ and διά (as footnote above), –. Gregory Palamas, Apodictic treatise I, § ,inPerrella,Gregorio Palamas (as footnote above), .TranslationofKnežević,The order (τάξις)ofpersons of the Holy Trinity in ‘Apodictic treatises’ of Gregory Palamas. International Journal for Philosophyand Theology (), – (here ). See also Apodictic treatise II, § . A.-S.Vivier-Mureșan, The eternal manifestation of the Spirit 1065
As M. Knežević highlights it,Palamas understood in the sameterms the Cyrilian words “ἐξ ἀμφοῖν”⁷⁷.Onthis point,the reading of J. Meyendorff is visiblyunac- curate. Indeed, the Russian theologian writes,inthe alreadymentioned lines ar- guing the topic of an eternal “energetic” procession of the Spirit through the Son:
He [Palamas] notes that the patristic passages which seem to be supportive of the Latin doctrine do not affirm that the Spirit proceedsfromthe hypostasis of the Son, but “from the natureofthe Son”, “that he naturally(φυσικῶς)comes from the Son”.Yet,whatproceeds from the natureisthe energy,not the hypostasis.⁷⁸
The lastphrase is acomment of J. Meyendorff, which, in fact,does not reflect exactlyPalamas’ thought.Wehavenot found in Palamite texts anyequivalent assertion in this context.Tocomment the words “ἐξ ἀμφοῖν” on atheological level, Palamas refers rather to the consubstantiality of the Son and the Spirit. The following passages are clear:
Everytimethat Cyril, this theophoreman, says that the Spirit is fromthe essenceofthe Son, he refers to the consubstantiality [τὸὁμοούσιον]ofthe Son, and not to the fact that the Son would be the cause of the Spirit.⁷⁹ It could be wellsaid that the Spirit does not proceed from the hypostasis of the Son, but naturallyfromthe Father and from the essenceofthe Son, duetothe consubstantiality of the Son with the Father,sothat – since this shows the consubstantiality of the divine Spirit with the Father and the Son, and not the different existenceofthe Spirit fromthe Father –,due to the consubstantiality,itisthe same to saythe Spirit is also from the es- senceofthe Son and to saythe Spirit is of the same essencewith the Son.⁸⁰
Our first conclusions are therefore confirmed: for Palamas, the eternal proces- sion of the Spirit “through the Son”,asitwas formulated by the Fathers, con- cerns not the energy but his hypostasis and must be understood as the close con- nection between the begetting of the Son and the procession of the Spirit, indissociable from one another.Thisconnection corresponds to the rest of the Spiritonand in the Son. Note in passing thatPalamas recognizesadynamic di- mension to this rest,asamovementfrom the Father to the Son, as indicatedby this commentary on Cyril of Alexandria:
Knežević, Ἐξ ἀμφοῖν (as footnote above), –. Meyendorff,Introduction(as footnote above), . Gregory Palamas, Apodictic Treatise II, § ,inPerrella,Gregorio Palamas (as footnote above), .Personal translation. Gregory Palamas, Apodictic Treatise II, § ,inPerrella, .Translation of Knežević, Ἐξ ἀμφοῖν (as footnote above), . 1066 Byzantinische Zeitschrift Bd. 113/3, 2020: I. Abteilung
The divine Cyril also concludes in his Treasure that the Spirit physicallyexists in the Son from the Father and he concludesthat he passes in the Son fromthe Father [παρὰ πατρὸϛ διήκειν ἐνυἱῷ]naturallyand essentially, and that it is through him and his annointing that the Son sanctifies everything.⁸¹
Therefore, the triadologyofPalamas appears to be distinct from the Cypriot’s view.Moreprecisely, Palamas seems to step back since he assumes aposition that the latterclaimed to movebeyond. As he refuses to take into account the literal sense of the preposition “by/through” (διά), considered as onlysynony- mous with the prepositions σύν and μετά meaning “with”,healigns with athe- ologythat the patriarch explicitlyrejected as being insufficientlyfaithful to the tradition of the Fathers.⁸² He does not evoke anyeternal “manifestation” (ἔκφαν- σις, φανέρωσις)ofthe Spirit through the Son; he formallyrecognizes that the Son has the eternal power to bestow the Spirit (understood as uncreated ener- gies) but does not use the term “manifestation” nor “procession” on this matter. Moreover,this idea is onlybrieflymentioned and does not allow us to draw any parallel with the wide developments of Gregory of Cyprus on the eternal shining forth of the Spirit through the Son. On the contrary,Palamas obviouslydoes not assume this last theme and is more generallyhostile to the formulation of an eternal existenceofthe Spirit through the Son⁸³. In that sense, the way(the young) J. Meyendorff, S. Verkhovsky and D. Stă- niloae interpretethe chapter 36 of TheOne Hundred and Fifty Chapters,asde- scribing the eternal manifestation of the Spirit,can be questioned. However, since Palamas describes in these lines a “use” of the Spirit by the Son inherent in his hypostatic procession and understood as an extension of the Spirit’srest on the Son, thereisnoinconsistency in readingthis text in tune with the thought of the Cypriot⁸⁴,but it must be done with great caution. Moreover,ifonageneral level Palamas has completed the theologyofuncre- ated energy inherited from the Cypriot and his predecessors, on the precise point which concerns us, he just takes over an argument present in the work of the patriarch, which he values by placing it at the centreofhis demonstration. In-
Gregory Palamas, Apodictictreatise II, § , in Perrella, ;personaltranslation. Gregory of Cyprus, Apology. PG , A. On this matter,see again Knežević, Ἐκ and διά (as footnote above), whoshows that in the Apodictic Treatises Palamas tries to restrict the use of διά to economy. Notethat Radović himself, while recognizingthat the manifestation of the Spirit in Palamas’ works always concerns economy, links up this text with the theme of the eternal shiningforth of the Spirit developed by Gregory of Cyprus,placingthem in “the same mode of thinking”.How- ever,wemust remind that he considers this “movement” of the Spirit as referringtouncreated energy:Radović,Filioque (as footnote above), –. A.-S.Vivier-Mureșan, The eternal manifestation of the Spirit 1067 deed, as shown above, the patriarch alreadydistinguished between the econom- ic level, in which the Spirit bestowed by the Son must be understood in the sense of the divine energies, and the theological one, which concerns the Spirit’shypo- stasis. This point,however,remained marginalinhis writingsbecause his atten- tion was focused on the theological level, that is on the eternal manifestation of the Spirit.Onthe other hand, Palamas, who refuses to develop triadological speculation too far, refocuses his defenseofthe Orthodox position on the dis- tinctionbetween theological and economic plans, thatisbetween the hypostasis and the gifts of the Spirit. To conclude, the theme of adouble eternal procession of the Spirit,hypo- static and energetic, first noted by V. Lossky,isvisiblyabsentfrom the works of the Cypriot and of Palamas. Thereadingof(the young) J. Meyendorff, S. Ver- khovskyand D. Stăniloae seems to be right when describing the eternal shining forth of the Spirit as concerning his very hypostasis. The implications maybeim- portant,both for Orthodoxtrinitarian theologyand for ecumenical research. Just mention the fact thatD.Stăniloae himself led the wayintwo late studies⁸⁵, whereheoffered thought-provoking views concerning Orthodoxtriadologyas well as the sensitive issue of Filioque.⁸⁶
Stăniloae,Procession (as footnote above); idem,Saint Esprit (as footnote above). Foracritical evaluation of his propositions, see our book, to be published: Le dialoguede l’amour trinitaire. Perspectivesouvertes par Dumitru Stăniloae. Paris .See also V. Coman, Le Saint-Esprit comme liaison de l’amour éternel entrelePèreetleFils: un cas de ‘sobornicité ouverte’ dans la théologie orthodoxe moderne. Irenikon / (), –.