Against Vekk

Composition by St. Gregory Palamas “Against Veccus” (the full title is “His counter-arguments, written in the form of comments to the commentaries of Veccus in defense of the Latins in the margins of quotations from the Scriptures collected by him, showing the wickedness of these comments and their contradiction to the collected sayings of the saints”) is devoted to the defense of the dogma of the Trinity from the Latin doctrine of the Filioque. The treatise was written in 1335 or 1355 and represents a polemic against the argumentation of John XI Veccus (former Patriarch of Constantinople), who, being originally Orthodox, accepted the Latin doctrine and actively defended it, relying on his own interpretation of the patristic texts. The structure of the essay is built on the principle of “commentary-counterargument” and consists of 12 parts. The main themes and arguments of St. Gregory Palamas: 1. Distinction between the eternal origin (procession) and the temporary manifestation (dispensation/sending) of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Fathers, speaking about the Spirit “through the Son” or “from the Son,” do not mean His eternal existence as a Hypostasis, but His manifestation, dispensation or sending in the world. The eternal procession of the Spirit belongs exclusively to the Father. 2. Interpretation of the prepositions “from” and “through”. Referring to Rev. Maximus the Confessor and St. Basil the Great, the author shows that “through the Son” means “coming” or “unity of will,” but not that the Son is the cause of the existence of the Spirit along with the Father. 3. Unity of command (monarchy) of the Father as the only Reason (Source) for the existence of the Son and Spirit. 4. Distinction between essence and hypostasis, as well as Divine nature and energy. The saint explains that Divine energy is inseparable from the Divine nature, but is not identical to it, and shows that “from the essence of the Son” does not mean “from the hypostasis of the Son” in the sense of origin. 5. Refutation of the abuse of patristic quotations. St. Gregory Palamas shows how John Beccus distorts the meaning of quotations from Scripture and the Fathers, takes them out of context, or uses metaphorical expressions literally to justify the Filioque. *The title of the work in Greek is Εἰς τὰς παρὰ τοῦ Βέκκου ὑπὲρ Λατίνων ἐπὶ ταῖς συλλεγείσαις παρ᾿ αὐτοῦ γραφικαῖς χρήσεσιν ἐπιγραφὰς ἀντεπιγραφαὶ δεικνῦσαι δυσσεβῶς ἐχούσας τὰς τοιαύτας ἐπιγραφὰς καὶ ἀντιθέτους οὔσας ταῖς συνειλεγμέναις τῶν ἁγίων ῥήσεσιν. Contents First Latin Commentary Second Latin Commentary Third Latin Commentary Fourth Latin Commentary Fifth Latin Commentary Sixth Latin Commentary Seventh Latin Commentary Eighth Latin Commentary Ninth Latin Commentary Tenth Latin Commentary Eleventh Latin Commentary Twelfth Latin Commentary His own counterarguments, written in the form of commentaries on the commentaries of Veccus in defense of the Latins in the margins of the quotations from the Scriptures he collected, 1 showing the wickedness of these commentaries and their contradiction with the collected sayings of the saints. The first commentary of the Latins. Various examples from the Scriptures are collected to prove the existence of the Holy Spirit and from the Son, after which others are located to prove the existence of the Spirit from the Father through the Son. And since some prove that He exists from the Son, and others that through the Son, then in order to demonstrate the equivalence of [the prepositions] “through” and “from,” immediately after them there are other examples from the Scriptures, through which the equivalence of these prepositions is shown. Archbishop Gregory of Thessaloniki has the first counterargument. When, in relation to theology, the prepositions “from” and “through” have equal force with each other, they show not the division or difference [of the hypostases] of the Holy Trinity, but the unity and immutability that exists [in Her] by nature and unity of will (κατά την όμοβουλίαν). Because here it is shown that the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are of the same nature, power, energy and will. And he who wrote down here what was said by the saints and thus wrote [this work of his] is evilly and wickedly trying to show through the equivalence of these prepositions the difference in the divine hypostases, and that it is as if from the two Hypostases - and, moreover, from each of Them in a different way - one of the three worshiped Hypostases, that is, the Holy Spirit, has existence. So, it is clear that the sayings of the saints are pious and good, but are interpreted by those who collected them and wrote them down here in a bad and evil way. And that this “through” indicates unity and immutability in everything, when, that is, it is equivalent to “from,” the divine Maximus clearly shows, writing to Marina about some who said that the Spirit is through the Son: “They showed themselves not making the Son the cause, for they know one cause of the Son and the Spirit - the Father, [being the cause of] One by birth, and the other by descent, but [they said this] to show the coming of [the Spirit] through Him and at the same time to represent the close contact and immutability of the essence” 1. Consequently, from this it is clear that this Veccus interprets such sayings evilly: after all, he is trying to deduce from them not the unity and immutability, which are by nature, but the difference of hypostases, without listening to the great Basil. After all, in the eighth chapter of Amphilochius he says: “the fact that the Father creates through the Son does not make the Father’s creation imperfect, nor does it show the energy of the Son to be powerless, but establishes the unity of will” 2 . So, whoever says that the Spirit comes through the Son and from the Son in the sense of dispensation (κατά την χορηγίαν) well establishes the unity of the will of the Father and the Son. For by the good pleasure of the Father and the Son, the willing Holy Spirit Himself is given to the worthy. And these Latin thinkers, out of madness, bringing together “through the Son” and “from the Son,” evilly present the Holy Spirit as a work of good will and will, and therefore, by necessity, a creature, and not a fruit of the divine nature. For, according to the sacred Damascene, the work of divine will is a creature, not a deity (away from such a thought!): “for it is not the divine will, but the divine nature,” again according to him, “the pre-eternal and ever-present birth and procession” 3 . Second commentary of the Latins. Since there are some contrary examples from the Scriptures showing that through the Son the Spirit exists from the Father, real examples from the Scriptures have been collected showing that the Son is most immediately and immediately from the Father, in support of quotations showing the existence of the Spirit through the Son. For if the Spirit were not through the Son, then why is He not said to exist directly from the Father? His counterargument is the second. However, the Holy Spirit is also called [being] directly from the Father, and the pretext and basis of wickedness is completely destroyed in you. For Gregory, the namesake of theology, in his “Poems” calls the Holy Spirit second after the Father, as well as the Son 4 . And [Gregory] of Nyssa, together with many others, says that Everyone in the same way relates to one Person, that is, [to the Person of] the Father, with the exception of the tropos of existence. But he says: “in man, all the persons who are not directly from the same person have their existence, so that in addition to [the persons] caused, those responsible [for the existence of the first persons] are many and different. In relation to the Holy Trinity, this is not so, for the same person is the Father, from whom the Son is born and the Holy Spirit proceeds. Therefore, we confidently call, in the proper sense of the word, one God, a single culprit with those caused by Him as the cause” 5 . What then are they who say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and abides in the Son 6 , and that from the Father he expands in the Son 7 , and that from the Father he exists and accompanies the Word 8 ? And also those who call the Holy Spirit the communion and love of the Father and the Son? And in addition to these - those who say that Each of Them has no less in relation to the Other than to Himself 9? What about the one who sings: “Thy hands make me and create me” (Ps. 119:73)? Don't they all show that the Spirit also exists directly from the Father? Third commentary of the Latins. Real examples from the Scriptures are also offered to confirm the meaning of the quotations, proving that the Spirit does not exist directly from the Father, but through the Son. For if the Spirit were directly from the Father, then the Son would not be called the image (εικών) of the Father, and the Spirit the image of the Son; and also the Son - by the energy of the Father, and the Spirit - by the energy of the Son; and the Son is the face of the Father, and the Spirit is the face of the Son. His counterargument is the third. O most insane one, who has wickedly written down here what was piously said by the saints, how can you not see that the general and natural [properties] of the Most High and worshiped Trinity have no difference? For there is one God, one image 10, one will, one energy of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Therefore, in addition to everything else, when One of Them is called the face of the Other, then here we are talking about the natural, and not the hypostatic, and an immutable likeness is indicated, and in no way the tropos of existence. And you, who not in this way call the Other a person [Other], but in the sense of a hypostasis, can no longer be the secret place of the Trinity. For if the Son is the person of the Father, so that the Spirit is from Him and from the Son, then the Father will no longer be a different Person in relation to the Son, nor the Son in relation to the Spirit. Do you see that the sayings of the saints - good and pious - are interpreted by you badly and wickedly? Latin Commentary Fourth. Since some who do not accept the mediation of the Son in the Trinity, about which the saints clearly theologize, refuse to speak at all about the order in the Trinity, real examples from the Scriptures are collected to prove that the Spirit is connected with the Father through the Son, and to confirm that in an obvious way we can talk about order in the Trinity. His counterargument is the fourth. You lie against the saints, oh wretched one! For we know the order in relation to the Holy Trinity, but a godly order. But one who, of necessity, represents the Holy Spirit as third from the Father, and whom you love together with Eunomius, is not acceptable as being wicked. And you misrepresent quotations from the Scriptures, because they speak not only about the Son, but also the Father is sometimes called the middle between the Son and the Spirit, and sometimes the Spirit is called the middle between the Father and the Son and common to them; and the order - about which you speak “obviously” - is clearly not in relation to the Son and the Spirit. The mediation of the Son is also permissible, but for those who are rational in the divine, [it is permissible] not in relation to the existence of the Spirit, but in the sense of [the order of] confession, they do not place the Holy Spirit in immediate proximity to the Father, so that He does not seem to be begotten. So, all this is said well by the saints, but the one who collected it and presented it here uses these [sayings] badly and wickedly, attracting them to his wickedness. Fifth Latin Commentary. Since there are some who do not admit that the Gospel saying that calls the Holy Spirit “the Spirit of truth” (John 15:26, 16:13) has the same force as the saying that He “comes from the Father” (John 15:26), who also insist that it is not said in an equivalent sense about the procession from the Father and the reception of the Holy Spirit from the Son, real examples from the Scriptures are offered to prove the equivalence of these Gospel quotations. His counterargument is fifth. What insensitivity! After all, the sayings of the saints are equivalent in that they show the kinship of the divine Spirit with the Father and the Son, or - which is the same thing - consubstantial; but they differ in that they do not show the existence of [the Holy Spirit] from both - the Father and the Son. And this is quite obvious from these quotations from the Scriptures themselves, and this one who collected them seemed to be deaf as far as the difference between these sayings is concerned. Latin Commentary Sixth. Since there are some who say that the words “proceed”, “pouring out” and “proceeding” differ from each other, then the quotes offered here from St. Cyril and after them the quotes below from the theologians that the Spirit emerges, is sent and poured out from the Father are selected for indisputable proof of their equivalence. His sixth counterargument. What insensitivity! For who does not know that “comes forth” is also said about the Son, but “proceeds out” and “poured out” - never, as well as that “poured out” is mainly said about the distribution, and [only] sometimes about the procession? And those who philosophize, characteristic of the Latins, wickedly and at the same time shamelessly insist that these words are in no way different from each other; after all, the sayings of the saints collected here, in those cases where they sometimes converge, showing their mutual difference, do not at all abolish it. Seventh Latin Commentary. Since some, hearing that the Holy Spirit exists, flows and issues from the Son, imagine that it is not the nature of the Spirit that flows from the essence of the Son, but the spiritual gift that is worthy, due to the relative infusion of the omnipresent divinity of the Holy Spirit inherent in them, so that they think of it as separate from the divine essence of the Spirit, real examples have been collected from the Scriptures, from which it can be recognized that although the indwelling of the Holy Spirit inherent in the worthy is ineffable and above reason is relative, but since the gifts are poured out where His divine essence is infused in a relative manner, then when someone says that the Holy Spirit comes forth, pours out and exists from the Son, it is clear [that it is] the Holy Spirit Himself, One of the Holy Trinity and completing [Her number], Who is the divine nature and perfect God, like the Father and the Son. His counterargument is the seventh. Truly, the author of this commentary does not know what he is saying and what he is asserting. For no one who has chosen piety for himself considers divine grace and energy to be divorced from the divine nature; however, from the fact that divine energy is inseparable from divine nature, it does not follow that the energy of nature is nature itself, no different from it (for this is characteristic of the wickedness of Barlaam and Akindinus). After all, divine energy is from the divine nature, and, according to theologians, is contemplated in it, but does not exist in itself; and the divine nature is not from energy, but exists in itself and is the source of divine energies. But we also call the Holy Spirit not existing from the hypostasis of the Son; and this one, calling Him existing by nature [the Son], thinks to contradict us, and invents the opposite, thinking, as it seems, that nature is no different from hypostasis, or madly introducing a natural difference in relation to the Holy Trinity, since [in It] there is a difference of hypostases. Eighth Latin Commentary. To prove that the Holy Spirit exists from the Father and the Son, real refutations from the Scriptures have been collected, showing that He is the quality (ποιότης) of the essence of the Father and the Son, as well as the fragrance, breath and aroma of the Father and the Son, and after them - other quotations that theologize that the Father is the source of the Spirit, and the Son is [also] the source of the Spirit. His counterargument is the eighth. The present collected quotations from the Scriptures by means of similes (παραδειγμάτων) represent, as far as possible, the consubstantiality of the Holy Spirit with the Father and the Son, for it is impossible to find a completely suitable likeness to God. Since the Holy Spirit is also called living water by grace and energy, the source of this water is called, together with the Father, the Son, and sometimes the Holy Spirit Himself. But the one who cited these sayings here left some of them without attention, and distorted others, and thus thinks to secretly lure the readers into his own malice. Latin Commentary Ninth. Real quotations from the Scriptures, in which the fathers theologize that everything that is characteristic of the Father naturally passes on to the Son born of Him, are offered as proof that the Spirit exists, flows and acts from the Son, as, of course, from the Father, according to the divine Cyril. For if the definitions contained in these quotations take away from the Son only paternity and the property of begetting, then it is clear that the Son [Himself] will not be from the Son, but the Spirit pouring out from the Fatherly essence will flow and pour out from the non-generating essence of the Son. His counterargument is the ninth. Truly illogical wickedness! For this Latin wise man, hearing that what is natural (φυσικώς) and essentially transferred to the Son is what is characteristic of the Father, thought that this is characteristic of the Fatherly hypostasis, and not nature (της φύσεως). So, according to his concepts, which he acquired from the theology of the God-bearers, when the divine Cyril writes in “Treasures”: “how could the Spirit not be God, having in Himself in an essential way everything characteristic of the Father and the Son?” 11, this means that the Spirit will possess all the hypostatic properties of the Father and the Son, will be begotten and the parent and father of lights, having the ability to give birth and bring forth. What can you hear more evil and strange than this? He and those who think like him are inclined to the same thing when they hear the holy Damascus, who says in the eighth chapter of his dogmatic work: “everything that the Father has belongs to the Spirit, except ungeneracy” 12, and who received the nickname from the theology of Gregory, writing in the “Word to those who came from Egypt”: “everything that [constitutes the distinctive features of] the Son [distinguishes] the Spirit, except sonship" 13. How crazy, again, is it, hearing “from the essence,” to think “from the hypostasis,” as if God had one both essence and hypostasis, and, moreover, not to see that since the Spirit is called the Father and [being] from the Father, then those who deny that the Son is the Father, at the same time deny the participation of the Son in the property of the Father. Tenth Latin Commentary. The present quotations from the Scriptures, in which the Fathers theologize that the Son is proper to the Father, as existing from His essence, and exists from Him, being proper to His essence, are offered here, so that anyone who wishes may be able to recognize from here that the Spirit is called proper to the Son because He exists from His essence, and, again, because He is called existing from the essence of the Son, because He is the own Good of the same essence, which manifests the consubstantiality of the Spirit in relation to the Son. For if in another sense of consubstantiality, in which it speaks of certain two consubstantial beings, of which one is not through the other, the Spirit were the own of the Son, then the Son would also be the own of the Spirit and from the essence of the Spirit due to the [logical] reversibility of such consubstantiality, which is by no means said by any of the saints and will never be said by any of those who chose to be Orthodox. And such a consubstantial thing is not in the exact sense of the word consubstantial, but one unites one with another, as through it or from it existing in a natural and essential way. And this is evidenced by the quotation given here [from] the great Basil, which reads: “Let not those of the same essence be called paired (τα άδελφά) to each other” 14. [Other] quotations are also offered showing that the Son is therefore consubstantial with the Father, because He is from His essence, so that anyone who wishes can recognize from here that the Spirit is consubstantial with the Son because He is from His essence. His tenth counterargument. The Son is the Father’s own [Son] as begotten of Him, just as the Holy Spirit is as proceeding from the same Father, as the great Basil writes in the chapters to the Eunomians, saying: “I understand the kinship of the Spirit in relation to the Father, since He proceeds from the Father” 15. In the same way, [He] is called the Spirit of the Son, since he, in the eighth [eleventh] chapter of the “[Epistle] to Amphilochius,” says that “[He] is called the Spirit of Christ, as by nature dwelling in Him” 16 . After all, it is impossible for what is identical by nature not to be one’s own for each other. But about the Son it is not said that He is the Spirit, so that the Holy Spirit does not seem to be the Father, because when it is said that this is someone’s son, this indicates the father of the son. And this Latin-philosopher does not derive anything sound from the sound words proposed here. However, he also exposes himself, saying that the Spirit, due to consubstantiality, is called [existent] from the essence of the Son, for this means that He will not be from hypostasis: after all, then They would have to be each other from each other. Therefore, no one ever said that the Holy Spirit was from the hypostasis of the Son, but [only] from the hypostasis of the Father. The eleventh Latin commentary. Since some, hearing that the Spirit is from the essence of the Son, say that one thing is “from the essence” and another “from the hypostasis,” not being able to understand that the name “Son” is hypostatic, and that the one who says “from the essence of the Son” thereby points to the whole Son, that is, to the hypostatic essence, then in order to refute their fabrications, real examples from the Scriptures are collected, showing that the Son is born from the essence of the Father. And since it is generally accepted that there is only one birth of the Son from the Father, how can one distinguish between “from essence” and “from hypostasis,” unless someone wants to impiously speak of one birth of the Son from the essence of the Father, and another from hypostasis? After them, other quotations are given showing that the Father is called the perfect essence and perfect God; and perfect essence - the Son; and perfect essence - the Holy Spirit. His counterargument is the eleventh. When something is of one essence and hypostasis, then whatever has its existence in any way from this essence has it also from this hypostasis; and vice versa: what will come from this hypostasis will also come from this essence. When something is of one essence, but not of one hypostasis, but of a greater number, then what comes from this one essence will not be from its other hypostases, but from any one of them. Since the highest and worshiped Trinity is with us one nature in three Hypostases, then that which has being from essence is not from the other Hypostases, but from any one of Them, that is, the Fatherly (for it is not allowed that [It] should not be from Her), and, therefore, not from the other, but once from one, then from the only one. And this is obvious in the example of people: after all, each of us is from the essence of Adam, but not from his hypostasis, since humans have one essence, but there are many hypostases. And when in the beginning there was one human essence and hypostasis, that is, Adam’s, then Eve, being from the essence of Adam, was also from his hypostasis. But even before the existence of Cain, there was one male essence and hypostasis - Adam, and Cain was from the same male essence and hypostasis, that is, from Adam. Then, when by hypostasis there were [already] two men, then Enoch was from the essence of Adam, but not from his hypostasis, but from only [the hypostasis] of Cain. And this Latin philosopher, insisting that the Spirit exists also from the hypostasis of the Son, since he theologizes that He is from [His] nature, shows himself to be wise that, in addition to the divine Spirit, God has one nature and hypostasis, completely rejecting the Father and showing [himself to believe] that according to hypostasis there is one Son, and representing the Holy Spirit from the Son alone as having existence. 17 But even from the statements in which it is theologized that the perfect essence is the Father, and the perfect essence is the Son, and also the Holy Spirit, he does not recognize the unity and immutability of the Three, but foolishly tries to discern a certain plurality and, as a consequence of this, difference. Latin Commentary Twelfth. Since there are some who dare to say that “to pour out,” “come out,” “shine” and “appear” from the Son means in relation to the Spirit not that He essentially and hypostatically exists from the Son, but the dispensation of spiritual gifts from Him, then in order to expose such foolishness, real quotations from the Scriptures have been collected, showing that the Son “poured out,” “shines forth,” and “appears” from Father. After all, no one will say that it is not the Son who is essentially and hypostatically pouring out, shining and appearing from the Father, but the gifts of the Son. His counterargument is twelfth. Having a being from something in the form of birth or procession, from it is called protruding, sent, shining, if it is light or the like. However, not everything that appears or is sent, or shines from something has its existence from it in the manner of birth or procession and appears in a special hypostasis. And this one, who wrote these comments, reproaches those who are piously and wisely wise for insolence, while he himself is audacious in wickedness. Maxim the Confessor, To Marin, PG 91, 136B. Basil the Great, To Amphilochius, Bishop of Iconium on the Holy Spirit, 8, PG 32, 105C (r. p. Creations, vol. 3, pp. 263–264). This paragraph repeats almost exactly the passage from the Second Antirrhetic Word, 60. See also note 371 above. Gregory the Theologian, Theological Songs, 3, 57, PG 37, 412A (r. p. Creations, vol. 2, p. 22). Gregory of Nyssa, To the Hellenes on the basis of general concepts, PG 45,180С. Gregory the Great, Dialogi, II, PL 66, 203B. In PL 77.145–146, approx. XXVI, it is said that the Greeks spoiled the original manuscript of the Dialogues. John the Deacon accuses Photius of inserting and replacing “et Filio” with “et in Filio maneat” (editors' note). See Cyril of Alexandria, Thesaurus de sancta consubstantiali trinitate, 34, PG 75, 577A. John of Damascus, An Accurate Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, op. cit., 7, 18–22 (r.p., p. 12 (84)); Gregory of Nyssa, Great Catechetical Discourse, 2, PG 45, 17B. Scholium in one of the manuscripts: [The saints say that] the Son is the image of the Father, or [that] the Son is like the Father in everything except [tropos] existence; so when He says: he who has seen Me has seen the Father, this means that he who has seen the Spirit has seen the Son, since the Spirit is the image of the Son. Therefore, he who saw the Spirit saw the Father. Cyril of Alexandria, Thesaurus de sancta consubstantiali trinitate, 34, PG 75, 576C. John of Damascus, An Accurate Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, 1, 8, op. cit., 8, 117–118; 185–186 (r.p., pp. 19 (91); 22 (94)). Gregory the Theologian, Sermon 34, 10, PG 36, 252A (r. p. p. 496). Basil the Great, Epistle 52, 2, PG 32, 393 pp. His same, Against the Sabellians, Arius and the Anomeans, PG 31, 612C. His, To Amphilochius on the Holy Spirit, 18, PG 32, 152B. You might be interested in: