Hell and BACK!!!

Alright guys, we’re back up and runnin’…I’ll be posting very soon on a fantastic dissertation that I read recently by a Roman Catholic regarding the question of the filioque and St. Maximus the Confessor and his letter to Marinus as understood at the Council of Florence.

It’s good to be back!


23 Responses to Hell and BACK!!!

  1. photios says:


    What can we do to make you happy? What shall we do?

    Brad’s workin’ on it right now. So it’ll be changing a lot over the next couple of weeks. It’ll have all the pretty stuff you want on it.


  2. Perry Robinson says:

    Yeah, I hate this format too, but since I am in Saint Louis and going on Day 2 of NO ELECTRICITY, I have bigger things to worry about. Be back in a few days.


  3. Eric,

    This website has exactly 4 hours to stop looking like this! I will be working on it with someone today. You don’t like it? We’ll fix it. Perry hates it too.


  4. Eric Weiss says:

    Glad to see you’re back, but your new template is difficult to read, and the comments almost impossible – gray against darker gray?

  5. Joseph Schmitt says:

    Behr seems to be coming up a lot lately. I happen to be reading his “Way to Nicaea” in tandem with vol. 2 of the Ante-Nicene Fathers right now and I must say they are both quite eye opening to say the least. There is also a free lecture on the St. Vlad’s website from Behr called “Death in the Fathers.” I would like to hear what others think of it.


  6. I’ve got Behrs’ books on my reading list and have yet to read them. I’ve heard all good about them too.


  7. Fr. Oliver Herbel says:

    Jack, that’s an excellent point concerning John Behr. I had assumed Photios had read his work. If not, then yes, he must read Behr.

  8. Jack,

    We don’t have to agree on NeoPlatonism and I’m open to your reading of it (though right now I’m not). It’s not a requirement of Orthodoxy, thank God, that you agree with everything I say. 😉


  9. Jack says:

    Thanks. I buy your basic grid, in so far as I understand it, especially with regard to the fact that one can only do theology from within the recapitulative economy of Christ. You ought to read Behr, who is articulating the same thing. You might also point out how Dyo-energism (Palamas’ distinction) shakes out of the apostolic economy and thus is no “development.”

    PS. I’m never going to buy your reading of Neoplatonism. There is valuable Eygptian gold in them thar hills.

  10. Well the first post is going to be this weekend…but I’m going to cover in depth enough that’ll probably be at least a post a week that’ll be over the span of a few months.


  11. AH says:

    “Stay tuned…All that you ask there are the purpose of my next few posts over the next couple of months.”

    I was hoping for that over the “next couple of DAYS”

  12. Jack,

    Those questions are exactly what I’ll be addressing in the next few installments. Stay tuned…All that you ask there are the purpose of my next few posts over the next couple of months.


  13. Jack says:


    If you would, could you offer what you take to be the basics of the filioque dispute? For instance, if the Father is the mon-arche of the Son and the Spirit, what exactly is the meaning of a substantial filioque? How do we get this (only) through the economy of the Word and not by speculation-development? And why does Florence rule this out of bounds?

  14. Joseph Schmitt says:

    Glory to God in the Highest…

    Welcome Back. It has indeeeeeed been hell on the web without you both.

  15. “Hell and Back!!!”

    Now that sounds like an AC-DC song or something. LOL.


  16. Cyril says:

    Fantastic to see you back up and running, back in the land of the cyber-living.

    Into the breach,

  17. Rock and freakin’ roll!

    I’m so psyched you guys are back.

  18. Fr. Oliver Herbel says:

    For what it is worth, and this you already know, not even St. Photios doubts that Augustine teaches the filioque, so maybe there’s little distinction between saying “Augustine said ‘one principle'” and “the only logical implication is that Augustine would say it.”

    Anyhow, I look forward to your review.

  19. Fr. Oliver Herbel says:

    Glad to see that you’re back. Photios, email me, ok? I want that bibliographical information on the dissertation. BTW, your comments concerning 1) that we Orthodox only know of the “theological” because of the “economic” and 2)Your hesitation to ascribe “one principle” to Augustine are spot-on. Frankly, I think that distinction between economic and theological is largely bs. We only know God through the revelation of Christ. Really, you can only develop something like the filioque once you’ve made a definite, obvious separation between the two because then you start asking about God in the abstract. If you’re St. Photios, however, you’re bound to the historical revelation (the “economic”) and so refuse to contradict John’s Gospel. As for the “one principle,” I myself need to do further reading in Augustine on this. For now, I can definitely say it is found in Aeneas of Paris. He explicitly says the Spirit comes from the Father and the Son “simultaneously.” Anyhow, I look forward to your dissertation review.

  20. ochlophobist says:

    A site for sore eyes.

  21. David Richards says:

    Welcome back, guys! I await with baited breath your next theological gem. 😛

%d bloggers like this: