[kosta50]

However, this does not seem to match my interpretation of what Kosta was saying about "causes".

 

Writing on the difference between the Christian East and West, J. S. Romanides summarizes this very well [my emphasis]

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

The key term here is existence. The Spirit needs the Father in order to exist, and so does the Son. The Father needs neither.

 

+Gregory of Palamas says "as regards his existence, the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father." (Philokalia IV), and +John of Damascus states "The Holy Spirit is of God the Father, since It [sic] proceeds from Him. It is also called 'of the Son' as it is manifested through Him and takes part in creation, but It does not gain its existence from Him." [Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Book One, ]

 

In the A Lutheran – Orthodox Common Statement on Faith in the Holy Trinity paragraph 6 reads [emphasis added]:

As Lutherans and Orthodox we confess together faith in "the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life." Like the Son, the Holy Spirit receives his existence from the Father, though the Spirit "proceeds from the Father," while the Son is "begotten" of the Father. Like the Son, he receives from the Father the Father’s own divine nature, and so he is one in essence with the Father and the Son

I am not sure what is there to not understand. The orthodox faith has since the Second Ecumenical Council officially believed that God the Father is without a cause, unbegotten of anything, and not dependent on anything for his existence, whereas the Son and the Spirit are caused by the Father and exist because of him, whereas he does not exist because of them. The Father is sui generis, hence the monarchy of the Father.

I really didn't see anything in this article portraying the Father as either "greater" or even a first among equals in the general sense

Again, FK, the Bible clearly quotes Jesus as saying "the Father is greater than I." (John 14:28)

The Greek word used (μειζων) is one of those Greek words with a pageful of meaning, generally translated as either greater or elder, in terms of excellence. There is simply no way around this verse.

However, this does not seem to match my interpretation of what Kosta was saying about "causes".

Writing on the difference between the Christian East and West, J. S. Romanides summarizes this very well [my emphasis]

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

The key term here is existence. The Spirit needs the Father in order to exist, and so does the Son. The Father needs neither.

+Gregory of Palamas says "as regards his existence, the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father." (Philokalia IV), and +John of Damascus states "The Holy Spirit is of God the Father, since It [sic] proceeds from Him. It is also called 'of the Son' as it is manifested through Him and takes part in creation, but It does not gain its existence from Him." [Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Book One, ]

In the A Lutheran – Orthodox Common Statement on Faith in the Holy Trinity paragraph 6 reads [emphasis added]:

As Lutherans and Orthodox we confess together faith in "the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life." Like the Son, the Holy Spirit receives his existence from the Father, though the Spirit "proceeds from the Father," while the Son is "begotten" of the Father. Like the Son, he receives from the Father the Father’s own divine nature, and so he is one in essence with the Father and the Son

I am not sure what is there to not understand. The orthodox faith has since the Second Ecumenical Council officially believed that God the Father is without a cause, unbegotten of anything, and not dependent on anything for his existence, whereas the Son and the Spirit are caused by the Father and exist because of him, whereas he does not exist because of them. The Father is sui generis, hence the monarchy of the Father.

[Forest Keeper]

Thanks for the explanation.

The orthodox faith has since the Second Ecumenical Council officially believed that God the Father is without a cause, unbegotten of anything, and not dependent on anything for his existence, whereas the Son and the Spirit are caused by the Father and exist because of him, whereas he does not exist because of them.

Alright, if the Son and Spirit can both be caused, come into existence, AND be eternal all at the same time, then this faith is definitely too hard for me. :) It's interesting to study though.