Bishop Enoch (@BishopEnoch787)

This is a rather good article by Patrick Craig Truglia: https://orthodoxchristiantheology.com/2024/08/10/latin-pneumatology-before-the-great-schism-explicit-evidence-of-single-procession-of-the-holy-spirit/ However, he says Vigilius of Thapsus in his work "Against the Arian, Marivadus" teaches a double-procession; however, "Chifflet published (1664), and under the name of our Vigilius: "Contra Marivadum Arianum" and "Contra Palladium Arianum", but the latter [Contra Palladium] is known to be a spurious work, and there can be no doubt that such is also the character of the former [Contra Marivadum]." https://www.google.com/books/edition/Patrology/HOgGAQAAIAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=Contra+Marivadum+Arianum&pg=PA616&printsec=frontcover Even the Cap. XIV in the, now admittedly, anonymous "Contra Marivadum" is vague; there is the intro of: "Ubi dicunt: Ostende quod de Patre Spiritus sanctus possit procedere. Si tibi dixerint: Ostende quod Spiritus sanctus de Patre vel Filio procedere potuit"; yet, strangely, the Responsio omits any reference to this latter section (these 'headings' are a sort of challenge, that the anonymous author attempts to answer in the Responsio); the closest one can come to an understand of the Response is that 'procedere' in this sense has something to do not with Hypostatic Eternal Origination, but, either a temporal procession, or, perhaps, due to the emphasis upon the Divinity of the Holy Ghost, a Consubstantial Procession: https://la.wikisource.org/wiki/Contra_Marivadum_Arianum Patrick points out many of these same points in the article about other subjects; when you narrow the matter down explicitly to the doctrinal point in question, Hypostatic Procession, most of these other examples given by objectors to Orthodox Doctrine have no fundamental bearing on the point. There is no doubt of Vigilius' authorship of the well known "Five Books in Defense of Chalcedon" and the "Dialogue Against the Arians"; the main point in support of Vigilius' authorship of "Against Mariavadus" is in his "Contra Arianos" he mentions he wrote a work against the Arians Mariavdus and Palladius; this would mean that such works did exist, whether they are the ones later attributed to Vigilius is a different question. In another work attributed to Vigilius, a certain "De Trinitate" has the phrase "ut ipse idem sit Spiritus Sanctus procedens a Patre qui est et Filii." https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Athanasian_Creed_and_Its_Early_Comme/xgEVAAAAQAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=Vigilius The problem, as A.E. Burn's notes, is that this doesn't prove much; why? Because the preposition "a" takes "Patre", since a / ab go with nouns in the ablative, thus, "a Patre" or "from the Father", but "Filii" is the genitive singular form, not the ablative singular form of "Filio", thus, it states: "that He Himself the Same Holy Ghost may be Proceeding from the Father, and Who is of the Son." The text attributes the Spirit to be of the Son, but no mention is made of a Procession from Him in regards to the Holy Ghost, of any kind.