Are Orthodox are Catholic theologies mutually exclusive?

[Vico]

… She had no need of being preserved from original guilt, since such a thing doesn’t exist.

It is an unfortunate mistranslation of Latin to English to use the word guilt, because it is not accurate for our meaning of guilt: “1 - The fact of having committed a specified or implied offense or crime.” (Oxford)

The Catechism of the Catholic Church explains that original sin is a person sin of Adam, not a personal sin of descendents, rather it is an analogy.
404 How did the sin of Adam become the sin of all his descendants? The whole human race is in Adam “as one body of one man”.293 By this “unity of the human race” all men are implicated in Adam’s sin, as all are implicated in Christ’s justice. Still, the transmission of original sin is a mystery that we cannot fully understand. But we do know by Revelation that Adam had received original holiness and justice not for himself alone, but for all human nature. By yielding to the tempter, Adam and Eve committed a personal sin, but this sin affected the human nature that they would then transmit in a fallen state.294 It is a sin which will be transmitted by propagation to all mankind, that is, by the transmission of a human nature deprived of original holiness and justice. And that is why original sin is called “sin” only in an analogical sense: it is a sin “contracted” and not “committed” - a state and not an act.

 

[Peter_J]

While issues like the filioque cause strains in relations between Western and Eastern churches, ultimately, we do not disagree with the insertion of the filioque into the Creed because of that. Nor even because the Western church did not have the authority to unilaterally alter it (important as both of those issues are). Fundamentally, it is because it is theological error.

I respect your right to believe that, of course, but Catholics can equally say that denying it is error. I’m thinking particularly of the condemnations made by Lyons II.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Correct. It’s the eternally from the Father and the Son that we disagree with.

Can’t see what your talking about or what your disagree with. You admit One principle of the HS. That means from the Father and the Son=One principle.

Second Person Trinity proceeds from the First Divine Person by Generation, the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and from the Son as from a Single Principle through a Single Spiration.

Second Person Trinity proceeds from the First Divine Person by Generation,

This above part it what your talking about. The CC isn’t elaborating on this, the only possible error could be from those actually speculating on this point. Thats not the CC.

 

[GaryTaylor]

For instance, unbegottenness belongs only to the Father, begottenness belongs to the Son, while procession belongs to the Spirit. Likewise, all divine characteristics (e.g., immortality, perfection, omniscience, etc.) belong to all three Persons. But if being the eternal origin of the Spirit’s spiration belongs to both the Father and the Son, that subordinates the Spirit in that He does not possess something that the other two Persons do.

But if being the eternal origin of the Spirit’s spiration belongs to both the Father and the Son,

TheotokosSaveUs the Church never said any such thing. Do you see how these issues continue?

What does “origin” mean with outside of time eternally? Follow what I’m saying about proceeding into theological speculation?

The Son proceeds from the Intellect of the Father by way of Generation, “internally”.

 

[TheotokosSaveUs]

I respect your right to believe that, of course, but Catholics can equally say that denying it is error. I’m thinking particularly of the condemnations made by Lyons II.

Of course they can. So the issue then becomes which viewpoint is supported by Scripture and Tradition.

 

[TheotokosSaveUs]

Can’t see what your talking about or what your disagree with. You admit One principle of the HS. That means from the Father and the Son=One principle.

Second Person Trinity proceeds from the First Divine Person by Generation, the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and from the Son as from a Single Principle through a Single Spiration.

Again, because it grants two qualities to one Person (the Son). This creates an imbalance in the relationship between the Persons. The Latin model, as one can see from the teaching of the schoolmen like Aquinas, has it so that the Father shares with the Son the power of Spiration, making both the cause of the Spirit, and from the Orthodox perspective, improperly mixing the unique hypostatic property of the Father with the Son. The Orthodox do not accept this teaching, understanding as St. Maximus did that the Father alone is cause of the Holy Spirit, and differentiating between the Spirit’s having existence (which is from the Father alone), and the Spirit’s existing through the Son (or equivalently, the Spirit’s being manifested by the Son), thus preserving involate the hypostatic difference between the Father and the Son.

 

[Wandile]

Of course they can. So the issue then becomes which viewpoint is supported by Scripture and Tradition.

Just showed how the catholic POV is supported by scripture and tradition. The fathers have spoken and scripture testifies. Do you believe the Holy Spirit is the spirit if Christ eternally and not just in time?

 

[GaryTaylor]

Again, because it grants two qualities to one Person (the Son).

What two qualities?

This creates an imbalance in the relationship between the Persons. The Latin model, as one can see from the teaching of the schoolmen like Aquinas, has it so that the Father shares with the Son the power of Spiration, making both the cause of the Spirit, .

There is only one principle of the HS. The Church never stated the Son is the cause of the HS. Thus I don’t see imbalance.

and from the Orthodox perspective, improperly mixing the unique hypostatic property of the Father with the Son. The Orthodox do not accept this teaching, understanding as St. Maximus did that the Father alone is cause of the Holy Spirit, .

Completely Catholic and of no consequence.

and differentiating between the Spirit’s having existence (which is from the Father alone), and the Spirit’s existing through the Son (or equivalently, the Spirit’s being manifested by the Son), thus preserving involate the hypostatic difference between the Father and the Son.

This is of no consequence.

 

[Wandile]

Again, because it grants two qualities to one Person (the Son). This creates an imbalance in the relationship between the Persons. The Latin model, as one can see from the teaching of the schoolmen like Aquinas, has it so that the Father shares with the Son the power of Spiration, making both the cause of the Spirit, and from the Orthodox perspective, improperly mixing the unique hypostatic property of the Father with the Son. The Orthodox do not accept this teaching, understanding as St. Maximus did that the Father alone is cause of the Holy Spirit, and differentiating between the Spirit’s having existence (which is from the Father alone), and the Spirit’s existing through the Son (or equivalently, the Spirit’s being manifested by the Son), thus preserving involate the hypostatic difference between the Father and the Son.

The persons of the Holy Trinity are no different other than by way of relation to each other. The father is called the father not because the Holy Spirit finds his ultimate origin in the Him. He is the Father because he begets the Son. The son is called the son because he proceeds from the father alone by being begotten of Him. If the holy spirit too proceeds from the father alone with no participation of the son in this eternal procession then how is the Holy Spirit any different from the Son who too only proceeds from the father? They are thus confused as their relations are the same and thus become the same person. Hence The Angelic Doctor St.Thomas Aquinas explained it thus :

"Now the Son and Holy Spirit are likewise one in essence. Therefore they are one in every respect, except in those things wherein relative opposition makes them distinct.But if the Holy Spirit proceed not from the Son they would nowise be distinct by reason of relative opposition: and consequently they would in no way be distinct from each other"

Thus it is absolutely necessary that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son too because the only thing that the son cannot share with the father is the property of filiation as that is of the Father alone (why he is called the father). In everything else they are equal and participate in together for as scripture testifies :

*“Then Jesus answered, and said to them: Amen, amen, I say unto you, the Son cannot do any thing of himself, but what he seeth the Father doing: for what things soever he doth, these the Son also doth in like manner.”

• John 5:19*

Thus the father is where the Holy Spirit finds his ultimate origin and proceeds from the father by way of the Son or as we say, from the father and the son. As has been seen scripture testifies of the River of Life (the analogy of the Holy Spirit in scripture just as the son is the Word. Hence the creed calls the HS the Lord, the giver of Life) :

*“And he showed me a river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding from the throne of God and of the Lamb.”

• Apocalypse 22:1*

In the Name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit
Amen.

 

[TheotokosSaveUs]

The persons of the Holy Trinity are no different other than by way of relation to each other. The father is called the father not because the Holy Spirit finds his ultimate origin in the Him. He is the Father because he begets the Son. The son is called the son because he proceeds from the father alone by being begotten of Him. If the holy spirit too proceeds from the father alone with no participation of the son in this eternal procession then how is the Holy Spirit any different from the Son who too only proceeds from the father? They are thus confused as their relations are the same and thus become the same person. Hence The Angelic Doctor St.Thomas Aquinas explained it thus :

Where is the Son ever said to proceed from the Father?? The Son is of the Father, not as proceeding, but as being Begotten. The Spirit proceeds from the Father.

 

[TheotokosSaveUs]

What two qualities?

That the Son shares with the Father the procession of the Spirit. The Father alone is both “cause” (αιτία) and “principle” (άρχή) of the hypostasis of the Son by generation (γέννησιν) and of the hypostasis of the Spirit by procession (ἐκπόρευσιν). The terms αιτία and άρχή are proper to the person of the Father and consequently cannot be applied to the Son (or the Spirit) within the inner life of the Trinity.

There is only one principle of the HS. The Church never stated the Son is the cause of the HS. Thus I don’t see imbalance.

The Son is declared (in the Florentine documents) to be both “cause” (αἰτίαν) and “principle” (άρχήν) of the subsistence of the Holy Spirit, and that position is contrary to the teaching of the Council of Blachernae.

 

[GaryTaylor]

That the Son shares with the Father the procession of the Spirit.

And you already agree with this that the HS proceeds from One Principle.

The Father alone is both “cause” (αιτία) and “principle” (άρχή) of the hypostasis of the Son by generation (γέννησιν) and of the hypostasis of the Spirit by procession (ἐκπόρευσιν). The terms αιτία and άρχή are proper to the person of the Father and consequently cannot be applied to the Son (or the Spirit) within the inner life of the Trinity.

And “principle” (αρχή) or “cause” (αιτία) you haven’t established anything we all don’t agree with.

The Son is declared (in the Florentine documents) to be both “cause” (αἰτίαν) and “principle” (άρχήν) of the subsistence of the Holy Spirit, and that position is contrary to the teaching of the Council of Blachernae.

In misunderstanding the prior paragraph, how do you assume this is correct?

 

[TheotokosSaveUs]

And you already agree with this that HS proceeds from One Principle.

And “principle” (αρχή) or “cause” (αιτία) you haven’t established anything we all don’t agree with.

In misunderstanding the prior paragraph, how do you assume this is correct?

We do not agree that the Son is the cause of the Holy Spirit.

 

[Wandile]

Where is the Son ever said to proceed from the Father?? The Son is of the Father, not as proceeding, but as being Begotten. The Spirit proceeds from the Father.

To proceed means to go forward. Unless you deny that the Son goes forward from the Father? :tsktsk: The fathers testify that the Son is of the father. They also say the Holy Spirit is of the Father. They also testify that the Spirit is of the Son

We distinguish the Son and the Holy Spirit by how they go forward from the father.

 

[TheotokosSaveUs]

To proceed means to go forward. Unless you deny that the Son goes forward from the Father? :tsktsk: The fathers testify that the Son is of the father. They also say the Holy Spirit is of the Father. They also testify that the Spirit is of the Son

We distinguish the Son and the Holy Spirit by how they go forward from the father.

Can you provide a Patristic reference where the Son is said to ἐκπόρευσιν from the Father in the same way that the Spirit is said to ἐκπόρευσιν from the Father?

 

[Wandile]

Can you provide a Patristic reference where the Son is said to ἐκπόρευσιν from the Father in the same way that the Spirit is said to ἐκπόρευσιν from the Father?

I must make reference to the fact that this is as far as Latin terms go. In Latin theology itbis easy to understand how to go forward can apply to both the Son and the Holy Spirit

The Greek term you provided connotes ultimate origin which although is true of the Son, is manifested in him being begotten. The Son or Word (John 1) proceeds from the Father by intellectual generation. This means that the thought or the Word of the Father is a perfect image of himself. This Word, however, is not separate or distinct from the Father, since his thinking is identical with his existence. That is how he goes forward from the Father by being begotten. There is no word other than procession uses to describe the way the Holy Spirit goes forward from the Father.

Thus the fathers will never say what you want me to provide but the underlying theology is there. Hence even Aquinas, relying on the fathers, felt free to speak this way. Even if orthodox may disagree with him, we must admit he was no fool and always said something with good reason. He was neither the first nor the last to speak this way.

Let me ask what does it mean to proceed?

 

[GaryTaylor]

We do not agree that the Son is the cause of the Holy Spirit.

Then again, no-one remotely suggested this nor does the Church. You can read this in the CCC.

for the eternal order of the divine persons in their consubstantial communion implies that the Father, as “the principle without principle”, is the first origin of the Spirit, but also that as Father of the only Son, he is, with the Son, the single principle from which the Holy Spirit proceeds.

 

[GaryTaylor]

So what don’t we agree on? This must be the point where the EO explains what the “though the Son” means.

Through has a couple different meanings. What do you mean by through?

Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

 

[Peter_J]

Of course they can .

Aha, you admit it!



Seriously though, I think people of each side can come up with a pretty good polemic. I’ve read them before, but will have to pass on reading them this time.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Then again, no-one remotely suggested this nor does the Church. You can read this in the CCC.

Originally Posted by TheotokosSaveUs View Post
We do not agree that the Son is the cause of the Holy Spirit

.

I agree with GaryTaylor.
Who duped you into believing that the Catholic Church teaches the Son is the cause of the Holy Spirit? When in creation it is revealed the Father is the Cause the Son is the effect and the Spirit gives life. The divine economy expressed from the procession within (consubstantiality) and from (presence) the Trinity remains a mystery.

If? you falsely contend that the filioque expresses the cause of the Holy Spirit, then you have been mislead about the Catholic faith. Unless you pretend your Eastern Orthodox faith has somehow defined the mystery of what is the substance professed in consubstantial of the Father and the Son? So as to declare whether the Son is or not the cause of the Holy Spirit; When no one professes the Son to be the single cause of the Holy Spirit.