Debating the filioque

[frjohnmorris]

I have never heard of Purgatory or penance forgiving any sins. Here is my understanding of this Western teaching:

Only those who die in a state of grace are in purgatory.

When you commit a mortal sin after baptism, there is eternal punishment and temporal punishment that you must pay. After confession all of your sins are forgiven and your eternal punishment (if the sins were mortal) is removed. There is still temporal punishment to pay.

An example: A lapsed Catholic murders a man. His temporal punishment is life in prison. He confesses the sin (with true repentance) and is absolved. He still must pay the temporal punishment either in prison for life or in purgatory. The penance that the priest gives you lessens your temporal punishment.

Our penance, sufferings, prayers, and indulgences lessen some of our temporal punishment.

An indulgence can pay for part or all of our temporal punishments that we earn from sin that we commit. When we die, if we have not paid for all of our temporal punishments, we will pay for them in purgatory.

A partial indulgence remits part of our temporal punishment. A plenary indulgence remits all of our temporal punishment we have earned up to that point.

Note: Baptism remits all sins and temporal punishment. Confession remits only sins.

We can gain indulgences for the poor souls in purgatory and pray for them.

The difference is that Orthodox do not believe in temporal punishment for our sins. We believe that Christ paid the full price for our sins when He suffered and died on the Cross for our sins. Therefore, no temporal punishment is needed because of Christ’s sacrifice for us. For that reason, we do not believe in indulgences.
We also believe that Confession and Absolution is a complete renewal of our Baptism.

Archpriest John W. Morris

 

[Zekariya]

The difference is that Orthodox do not believe in temporal punishment for our sins. We believe that Christ paid the full price for our sins when He suffered and died on the Cross for our sins. Therefore, no temporal punishment is needed because of Christ’s sacrifice for us. For that reason, we do not believe in indulgences.
We also believe that Confession and Absolution is a complete renewal of our Baptism.

Archpriest John W. Morris

Father, you said:

There is nothing that we can do that can add to what Christ has done for us on the Cross. Indeed, if we rely on our own spiritual works to earn forgiveness of sins, we are not relying on Christ. Thus we think of spiritual growth, rather than purification. It is like when we have been ill and have been healed, but are still weak and need to recuperate. The sin has been forgiven, but we are still weak and need further spiritual growth.

[emphasis mine]

You said even earlier, “We do not to have to do penance or works of satisfaction to earn merit for the forgiveness of sins, or suffer in purgatory if we have not earned enough merit to enter into Heaven.”
[emphasis mine]

Doing works to earn forgiveness is quite different from reaping what we sow. It is one thing to argue against the Western notion of temporal punishment and another to claim that they believe in earning the forgiveness of sins. The West teaches that one must suffer the temporal consequences for one’s actions whether by illness, penance, purgatory, etc. There is no teaching that one “earns” the forgiveness of sins in the West.

 

[frjohnmorris]

Father, you said:

[emphasis mine]

You said even earlier, “We do not to have to do penance or works of satisfaction to earn merit for the forgiveness of sins, or suffer in purgatory if we have not earned enough merit to enter into Heaven.”
[emphasis mine]

Doing works to earn forgiveness is quite different from reaping what we sow. It is one thing to argue against the Western notion of temporal punishment and another to claim that they believe in earning the forgiveness of sins. The West teaches that one must suffer the temporal consequences for one’s actions whether by illness, penance, purgatory, etc. There is no teaching that one “earns” the forgiveness of sins in the West.

Forgive me for my misunderstanding, but it still looks to me that the doctrine of temporal punishment is very close to requiring that one earn forgiveness of sins, but I will not quarrel with you over it and will accept your interpretation. However, I still do not believe in temporal punishment because it takes away from what Christ did for us on the Cross.
Salvation is a work of God’s grace. The Greek word for grace is charis which means gift.

Archpreist John W. Morris

 

[Zekariya]

Forgive me for my misunderstanding, but it still looks to me that the doctrine of temporal punishment is very close to requiring that one earn forgiveness of sins, but I will not quarrel with you over it and will accept your interpretation. However, I still do not believe in temporal punishment because it takes away from what Christ did for us on the Cross.
Salvation is a work of God’s grace. The Greek word for grace is charis which means gift.

Archpreist John W. Morris

I think I understand what you are saying. In one last attempt to clarify…

A parent may forgive a child for a misdeed but still give them a punishment. The child is not earning his parent’s forgiveness by accepting the punishment.

God has forgiven your sin. You are in Communion with him. He may give you a punishment for your sin, but you are still forgiven. When you (righteously) punish a loved one, it is for their growth and not just for the sake of putting them through pain.

Just as I do not earn my parent’s forgiveness by accept my punishment, I do not earn God’s forgiveness for accepting his punishment. Punishment from God is for the growth of his children.

Hebrews 12:6 For whom the Lord loves He chastens, And scourges every son whom He receives.

 

[frjohnmorris]

I think I understand what you are saying. In one last attempt to clarify…

A parent may forgive a child for a misdeed but still give them a punishment. The child is not earning his parent’s forgiveness by accepting the punishment.

God has forgiven your sin. You are in Communion with him. He may give you a punishment for your sin, but you are still forgiven. When you (righteously) punish a loved one, it is for their growth and not just for the sake of putting them through pain.

Just as I do not earn my parent’s forgiveness by accept my punishment, I do not earn God’s forgiveness for accepting his punishment. Punishment from God is for the growth of his children.

Hebrews 12:6 For whom the Lord loves He chastens, And scourges every son whom He receives.

What then did Christ accomplish on the Cross? Did He not take our punishment for us on the Cross? St. Paul wrote, “For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.” II Cor 5:21.
We believe that Christ paid the full price for our sins on the Cross and took our punishment upon Himself.

Archpreist John W. Morris

 

[Zekariya]

What then did Christ accomplish on the Cross? Did He not take our punishment for us on the Cross? St. Paul wrote, “For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.” II Cor 5:21.
We believe that Christ paid the full price for our sins on the Cross and took our punishment upon Himself.

Archpreist John W. Morris

Resurrectional Troparia Tone 2
When you descended to Death, O Immortal Life, You destroyed Hades by the splendor of your Divinity, and when You raised the dead from under the earth, all the Heavenly Powers cried out to You: O Giver of Life, Christ our God, glory to You.

Resurrectional Troparia Tone 3
Let all in Heaven rejoice and all on earth be glad, for the Lord has exerted power with His arm, by death He has trampled upon Death, has become the firstborn from the dead. He has delivered us from the bosom of Hades and has granted to the world great mercy.

He destroyed the power of death and hades on the Cross. He set the captives free. We are no longer bound by the power of death. Christ is the first-fruits from the dead. And he chastens and scourges those whom he loves:

Hebrews 12:6 For whom the Lord loves He chastens, And scourges every son whom He receives.

They idea that God does not give any sort of punishment to Christians for their growth and salvation is contrary to the Fathers, Eastern and Western. I have never read Orthodox Theologians or Fathers teach that God does not punish those whom he loves.

 

[frjohnmorris]

hey idea that God does not give any sort of punishment to Christians for their growth and salvation is contrary to the Fathers, Eastern and Western. I have never read Orthodox Theologians or Fathers teach that God does not punish those whom he loves.

There is a difference between chastisement given us by God for our spiritual edification during this life and temporal punishment for our sins or the fires of purgatory. I have already written that we sometimes give a person penance as medicinal to help them with their spiritual growth and resist future temptation. However, that is something quite different than the doctrine of purgatory which ties the forgiveness of sins necessary tor entrance into heaven and forgiveness of sins to personal acts of satisfaction. We believe in works, for as St. James wrote “faith without works is dead.” However, we are not saved by works, but by the free gift of God’s grace. What about the thief on the Cross. He had no time to do works of penance. Yet, Our Lord told Him that he would be with him in paradise.
Purgatory and works of penance as understood in Roman Catholic theology overly legalizes salvation. Remember the idea comes originally from Tertullian who was trained as in Roman law and introduced the concepts of Roman law into theology. He also is suspect because he eventually left the Church and joined the Montanist heresy.

Archpriest John W. Morris

 

[Richca]

hey idea that God does not give any sort of punishment to Christians for their growth and salvation is contrary to the Fathers, Eastern and Western. I have never read Orthodox Theologians or Fathers teach that God does not punish those whom he loves.

There is a difference between chastisement given us by God for our spiritual edification during this life and temporal punishment for our sins or the fires of purgatory. I have already written that we sometimes give a person penance as medicinal to help them with their spiritual growth and resist future temptation. However, that is something quite different than the doctrine of purgatory which ties the forgiveness of sins necessary tor entrance into heaven and forgiveness of sins to personal acts of satisfaction. We believe in works, for as St. James wrote “faith without works is dead.” However, we are not saved by works, but by the free gift of God’s grace. What about the thief on the Cross. He had no time to do works of penance. Yet, Our Lord told Him that he would be with him in paradise.
Purgatory and works of penance as understood in Roman Catholic theology overly legalizes salvation. Remember the idea comes originally from Tertullian who was trained as in Roman law and introduced the concepts of Roman law into theology. He also is suspect because he eventually left the Church and joined the Montanist heresy.

Archpriest John W. Morris

It is written "Thus he made atonement for the dead that they might be absolved from their sin. ( 2 Maccabees: 46). Now there is no need to pray for the dead who are in heaven, for they are in no need; nor again for those in hell, for they cannot be loosed from their sins. Thus, St Gregory of Nyssa says: “If one who loves and believes in Christ, has failed to wash away his sins in this life, he is set free after death by the fire of purgatory. This we preach, holding to the teaching of the truth, and this is our belief; this the universal Church holds, by praying for the dead that they may be loosed from their sins.”

And Jesus said, “I say to you, you will not be released until you have paid the last penny.” (Luke 12: 59).

Jesus also preached or rather began his preaching with "From that time on, Jesus began to preach and say, “Repent (do penance), for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” (Matthew: 4: 17).

 

[AndyP2010]

frjohnmorris

You ask that if there is Temporal punishment then what did our Lord suffer and die for, I would say that he has saved us from eternal punishment.
1 Cor 3:9-15:

For we are God’s co-workers; you are God’s field, God’s building.
According to the grace of God given to me, like a wise master builder I laid a foundation, and another is building upon it. But each one must be careful how he builds upon it,
for no one can lay a foundation other than the one that is there, namely, Jesus Christ.
If anyone builds on this foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, or straw,
the work of each will come to light, for the Day will disclose it. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire [itself] will test the quality of each one’s work.
If the work stands that someone built upon the foundation, that person will receive a wage.
But if someone’s work is burned up, that one will suffer loss; the person will be saved, but only as through fire.

Here is the main scriptural basis for the western concept of Purgatory, especially verse 15 “But if someone’s work is burned up, that one will suffer loss; the person will be saved, but only as through fire.” A better way to say it is that Purgatory is the western name for what St Paul is talking about in these verses. While is popular conception this has been talked about as a place, most contemporary western Catholic theologians would say that this is a process or a state of being. The soul is saved but is still short of it’s final eternal heavenly destiny.

 

[LionHeart777]

frjohnmorris

You ask that if there is Temporal punishment then what did our Lord suffer and die for, I would say that he has saved us from eternal punishment.

Here is the main scriptural basis for the western concept of Purgatory, especially verse 15 “But if someone’s work is burned up, that one will suffer loss; the person will be saved, but only as through fire.” A better way to say it is that Purgatory is the western name for what St Paul is talking about in these verses. While is popular conception this has been talked about as a place, most contemporary western Catholic theologians would say that this is a process or a state of being. The soul is saved but is still short of it’s final eternal heavenly destiny.

Just to show that this interpretation is consistent with the Fathers, I will cite the Catholic Encyclopedia:

"While this passage presents considerable difficulty, it is regarded by many of the Fathers and theologians as evidence for the existence of an intermediate state in which the dross of lighter transgressions will be burnt away, and the soul thus purified will be saved. This, according to Bellarmine (De Purg., I, 5), is the interpretation commonly given by the Fathers and theologians; and he cites to this effect:

St. Ambrose (commentary on the text, and Sermo xx in Ps. cxvii),
St. Jerome, (Comm. in Amos, c. iv),
St. Augustine (Enarration on Psalm 37),
St. Gregory (Dial., IV, xxxix), and
Origen (Hom. vi in Exod.)."

Source: Hanna, Edward. “Purgatory.” The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 12. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1911. 5 Oct. 2013 http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12575a.htm.

Also, we read in the Jewish Encyclopedia, showing continuity:

"The view of purgatory is still more clearly expressed in rabbinical passages, as in the teaching of the Shammaites: ‘In the last judgment day there shall be three classes of souls: the righteous shall at once be written down for the life everlasting; the wicked, for Gehenna; but those whose virtues and sins counterbalance one another shall go down to Gehenna and float up and down until they rise purified; for of them it is said: ‘I will bring the third part into the fire and refine them as silver is refined, and try them as gold is tried’ [Zech. xiii. 9.]; also, ‘He [the Lord] bringeth down to Sheol and bringeth up again’’ (I Sam. ii. 6). The Hillelites seem to have had no purgatory; for they said: ‘He who is ‘plenteous in mercy’ [Ex. xxxiv. 6.] inclines the balance toward mercy, and consequently the intermediates do not descend into Gehenna’ (Tosef., Sanh. xiii. 3; R. H. 16b; Bacher, “Ag. Tan.” i. 18). Still they also speak of an intermediate state.

Regarding the time which purgatory lasts, the accepted opinion of R. Akiba is twelve months; according to R. Johanan b. Nuri, it is only forty-nine days. Both opinions are based upon Isa. lxvi. 23-24: ‘From one new moon to another and from one Sabbath to another shall all flesh come to worship before Me, and they shall go forth and look upon the carcasses of the men that have transgressed against Me; for their worm shall not die, neither shall their fire be quenched"; the former interpreting the words “from one new moon to another” to signify all the months of a year; the latter interpreting the words "from one Sabbath to another,’ in accordance with Lev. xxiii. 15-16, to signify seven weeks. During the twelve months, declares the baraita (Tosef., Sanh. xiii. 4-5; R. H. 16b), the souls of the wicked are judged, and after these twelve months are over they are consumed and transformed into ashes under the feet of the righteous (according to Mal. iii. 21 [A. V. iv. 3]), whereas the great seducers and blasphemers are to undergo eternal tortures in Gehenna without cessation (according to Isa. lxvi. 24).

The righteous, however, and, according to some, also the sinners among the people of Israel for whom Abraham intercedes because they bear the Abrahamic sign of the covenant are not harmed by the fire of Gehenna even when they are required to pass through the intermediate state of purgatory ('Er. 19b; Ḥag. 27a)."

Source: jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/12446-purgatory

 

[frjohnmorris]

It is written "Thus he made atonement for the dead that they might be absolved from their sin. ( 2 Maccabees: 46). Now there is no need to pray for the dead who are in heaven, for they are in no need; nor again for those in hell, for they cannot be loosed from their sins. Thus, St Gregory of Nyssa says: “If one who loves and believes in Christ, has failed to wash away his sins in this life, he is set free after death by the fire of purgatory. This we preach, holding to the teaching of the truth, and this is our belief; this the universal Church holds, by praying for the dead that they may be loosed from their sins.”

And Jesus said, “I say to you, you will not be released until you have paid the last penny.” (Luke 12: 59).

Jesus also preached or rather began his preaching with "From that time on, Jesus began to preach and say, “Repent (do penance), for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” (Matthew: 4: 17).

II Maccabees is one of the Readable Books, that means that it is not to be ignored, but is not of the same level as the rest of the Bible. Besides the text tells us what the Maccabees believed. It does not tell us what to believe. It is an historical book, not a prophetic book. You do not give the source of the quote from St. Gregory of Nyssa. Even if the quote is accurate, the Church does not base its doctrine on the writings of one Father, but on the consensus of the Fathers. I just did a search using my computer through the collected works of St. Gregory of Nyssa. There are only two references to “purgatorial fire.” Some scholars question the authenticity these words and consider them a later addition to St. Gregory’s original text. In any case on something so important one would think that St. Gregory would have mentioned it more than twice in passing. I also did a search for the words “purgatory,” or “purgatorial fire” through St. John of Damascus’ Exposition of the Orthodox Faith and found neither. If the ancient undivided Church believed in purgatory, St. John of Damascus would have mentioned it, because his work is considered the best summary of the teachings of the Fathers.
We pray for the departed as a simple act of love We need no other reason. I loved my departed mother and father, so I pray for them. I do not pray to earn merit to apply for their salvation. That kind of logic makes salvation a commercial transaction. In fact, pre Vatican II Roman Catholic catechisms used the analogy of a bank to describe the treasury of merit that Roman Catholics believe the Pope controls.
Like all prayer, how God responds to prayer for the departed is a mystery, beyond human understanding. In other words we do not need an explanation or to understand it to pray for the departed. We pray for the departed because we love them. That is reason enough.
In a very real sense this discussion points out the fundamental difference between East and West. From an Eastern point of view, the West tries to understand too much and relies far too much on human reason to comprehend the mysteries of God. It is only reasonable for me to pray for those that I love whether they are living or are dead. Death does not sever our relationship with those we love. We pray for them and ask them to pray for us especially during the Eucharist, because during the Eucharist we are united to with the company of heaven who are mystically with us as we offer the unbloody sacrifice before the throne of God.

Archpriest John W. Morris

 

[LionHeart777]

The other work by St. Gregory, Father Morris is probably “Sermon on the Dead” quoted here:

“‘If a man distinguish in himself what is peculiarly human from that which is irrational, and if he be on the watch for a life of greater urbanity for himself, in this present life he will purify himself of any evil contracted, overcoming the irrational by reason. If he has inclined to the irrational pressure of the passions, using for the passions the cooperating hide of things irrational, he may afterward in a quite different manner be very much interested in what is better, when, after his departure out of the body, he gains knowledge of the difference between virtue and vice and finds that he is not able to partake of divinity until he has been purged of the filthy contagion in his soul by the purifying fire’ (Sermon on the Dead [A.D. 382]).”

Source: catholic.com/tracts/the-roots-of-purgatory

Sts. Cyprian and Augustine speak of a purifying fire as well:

St. Cyprian:

“‘The strength of the truly believing remains unshaken; and with those who fear and love God with their whole heart, their integrity continues steady and strong. For to adulterers even a time of repentance is granted by us, and peace * is given. Yet virginity is not therefore deficient in the Church, nor does the glorious design of continence languish through the sins of others. The Church, crowned with so many virgins, flourishes; and chastity and modesty preserve the tenor of their glory. Nor is the vigor of continence broken down because repentance and pardon are facilitated to the adulterer. It is one thing to stand for pardon, another thing to attain to glory; it is one thing, when cast into prison, not to go out thence until one has paid the uttermost farthing; another thing at once to receive the wages of faith and courage. **It is one thing, tortured by long suffering for sins, to be cleansed and long purged by fire; another to have purged all sins by suffering. It is one thing, in fine, to be in suspense till the sentence of God at the day of judgment; another to be at once crowned by the Lord’ **(Letters 51[55]:20 [A.D. 253]).” (Ibid.) (Emphasis mine)

St. Augustine:

“‘That there should be some fire even after this life is not incredible, and it can be inquired into and either be discovered or left hidden whether some of the faithful may be saved, some more slowly and some more quickly in the greater or lesser degree in which they loved the good things that perish, through a certain purgatorial fire’ (Handbook on Faith, Hope, and Charity 18:69 [A.D. 421]).” (Ibid.)

St. Augustine also speaks of temporal and eternal punishments due to sin (which Sacred Scripture implies as well):

“‘Temporal punishments are suffered by some in this life only, by some after death, by some both here and hereafter, but all of them before that last and strictest judgment. But not all who suffer temporal punishments after death will come to eternal punishments, which are to follow after that judgment’ (The City of God 21:13 [A.D. 419]).” (Ibid.)

Also, like I said above, St. Robert Bellarmine cites St. Ambrose, St. Jerome,
St. Augustine, St. Gregory and Origen on 1 Corinthians 3:15. (St. Gregory here I am guessing refers to pope St. Gregory the Great)*

 

[LionHeart777]

Continued…

Finally,

St. Caesar of Arles and St. Gregory the Great:

"‘If we neither give thanks to God in tribulations nor redeem our own sins by good works, we shall have to remain in that purgatorian fire as long as it takes for those above-mentioned lesser sins to be consumed like wood and straw and hay.’ Ceasar of Arles, Sermon 179 (104):2 (A.D. 542).

‘Each one will be presented to the Judge exactly as he was when he departed this life. Yet, there must be a cleansing fire before judgment, because of some minor faults that may remain to be purged away. Does not Christ, the Truth, say that if anyone blasphemes against the Holy Spirit he shall not be forgiven ‘either in this world or in the world to come’(Mt. 12:32)? From this statement we learn that some sins can be forgiven in this world and some in the world to come. For, if forgiveness is refused for a particular sin, we conclude logically that it is granted for others. This must apply, as I said, to slight transgressions.’ Gregory the Great [regn. A.D. 590-604], Dialogues, 4:39 (A.D. 594)."

Source: scripturecatholic.com/purgatory.html

 

[frjohnmorris]

The Eastern Fathers teach that our spiritual progress will continue after death, but do not believe in purgatory because we do not believe in temporal punishment. According to our theology Jesus Christ paid the full price for our sins on the Cross. Quotes from a few Fathers, mostly Western, does not represent the consensus of the Fathers.
St. Mark of Ephesus wrote, “The souls of the departed can indeed benefit to their ‘advancement,’ and even the damned to a relative ‘relief’ of their lot, thanks to the prayers of the Church and through the infinite mercy of God; but the notion of a punishment prior to the Last Judgment and of a purification through a material fire is altogether foreign to the tradition of the Church.”
I Corinthians 3: [12] Now if any one builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw – [13] each man’s work will become manifest; for the Day will disclose it, because it will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test what sort of work each one has done. [14] If the work which any man has built on the foundation survives, he will receive a reward. [15] If any man’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire."
The Eastern Fathers consider this a reference to Day of the Last Judgment as is indicated by the phrase, “for the Day will disclose it.” The fire is the cleansing love of God. On the day of the Last Judgment, we will stand before the perfect God. Our imperfections will be revealed and burned away by the love of God. Hebrews 12:39, " for our God is a consuming fire." St. John Chrysostom in his homilies on I Corinthinans also considers this section a reference to the Last Judgment.
We believe that the idea of purgatory and temporal punishment takes away from what Christ did for us on the Cross.

Archpriest John W. Morris

 

[QNDNNDQDCE]

But you have misrepresented the Bible. The only text that clearly speaks of the Procession of the Holy Spirit is John 15:26 “But when the Counselor comes, whom I shall send to you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, he will bear witness to me;” That means that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and is sent by the Son. Thus the Orthodox doctrine and language is completely Biblical. The Father is the source or the Son, who is begotten of the Father and the Spirit who proceeds from the Father. Augustine’s theology which defines the Holy Spirit as the love between the Father and the Son implies the inferiority of the Holy Spirit. It is also a vain attempt to understand the mystery of the Trinity with human reason. As Lossky wrote, the God of the filioque is the God of the philosophers.
When taken in context, together with the Second Coming of Christ Rev. 22:1 refers to the sanctification of the universe. Thus the verse in Revelation refers to the economic Trinity, that is the work of the Trinity for our salvation. In that context you can say the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, although it would be more accurate to say, the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and is sent by the Son, or the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son.

Father, could you please explain how Augustine’s theology makes the Holy Spirit inferior? I see such assertions bandied about in Orthodox polemics regularly with no explanation. How is this anything other than a subjective judgment? I could just as easily say that the Orthodox doctrine makes the Son and the Holy Spirit inferior.

I would also appreciate it if you could develop your scriptural argument. In John 15, Jesus says that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, but he in no way denies that it proceeds from himself in the manner understood by Rome. You would not use John 1:1 as a prooftext that the Holy Spirit was not in the beginning with God on the basis that it does not state it explicitly, but that’s exactly what you are doing here. Secondly, it’s not clear to me that St. John ever intended to touch on the issues surrounding the Filioque controversy in John 15 in the first place. Is it anything other than begging the question to assume that he is speaking of two different processions in these passages? How are you so certain that John 15 is not also speaking about an economic procession?

 

[gus]

I suggest we all adopt the Armenian version of the creed which makes no reference to prosession.
That. actually is closer to the original Nicean Creed than the one we use which was modified at Constantanople by. 150 bishops.

 

[frjohnmorris]

QUOTE Father, could you please explain how Augustine’s theology makes the Holy Spirit inferior? I see such assertions bandied about in Orthodox polemics regularly with no explanation. How is this anything other than a subjective judgment? I could just as easily say that the Orthodox doctrine makes the Son and the Holy Spirit inferior. END QUOTE

Augustine defines the Holy Spirit as the love between the Father and the Son. That implies that the Holy Spirit is not an equal member of the Trinity. Orthodox doctrine restricts itself to the language of the Bible which speaks of the Son as Begotten of the Father and the Spirit as proceeding from the Father. The only text in the Bible that speaks of this subject is John 15:26 which teaches that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and is sent by the Son. The wording of the text is important and should be followed in the dogmatic statements of the Church. Augustine’s mistake was trying to define the mystery of the Holy Trinity. His efforts are called by historians of dogma the psychological model of the Trinity. You must remember that the East does not give Augustine the authority that he is given in the West. For one thing he could not read the original Greek text of the New Testament, but built his theology on an error filled Latin translation. For another, Augustine himself is not consistent. His various writings contradict each other. Even Augustine at times wrote that the first principle cause or source of the Holy Spirit is the Father. On some issues you can use Augustine to disprove Augustine. He never wrote a systematic theology like St. John of Damascus’ “Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith.”

QUOTE I would also appreciate it if you could develop your scriptural argument. In John 15, Jesus says that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, but he in no way denies that it proceeds from himself in the manner understood by Rome. You would not use John 1:1 as a prooftext that the Holy Spirit was not in the beginning with God on the basis that it does not state it explicitly, but that’s exactly what you are doing here.END QUOTE
The words are Christ’s quoted by St. John. We can assume from the actual words used by Our Lord that He said what He meant to say. How can we add to the words of Christ or alter them? Are not the words of Our Lord enough? If Christ meant to say that the Spirit proceeds from the Son He would have said so. Instead, he said that the Holy Spirit Proceeds from the Father and is sent by the Son. Is it more theologically sound to stick to the exact words of the Scriptures?
At Florence, the Roman Catholics stated that “filioque,” “and the Son” was merely another way to say “through the Son.” If that is the case there is no difference between Roman Catholic doctrine and Orthodox doctrine on this subject, for we both agree that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and is sent by the Son. The word “proceeds” refers to the origin of the Holy Spirit from the Father just as the word “begotten” refers to the origin of the Son from the Father.
We know from Genesis 1:2 that the Holy Spirit was with God in the beginning.

QUOTE Secondly, it’s not clear to me that St. John ever intended to touch on the issues surrounding the Filioque controversy in John 15 in the first place. Is it anything other than begging the question to assume that he is speaking of two different processions in these passages? How are you so certain that John 15 is not also speaking about an economic procession? END QUOTE

Of course St. John never meant to touch on the issue of the “filioque.” That controversy did not take place until about 700 years after his death.

Thus there is a way to interpret “filioque” that does not contradict Orthodox theology as long as the monarchy of the Father as the source of the Son and the Holy Spirit is preserved and the phrase merely means that the Holy Spirit is sent by the Son or through the Son. By source, I do not mean that there was ever a time when either the Son or the Holy Spirit were not, but that the Son is eternally begotten by the Father and that the Holy Spirit eternally proceeds from the Father. However, in time for our salvation the Son sent the Holy Spirit, first when He breathed on the Apostles and gave them the power to pronounce the forgiveness of sins, and again after His Ascension at Pentecost.

Archpriest John W. Morris

 

[frjohnmorris]

We could not agree with the Armenian version of the Creed, if it does not include the section added by the 2nd Ecumenical Council, Constantinople I, in 381. The Armenians recognize the 2nd Ecumenical Council. Therefore, it is strange that they would not include the additions made by the 2nd Ecumenical Council, as do the other Oriental Orthodox.

Archpriest John W. Morris

 

[Richca]

QUOTE I would also appreciate it if you could develop your scriptural argument. In John 15, Jesus says that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, but he in no way denies that it proceeds from himself in the manner understood by Rome. You would not use John 1:1 as a prooftext that the Holy Spirit was not in the beginning with God on the basis that it does not state it explicitly, but that’s exactly what you are doing here.END QUOTE
The words are Christ’s quoted by St. John. We can assume from the actual words used by Our Lord that He said what He meant to say. How can we add to the words of Christ or alter them? Are not the words of Our Lord enough? If Christ meant to say that the Spirit proceeds from the Son He would have said so. Instead, he said that the Holy Spirit Proceeds from the Father and is sent by the Son. Is it more theologically sound to stick to the exact words of the Scriptures?
At Florence, the Roman Catholics stated that “filioque,” “and the Son” was merely another way to say “through the Son.” If that is the case there is no difference between Roman Catholic doctrine and Orthodox doctrine on this subject, for we both agree that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and is sent by the Son. The word “proceeds” refers to the origin of the Holy Spirit from the Father just as the word “begotten” refers to the origin of the Son from the Father.
We know from Genesis 1:2 that the Holy Spirit was with God in the beginning.

QUOTE Secondly, it’s not clear to me that St. John ever intended to touch on the issues surrounding the Filioque controversy in John 15 in the first place. Is it anything other than begging the question to assume that he is speaking of two different processions in these passages? How are you so certain that John 15 is not also speaking about an economic procession? END QUOTE

Thus there is a way to interpret “filioque” that does not contradict Orthodox theology as long as the monarchy of the Father as the source of the Son and the Holy Spirit is preserved and the phrase merely means that the Holy Spirit is sent by the Son or through the Son. By source, I do not mean that there was ever a time when either the Son or the Holy Spirit were not, but that the Son is eternally begotten by the Father and that the Holy Spirit eternally proceeds from the Father. However, in time for our salvation the Son sent the Holy Spirit, first when He breathed on the Apostles and gave them the power to pronounce the forgiveness of sins, and again after His Ascension at Pentecost.

Archpriest John W. Morris

The Holy Spirit is not just the Spirit of the Father “It is the Spirit of the Father that speaketh in you” (Matt. 10:20) but He is the Spirit of the Son as well " God sent the Spirit of the Son into your hearts." (Gal. 4:6). And " Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of His" (Romans 8:9). And " for I know that this will result in deliverance for me* through your prayers and support from the Spirit of Jesus Christ." (Phil. 1:19).

Jesus said “All that the Father has is mine” (John 16:15) and “The Father and I are one” (John 10:30). Now if the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and Jesus has all that the Father has ( except the generative power of the Father), and the Father and the Son are one power, then it would seem that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son as well as the Father and this is the Catholic faith. Jesus said " He (the Holy Spirit) will glorify me, because he will take from what is mine and declare it to you. Everything that the Father has is mine; for this reason I told you that he will take from what is mine and declare it to you. (John 16: 14-15).

Many of the Greek Fathers speak of the Holy Spirit as proceeding from the Father through the Son. The Catholic Church does not disagree with this at all. For everything that the Son has is from the Father. However, according to Catholic faith, it would be incorrect to say that the Father is the sole principle of the Holy Spirit ( I am not implying that the Greek Fathers say this). We believe rather that the Father and the Son are one principle of the Holy Spirit. The procession of the Holy Spirit is from both the Father and the Son, or if you like, from the Father through the Son.

The quote from St Gregory of Nyssa I gave in my last post I got from Appendix II in the Summa Theologica of St Thomas Aquinas.

 

[Zekariya]

We could not agree with the Armenian version of the Creed, if it does not include the section added by the 2nd Ecumenical Council, Constantinople I, in 381. The Armenians recognize the 2nd Ecumenical Council. Therefore, it is strange that they would not include the additions made by the 2nd Ecumenical Council, as do the other Oriental Orthodox.

Archpriest John W. Morris

Here is the Armenian Creed:
We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, the maker of heaven and earth, of things visible and invisible.
And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the begotten of God the Father, the Only-begotten, that is of the essence of the Father.
God of God, Light of Light, true God of true God, begotten and not made; of the very same nature of the Father, by Whom all things came into being, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible.
Who for us humanity and for our salvation came down from heaven, was incarnate, was made human, was born perfectly of the holy virgin Mary by the Holy Spirit.
By whom He took body, soul, and mind, and everything that is in man, truly and not in semblance.
He suffered, was crucified, was buried, rose again on the third day, ascended into heaven with the same body, [and] sat at the right hand of the Father.
He is to come with the same body and with the glory of the Father, to judge the living and the dead; of His kingdom there is no end.
We believe in the Holy Spirit, in the uncreated and the perfect; Who spoke through the Law, prophets, and Gospels; Who came down upon the Jordan, preached through the apostles, and lived in the saints.
We believe also in only One, Universal, Apostolic, and [Holy] Church; in one baptism in repentance, for the remission, and forgiveness of sins; and in the resurrection of the dead, in the everlasting judgement of souls and bodies, and the Kingdom of Heaven and in the everlasting life.

Source: armenianchurchlibrary.com/files/creed.pdf