Differences in Religions

[GaryTaylor]

My Master’s thesis was not on the Trinity per se, but it did incorporate Trinitarian theology.

First of all, there is not an entirely adequate answer to these questions for the reason that the Trinity is the greatest of all mysteries that remains eternally impenetrable. However, I will attempt to address the matter to the extent I am able.

I think it is a mistake to conflate the matter of the consubstantiality of the divine hypostases with the matter of the relationships among them. In my opinion, when one does so, it ultimately leads to the obliteration of the doctrine of the Trinity by leading to any one of several positions that are incompatible with Christian teaching. I’ll discuss three.

If one were to say that the Father alone cannot be without cause because to say so means that the three are not one, then the monarchy of the Father is destroyed. This is unacceptable, because the tradition is unanimous in maintaining the monarchy of the Father.

Another potential problem with conflating consubstantiality with the relations among the divine hypostases is that of reducing the Trinity to a monad by destroying any differentiation among the relations. In other words, once you insist that the consubstantiality of the three means that both the Father and the Son must share in the spiration of the Spirit, then, on the basis of that same consubstantiality one also should say that the Father and the Spirit must share in the begetting of the Son (a heresy), and that the Son and the Spirit somehow must share in the “unbegetting” (a heresy as well as an impossible absurdity as I’m sure you can see) of the Father. Such a construction a (setting aside the absurdity in how the Son and Spirit could somehow share in generating the Father, who alone is ungenerate) of insisting on each of the possible pairs from among the three divine hypostases sharing in the generation of the third hypostasis exactly on the basis of consubstantiality seems to me to obliterate any real distinction among the relations.

Next, if one says that the filioque must be true [exactly because of the teaching of consubstantiality while not admitting the heretical position of the Spirit sharing in the begetting of the Son, then ultimately, one faces the problem of subordinationism. If the Son–exactly because of his consubstantiality with the Father–must share in the spiration of the Spirit, then how is the Spirit, who does not share in the begetting of the Son, also consubstantial with the Father? One could conclude that the Spirit is not consubstantial with the Father (a heresy), which reduces the Spirit either to a lesser divinity, or a creature. On the other hand, if you insist on the filioque exactly on the basis of the consubstantiality of the Father and the Son while still insisting that the Spirit does not share in the begetting of the Son (and rightly so), but that the Spirit is also consubstantial with the Father (again, rightly so), one then could say that the Spirit is somehow “more consubstantial” with the Father than the Son, which is absurd and heretically reduces the Son to a lesser divinity than the Father and the Spirit.

Finally, as I’ve stated in the past, it is not my intent to deny the filioque. I am Catholic and I accept the filioque as an authoritative teaching of the Church. However, I oppose explanations of the filioque that insist that the filioque is necessitated exactly on the basis of the consubstantiality of the Father with the Son, because of all of the potential problems I see.

Lot of good points as usual with you; “On the other hand, if you insist on the filioque exactly on the basis of the consubstantiality of the Father and the Son while still insisting that the Spirit does not share in the begetting of the Son.”

Depends how we this see imho, In regards to the Word became flesh. The Holy spirit is proceeding from the Father through the Son and Second person thus is Incarnate through the power of the Holy Spirit. The opposition in person is only in understanding how God the Father remained God and became man. For its not a different God which became man than the only one which ever existed. Nor can a different God be by His power conceived by flesh, be born of flesh and then be a different God. Thus the admission of the Holy Spirit proceeding of one principle, namely the only God there is-God, which in this the first principle of the Trinity. So in the Incarnation the Father through the Son thus the Father and Son are sending the Holy Spirit, who then if we can agree the Second person Trinity is the Incarnate Word of God. The fact we say the Son is begotten eternally without time only resolves at the Father-Son, Holy Spirit confession of faith even to reduce “and the Holy Spirit” to proper equally, all existing eternally and without cause of the One Principle of the monarchy the Father. In fact even in typology and scripture the Kingdom given to the Son by the Father returns to the Father so it inverted. Which goes out in creation and returns in the completed Kingdom of the second person trinity and returns to God the Father.
[/quote]

 

[Randy_Carson]

Finally, as I’ve stated in the past, it is not my intent to deny the filioque. I am Catholic and I accept the filioque as an authoritative teaching of the Church. However, I oppose explanations of the filioque that insist that the filioque is necessitated exactly on the basis of the consubstantiality of the Father with the Son, because of all of the potential problems I see.

Okay. I follow you. Well, some of it, anyway.

First, let me thank you for your time and effort in posting that.

Second, if a theologian on the order of Pope Benedict were to address your concerns, how do you suppose he might go about it?

I phrase the question that way to give you the freedom to disagree with those whom you have surely studied. I guess I’m asking if you might present the position of those who might disagree with you that there is a problem at all. Assuming that such theologians exist, of course.

I hope that’s not confusing.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Lot of good points as usual with you; “On the other hand, if you insist on the filioque exactly on the basis of the consubstantiality of the Father and the Son while still insisting that the Spirit does not share in the begetting of the Son.”

Depends how we this see imho, In regards to the Word became flesh. The Holy spirit is proceeding from the Father through the Son and Second person thus is Incarnate through the power of the Holy Spirit. The opposition in person is only in understanding how God the Father remained God and became man. For its not a different God which became man than the only one which ever existed. Nor can a different God be by His power conceived by flesh, be born of flesh and then be a different God. Thus the admission of the Holy Spirit proceeding of one principle, namely the only God there is-God, which in this the first principle of the Trinity. So in the Incarnation the Father through the Son thus the Father and Son are sending the Holy Spirit, who then if we can agree the Second person Trinity is the Incarnate Word of God. The fact we say the Son is begotten eternally without time only resolves at the Father-Son, Holy Spirit confession of faith even to reduce “and the Holy Spirit” to proper equally, all existing eternally and without cause of the One Principle of the monarchy the Father. In fact even in typology and scripture the Kingdom given to the Son by the Father returns to the Father so it inverted. Which goes out in creation and returns in the completed Kingdom of the second person trinity and returns to God the Father.

I think your post relates to the wisdom of the Church when she declares from the filioque is an ETERNAL procession, that never adds, changes or moves away from the Apostolic faith.

An opposition to the filioque, mistakenly tries to force the eternal procession from what is revealed in the fullness of time from the Son of Man in the only begotten Son of God, when in the beginning the Word was with God and Word is God.

The filioque is not a major difference in religions. The filioque reveals the Father, Son, Holy Spirit are distinct from one another in personal presence is eternally One God consubstantial in Essence. This is never a dividing difference of religion. The false opinions objecting to the filioque remains a minor difference that objects to the Catholic faith expressing her faith that Jesus the Word of God is God incarnate and there never was a time (eternal) the Son was not God.

 

[SyroMalankara]

Okay. I follow you. Well, some of it, anyway.

First, let me thank you for your time and effort in posting that.

Second, if a theologian on the order of Pope Benedict were to address your concerns, how do you suppose he might go about it?

I phrase the question that way to give you the freedom to disagree with those whom you have surely studied. I guess I’m asking if you might present the position of those who might disagree with you that there is a problem at all. Assuming that such theologians exist, of course.

I hope that’s not confusing.

How Pope Benedict has addressed the ‘problem’ is by explaining the difference between the meaning of words in the Latin and Greek. In the Latin usage, while there could* be a misunderstanding, the filioque is not meant to be understood heretically, only as a clarification against the Arian heresy; if inserted into the original in Greek, however, filioque (καὶ τοῦ Υἱοῦ) is heretical. This is why the Pope’s and Magisterium have refused to have that phrase inserted into the Eastern Catholic Church Creed or when praying the Creed in Greek (such as Latin Rite Catholics in Greece, or i the presence of the Ecumenical Patriarch).

 

[Tomdstone]

I think your post relates to the wisdom of the Church when she declares from the filioque is an ETERNAL procession, that never adds, changes or moves away from the Apostolic faith…

For several hundreds of years, the western Catholic Church said in the Nicene Creed that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father. Even today, Eastern Catholics proclaim the same.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Even today, Eastern Catholics proclaim the same.

We have different language expression. SyroMalankara, just addressed that above you, heresy happened, its not a question of assigning fault to anyone. Its a matter of understanding the language expression. Its not a question of putting the genie back in the bottle.

There was never a period when God was without His Word and Wisdom. So strictly speaking there is no before or after because there is no time, and further God cannot exist before His existence which is eternal.

Grace is another language variation in relation to understanding divinization.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

For several hundreds of years, the western Catholic Church said in the Nicene Creed that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father. Even today, Eastern Catholics proclaim the same.

For centuries( pre-Constantinople) before the Nicence creed was ever introduced, modified and changed by early councils ( post-Constantinople) the Roman Catholic Church always used the Apostles Creed and still does today. We have never moved from the Rock of professing our Apostolic faith handed to us from Peter and Paul.

The Nicene Creed is introduced to defeat eastern heretics and heresies holding the faith in her Orthodoxy in the East, when the west is not being infected with heretics and heresies. The filioque later is introduced to defeat an eastern heresy reaching the west, who were using the Nicene Creed to deny Jesus divinity, when the holy spirit is professed to proceed from the father, the heretical Arians agree with the Orthodox objection that; the Nicene Creed does not profess the Holy Spirit proceed from the Son, therefore Jesus is not God but became God at a later time. The filioque with eternally proceeds silenced the heretics and Arian heresy from ever infecting the Western Catholic faith.

Rome did not do anything different than what the early councils did to modify, change, add to clarify and defend the Catholic faith against heretics and heresies from infecting what is already believed and handed down to us from Jesus and His Apostles in faith and practice.

The only differences relate to objections that do not respect or acknowledge the Latin expression from the filioque of our Apostolic Catholic faith which professes that Jesus is God incarnate and there never is a time when the only begotten Son was never God. If you deny this apostolic faith in your objection to the filioque, you deny your own Orthodox faith, expressed from Latin. So we dare not use your objection in Latin because it places your Orthodox faith in heresy.

Peace be with you

 

[Randy_Carson]

How Pope Benedict has addressed the ‘problem’ is by explaining the difference between the meaning of words in the Latin and Greek. In the Latin usage, while there could* be a misunderstanding, the filioque is not meant to be understood heretically, only as a clarification against the Arian heresy; if inserted into the original in Greek, however, filioque (καὶ τοῦ Υἱοῦ) is heretical. This is why the Pope’s and Magisterium have refused to have that phrase inserted into the Eastern Catholic Church Creed or when praying the Creed in Greek (such as Latin Rite Catholics in Greece, or i the presence of the Ecumenical Patriarch).

Thank you.

Why is (καὶ τοῦ Υἱοῦ) heretical in Greek? I’d be happy to read an article online if it’s more than you want to type.

Oh, and what about in English? Is “from the Son” heretical in English, too?

 

[RyanBlack]

Thank you.

Why is (καὶ τοῦ Υἱοῦ) heretical in Greek? I’d be happy to read an article online if it’s more than you want to type.

Oh, and what about in English? Is “from the Son” heretical in English, too?

Because of the Greek verb for “proceeds from.”

 

[Cavaradossi]

Because of the Greek verb for “proceeds from.”

This seems to be a relatively recent development though (but a good one nevertheless). I do not think that Florence admitted the distinction between εκπορεύεσθαι and προϊέναι, though I could be wrong.

 

[SyroMalankara]

Thank you.

Why is (καὶ τοῦ Υἱοῦ) heretical in Greek? I’d be happy to read an article online if it’s more than you want to type.

Oh, and what about in English? Is “from the Son” heretical in English, too?

This article pretty much covers Eastern thought on the matter, from the Greek fathers.

orthodoxresearchinstitute.org/articles/dogmatics/john_zizioulas_single_source.htm

There are slight differences in thought among the Syrians and Armenians however.

 

[Randy_Carson]

This article pretty much covers Eastern thought on the matter, from the Greek fathers.

orthodoxresearchinstitute.org/articles/dogmatics/john_zizioulas_single_source.htm

There are slight differences in thought among the Syrians and Armenians however.

In conclusion, the Vatican document on the procession of the Holy Spirit constitutes an encouraging attempt to clarify the basic aspects of the Filioque problem and show that a rapprochement between West and East on this matter is eventually possible. An examination of this problem in depth within the framework of a constructive theological dialogue can be greatly helped by this document.

 

[Tomdstone]

In conclusion, the Vatican document on the procession of the Holy Spirit constitutes an encouraging attempt to clarify the basic aspects of the Filioque problem and show that a rapprochement between West and East on this matter is eventually possible. An examination of this problem in depth within the framework of a constructive theological dialogue can be greatly helped by this document.

Why does the Vatican object to per filium replacing filioque?

 

[SyroMalankara]

Why does the Vatican object to per filium replacing filioque?

Essentially, it would go against hundreds of years of Latin Tradition, where per filium was seen as equal to filioque… but changing it to “appease the Greeks” may come off badly in other sectors of the Latin Church (SSPX or some similar groups perhaps)

 

[Tomdstone]

Essentially, it would go against hundreds of years of Latin Tradition, where per filium was seen as equal to filioque… but changing it to “appease the Greeks” may come off badly in other sectors of the Latin Church (SSPX or some similar groups perhaps)

I don’t see what is wrong with promoting unity with the Greeks, and I thought that that was what the Vatican was saying that they wanted - reunion with the Greek Orthodox?

 

[GaryTaylor]

I don’t see what is wrong with promoting unity with the Greeks, and I thought that that was what the Vatican was saying that they wanted - reunion with the Greek Orthodox?

Unity shows positive signs of reconciliation. Zizioulas states “Closely related to the question of the single cause is the problem of the exact meaning of the Son’s involvement in the procession of the Spirit. Saint Gregory of Nyssa explicitly admits a ‘mediating’ role of the Son in the procession of the Spirit from the Father. Is this role to be expressed with the help of the preposition δία (through) the Son (εκ Πατρός δι’Υιού), as Saint Maximus and other Patristic sources seem to suggest?”
Zizioulas continues with “The Vatican statement notes that this is ‘the basis that must serve for the continuation of the current theological dialogue between Catholic and Orthodox’. I would agree with this, adding that the discussion should take place in the light of the ‘single cause’ principle to which I have just referred.” Zizioulas continues with saying that this “constitutes an encouraging attempt to clarify the basic aspects of the ‘Filioque’ problem and show that a rapprochement between West and East on this matter is eventually possible”.[116]
John Romanides too, while personally opposing the “Filioque”, has stated that in itself, outside the Creed, the phrase is not considered to have been condemned by the 878-880 Council of Constantinople, “since it did not teach that the Son is ‘cause’ or ‘co-cause’ of the existence of the Holy Spirit”; however, it could not be added to the Creed, “where ‘procession’[ac] means ‘cause’ of existence of the Holy Spirit”.

.

If you read his actual assessment on the filioque you’ll come to realize we are saying the same thing differently. And in the Greek to Latin translation. Read Metropolitan John Zizioulas assessment

Its always language, for example read his first sentence. “The Father is the origin” but listen carefully, there is no origin. There is no cause as repetitively read with the Early Fathers. And thats why First principle is used. There was never a point where the Father didn’t have His Word with Him.

Nor is a single cause new. Its repetitive in the Church, the Holy Spirit is of One Principle. But there is No Cause in terms of cause and effect. So you see how quick language is an issue?

google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCQQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FHistory_of_the_Filioque_controversy&ei=xeCXVOeFJYyogwT9loTIAg&usg=AFQjCNEj7GU0DLuti3E8V4oUKug2ItnYoA

There could never have been total understanding and thats been the issue. Despite that the understanding remains very similar. There was no agree’d upon language because they spoke different languages. Its not a matter of the recitation. its a matter of understanding whats recitated and why its recited as suggested. Here there is mucho confusion within each church. And rightfully so as you have to have an interest to research this. So what we have is assumption by large and distortion, accusations and so forth which in time result in learned behavior in which the learned behavior may indeed be based of misunderstanding.

So when you start the conversation and already judged others heretics. The conversation is likely to be a flop. And while I can understand some of this is relation to mans interaction in 1000-ad, which the civil aspect is questionable at best. Today we are not breaking records with the modern evolution of mans behavior either.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Why does the Vatican object to per filium replacing filioque?

I have no idea. However, if the underlying meaning is the same, and it makes the EO happy, then I have no problem with it.

Little by little, Catholics will find ways to bridge the gap between East and West, but I suspect that even then the EO will not re-unite simply because it offends their pride to do so.

 

[Efnouti_Nai_Nan]

Do you know any of the Eastern Orthodox personally, Randy Carson?

I want to know why you think what you think about them and their motivations.

I know a few Greeks and even though our churches disagree on some matters, they do not seem very prideful about it (usually regretful, because it is bad that we are not yet in communion). It depends on where you go, certainly, but at least in America I know that there are many who see us as close cousins rather than competitors or threats to their pride. And we have been separated for much longer than the western and eastern romans! So please think again about your diagnosis of the Greeks.

 

[GaryTaylor]

I know a few Greeks and even though our churches disagree on some matters, they do not seem very prideful about it (usually regretful, because it is bad that we are not yet in communion). It depends on where you go, certainly, but at least in America I know that there are many who see us as close cousins rather than competitors or threats to their pride. And we have been separated for much longer than the western and eastern romans! So please think again about your diagnosis of the Greeks.

I think its all part of the process. I’m pretty positive Divine Providence wants the Church united, so do its leaders and members by large. Sometimes its distracting and difficult to keep a free flowing conversation and stick to the point here, there’s often much misunderstanding and distraction with side conversation. But the conversation also when on point is rather informative and often shows good all around perspective. To me the authority of Church is often the main issue, yet its hard to dismiss the Pope

google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CB4QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.radiovaticana.va%2Fnews%2F2014%2F11%2F30%2Fpope_francis_i_seek_communion_with_orthodox_churches%2F1113017&ei=IX-YVO61JMiqNoyag8gE&usg=AFQjCNG-vXpCtplLPCxe1ox18AtgyKk_BQ&bvm=bv.82001339,d.eXY

Further I think the Coptic Pope is a wonderful man. It must be difficult for the Coptic people to read through all this mess since the 5th century.

 

[Efnouti_Nai_Nan]

What do you mean “all this mess since the 5th century”?