P
Pitcharan
Guest
Did not our Lord clarify several times that He was doing His father’s will and NOT His own will
- Status
G
Gregory_I
Guest
These are the Words of the Word made Flesh, and as much as I do not wanna be a nestorian, I must say, that Christ’s Human Will is different (in abstracta et theoria) than his divine will, although the one willing is only one subject.
Christ Did not seek to fulfill his humanity, but to show forth the Father’s Divinity. Hence “I have not come to do MY will…” according to the flesh. He also offers us a pattern of humble submission to the will of God, while always being at once God, and man, united hypostatically in the Person of the Word as a single being.
Plus, orthodox trinitarian THeology is THat the Father is the FOnt and source of the whole trinity, that both persons besides the Father are consubstantial with Him and one another, and that they have only ONE energy and only ONE will, so you do not have the Holy SPirit doing something OTHER and APART from the son or Father.
It is a common shared will.
WHen Christ was made flesh, he took a rational soul and made it one with his divinity without confusion or change or alteration. Therefore, the Will of Manhood is the particular will of the Word incarnate, but it is always subject to his Divine will, and both wills exist in a unity.
Christ is not schizophrenic. The One Christ willed SINGLY in accordance with the properties of either nature of which he was composed without change, mixture separation or division.
Christ Did not seek to fulfill his humanity, but to show forth the Father’s Divinity. Hence “I have not come to do MY will…” according to the flesh. He also offers us a pattern of humble submission to the will of God, while always being at once God, and man, united hypostatically in the Person of the Word as a single being.
Plus, orthodox trinitarian THeology is THat the Father is the FOnt and source of the whole trinity, that both persons besides the Father are consubstantial with Him and one another, and that they have only ONE energy and only ONE will, so you do not have the Holy SPirit doing something OTHER and APART from the son or Father.
It is a common shared will.
WHen Christ was made flesh, he took a rational soul and made it one with his divinity without confusion or change or alteration. Therefore, the Will of Manhood is the particular will of the Word incarnate, but it is always subject to his Divine will, and both wills exist in a unity.
Christ is not schizophrenic. The One Christ willed SINGLY in accordance with the properties of either nature of which he was composed without change, mixture separation or division.
G
Ghosty
Guest
As Gregory I says, Christ has a human and Divine will, and His human will is always subservient to His Divine Will.
Cecilanius: I’ve seen some Eastern Orthodox claim this distinction between the economic and immanent Trinity, but it doesn’t fit with what the Father’s spoke of. In the quotes I cited earlier it is clear in most of them that they are speaking of the immanent Trinity.
All the economic Trinity refers to is how the Trinity manifests Itself in the world. So the Holy Spirit coming down from Heaven as a dove over Christ would be an example of the economic Trinity. The relationship of the Holy Spirit proceeding (proinai) from the Son is eternal and immanent.
The real difference between ekporousos and proinai is not immanent/economic, but rather that ekporousos means “proceeds from the source”, and proinai just means “proceeds”.
That being said, Rahner’s point still doesn’t hold; if the economic Trinity and the immanent Trinity were the same then the Son would be begotten of the Holy Spirit, not the Father.
And don’t belittle your intellect. There was a time when even Mardukm didn’t understand this stuff (and I would argue that none of us understand the Trinity, nor can we).
Peace and God bless!
P
Pitcharan
Guest
I admit that it is an incomprehensible mystery. I was only describing the functioning of the Trinity. The three-in-one aspect remains an incomprehensible mystery…
And don’t belittle your intellect. There was a time when even Mardukm didn’t understand this stuff (and I would argue that none of us understand the Trinity, nor can we).
Peace and God bless!
M
mardukm
Guest
Well said, as usual, brother Ghosty.
Since the Holy Spirit when He is in us effects our being conformed to God, and He actually proceeds from the Father and the Son, it is abundantly clear that He is of the Divine Essence, in it in essence and proceeding from it.
In this passage, St. Cyril is using the term proienai (that is translated as “proceeds”). Note that he uses it in reference to the ousia (the essence), exactly as the Latins intend when they use the term procedit.
Blessings,
Marduk
At this time, I would just like to repeat a plug for Pope St. Cyril of Alexandria:
Since the Holy Spirit when He is in us effects our being conformed to God, and He actually proceeds from the Father and the Son, it is abundantly clear that He is of the Divine Essence, in it in essence and proceeding from it.
In this passage, St. Cyril is using the term proienai (that is translated as “proceeds”). Note that he uses it in reference to the ousia (the essence), exactly as the Latins intend when they use the term procedit.
Amen. There was indeed a time when in my ignorance I thought filioque was a heresy.And don’t belittle your intellect. There was a time when even Mardukm didn’t understand this stuff (and I would argue that none of us understand the Trinity, nor can we).
Blessings,
Marduk
A
Alexander_Roman
Guest
Certainly, agreement can be reached if the original Creed sans Filioque could be adopted by both East and West. This has nothing to do with theology and everything with the appropriateness of adding unilaterally to a universal Creed.
The Orthodox certainly do accept the “Economic Filioque.” But due to linguistic issues primarily, I doubt that the Orthodox East will ever accept the Filioque in terms of the “Immanent Trinity.”
The reason for this is, in my view, that the Filioque can suggest (if not qualified) that the Spirit proceeds from the Son as He does from the Father - as has been widely discussed here. “Through the Son” is the best explanation and is what is actually intended by the Filioque as well.
However, despite what the Eastern Fathers have said, Orthodoxy affirms that the Spirit “proceeds from the Father and rests on the Son.”
This could have a lot to do with what Ghosty has raised (I’ve no doubt, actually). But the only way out of this conundrum is if the West classifies the Filioque as a theologoumenon for itself. This process is under way slowly and RC theologians have, as I understand, suggested that the Filioque and papal pronouncements on it are not necessarily written in stone.
Alex
The Orthodox certainly do accept the “Economic Filioque.” But due to linguistic issues primarily, I doubt that the Orthodox East will ever accept the Filioque in terms of the “Immanent Trinity.”
The reason for this is, in my view, that the Filioque can suggest (if not qualified) that the Spirit proceeds from the Son as He does from the Father - as has been widely discussed here. “Through the Son” is the best explanation and is what is actually intended by the Filioque as well.
However, despite what the Eastern Fathers have said, Orthodoxy affirms that the Spirit “proceeds from the Father and rests on the Son.”
This could have a lot to do with what Ghosty has raised (I’ve no doubt, actually). But the only way out of this conundrum is if the West classifies the Filioque as a theologoumenon for itself. This process is under way slowly and RC theologians have, as I understand, suggested that the Filioque and papal pronouncements on it are not necessarily written in stone.
Alex
C
Cecilianus
Guest
Although the Creed sans Filioque IS written in stone, by Pope…
The West is not going to accept a phrase in the Creed they have recited for a thousand years as being something optional or something they will be willing to get rid of, any more than other theological developments like the phrase Immaculate Conception, the phrase transubstantiation, the Rosary, or anything else that came since the schism. The development of doctrine happens whether it annoys people or not, and the only solution - as Marduk said - is theological understanding, rather than taking an ecumenical lowest common denominator. The understanding of the filioque as explained by St. Maximos, and explained to us by Marduk, is certainly different than that of Karl Rahner and the general understanding of most Roman Catholics; these two understandings may be accepted as different theologoumena - but only if both are actually compatible with the Council of Florence. Rejecting the filioque outright would to a Roman mind imply the “Photian fork”, which is indeed heretical and alien to both Orthodox and Catholic thought, and would create far more problems than it would solve.
M
Madaglan
Guest
I’ll have to pursue your objection further. I know from a previous conversation with Todd that each hypostasis has its own proper energy, just as each human being has his or her own proper energy. If this is true, these divine energies would not be three independent energies but would interpenetrate one another in such a way that in one energy is manifest equally the energy of the other two persons. In this case, it would be the distinct energies of the three persons together that manifest the simple divine energy common to the three persons.Todd’s essay introduces a much more serious problem, however, in calling the Holy Spirit a Divine Energy. The Holy Spirit is not, and can never be, Divine Energy. Divine Energy is the property of Divine Nature, Its activity and manifestation. The Holy Spirit can not “be Divine Energy”, the Holy Spirit posesses Divine Energy.
Think about it, if the Holy Spirit were Divine Energy, He would not be a unique Person. St. John of Damascus says this:
The Holy Spirit energizes, but is not Himself energy.
Yes, it is of course intended with this meaning. I’m just pointing out that, properly speaking, it doesn’t carry that meaning, and it is being twisted a bit by using it in that way. I bring this up only to point out the difficulty in translation, and the approximations and bending that must be done to accomodate ideas.
Ironically, we could say “originates from the Father”, and this would carry the meaning of ekporousis, but this is not done for some reason. Instead the incorrect word is used, the very Latin-based word that allows, in its vagueness, for the filioque to be non-heretical (since proceed does not carry the connotation of origination).
In the past, “procedere” was incorrectly translated (into Greek) as “ekporousis” only, while both “ekporousis” and “proinai” were translated as “procedere”. This led to a lot of confusion about what exactly was the problem with the filioque, from the Greek perspective. Now the “Greeks” continue the same linguistic error in the other direction.
Peace and God bless!
I am not sure that it’s the Eastern view that the Deity is to be identified with the divine nature. I’m pretty sure I’ve seen arguments against this connection. Trying to reconcile it with the Father as source–“I believe in one God, the Father Almighty…”
Have to get ready for work so I’ll write more later.
C
Cecilianus
Guest
My understanding of the Eastern teaching is that the Divine energies are simple, so that while we do correctly speak of divine “energies” (just as our Roman brethren speak of divine “graces” - although graces and energies are different concepts), there is only one divine energy. I stand open to correction, however.
G
Ghosty
Guest
If the Three each have their own proper energies, then They would not be one in all things except the personal properties of origin. For example, if the Son has a distinct energy from the Father, then the Son is not “alike in everything, except being Begotten”. As St. Maximos pointed out in his argument against Monothelitism, a nature is known by its energy, so if there are three Divine Energies proper to each person, then there are three Divine Natures.
Indeed, this is precisely the argument that settled the Monothelitism debate. Christ has two natures, and therefore He must necessarily have two wills because the will is part of the energy of a nature. You can’t have two natures and one will. Extending this to the Trinity, how is it possible that the Holy Spirit and the Son have distinct energies, but one Nature? This is why St. John of Damascus says that the Divine Nature has one energy, not three inter-penetrating energies.
Human beings have different energies because we don’t share the same identical nature, even though we share a common nature, and this common nature provides us each with our own common operations, like laughter and physical growth. What happens in my human nature happens to me, not to all humanity, and this is because we have bodies and separation. Three humans are not a trinity, they are a group of three that have a common, general nature. The Trinity is not a grouping of individuals, but a total unity of three Persons in One Divine Nature. To quote St. Gregory of Nyssa in “Not Three Gods”:
Operation, of course, is the typical English translation of the Greek “energy”. We see that this unity of energy is actually critical to understanding the meaning of the Trinity. To say that there are three operations/energies is to say that there are three Gods.
Again, Mr. Kastor’s views simply don’t match what has been taught by the Fathers and the Church.
Peace and God bless!
G
Ghosty
Guest
We do definitely appropriate (assign) certain activities of the Trinity to each Person, even though the activity is actually common to the whole. In this sense you’re definitely correct.
The problem is that the filioque isn’t addressing the activity of the Trinity, but rather the relationship between the Persons (though I would argue that the two are, in fact, related).
Peace and God bless!
P
Pitcharan
Guest
I feel that it is more than sufficient to just know what St. John’s epistle teaches: …and the three agree as one. Let the mysterious part remain a mystery as realised by St. Augustine of Hippo
G
Ghosty
Guest
M
Madaglan
Guest
Hi Ghosty,
I perceive your rationale in interpreting distinct energies as multiple natures. This is something I thought about in writing my post . I’ll take your points into consideration.
I do see, in referring to Ch. XXXV of Dialogue Between an Orthodox and a Barlamite, that St. Gregory Palamas (as the Orthodox speaker) asserts that the Fathers taught there are “many activities” (energeias), all uncreated and of the one and simple essence. Near the end of the dialogue, the Orthodox speaker also quotes from St. Basil’s letter 234 on how the energies of God are many while the essence is simple.
If there can only be one divine energy in the Trinity because the divine nature is one, how are we to understand the multiple divine energies (operations, activities) of which St. Basil and St. Gregory speak?
M
Madaglan
Guest
It seems to me, based on this post and your response to my last post, that you see a difference between the one operation of the uncreated and eternal divine nature, and the multiple operations “we” as humans, assign to the persons of the Trinity. Is it the case, from your point of view, that these energies have no reality apart from our conceptualization of them, although the operation to which they ultimately refer has subsistent reality in the Divine Nature? Would this be a fair assessment?.We do definitely appropriate (assign) certain activities of the Trinity to each Person, even though the activity is actually common to the whole. In this sense you’re definitely correct.
The problem is that the filioque isn’t addressing the activity of the Trinity, but rather the relationship between the Persons (though I would argue that the two are, in fact, related).
Peace and God bless!
G
Ghosty
Guest
I think that’s a fair assessment. St. John of Damascus uses the analogy of the sun, which with one kind of ray enacts many different things in creatures.
That being said, it’s not so much that there can’t be multiple energies (though I do argue that the Divine Energy is simple in and of itself, but multiplied in its effects, but that isn’t actually relevant to my point here), but rather that if the three distinct Persons are truly a unity and not just three seperate beings, they must share one and the same Energy/Energies; if Love and Life are two absolutely distinct Energies of the Divine Nature, the Holy Spirit and the Son must still share the very same Love and Life if they are united.
If they merely possess their own proper Life and Love on account of both having the Divine Nature, in the manner that human persons possess their own voices and smiles on account of having in common a human nature capable of speech and smiling, then we would have multiple Gods just as we have multiple humans.
To put it another way, if the Son has a power of giving life proper to Himself, and the Holy Spirit has another power of giving life, then they give two distinct lives, that or they both only give part of life, and added together they equal true life. But we say “Lord and giver of Life”, not “Lords and giver of Lives”. We receive one existence from God the Creator, not three, and not three thirds. Do we receive one Grace from the Son, and another from the Holy Spirit? Obviously not, therefore it’s improper to speak of three “proper personal energies”.
So we can speak of many Divine Energies (in this context, at least), so long as each Energy is shared as identically one between the three Persons. That’s my understanding, at least. I’m open to correction if I’m indeed misreading the Fathers, but it seems pretty plain to me from what they’re saying.
Peace and God bless!
F
Fr_Kyrillos
Guest
Mardukm - sorry to post this here, but I just wanted to make sure you received my PMs? Apologies…
M
Madaglan
Guest
Thank you for this clarification. I’ll have to think over what you wrote.I think that’s a fair assessment. St. John of Damascus uses the analogy of the sun, which with one kind of ray enacts many different things in creatures.
That being said, it’s not so much that there can’t be multiple energies (though I do argue that the Divine Energy is simple in and of itself, but multiplied in its effects, but that isn’t actually relevant to my point here), but rather that if the three distinct Persons are truly a unity and not just three seperate beings, they must share one and the same Energy/Energies; if Love and Life are two absolutely distinct Energies of the Divine Nature, the Holy Spirit and the Son must still share the very same Love and Life if they are united.
If they merely possess their own proper Life and Love on account of both having the Divine Nature, in the manner that human persons possess their own voices and smiles on account of having in common a human nature capable of speech and smiling, then we would have multiple Gods just as we have multiple humans.
To put it another way, if the Son has a power of giving life proper to Himself, and the Holy Spirit has another power of giving life, then they give two distinct lives, that or they both only give part of life, and added together they equal true life. But we say “Lord and giver of Life”, not “Lords and giver of Lives”. We receive one existence from God the Creator, not three, and not three thirds. Do we receive one Grace from the Son, and another from the Holy Spirit? Obviously not, therefore it’s improper to speak of three “proper personal energies”.
So we can speak of many Divine Energies (in this context, at least), so long as each Energy is shared as identically one between the three Persons. That’s my understanding, at least. I’m open to correction if I’m indeed misreading the Fathers, but it seems pretty plain to me from what they’re saying.
Peace and God bless!
In reference to your “We receive one existence from God the Creator, not three, and not three thirds,” it’s my understanding that the universe receives its existence from God the Father–I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Creator of Heaven and Earth. The Father creates everything through his eternal Word, his Son, and the Holy Spirit likewise is co-creator. The three share a common activity when it comes to creation. Otherwise we would have multiple universes. This said, there seems to be distinct activities of each person: God the Father creates through his Son, the eternal Word, and the Son and Holy Spirit create through being “hands” of the Father. Neither the Son nor the Holy Spirit creates through the Father. Each person in his unique activity co-operates with the other two persons in the common activity of creating the universe.
With regards to the “Lord and giver of Life” vs. “Lords and giver of Lives” analogy, my understanding, from St. Cyril, is that titles of divine perfection are common to all three persons. The Father is Lord and Giver of Life; the Son is Lord and Giver of Life; the Holy Spirit is Lord and Giver of Life. Though they be three, each Lord, they operate together, as one, to give the same life. Question I have: is each Lord and Giver of Life in the same exact manner as are the other two persons?
J
jimmy
Guest
According to the Cappadocians the Father is the monarchy of the Trinity. He is the Godhead itself. Basil is even somewhat hesitant to call the Son and Spirit God, although his theology amounts to saying it. He never refered to the Spirit as God in On the Holy Spirit, but all of his arguments show that the Spirit is God. To him, God is the Father, and from Him is begotten the Son who is equal to the Father because he is all that the Father is, and the Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son, and is all that the Father is so He is God as well. The identity of the Spirit as God is implied, but never declared by Basil. This simply emphasizes Basils point that the Father is Monarchy and the unity of the Trinity.
From what I have seen of his references to the Son proceeding from the Father through the Son though, I am unsure how much it deals with the immanent Trinity. Usually it is mentioned in relation to revelation to us and our vision of God. The Son is the Image and the Father is the Archetype. The Spirit is the light in which we see the Son, and through Him we see the Father. Check On the Holy Spirit Chapt.18, and On Faith to see this. No doubt there is some relation to the immanent Trinity, but would Basil see it as a rule that the Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son in an immanent sense?
Gregory Naz. has a similar formula. The Father is the Monarchy, the Source of the Trinity. The Father is the cause of the Trinity and from Him the Son is begotten both by nature and will. The Spirit proceeds from Him through the Son. The begetting of the Son and procession of the Spirit are not temporal matters, but simply show them as equal to the Father because they are from the Father and have His essence (the Father is superior in as much as the cause is superior though). I don’t have Gregory’s theology as clear in my mind as Basil’s, and I don’t feel like reading through his Theological Orations again right now so I can’t give you any more than this right now.
From what I have seen of his references to the Son proceeding from the Father through the Son though, I am unsure how much it deals with the immanent Trinity. Usually it is mentioned in relation to revelation to us and our vision of God. The Son is the Image and the Father is the Archetype. The Spirit is the light in which we see the Son, and through Him we see the Father. Check On the Holy Spirit Chapt.18, and On Faith to see this. No doubt there is some relation to the immanent Trinity, but would Basil see it as a rule that the Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son in an immanent sense?
Gregory Naz. has a similar formula. The Father is the Monarchy, the Source of the Trinity. The Father is the cause of the Trinity and from Him the Son is begotten both by nature and will. The Spirit proceeds from Him through the Son. The begetting of the Son and procession of the Spirit are not temporal matters, but simply show them as equal to the Father because they are from the Father and have His essence (the Father is superior in as much as the cause is superior though). I don’t have Gregory’s theology as clear in my mind as Basil’s, and I don’t feel like reading through his Theological Orations again right now so I can’t give you any more than this right now.
G
Ghosty
Guest
Madaglan: Each Person’s participation in the single action is accounted for in the quote from St. Gregory of Nyssa I posted above. The activities are one, but each participates according to their place in the Trinity, or we might say that the. We also appropriate certain terms to the Person of the Trinity Who best reflects the characteristic energy or activity being described.
So while the Life of God is one, and identical and singular in all three Persons, we ascribe the giving of Life to the Holy Spirit because the manner of His procession best fits the giving of Life to things that don’t share the same essence (literally “breathing life” into something). And while the Trinity is one Creator, we attribute Creation especially to the Father, because He is the Source within the Trinity.
I strongly recommend checking out St. John of Damascus’ "Exposition of the Orthodox Faith", especially Book One, Chapters 12 and 13. He’s not the only one to write on the subject, obviously, but he did a marvelous job of condensing things and laying them out clearly and systematically, IMO.
Peace and God bless!
So while the Life of God is one, and identical and singular in all three Persons, we ascribe the giving of Life to the Holy Spirit because the manner of His procession best fits the giving of Life to things that don’t share the same essence (literally “breathing life” into something). And while the Trinity is one Creator, we attribute Creation especially to the Father, because He is the Source within the Trinity.
I strongly recommend checking out St. John of Damascus’ "Exposition of the Orthodox Faith", especially Book One, Chapters 12 and 13. He’s not the only one to write on the subject, obviously, but he did a marvelous job of condensing things and laying them out clearly and systematically, IMO.
Peace and God bless!
- Status