Filioque and Eastern Christian Trinitarian understanding

[Traditional_Ang]

Fr Ambrose:

The sending of the Holy Spirit by the Son took place on earth, on the great feast of Pentecost when the tongues of fire appeared over the Apostles. It took place in both a temporal and terrestial context. Quite analogous to the Incarnation.

The analogy stands! If one is indicative of an eternal procession from the Son, the other points to an eternal incarnation from the Virgin.

The fact that this appears ridiculous is because it is, in both instances

Fr. Ambrose:

In both cases, both are true. All things (name removed by moderator)ortant to our salvation and to Grace occur both inside and ouside of time. So, they are both Temporal and Eternal.

So, it is with the Eucharist, Crucifixion, Resurrection, and Accension of Our Lord Jesus Christ. They are that way, because they all involve He who was, is and is to come, and they are all done for us and for our Salvation.

Please do not chide Ghosty or GAssasi too much. I think you both may be right on this fine and mustical point. I’m sure that in your meditations, you’ve experience at least some of the above as if they were occuring right then and there.

As I type this, a fire rages in a skyscraper in Madrid, please pray for all involved, esp. for those inside of the building, either trapped or fighting this trully massive and hot blaze.

Blessings to you and your congregation.

In Christ, Michael

 

[Traditional_Ang]

Fr. Ambrose:

You’re right, but there’s one phrase, added by the West, which we’ve been arguing about for I don’t know how long, and I’m tired of that argiument…
Fr Ambrose:

But we already have a Creed, the Nicene, which was composed and ratified by the entire Church, East and West. Why don’t we use that rather than a local Creed composed by an unknown person of no known authority in the West.

The Nicene Creed is our common inheritance. It carries the approval of all the Ecumenical Councils and of all the bishops who attended them from every Church in Christendom.

I suppose that what I am saying is, why reinvent the wheel?

I was hoping that, since this was a discussion of Trinitarian Doctrine, that, instead of having you deal with the various statements put together by the Catholic Posters on this board, I’d supply you with a bigger bone to chew on…The West’s Great Credal Statement on the Trinity.

I figured, that, once you read it through point by point, you’d be left with two or three articles that you’d see as problematic. I just felt that would be a lot more instructive that hoping that the Catholic posters could come up with reasonable statements about the Nature of the Trinity, that you and your Orthodox comrades could answer.

If you think that neither is a good idea, please let me know, and we’ll start the Thread about our differing Calendars, Holidays, Saints Days, Feast Days, Fast Days, Meaningful prayers, etc…

I actually prefer that idea as a means of less polarized dialogue.

May God take care of your health.

Michael

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

Traditional Ang:

Fr. Ambrose:

You’re right, but there’s one phrase, added by the West, which we’ve been arguing about for I don’t know how long, and I’m tired of that argiument…

Fair enough. Feel like discussing the “People’s Creed”? I remember once when this was recited at a meeting of the National Conference of Churches in this country…

**The People’s Creed

I believe in a colour blind God
Maker of technicolour people
Who created the Universe
And provided abundant resources
For an equitable distribution among all people.

I believe in Jesus Christ
Who was ridiculed, disfigured, and executed,
Who on the third day rose again and fought back;
He storms the highest councils of men
Where he overturns the iron rule of injustice.
From henceforth he shall continue
to judge the hatred and arrogance of men.
I believe in the Spirit of Reconciliation,
The united body of the dispossessed;
The communion of the suffering masses,
The power that overcomes the dehumanising forces of men
The resurrection of personhood, justice and equality,
And in the triumph of Brotherhood.**

 

[Traditional_Ang]

Fr. Ambrose:

is this Creed universally accepted by either East or West? Or, Was this something published by the usual purveyers of Socialism, and even Marxism, who have done so much more harm than good?..
Fr Ambrose:

Fair enough. Feel like discussing the “People’s Creed”? I remember once when this was recited at a meeting of the National Conference of Churches in this country…

**The PeopleÍs Creed

I believe in a colour blind God
Maker of technicolour people
Who created the Universe
And provided abundant resources
For an equitable distribution among all people.

I believe in Jesus Christ
Who was ridiculed, disfigured, and executed,
Who on the third day rose again and fought back;
He storms the highest councils of men
Where he overturns the iron rule of injustice.
From henceforth he shall continue
to judge the hatred and arrogance of men.
I believe in the Spirit of Reconciliation,
The united body of the dispossessed;
The communion of the suffering masses,
The power that overcomes the dehumanising forces of men
The resurrection of personhood, justice and equality,
And in the triumph of Brotherhood.**

…Is this even a Creed that you accept without reservation? Esp. when you consider the ministry of the Church to save human beings from the World, the Flesh and the Devil, one soul at a time?

…The reason I ask such provacative questions: Roman rule was far more unjust than that of any of the Western countries these people were and still are complaining about. The early Church and Jesus Christ did not go about destroying the Roman Empire. They used it to spread a Gospel that Creed doesn’t describe, one of the Love of God, Forgiveness of Sins, the Reconciliation to God throught the sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the Cross and our triumph over death in His Resurrection from the Grave.

The Creed above, said by the New Zealand National Churches speaks of “liberation”, but not of the kind the Gospel preaches.

The Gospel talks about changing our hearts. This “Creed” talks about attacking our societies and their structures. The two just are incompatible.

And, this Creed doesn’t talk about the Trinity, the Monarchy of the Father, or the relationship between the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost, or the manner of Procession…

I can see why your superiors sent you back to your parish. I hope you had nothing to do with writing it - That’s all I’d have to say!

Fr., if you don’t want to talk about this topic, that’s fine. We don’t have discuss it. Since everyone else has chickened out, I see no reason we can’t close this puppy down due to “lack of Interest” in the topic, if we so choose.

Otherwise, what is the supreme and authoritative ORTHODOX commentary on the TRINITY (Web Accessible)?

May God richly bless you.

Michael

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

Traditional Ang:

Otherwise, what is the supreme and authoritative ORTHODOX commentary on the TRINITY (Web Accessible)?l

The teachings of the Ecumenical Councils on christology and pneumatology.

Once we get beyond that we are entering into the realm of private opinion and not revelation.

And to quote Hesychios’s very first words which began this thread:

"With some trepidation I will begin this thread by quoting Saint Gregory of Nazianzus

“You hear that there is generation? Do not waste your time in seeking after the how. You hear that the Spirit proceeds from the Father? Do not busy yourself about the how” [Orat XX, 2] **

“You ask what is the procession of the Holy Spirit? Tell me first what is the unbegottenness of the Father, then I will explain to you the physiology of the Son’s generation and the Spirit’s procession and both of us shall be stricken with madness for prying into the mystery of God**” [Orat XXXI, 8]

http://www.wellsprings.org.uk/images/trinit1.jpg

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

Hesychios:

This is a side thread prompted at the request of posters elsewhere who expressed an interest in the Eastern Christian understanding of the Trinity, and objections to the Filioque.

With some trepidation I will begin this thread by quoting Saint Gregory of Nazianzus “You hear that there is generation? Do not waste your time in seeking after the how. You hear that the Spirit proceeds from the Father? Do not busy yourself about the how” [Orat XX, 2] “You ask what is the procession of the Holy Spirit? Do tell me first what is the unbegottenness of the Father, then I will explain to you the physiology of the Son’s generation and the Spirit’s procession and both of us shall be stricken with madness for prying into the mystery of God” [Orat XXXI, 8]

http://www.wellsprings.org.uk/images/trinit1.jpg

 

[Traditional_Ang]

Fr. Ambrose:

I think I get the hint…Since I’ve returned to the Faith for just 16 months after an abscence of some 20+ years, you are welcome to list the documents in a “pedagogic order”…
Fr Ambrose:

The teachings of the Ecumenical Councils on christology and pneumatology.

Once we get beyond that we are entering into the realm of private opinion and not revelation.

And to quote Hesychios’s very first words which began this thread:

"With some trepidation I will begin this thread by quoting Saint Gregory of Nazianzus

“You hear that there is generation? Do not waste your time in seeking after the how. You hear that the Spirit proceeds from the Father? Do not busy yourself about the how” [Orat XX, 2] **

“You ask what is the procession of the Holy Spirit? Tell me first what is the unbegottenness of the Father, then I will explain to you the physiology of the Son’s generation and the Spirit’s procession and both of us shall be stricken with madness for prying into the mystery of God**” [Orat XXXI, 8]

http://www.wellsprings.org.uk/images/trinit1.jpg

,And, we can see how the other Catholics choose to respond and if they can bring in some later (Western Counciliar or Church Father) commentary.

I think you’ll agree there are far worse things to go mad over. As they say, “Been there. Done that.”

I’m going to bed now - Good night.

May God bless your liturgy tomorrow.

Michael

 

[Irish_Melkite]

Fr Ambrose:

The teachings of the Ecumenical Councils on christology and pneumatology.

Once we get beyond that we are entering into the realm of private opinion and not revelation.

And to quote Hesychios’s very first words which began this thread:

"With some trepidation I will begin this thread

Abouna,

Your 2,500th post - Congratulations !!!

May God grant you many years,

Neil

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

Irish Melkite:

Abouna,

Your 2,500th post - Congratulations !!!

May God grant you many years,

Neil

Thank you, thank you <blush, blush>

But our HagiaSophia who joined at the same time
as my lowly self has just chalked up her 5,000th post.

***Congratulations to Sophia! ***

 

[mtr01]

Father, congratulations as well on 2,500. I also wanted to mention that I sent you a question via PM. When you have the time, a response would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance!

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

mtr01:

Father, congratulations as well on 2,500. I also wanted to mention that I sent you a question via PM. When you have the time, a response would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance!

Thanks for the congrats

The PM system has never worked for me and never sends me any notification of messages and I never think to go and have a look - but I am off to do so now

 

[Traditional_Ang]

Fr. Ambrose:

The Forum needs (name removed by moderator)ut from both of you…But please remember that you have a congregation of SHEEP that you are responsible for, and they do have to come first…
Fr Ambrose:

Thank you, thank you <blush, blush>

But our HagiaSophia who joined at the same time
as my lowly self has just chalked up her 5,000th post.

***Congratulations to Sophia! ***

Fr., I apologize that this thick-headed Irishman didn’t notice.

Most definitely, congratulations are in order, simply because you’ve persevered and not taken offense and gone home.

May God grant you health, prosperity and many years. And, may He heal your ticker.

Michael

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

Traditional Ang:

Fr. Ambrose:

The Forum needs (name removed by moderator)ut from both of you…But please remember that you have a congregation of SHEEP that you are responsible for, and they do have to come first…

Most definitely, congratulations are in order, simply because you’ve persevered and not taken offense and gone home.

Well, I enjoy hanging around with you all

I am doing less and less work in the parish because of the heart. It’s mid summer here and the heat is bad for it. A priest visits once a month from another city to help out and when the new Dean takes up his appointement in May we shall look at the whole situation. Who knows, but God willing I may get a blessing to set up a chapel at home and live more like a monk in my old age. Of course the door is open to those who come and see me and want to pray with me.

May God grant you health, prosperity and many years. And, may He heal your ticker.

Thanks for the good wishes and prayers. Deeply appreciated.

 

[Aris]

Fr Ambrose:

Originally Posted by Aris

1. What does this mean? What is in the virtue of the Names that distinguishes the Persons?
2. How does this relate to the monarchy of the Father?
3. What is being conveyed by the capitalisation of ALL?
4. Does this mean that the Father lacks comprehension of the Son and vice versa?
5. This is not possible unless the Spirit has an eternal procession from the Son.

1. See post # 164. It is connected with their relationship.
2. See # 3 of the list. The relationship is there.
3. It is an emphasis that the Father works through the Son.
4. No. Please see #4 and #6 on the list
5. It is a biblical quote. The Spirit is refered to also as the Spirit of the Son. Galatian 4:6. So you don’t agree with the biblical quote?

I’ve added Michael’s (TradAng) addition to the list and his clarifications of some terms.

1. We believe in one God
2. We believe in that God is three Persons in one God.
3. We believe that each Person is distinct from the other by their relationship, The Father is the unbegotten, the Son is begotten and the Holy Spirit proceeds.
4. that the Persons of the Trinity are consubstantial;
5. that the Persons of the Trinity are distinct by virtue of their Names.
6. that the Persons of the Trinity are all equal; that there is no gradation of power or honor among the Persons.
7. that the Father works ALL things through the Son;
8. that the Spirit is able to comprehend the innermost thoughts of the Father and the Son;
9. that the Spirit is eternally the Spirit of the Father and of the Son.

1. That God’s Nature is Agape
2. One of God’s Names is that of “Mercy” or “Merciful”

So Father A, do you count #9 as “Do not Agree” or do you need to qualify your statement.
If so, do you agree to the rest?

 

[mtr01]

Fr Ambrose:

Thanks for the congrats

The PM system has never worked for me and never sends me any notification of messages and I never think to go and have a look - but I am off to do so now

I know what you mean about the PM’s, Father, I only remember to check them occasionally, and usually find ones in there several weeks old . That’s why I figured I’d mention it here. And the next time you occasion to check PM’s, there’s a thank you note in there from me.

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

1. See post # 164. It is connected with their relationship.
2. See # 3 of the list. The relationship is there.
3. It is an emphasis that the Father works through the Son.
4. No. Please see #4 and #6 on the list
5. It is a biblical quote. The Spirit is refered to also as the Spirit of the Son. Galatian 4:6. So you don’t agree with the biblical quote?

I’ve added Michael’s (TradAng) addition to the list and his clarifications of some terms.

1. We believe in one God
2. We believe in that God is three Persons in one God.
3. We believe that each Person is distinct from the other by their relationship, The Father is the unbegotten, the Son is begotten and the Holy Spirit proceeds.
4. that the Persons of the Trinity are consubstantial;
5. that the Persons of the Trinity are distinct by virtue of their Names.
6. that the Persons of the Trinity are all equal; that there is no gradation of power or honor among the Persons.
7. that the Father works ALL things through the Son;
8. that the Spirit is able to comprehend the innermost thoughts of the Father and the Son;
9. that the Spirit is eternally the Spirit of the Father and of the Son.

1. That God’s Nature is Agape
2. One of God’s Names is that of “Mercy” or “Merciful”

So Father A, do you count #9 as “Do not Agree” or do you need to qualify your statement.
If so, do you agree to the rest?

It is not easy to grasp the implication of all your points. Even the ones on which we could seem to agree may not be points of agreement at all, given the difference in understanding and language between the Greek East and the Latin West.

Certainly I cannot agree, to take an obvious example, that (7) * the Father works ALL things through the Son*. This would lead us directly to the heresy of the self-incarnation of the Son.

Nor could I agree with (9) that the Spirit is eternally the Spirit of the Father and of the Son. By bringing in the “eternally” you presuppose the doctrine of the filioque. You have tried to justify this by saying:

1. It is a biblical quote. The Spirit is refered to also as the Spirit of the Son. Galatian 4:6. So you don’t agree with the biblical quote?

Where is the reference to “eternally” in Galatians 4:6? You are playing with Scripture to suit your argument and you even want to put me on the defensive by asking “so you don’t agree with the biblical quote.” But it is really you who do not agree with the biblical quote for you have falsified it by presenting it as if it contains “eternally.” The word is simply not there. :tsktsk:

 

[amarischuk]

Fr Ambrose:

PS: It would still be wonderful to hear from the Eastern Catholics here how they understand the filioque. This would be of great interest to me and probably to the other Orthodox following this thread.

**Treaty Of Brest Document **
Articles Concerning Union With The Roman Church

1.—Since there is a quarrel between the Romans and Greeks about the procession of the Holy Spirit, which greatly impede unity really for no other reason than that we do not wish to understand one another—we ask that we should not be compelled to any other creed but that we should remain with that which was handed down to us in the Holy Scriptures, in the Gospel, and in the writings of the holy Greek Doctors, that is, that the Holy Spirit proceeds, not from two sources and not by a double procession, but from one origin, from the Father through the Son.
ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/TREATBR.HTM

Adam

 

[steve_b]

Fr Ambrose:

Certainly I cannot agree, to take an obvious example, that (7) the Father works ALL things through the Son. This would lead us directly to the heresy of the self-incarnation of the Son.

Explain
fr ambrose:

Nor could I agree with (9) that the Spirit is eternally the Spirit of the Father and of the Son. By bringing in the “eternally” you presuppose the doctrine of the filioque.

1. Is the Son 2 persons or One?
2. If the Spirit is not eternal to the Father and the Son both, then the Spirit is not the same Spirit of the Father and the Son, but another Spirit for each. And we know this is not the case.
3. If it is the same Spirit. then the Filioque as you say, is correct.

fr ambrose:

You have tried to justify this by saying:

Where is the reference to “eternally” in Galatians 4:6? You are playing with Scripture to suit your argument and you even want to put me on the defensive by asking “so you don’t agree with the biblical quote.” But it is really you who do not agree with the biblical quote for you have falsified it by presenting it as if it contains “eternally.” The word is simply not there. :tsktsk:

The Spirit is referred to as the Spirit of the Son (Gal. 4:6)

The relation of the Spirit to the Son is eternal. There was not a time when the Spirit of the Son didn’t exist. If at anytime it didn’t exist, then it is not eternal and Divine, and the Son is not eternal and divine and not of the same essence of the Father. The Spirit must be eternal, uncreated and of the same essence as the Father and the Son. This conclusion is all the more indisputable because the same argument is used to explain why

The Spirit is refererred to as the Spirit of the Father (Rom 8:9

---

Are these different Spirits between Father and Son? No! The same Spirit of the Son is the same Spirit of the Father. Therefore, the Spirit is eternal. One doesn’t have to use “eternal” in Gal 4:6, it’s understood to be there automatically.

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

Fr Ambrose: Nor could I agree with (9) that the Spirit is eternally the Spirit of the Father and of the Son. By bringing in the “eternally” you presuppose the doctrine of the filioque.

steve b:

Explain

1. Is the Son 2 persons or One?

Is the Holy Spirit 2 persons or one? The Spirit of the Father and the Spirit of the Son makes him two Spirits. Catholics try to avoid this conclusion by defining that he proceeds from both of them as from one principle. Well, WHAT or WHO is that principle that causes the Holy Spirit?

1. If the Spirit is not eternal to the Father and the Son both, then the Spirit is not the same Spirit of the Father and the Son, but another Spirit for each. And we know this is not the case.

This is not totally logical. The Father is eternal but he is the eternal origin of the Son and the Spirit although in different ways.

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

steve b:

The relation of the Spirit to the Son is eternal.

Yes, the *relationship * is eternal, but the Spirit does not have His eternal origin from the Son.

The relationship of the Father and the Spirit is likewise eternal but that does not make the Spirit the origin of the Son. The Son is begotten ONLY from the Father, despite the fact that He (the Son) has an eternal relationship with the Spirit.

So having an eternal relationship does not indicate an eternal origin. If it did we would have all sorts of odd things such as the Son being the eternal origin of the Father!!