Filioque and Eastern Christian Trinitarian understanding

[SyroMalankara]

Fr Ambrose:

Who wrote that? It’s absolute rubbish -from the Orthodox viewpoint. Chalcedon has a lesser degree of fullness than Ephesus??!! :bigyikes: <staggering, reaching for his heart medicine>

How can the Eastern Orthodox then state that the Oriental Orthodox are “truly”, “fully” Orthodox, and even while rejecting the last four Councils, still not fall into heresy?

** In 1964, at Aarhus, a statement by an unofficial consultation of Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox theologians said, “On the essence of Christological dogma we found ourselves in full agreement. Through the different terminologies used by each side, we saw the same truth expressed.” Patriarch Athenagoras had already said in 1951 that the non-Chalcedonians were “nevertheless Orthodox in all things.”**

How can they reject the 7 and still be complete? Maybe it isn’t the acceptance of the number 7, but the essence of what the seven councils teach.

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

Michael_Thoma:

Here’s something From Cardinal Ratzinger’s 1987 book, Principles of Catholic Theology (pg. 199)
“Rome must not require more from the East with respect to the doctrine of the primacy than had been formulated and was lived in the first millenium…(he then quotes Patriarch Athenagoras, who designated the Pope as “the successor of Saint Peter, as the most esteemed among us, as one who presides in charity”)…this great Church leader was expressing the essential content of the doctrine of primacy as it was known in the first millenium. Rome need not ask for more. Reunion could take place in this context if, on the one hand, the East would cease to oppose as heretical the developments that took place in the West in the second millenium and would accept the Catholic Church as legitimate and orthodox in the form she has acquired in the course of that development, while, on the other hand, the West would recognize the Church of the East as orthodox and legitimate in the form she has always had.”

How can the Church accept this proposal from a Roman Catholic cardinal? How can we agree to stop opposing “as heretical the developments that took place in the West in the second millenium”?

This means we must accept as a part of the faith Papal Infallibility, Purgatory, Indulgences, Immaculate Conception, etc. But we cannot accept them if we consider them heretical and we shall be logically obliged to oppose them wherever they are, in Rome or in Jerusalem or Lhasa.

How can we agree to “accept the Catholic Church as legitimate and orthodox in the form she has acquired in the course of that development”?

The form she has acquired is a papal structure which elevates the bishop of Rome as the supreme power in and over the entire Church, with or without his use of Councils. How can we agree to accept that?

 

[steve_b]

Fr Ambrose:

Ahem I was pointing to the fact that two sources of the Spirit must have given rise to two Spirits. Two mothers cannot bear the same child, and no fancy word shuffling about the child proceeding from two mothers as from one princiople will ever convince me that one child was born from two mothers.

Your example isn’t applicable. The Spirit of the Son is absolutely the same Spirit as the Spirit of the Father.
Fr Ambrose:

And nobody has yet explained to us exactly what this RC “principle” is that causes the Spirit?

So here’s the question again - WHO or WHAT is the ‘principle’?

246 The Latin tradition of the Creed confesses that the Spirit “proceeds from the Father and the Son (filioque)”. The Council of Florence in 1438 explains: "The Holy Spirit is eternally from Father and Son; He has his nature and subsistence at once (simul) from the Father and the Son. He proceeds eternally from both as from one principle and through one spiration. . . . And, since the Father has through generation given to the only-begotten Son everything that belongs to the Father, except being Father, the Son has also eternally from the Father, from whom he is eternally born, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son."75

248 At the outset the Eastern tradition expresses the Father’s character as first origin of the Spirit. By confessing the Spirit as he “who proceeds from the Father”, it affirms that he comes from the Father *through *the Son.77 The Western tradition expresses first the consubstantial communion between Father and Son, by saying that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son (filioque). It says this, “legitimately and with good reason”,78 for *the eternal order of the divine persons in their consubstantial communion implies that the Father, as “the principle without principle”,79 is the first origin of the Spirit, but also that as Father of the only Son, he is, with the Son, the single principle from which the Holy Spirit proceeds.80 This legitimate complementarity, provided it does not become rigid, does not affect the identity of faith in the reality of the same mystery confessed. *

258 The whole divine economy is the common work of the three divine persons. For as the Trinity has only one and the same natures so too does it have only one and the same operation: "The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are not three principles of creation but one principle."97 However, each divine person performs the common work according to his unique personal property. Thus the Church confesses, following the New Testament, “one God and Father from whom all things are, and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom all things are, and one Holy Spirit in whom all things are”.98 It is above all the divine missions of the Son’s Incarnation and the gift of the Holy Spirit that show forth the properties of the divine persons.

taken from vatican.va/archive/catechism/p1s2c1p2.htm
Fr Ambrose:

The attribution of this Creed to Athanasius is a piece of fraud. Best to quietly lay it to rest.

St Thomas in his Summa, quotes Athanasius in that attribution.

“The Holy Ghost is from the Father and the Son, not made, nor begotten, but proceeding.”

taken from stjamescatholic.org/summa/FP/FP027.html

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

steve b:

At the outset the Eastern tradition expresses the Father’s character as first origin of the Spirit. By confessing the Spirit as he “who proceeds from the Father”, it affirms that he comes from the Father *through *the Son.

This is sheer wishful thinking on the part of the Latins. Where is the Eastern conciliar definition to support this quite astounding assertion that this is the confession of the Orthodox?

 

[Aris]

Fr Ambrose:

Could you please run them by us again. I don’t recall seeing any such proofs.

I remember that Maggie, at the beginning of this thread, said she had done a previous study of scriptural proofs for the filioque and she wanted to offer her research to us, but I don’t think she has done so?

Maggie, if you are still reading this thread, would you be able to address the scriptural proofs?

I think it is best to go back to our list.

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.
10. That God’s Nature is Agape
11. One of God’s Names is that of “Mercy” or “Merciful”
12. The Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son

Please let me know which you think is biblically unsound. And I will bring out the verse to support the statement.

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

Aris:

I think it is best to go back to our list.

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.
10. That God’s Nature is Agape
11. One of God’s Names is that of “Mercy” or “Merciful”
12. The Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son

Please let me know which you think is biblically unsound. And I will bring out the verse to support the statement.

Aris, you have given us a list but I was hoping for the sciptural quotes to back them up. You wrote that this has already been supplied. Could you just list the message No’s and I can go back and read the quotes.

Originally Posted by Aris
We have given biblical proofs and that should be answered.

I am willing to look at the quotes, and I am sure Prodromos is too, and we shall look at how the Orthodox understand them. I supoose what is of uppermost importance is not the quotes which for the first 11 - but for No. 12. That is the cruncher. Wouldn’t it be shocking if there is proof in the New Testament that the Spirit is caused by the Son and yet the Greeks, who after all have the advantage of reading the NT in the original language, have completely overlooked it for 2000 years!!!

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

Aris:

I think it is best to go back to our list.

1. 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.

Please let me know which you think is biblically unsound. And I will bring out the verse to support the statement.

(3) is scripturally unsound. The Scripture is clear that the Holy Spirit does not proceed (and full stop.) Scripture is explicit that the Spirit proceeds from the Father.

As the Vulgate, the official Bible of the Roman Catholic Church confirms:

“Cum autem venerit paracletus quem ego mittam vobis a Patre Spiritum veritatis qui a Patre procedit ille testimonium perhibebit de me.”

John 15:26

And if we look at the Douay-Rheims translation of the Vulgate:

“But when the Paraclete cometh, whom I will send you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who proceedeth from the Father, he shall give testimony of me.”

This is the word of the Lord and this is the teaching of His Church: The Spirit proceeds from the Father; the Spirit is sent to believers by the Son.

 

[JPrejean]

Ditto to Fr Ambrose. This statement is wrong:

1. 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.

The Son and the Spirit are not distinct from one another by their relationship to one another, but by their respective modes of generation by the Father. It is the difference between being begotten and proceeding that distinguishes the hypostases. The idea that each person must be distinct from the other by relationships comes from the idea that Persons are relations within the divine essence, which is erroneous.

 

[SyroMalankara]

JPrejean:

Ditto to Fr Ambrose. This statement is wrong:

The Son and the Spirit are not distinct from one another by their relationship to one another, but by their respective modes of generation by the Father. It is the difference between being begotten and proceeding that distinguishes the hypostases. The idea that each person must be distinct from the other by relationships comes from the idea that Persons are relations within the divine essence, which is erroneous.

What are the respective modes of generation by the Father?

 

[JPrejean]

Michael_Thoma:

What are the respective modes of generation by the Father?

Oops, should have said “derivation” instead of “generation.” But as regards the real point of your question, the answer is that only God knows! That’s what St. John Damascene means in the quote that Fr. Ambrose provided above: “the Son is derived from the Father after the manner of generation, and the Holy Spirit likewise is derived from the Father, yet not after the manner of generation, but after that of procession. And we have learned that there is a difference between generation and procession, but the nature of that difference we in no wise understand.”

We only know that in some mysterious and ineffable way that the derivation of the Son from the Father is different than the derivation of the Holy Spirit from the Father, but the exact difference is unknowable to finite beings.

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

JPrejean:

Ditto to Fr Ambrose. This statement is wrong:

The Son and the Spirit are not distinct from one another by their relationship to one another, but by their respective modes of generation by the Father. It is the difference between being begotten and proceeding that distinguishes the hypostases. The idea that each person must be distinct from the other by relationships comes from the idea that Persons are relations within the divine essence, which is erroneous.

You are right. In all this great amount of debating which we are enjoyng we momentarily lost sight of the basics.

Hesychios opened this thread with what we may see as the Orthodox “ground rules.” And I have to say that the Orthodox will not go beyond this position. This is bound to be frustrating to the Catholics in the filioque dialogue who will presume that by logic and explanation they will demonstrate to the Orthodox the logical necessity of their filioque theology. And the Orthodox will also talk and talk on the topic ad infinitum, but when the important decisions have to be made they will always revert to the statement posted in Message #1 by Hesychios…

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]

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

Michael_Thoma:

What are the respective modes of generation by the Father?

The Fathers have answered this.

“The mode of generation and the mode of procession are incomprehensible,” says St. John Damascene. “We have learned that there is a difference between generation and procession, but the nature of the difference we in no wise understand.”

St. Gregory Nazianzen had already been forced to reject the attempts made to define the mode of the divine procession. “You ask,” he says, “what is the procession of the Holy Spirit? Do you tell me first what is the unbegottenness of the Father, and I will then explain to you the physiology of the generation of the Son, and the procession of the Spirit, and we shall both of us be stricken with madness for prying into the mystery of God.”

“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.”

Indeed, if the relations of origin- to be unbegotten, begotten and
proceeding which cause us to distinguish the three hypostases, lead our thought to the sole source of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, to the “pegaia theotes”, to the Father, Source of Divinity, they do not establish a separate relation between the Son and the Holy Spirit. These two persons are distinguished by the different mode of their origin: the Son is begotten, the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father. This is sufficient to distinguish them.

 

[Aris]

quote=Fr Ambrose is scripturally unsound. The Scripture is clear that the Holy Spirit does not proceed (and full stop.) Scripture is explicit that the Spirit proceeds from the Father.

As the Vulgate, the official Bible of the Roman Catholic Church confirms:

“Cum autem venerit paracletus quem ego mittam vobis a Patre Spiritum veritatis qui a Patre procedit ille testimonium perhibebit de me.”

John 15:26

And if we look at the Douay-Rheims translation of the Vulgate:

“But when the Paraclete cometh, whom I will send you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who proceedeth from the Father, he shall give testimony of me.”

This is the word of the Lord and this is the teaching of His Church: The Spirit proceeds from the Father; the Spirit is sent to believers by the Son.
[/quote]

The way to define their uniqueness is to define their relationship with one another.

That is the point of the statement. I think you are reading too much of the Filioque on this simple statement.

This stands biblically.

Your next objection please?

 

[Aris]

JPrejean:

Ditto to Fr Ambrose. This statement is wrong:

The Son and the Spirit are not distinct from one another by their relationship to one another, but by their respective modes of generation by the Father. It is the difference between being begotten and proceeding that distinguishes the hypostases. The idea that each person must be distinct from the other by relationships comes from the idea that Persons are relations within the divine essence, which is erroneous.

you might want to change your line.

if you are a latin-rite catholic then you would understand the Cathecism. your idea and conclusion is erroneous. “that each person must be distinct from the other by relationships comes from the idea that Persons are relations within the divine essence”

That is not how the Cathecism explains the idea of relationships.

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

Aris:

The way to define their uniqueness is to define their relationship with one another.

That is the point of the statement. I think you are reading too much of the Filioque on this simple statement.

This stands biblically.

I think we have shown that, while this may be the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church, it is not the teaching of the Tradition of the Church Fathers and it stands neither scripturally nor patristically.

"Indeed, if the relations of origin- to be unbegotten, begotten and proceeding which cause us to distinguish the three hypostases, lead our thought to the sole source of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, to the “pegaia theotes”, to the Father, Source of Divinity, they do not establish a separate relation between the Son and the Holy Spirit. These two persons are distinguished by the different mode of their origin: the Son is begotten, the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father. This is sufficient to distinguish them.

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

Aris:

That is the point of the statement. I think you are reading too much of the Filioque on this simple statement.

?? I provide you with the very clear words of our Lord about the Holy Spirit and you say that He is speaking too simply!!!

“But when the Paraclete cometh, whom I will send you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who proceedeth from the Father, he shall give testimony of me.”

Next thing we shall be told that the words at the last supper are having too much read into them" This is My Body, this is My Blood." This is the way of Protestantism - to take the words of our Lord or of the Apostles, especially Paul, and by human logic to create wondrous theological concepts which are nevertheless not the faith of the Church.

 

[JPrejean]

Aris:

The way to define their uniqueness is to define their relationship with one another.

This contradicts the patristic witness of Fathers who are Saints of the Catholic Church.

Aris:

you might want to change your line.

I have done a great deal of thinking and, more importantly, reading on this subject, so I am not going into this lightly. Indeed, I would say the same to you.

Aris:

if you are a latin-rite catholic then you would understand the Cathecism. your idea and conclusion is erroneous. “that each person must be distinct from the other by relationships comes from the idea that Persons are relations within the divine essence”

That is not how the Cathecism explains the idea of relationships.

If you’re going to lecture me on the Catechism, you should at least quote the Catechism. If I am in error, prove it.

 

[JackQ]

Fr Ambrose:

Really? The Father causes His own being. Does the Son cause His own being?

I apologize for the tardiness of my reply.

I would say that the answer to your question is yes, since Jesus said, “For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself…” John 5:26

Father Ambrose, it wasn’t me who said “whatever he [the Father] does, that the Son does likewise,” it was Jesus. So you’re really arguing with him, not me.

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

Originally Posted by Fr Ambrose
Really? The Father causes His own being. Does the Son cause His own being?

JackQ:

I apologize for the tardiness of my reply.

I would say that the answer to your question is yes, since Jesus said, “For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself…” John 5:26

Father Ambrose, it wasn’t me who said “whatever he [the Father] does, that the Son does likewise,” it was Jesus. So you’re really arguing with him, not me.

Well, I am stuck for a reply. Maybe congratulations are in order? I think that you have created a heresy which the Church has never encountered before - the auto-generation of the Son.

 

[JPrejean]

JackQ:

I would say that the answer to your question is yes, since Jesus said, “For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself…” John 5:26

That “He has granted” part should be looming larger in your interpretation.

JackQ:

Father Ambrose, it wasn’t me who said “whatever he [the Father] does, that the Son does likewise,” it was Jesus. So you’re really arguing with him, not me.

And you’re really arguing with the Catholic Church if you think that Christ was endorsing Sabellianism. It’s very important not to rely on one’s private interpretation when the Church teaching is clear.