J
JPrejean
Guest
steve b:
JackQ:
This might be true of substance, but I don’t believe that it is true of hypostasis. I know that St. Augustine advocated something like this, but I see no way that his position can be reconciled with the Cappadocian Fathers if it is taken to refer to the hypostatic origin of the Son and the Holy Spirit.The Father loves Himself, and in this love He generates His Son (from all eternity). He loves Himself in His Son, and His Son loves Himself in His Father, and from this love, the HS proceeds.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/5a81c/5a81c27d401351093adf77aa160c9f743c089fb7" alt="40.png"
No, I don’t accuse the Church’s teaching of leading to Sabellianism, but I think that your interpretation of Church teaching just might. The question is what “being the Father” means. Knowing that is necessary to know what is meant by “except being the Father.” The uniqueness of the hypostasis of the Father is in His unbegottenness and His associated monarchy as being the sole origin of the Trinity. If the Son were to be given being the origin of the Holy Spirit, then the Son would partake of what makes the Father the Father. So when the Council of Florence says that the Son takes everything “except being the Father,” that necessarily includes “except being the origin of hypostases,” because the Council presumably does not intend to overthrow the monarchy of the Father. Consequently, I think that your interpretation of the Council (and the Catechism) is inaccurate, which is what makes your interpretation of Scripture inaccurate. I’m not trying to be judgmental, because I think that there are historical reasons that this particular error has been taught even among people who ought to know better. But I do think that it is an error that does not reflect the true Catholic teaching, and therefore, I see the need to correct it.Of course the interpretation I am giving is the correct one, especially since I didn’t just come up with it myself, but read the passage in light of Church teaching. In this instance I refer to the Council of Florence, which said (as quoted in the Catechism), “And, since the Father has through generation given to the only-begotten Son everything that belongs to the Father, except being the Father, the Son has also eternally from the Father, from whom he is eternally born, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son.” I read John 5:19 in light of this. Now, naturally, I don’t expect an Orthodox Christian to accept the Council of Florence. But this should shed some light on why my interpretation of the passage doesn’t lead to Sabellianism, unless, of course, you accuse the Catholic Church of taking a position that leads to it.