Filioque and Eastern Christian Trinitarian understanding

  • Thread starter Thread starter Hesychios
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
steve b:
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.
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.
40.png
JackQ:
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.
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.
 
This Sunday is the first Sunday of the Great Fast for the big-O’s - the “Sunday of the Triumph of Orthodoxy.” It celebrates the 7th Ecumenical Council especially and the restoration of the holy Icons to the Church after the long and dreary time when iconoclasm held sway. It celebrates the end of the major heresies which afflicted the Church and which were laid to rest by the Seven Ecumenical Councils. After them heresies tend to be merely variants and repetitions of older ones. So this is the Sunday of the triumph and the fulness of the Faith.

In cathedrals, after the Liturgy, there is a procession around the cathedral and then the age old Anathemas are proclaimed by the deacons against all who distort the faith of the Church and acclamations and praise are given to all those who have taught right doctrine.

One Anathema in particular stands out, in light of our discussion on the filioque…

“To those who in any way undertake investigations into new doctrines concerning the divine and incomprehensible Trinity and who search out the difference between begetting and procession, and the nature of begetting and procession in God and who increase words and do not abide and persist in the definitions handed down to us by both the disciples of Christ and the divine fathers; and who thereby uselessly strive to dispute over things not delivered to us, ANATHEMA”
 
Irish Melkite:
Steve,

My friend and brother, Al (a pilgrim), is absolutely correct when he states that there is not a “Ruthenian Rite”. The time has come (again) to explain the distinction between “Rite” and “Church”. Unfortunately, the two are sometimes used incorrectly by Eastern and Oriental Catholics, as well as by Latin Catholics.

For centuries, one who was a member of a particular religious group within Eastern or Oriental Catholicity was spoken of as being of the ____ Rite (e.g., Melkite, Ruthenian, Ukrainian) - with the concept being that each was a Rite within the Latin Church (e.g., the Ambrosian Rite). Several years ago, Rome finally recognized that what had been termed “Rites”, when applied to those of the East and Orient, were actually separate Churches, which together with the Latin Church, constitute the Catholic Church.

Thus, the Catholic Church is comprised of 23 self-governing Churches, also referred to as Churches sui iuris (“Churches of their own law”), also sometimes as Particular Churches or Autonomous Ritual Churches.

Correct usage of the term “Rite” is important, more so in the Eastern and Oriental Churches than in the Latin Church (although there are other Rites within the Latin Church, the Latin Rite vastly predominates in the West - the others are used only in very limited areas or under very particular circumstances).

Each Church sui iuris worships according to a particular Rite. A simple definition of a Rite is that it is the collected form of ritual, ceremony, and prayers according to which the members of a Church conduct their worship and other liturgical services; for the most part, Rites reflect the cultures in which they were developed.

Western Catholics use the Latin Rite (with a few exceptions, as I noted above). Eastern and Oriental Catholic Rites developed from the customs and style of worship practiced in what were the 3 most important centers of Christian development, other than Rome (i.e., Alexandria, Antioch, and Byzantium [later called Constantinople, and now Istanbul]). This happened at a time when achieving uniformity of liturgical practice was hampered by the limitations that resulted from geography and the difficulties of communication.

Initially, there were three Rites used by Eastern and Oriental Catholics: the Alexandrean, Antiochene, and Byzantine Rites. Eventually, as those Rites were carried back to other cities, modifications occurred. Three of the variations that arose developed in very isolated areas and, as a result, changed to such an extent that they came to be considered Rites unto themselves; those are the Armenian, Chaldean, and Maronite Rites.

In other instances, the changes which occurred in the Rites were less drastic and insufficient to merit being designated as a separate rite; such localized variations came to be termed “Traditions”. Thus, the Antiochene Rite is further divided into the East and West Syrian Traditions. The Alexandrean Rite is comprised of the Coptic and Ge’ez Traditions. The Byzantine Rite, largest of the six Eastern and Oriental Rites (in terms of the number of Churches that use it), has both Byzantine-Greek and Byzantine-Slav Traditions.

The Armenian and Maronite Rites are each utilized only by a single Church sui iuris, so, within those two, there is no further breakdown by tradition. Although, historically, the Chaldean Rite was utilized by the Syro-Malabarese Catholic Church sui iuris, as well as by the Chaldeans, the present usage of the Malabarese is more closely aligned to the Antiochene Rite, for a variety of reasons. Thus, the Chaldean Rite presently can be said to be without any breakdown by tradition.

(cont’ed)
Greetings brother.

The point I was trying to make, possibly awkwardly is, a rite is a rite of the Catholic Church if it is in communion with the pope. Otherwise it is not a rite of the Catholic Church. No matter the size, all rites are equal, no one better than the other.

http://www.byzantines.net/StCyril/byzantine.htm

http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9omnems.htm

http://www.redemptorists.org.uk/red/mag/ruthen4.htm

http://www.redemptorists.org.uk/red/mag/ruthen.htm

byzantines.net/saints/bishopTakach.htm
 
40.png
JPrejean:
This might be true of substance, but I don’t believe that it is true of hypostasis.
Please explain
40.png
JPrejean:
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.
Please refer to the passages from the CCC I quoted. They describe very clearly the Church’s position.
 
Fr Ambrose:
Slice it whichever way you want, but even just one exception shows that “all” does not mean “all.” 😃
There’s nothing wrong with qualifying “All”
 
Irish Melkite:
Steve,

My friend and brother, Al (a pilgrim), is absolutely correct when he states that there is not a “Ruthenian Rite”. The time has come (again) to explain the distinction between “Rite” and “Church”. Unfortunately, the two are sometimes used incorrectly by Eastern and Oriental Catholics, as well as by Latin Catholics.

For centuries, one who was a member of a particular religious group within Eastern or Oriental Catholicity was spoken of as being of the ____ Rite (e.g., Melkite, Ruthenian, Ukrainian) - with the concept being that each was a Rite within the Latin Church (e.g., the Ambrosian Rite). Several years ago, Rome finally recognized that what had been termed “Rites”, when applied to those of the East and Orient, were actually separate Churches, which together with the Latin Church, constitute the Catholic Church.

Thus, the Catholic Church is comprised of 23 self-governing Churches, also referred to as Churches sui iuris (“Churches of their own law”), also sometimes as Particular Churches or Autonomous Ritual Churches.

Correct usage of the term “Rite” is important, more so in the Eastern and Oriental Churches than in the Latin Church (although there are other Rites within the Latin Church, the Latin Rite vastly predominates in the West - the others are used only in very limited areas or under very particular circumstances).

Each Church sui iuris worships according to a particular Rite. A simple definition of a Rite is that it is the collected form of ritual, ceremony, and prayers according to which the members of a Church conduct their worship and other liturgical services; for the most part, Rites reflect the cultures in which they were developed.

Western Catholics use the Latin Rite (with a few exceptions, as I noted above). Eastern and Oriental Catholic Rites developed from the customs and style of worship practiced in what were the 3 most important centers of Christian development, other than Rome (i.e., Alexandria, Antioch, and Byzantium [later called Constantinople, and now Istanbul]). This happened at a time when achieving uniformity of liturgical practice was hampered by the limitations that resulted from geography and the difficulties of communication.

Initially, there were three Rites used by Eastern and Oriental Catholics: the Alexandrean, Antiochene, and Byzantine Rites. Eventually, as those Rites were carried back to other cities, modifications occurred. Three of the variations that arose developed in very isolated areas and, as a result, changed to such an extent that they came to be considered Rites unto themselves; those are the Armenian, Chaldean, and Maronite Rites.

In other instances, the changes which occurred in the Rites were less drastic and insufficient to merit being designated as a separate rite; such localized variations came to be termed “Traditions”. Thus, the Antiochene Rite is further divided into the East and West Syrian Traditions. The Alexandrean Rite is comprised of the Coptic and Ge’ez Traditions. The Byzantine Rite, largest of the six Eastern and Oriental Rites (in terms of the number of Churches that use it), has both Byzantine-Greek and Byzantine-Slav Traditions.

The Armenian and Maronite Rites are each utilized only by a single Church sui iuris, so, within those two, there is no further breakdown by tradition. Although, historically, the Chaldean Rite was utilized by the Syro-Malabarese Catholic Church sui iuris, as well as by the Chaldeans, the present usage of the Malabarese is more closely aligned to the Antiochene Rite, for a variety of reasons. Thus, the Chaldean Rite presently can be said to be without any breakdown by tradition.

The Byzantine-Greek and Byzantine-Slav Traditions are each used by several Churches, with further local variations due to the ethno-cultural differences among the faithful of those Churches. Such variations are termed Recensions - thus, for example, there are Ruthenian and Great Russian Recensions (among others) within the Byzantine-Slav Tradition and Greek and Greico-Arabic Recensions (among others) within the Byzantine-Greek Tradition.

There are also rescensions within the East and West Syrian Traditions.

(cont’ed)
Irish Melkite,
Peace of Christ be with You! Great Info you have given here.
Only one correction. The Antiochene is divided, East and West. The Antiochene East - aka “East Syrian” - is called the Chaldean [Used by Chaldeans and Syro-Malabarese]. The Antiochene West - aka “West Syrian” - is called the Syriac [used by Syriacs, Syro-Malankarese, Maronites*].

*Maronite Rite is sometimes listed separately, sometimes under West Syrian.
 
Fr Ambrose:
Slice it whichever way you want, but even just one exception shows that “all” does not mean “all.” 😃
*context *context context
 
The Roman Catholic church does not teach that the Son is origin, but that the Father is origin. From the Catachism:
245 The apostolic faith concerning the Spirit was confessed by the second ecumenical council at Constantinople (381): "We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and giver of life, who proceeds from the Father."71 By this confession, the Church recognizes the Father as “the source and origin of the whole divinity”.72 But the eternal origin of the Spirit is not unconnected with the Son’s origin: "The Holy Spirit, the third person of the Trinity, is God, one and equal with the Father and the Son, of the same substance and also of the same nature. . . Yet he is not called the Spirit of the Father alone,. . . but the Spirit of both the Father and the Son."73 The Creed of the Church from the Council of Constantinople confesses: "With the Father and the Son, he is worshipped and glorified."74
The question, as I understand it, stems from the word “proceeds.” Again, the Catachism:

**

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 ******

Ergo, the Spirit originates with the Father, coming through the Son:

**
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).

Why is this a problem? The formulation of the Trinity is intact. Father is origin, Son and Spirit are consubstantial with the Father.
1 Peter 1:11 They wondered what the Spirit of Christ
within them was talking about.

John 10:30 The Father and I are one.

John 16:13-15

13 But when he comes, the Spirit of truth, he will guide you to all truth. He will not speak on his own, but he will speak what he hears, and will declare to you the things that are coming.

14 He will glorify me, because he will take from what is mine and declare it to you.

15 Everything that the Father has is mine; for this reason I told you that he will take from what is mine and declare it to you

As **Saint Ambrose **observed: (I’ve heard this name somewhere else. :hmmm: hmmm) newadvent.org/fathers/34023.htm
114. So, then, if we attend diligently, we comprehend here also the oneness of the Divine Power. He says: "That which My Father hath given unto Me is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of My Father’s hand. I and the Father are One. " For if we rightly showed above that the Holy Spirit is the Hand of the Father, the same is certainly the Hand of the Father which is the Hand of the Son, since the Same is the Spirit of the Father Who is the Spirit of the Son
.

The Trinitarian formula is not altered. Father is ORIGIN, Son & Spirit are begotten.

Why is this an issue?**
 
CCC 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.
Why is this a problem?
The problem is that the Catholic Catechism is attributing to the Orthodox Church a trinitarion teaching which it does not hold. This is probably done in an attempt to bolster the Catholic teaching on the filioque. No doubt this can be excused since it is being done out of ignorance but one hopes that future editions of the Catechism will correct it.
 
Fr Ambrose said:
The problem is that the Catholic Catechism is attributing to the Orthodox Church a trinitarion teaching which it does not hold. This is probably done in an attempt to bolster the Catholic teaching on the filioque. No doubt this can be excused since*** it is being*** done out of ignorance but one hopes that future editions of the Catechism will correct it.

Ugh, not so fast.

"As Saint Maximus the Confessor, in defence of the Roman use of the Filioque, the decisive thing in this defence lies precisely in the point that in using the Filioque the Romans do not imply a “cause” other than the Father. For Maximus the Filioque was not heretical because its intention was to denote not the εκπορεύεσθαι (ekporeuesthai) but the προείναι (proeinai) 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? The Vatican statement notes that this is “the basis that must serve for the continuation of the current theological dialogue between Catholic and Orthodox”.

“This remains a valid point, although the subsequent history seems to have ignored it. The CC points to the fact that in the Roman Catholic Church today the* Filioque* is omitted whenever the Creed is used in its Greek original which contains the word εκπορεύεσθαι (ekporeuesthai).”

Quotes from
His Grace John Zizioulas, Metropolitan of Pergamon

I could provide other quotes from other sources as well. Point is, don’t be so quick to call the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) ignorant. Your own sources know what the CC* means* by the filioque, but as the metropolitan says, it’s ignored.
 
Quote:
CCC 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.

Quote:
Why is this a problem?
Fr Ambrose:
The problem is that the Catholic Catechism is attributing to the Orthodox Church a trinitarion teaching which it does not hold. This is probably done in an attempt to bolster the Catholic teaching on the filioque. No doubt this can be excused since it is being done out of ignorance but one hopes that future editions of the Catechism will correct it.
Fr. Ambrose,

I understand your objection to someone stating an incorrect or mistaken OC position. However, when I asked the question, “Why is this a problem?”, I was refering to the CC teaching that the Father is ORIGIN, and with that, the Trinitarian formula remains intact. Father is Origin, Son and Spirit are consubstantial. Even with the filioque, proceeds from the Son, the formula remains intact. I have posted several scriptural references to support this position.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=507805&postcount=380

So, I restate the question. If the CC teaches that Father is origin, and Son and Spirit are consubstantial, and given the scriptural references on the previous post, Why is this a problem? the Trinitarian formula remains intact!

Jerry
 
More scripture to add to the above posting.

1 Peter 1:11 They wondered what the Spirit of Christ within them was talking about.

John 10:30 The Father and I are one.

John 16:13-15

13 But when he comes, the Spirit of truth, he will guide you to all truth. He will not speak on his own, but he will speak what he hears, and will declare to you the things that are coming.

14 He will glorify me, because he will take from what is mine and declare it to you.

15 Everything that the Father has is mine; for this reason I told you that he will take from what is mine and declare it to you.
 
steve b:
Ugh, not so fast.

"As Saint Maximus the Confessor, in defence of the Roman use of the Filioque, the decisive thing in this defence lies precisely in the point that in using the Filioque the Romans do not imply a “cause” other than the Father. For Maximus the Filioque was not heretical because its intention was to denote not the εκπορεύεσθαι (ekporeuesthai) but the προείναι (proeinai) of the Spirit. "
Saint Maximos is well known within Orthodoxy to have had a singular view of this matter and he is NOT qouted within Orthodoxy as a sure source on this point. Quoting him as an example of Orthodox theology on this point would be like a Catholic appealing to the Canons of Basil which allow unmarried people to continue in fornication rather they risk imposing celibacy on them and have them fall into worse sin.
***"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? The Vatican statement notes that this is “the basis that must serve for the continuation of the current theological dialogue between Catholic and Orthodox”.
Do you think it is wise for one partner in a dialogue to impose a unilateral demand on the other partner?
 
40.png
Subrosa:
I restate the question. If the CC teaches that Father is origin
Excellent.
and Son and Spirit are consubstantial,
Important omission here. The Father and the Son and the Spirit are ALL consubstantial. Does this make the Spirit the origin of the Father and the Son?

“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.” St Gregory Nazianzen
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Subrosa
I restate the question. If the CC teaches that Father is origin

Excellent.

Quote:
and Son and Spirit are consubstantial,
Fr Ambrose:
Excellent.

Important omission here. The Father and the Son and the Spirit are ALL consubstantial. Does this make the Spirit the origin of the Father and the Son?

“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.” St Gregory Nazianzen
Ok, I left that out. Consubstantial with the Father. Please answer the question. What is the problem with this?

Jerry
 
40.png
Subrosa:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Subrosa
I restate the question. If the CC teaches that Father is origin

Excellent.

Quote:
and Son and Spirit are consubstantial,

Ok, I left that out. Consubstantial with the Father. Please answer the question. What is the problem with this?

Jerry
Dear Jerry, There is nothing wrong with it.
But I have just been subjected to an attack in another thread. My intellectual honesty has been impugned and I have been described as a person unable to represent Orthodoxy on this Forum.

In light of this I intend to leave you all in peace as you make the journey through your Passion Week. It could be that the heavy fasting is causing irritability? But, whatever the reason, the focus on Holy Week should now be uppermost. God bless you all and until we get together again:–
May you alway walk in sunshine.
May you never want for more.
May angels rest their wings beside your door.
 
Fr Ambrose:
Saint Maximos is well known within Orthodoxy to have had a singular view of this matter and he is NOT qouted within Orthodoxy as a sure source on this point.
Maybe you missed the quotation marks. It was the Metropolitan who quotes him specifically, and makes no such criticism of Maximus? But as I said in the same post, I have other quotes I could give.
Fr Ambrose:
Quoting him as an example of Orthodox theology on this point would be like a Catholic appealing to the Canons of Basil which allow unmarried people to continue in fornication rather they risk imposing celibacy on them and have them fall into worse sin.
With regards to Maximus, you should take that up with the Metropolitan. With regards to Basil, I didn’t know he had that opinion.

Fornication is a mortal sin. And mortal sin that is unforgiven, can land one in hell. How can one do worse than land in hell?
Fr Ambrose:
Do you think it is wise for one partner in a dialogue to impose a unilateral demand on the other partner?
As the Metropolitan I quoted said, the Orthodox were ignoring what the Catholic Church was saying. So I ask you in return, Is that wise of a “partner in dialogue” to chronically ignore the other? I suppose at some point, the realization is, their IS NO partnership in dialogue when one ignores the other…
 
steve b:
With regards to Basil, I didn’t know he had that opinion.

Fornication is a mortal sin. And mortal sin that is unforgiven, can land one in hell. How can one do worse than land in hell?
But that is not the teaching of Saint Basil. Here is the relevant canon…

Canon XXVI

Fornication is neither marriage, nor the beginning of marriage. If it may be, it is better that they who have committed fornication together be parted; but if they be passionate lovers, let them not separate, for fear of what is worse.

ccel.org/fathers/NPNF2-14/7appndx/basil.htm

Now, hold on to your hat, but this Canon of Saint Basil was approved by the Quinisext Council.

An icon in tiles of Saint Basil in
St Thomas the Apostle Byzantine Catholic Church, New Jersey.
I’d lay odds that the text he is holding is not Canon 26 🙂
saintthomastheapostle.org /introduction.html
http://saintthomastheapostle.org/tour_images/st_basil_icon_tile.jpg
 
steve b:
With regards to Maximus, you should take that up with the Metropolitan.
I’d venture to say that the Metropolitan must be well aware of the consensus of the Orthodox as to Saint Maximus’ teaching on the filioque in the statement quoted. Btw, I cannot find it now (and that is really galling) but later in his writings Saint Maximus launches into an attack on what he considers the incorrect Roman understanding of the filioque. Anybody know where to locate this? Myrrh gave it in a previous thread but I am too lazy to go and look for it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top