Filioque and Eastern Christian Trinitarian understanding

[Matthew_P]

Dear StMarkEofE,

This is another attempt to say the Orthodox have a KGB agent as a Patriarch, they allow divorce etc.

It is not an embrace or attempt to say the man had a gun put to his head or worse he did what he could to save the Church from total physical destruction and kept the faith while the communist worked one changing peoples minds. He did not teach anything that was outside of the Orthodox faith, he kept the faith intact as it remains and is followed today in Russia. The issue of “Sergianism” seems to have been resolved. It is easy to say such things when a person is not sitting in a room about to be tortured, there are many much more charitable things that could be said by all of us. God alone knows how we would handle such a situation, we don’t even really know, some of us just think we would be more honorable I suppose and refuse the code name and accept the torture.

“You need to pray for your patriarch and his bishops in Russia for their repentance and conversion”

Who says they are not converted and are in need of repentence now, did you hear their confessions?

In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin

 

[steve_b]

StMarkEofE:

Would you be interested in knowing that all heads of state and those who were considered influential had code names, even the president of the United States had a KGB code name.

StMarkEofE

My friend,

Alexei II (code name Drozdov), the Patriarch of Russia, was an agent of the KGB. And so were his bishops.

 

[Matthew_P]

Dear Steve,

How many Saints or Christians used to be this or that? Saint Matthew was a tax collector a servant of Caesar, will you join those that spoke out against him and reminded others of his status? There are many other examples. You do not know the spiritual state or status of the Patriarch of Russia, nor should you or can you. Why concern yourself with such things?

Because the devil did not have access to Adam in his thoughts he appeared to him in the physical form of a serpent. In the new Adam in Christ and His Holy Orthodox Catholic Church the attack is from the outside. The gates of hell will not prevail against the inside; our theology and liturgy remain steadfast.

St John of Damascus mentions; “So, He assumed all that He might sanctify all. He was put to the test and He conquered that He might gain for us the victory and to give to our nature the power to conquer the Adversary, so that through the very assaults by which the nature had been conquered of old it might conquer its former victor. Now, the Evil One attacked from the outside, just as he had with Adam, and not through thoughts- for it was not through thoughts that he attacked Adam, but through the serpent. The Lord, however, repelled the attack and it vanished like smoke, so that by being conquered the passions which had assailed Him might be easy for us to conquer and the new Adam thus be restored by the old.”

Christ was “put to the test” and also suffered “assaults” Do keep in mind “the Evil One attacked from the outside, just as he had with Adam, and not through thoughts- for it was not through thoughts that he attacked Adam, but through the serpent.” it is “from the outside” that the Orthodox Church is attacked from the inside those attacks are crushed. Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ’s was also attacked and crucified. The Apostles and Christians had been martyred but His Church will always (trample on serpents and scorpions). Thanks be to our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ for His incarnation, crucifixion and resurrection! And thanks be to God that the Russian Orthodox Church survived the brutal assaults of communism and is spreading the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Luke 10:19
Behold, I give you the authority to trample on serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy, and nothing shall by any means hurt you.

When Abba Antony thought about the depth of the judgments of God, he asked, ‘Lord, how is it that some die when they are young, while others drag on to extreme old age? Why are there those who are poor and those who are rich? Why do wicked men prosper and why are the just in need?’ He heard a voice answering him, ‘Antony, keep your attention on yourself; these things are according to the judgment of God, and it is not to your advantage to know anything about them.’ St Antony the Great

Your beloved Bishop of Rome has also said many beautiful things. I think one of the things that all of us should try very hard to do is listen to the words of the servants of God and take them into our hearts. Surely by doing this we can all give Glory to God in the highest by following the teachings of those that have rightly divided the word of God’s Truth.

2 Corinthians 3:18
But we all, with unveiled face, beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory, just as by the Spirit of the Lord.

In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin

 

[SFH]

Fr Ambrose:

You are presuming too much. I find your insinuations a bit disturbing. Obviously you simply want to attack me personally and to rile me. Why are you doing this?

Father,
Let’s keep this in perspective. You called Father Gantley “dishonest,” you attacked St. Thomas Aquinas and Mr. Likoudis, and just about every time a Catholic on this board says something that you believe disagrees with current Vatican teaching you suggest he’s a heretic. I’m sure I don’t mean to “rile” you up anymore than you mean to rile everyone else up when you make personal attacks against these Catholics.

Plus, I don’t presume anything about you. That’s why my remark had “???” after it.

 

[SFH]

Fr Ambrose:

He has judged himself.

How can a man be a saint when he has condemned the entire membership of the Orthodox Church to hell?

And let’s not even get into his teaching that heretics should be killed by the State and the Church should enforce it.

Such teachings are far from Christ and what man wants to eat the honey of theology when there it is mixed with the poison of hate?

Father Ambrose,
I fear you’re straying off point again. It’s St. Thomas Aquinas’ argument on the filioque that’s under discussion, not the saint himself.

 

[SFH]

Fr Ambrose:

You don’t see my point. A man who is so morally depraved (I am using the words in their technical meaning so don’t take offence) is unable to write lucid theology. A man who is so lacking in love that he condemns the Orthodox Greeks to hell cannot possibly write anything worthwhile on the Holy Trinity which is Love itself. “God is love.” His words may seem logically compelling on a human level but because of the failure of love in his heart we see the fruits of this failure in his condemnation of others and he is far from God. In the treatise “Contra Errores Graecorum” he is trying to lay out the deepest and most secret mysteries of the inner life of the Trinity and at the same time and in the same treatise he is saying that the Orthodox, because they do not accept his reasonings, are damned. Excuse me if I weep over his blindness! His theology is only his own cleverness, headspun and not Godspun. Thomas himself realised this at the end of his life. I hope God forgave him for the words against the Greek Christians and for the theology which he created which gave a theological justification for the Inquisition and its executions.

As for me, I am a man of a a very small brain, and if the greatest Saints of the Church have warned us of the limitations in our understanding of the Trinity then I believe them. They are theological giants -who am I? Their words of caution were used to start this thread and have been repeated several times. But, in the vanity of their minds, later theologians paid them lip service while inwardly believing that they knew better than the holy Fathers and so they tripped themselves up.

I completely disagree with you. The truth is the truth regardless of who says it. If the Devil himself walked in the room and made a valid argument proving God’s existence, the argument would be valid regardless of the fact that the Devil made it.

You’ve indicated that you disagree with St. Thomas Aquinas’ argument in support of the filioque. Show where St. Thomas Aquinas’ went wrong. It isn’t enough to attack the man.

P.S. I’m not going to engage in a discussion on the merits of St. Thomas Aquinas as a person (I obviously disagree with you there) because that’s completely irrelevant to a critique of his argument.

 

[steve_b]

Matthew P.:

Dear Steve,
You do not know the spiritual state or status of the Patriarch of Russia, nor should you or can you. Why concern yourself with such things?

I responded the way I did when Fr Ambrose said the following about JPII

“After all, the Soviet regime did not fail because of the pope (before the arrival of Gorbachev, the pope was achieving about as little as he is now achieving in China), but instead imploded because of the Soviet system’s inherent economic and social contradictions.”

1. With all that is being said about JPII now in death, and all his accomplishments during his entire pontificate, particularly with communism in the East, these comments by Fr A are clearly out of line, and out of touch.
2. Why would he say such a thing? By bringing up the fact of the patriarch of Russia and his bishops being KGB agents during JPII pontificate, that means before Gorbachev, it made the job of toppeling communism even harder, but adds even more value to the leadership role JPII played in defeating communism in Russia during his entire pontificate, not just after Gorbachev got into power. The work of toppeling communism started as soon as JPII attained office.The Orthodox owe JPII much…

JPII we love you

ewtn.com/images/JPII_2005_HP.jpg

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

I offer my condolences to the Roman Catholics and Eastern Rite Catholics on the list,
on the passing of His Holiness Pope John Paul II.
Requiescat in pace. Memory eternal!
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[GAssisi]

Dear All,

There is much talk here of St. Thomas’ view of relations of opposition (rather, St. Augustine’s view). I am wondering if this is actually official Catholic teaching. I am not aware that it is. As far as I know it is an acceptable theologoumenon, but it is not dogma. Given this, I do not see the purpose of this debate about the “how” of the Spirit’s origin. All I know is what the Church has taught. The Father is the Origin of Son and Spirit. The Father, Son and Spirit are consubstantial. The Spirit proceeds (ekporeusai) from the Father through the Son. The Spirit proceeds (procedit or proienai) from the Father and the Son.

I think the only relevant thing to discuss (though if others want to discuss the metaphysical matters that have already been spoken of, please go on) is whether or not the economic procession (procedit or proienai) is eternal or temporal. Fr A, myself and some others discussed this issue way back on page two (I think, or page one), and it seems that even the economic procession of the Spirit from the Son is indeed accomplished in eternity (not even Fr A could contend that the Spirit proceeded from the Son WHILE THE SON WAS IN ETERNITY – that is, after he ascended to heaven).

I daresay the Catholic and Orthodox understandings are equally supportable. I also daresay that, AS FAR AS DOGMA IS CONCERNED, Catholics and Orthodox are saying the same thing. The problem comes when 1) Orthodox, despite their claim not to get involved in matters of “how,” attack what is merely theologoumenon in the Catholic Church (i.e., discussions of “how”), and use that as a basis for separation, instead of focusing on those things that we already agree on DOGMATICALLY; 2) Catholics, instead of merely resting on what is already agreed upon DOGMATICALLY, use matters of a metaphysical nature that are merely theologoumenon to press a point that does not need to be pressed.

God bless

 

[JPrejean]

GAssisi:

There is much talk here of St. Thomas’ view of relations of opposition (rather, St. Augustine’s view). I am wondering if this is actually official Catholic teaching. I am not aware that it is. As far as I know it is an acceptable theologoumenon, but it is not dogma.
…
The problem comes when 1) Orthodox, despite their claim not to get involved in matters of “how,” attack what is merely theologoumenon in the Catholic Church (i.e., discussions of “how”), and use that as a basis for separation, instead of focusing on those things that we already agree on DOGMATICALLY; 2) Catholics, instead of merely resting on what is already agreed upon DOGMATICALLY, use matters of a metaphysical nature that are merely theologoumenon to press a point that does not need to be pressed.

You capture the point beautifully. Bravo!

 

[JackQ]

JPrejean:

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.

But, you see, the Council of Florence specifically tied the language in question to the procession of the Spirit from the Son. So by your argument the Council of Florence misinterpreted itself and failed to understand the monarchy of the Father and him as the source of the Trinity.

There is no Sabellianism lurking behind the words of Jesus, the Council of Florence, the Catechism, or my understanding of same. The Persons of the Father and the Son are not conflated, since the Son is eternally begotten of the Father and not the other way around, and the Son receives it from the Father that the Spirit proceeds from him and not the other way around. Moreover, there is never a hint that the Persons are no more than modes. It is true that there are some hawks on the Orthodox side who say that the filioque leads to Sabellianism. I don’t agree with them, and neither does the Catholic Church.

 

[JackQ]

Fr Ambrose:

I offer my condolences to the Roman Catholics and Eastern Rite Catholics on the list,
on the passing of His Holiness Pope John Paul II.
Requiescat in pace. Memory eternal!]

Thank you, father. I pray that the dream of St. John Paul the Great that the Church again breath with both its lungs be realized.

 

[JackQ]

Fr Ambrose:

El Catolico,

Simply too many issues to deal with. The understanding of Orthodoxy is so superficial and biased that it would require a herculean effort to correct. I would prefer to dialogue with those who have a better grasp of the topic and who do not radiate such hostility.

Vade in pace, El Catolico.

But, father, I’ve got to say, as one who has spent the past few months talking with Orthodox brothers and sisters online, trying to find common ground seems too often like a moving target. We Catholics see the split between us as a tragedy. Often the Orthodox give the impression that they like things this way.

 

[JackQ]

GAssisi:

Dear All,
I daresay the Catholic and Orthodox understandings are equally supportable. I also daresay that, AS FAR AS DOGMA IS CONCERNED, Catholics and Orthodox are saying the same thing. The problem comes when 1) Orthodox, despite their claim not to get involved in matters of “how,” attack what is merely theologoumenon in the Catholic Church (i.e., discussions of “how”), and use that as a basis for separation, instead of focusing on those things that we already agree on DOGMATICALLY; 2) Catholics, instead of merely resting on what is already agreed upon DOGMATICALLY, use matters of a metaphysical nature that are merely theologoumenon to press a point that does not need to be pressed.

I wish I agreed with you. Unfortunately, many of the Orthodox have taken the position that the Holy Spirit does not proceed from the Son, and that to believe that he does is heresy. That’s pretty hard to reconcile with the filioque. Now should disputes of this nature keep brothers from sharing the altar? I don’t think so, but I do believe that I’m a very small minority.

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

JackQ:

But, father, I’ve got to say, as one who has spent the past few months talking with Orthodox brothers and sisters online, trying to find common ground seems too often like a moving target. We Catholics see the split between us as a tragedy. Often the Orthodox give the impression that they like things this way.

No, I could not agree that the Orthodox like things the way they are, but they do see their Church as the Una Sancta and so there is no feverish desire to “re-unite” the two lungs or whatever. The Orthodox Church is secure in its own self-understanding.

One difference which I notice more and more is the manner of apporaching a resolution of the filioque dispute.

The Orthodox keep returning to the words of the Lord in the Gospels and to the patristic tradition. They will listen to the Catholic explanation of the reason for introducing the filioque and they will nod sagely and fraternally, but in the end they come back to --but this is not the apostolic faith.

Catholics, on the other hand, expect that dialogue will open a way to mutual understanding and lead to a formula which will enable both Churches to retain their teaching. Now the Orthodox are guilty of being too acquiescent in this. I think that they don’t want to give offence. This gives the Catholics a (false) hope that the dialogue will eventually led to a future resolution on the filioque. They overlook the Orthodox propensity to walk a long way down the road of dialogue and then to throw it all away and say: “But we won’t move from what we see as the scriptural and patristic teaching.” Back to square one

 

[JPrejean]

JackQ:

But, you see, the Council of Florence specifically tied the language in question to the procession of the Spirit from the Son. So by your argument the Council of Florence misinterpreted itself and failed to understand the monarchy of the Father and him as the source of the Trinity.

You’re not understanding me. I agree that the language is tied to the procession of the Father and the Son. My point is that “except being the Father” in turn excludes hypostatic origin from the equation. I think that the Council of Florence was talking about substantive and not hypostatic origin, so what was said makes perfect sense. My point isn’t that the filioque should be discarded, only that it should be interpreted according to a proper patristic sense, which I believe is what Florence was trying to affirm.

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

JPrejean:

You’re not understanding me. I agree that the language is tied to the procession of the Father and the Son. My point is that “except being the Father” in turn excludes hypostatic origin from the equation.

Yes. Since “to be the Father” means to be the source of the Son (by generation) and of the Spirit (by procession), it is obvious that the Son cannot be the source of either. He is given everything “except being the Father” and to make Him the source of the Spirit would be to also make Him the Father.

 

[JPrejean]

Exactly.

 

[oat_soda]

Catholics, on the other hand, expect that dialogue will open a way to mutual understanding and lead to a formula which will enable both Churches to retain their teaching. Now the Orthodox are guilty of being too acquiescent in this. I think that they don’t want to give offence. This gives the Catholics a (false) hope that the dialogue will eventually led to a future resolution on the filioque.

the fact that both the catholic church and orthodox church believe they contain the fullness of truth shows how close we really are.

if both churches refuse to acknowledge that we express the same mystery in different legitimate ways, there will be no hope of reunion. i’m more optomistic about orthodox catholic relations. i think most orthodox will be united with the catholic church with the pope acting as a seat of unity in the near future.

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

oat soda:

i’m more optomistic about orthodox catholic relations. i think most orthodox will be united with the catholic church with the pope acting as a seat of unity in the near future.

I am optimistic too but I see your scenario as unlikely. God will work a miracle in the life of His holy Church but in another way.

There are only two more Popes before the end of the papacy (refer Malachy.) With the demise of the papacy within a few decades it is more likely that the Church of Rome will return to the Orthodox Church and the bishop of Rome (no longer of course holding the teaching of universal papal supremacy) will become the head of a sui juris Church in the West within the universal Church.

To put it another way, during the next two pontificates and culminating with the death of Petrus Romanus, Rome will have come to the realisation that the papacy per se was an error which divided Christendom for far too long. It will have reached a stage where it will be willing to let go of it and return to a unity based on the model of the first 1000 years “when we were one.” Amen.

---

Thus saith the Lord: “Stand at the crossroads, and see and ask for the ancient paths which is the good way, and walk therein, and you shall find rest for your souls.”
-Jeremiah 6:16