Filioque and Eastern Christian Trinitarian understanding

[Ghosty]

Since the Holy Spirit acts IN and FROM the realm of eternity, then it follows that the Incarnation was an eternal act and the Second Person of the Trinity has an eternal incarnation from the Virgin Mary.

My initial resonse to this, and what I believe GAssisi is also saying, is that the Incarnation did not happen in Eternity, but rather right here on Earth in the Temporal. The Holy Spirit, and the Son, have their origins in Eternity, but the Incarnation has its origins on Earth. I fail to see the validity of your analogy.

 

[prodromos]

steve b:

My question is meant to elicit an answer from YOU.

I asked you first Steve
Answer mine, and when we have finished discussing your answer, I’ll answer yours.

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

Ghosty:

My initial resonse to this, and what I believe GAssisi is also saying, is that the Incarnation did not happen in Eternity, but rather right here on Earth in the Temporal. The Holy Spirit, and the Son, have their origins in Eternity, but the Incarnation has its origins on Earth. I fail to see the validity of your analogy.

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

 

[GAssisi]

Dear Father,

Have you had your cup of tea today? It is really “silly” of you to try to convince seasoned Christians that the Incarnation occurred in eternity! Are you seriously coming onto a Catholic messageboard and telling us that the moment of Incarnation occurred in Eternity, while the moment of sending the Holy Spirit occurred on Earth? Sorry Father, you contradict both Scripture and Tradition. What occurred in eternity as regards the Incarnation was NOT the Incarnation itself, but the divine will for it to occur. What occurred at Pentecost on earth was NOT the sending of the Holy Spirit, but the RECEIVING of the Holy Spirit. Is this really what they are teaching in Russian Orthodox seminaries, or was this your own opinion?

God bless,

Greg

 

[GAssisi]

Just testing if my previous post went through.

 

[steve_b]

GAssisi:

Dear SteveB,

I don’t think you will find the Orthodox denying the truth of any of those passages. The issue, as I posted much earlier, is whether this procession through the Son is merely temporal (that is, by economy for the sake of creation) or eternal (that is, an inherent character of the Son and not merely by economy). Judging by the biblical evidence alone, it is hard to resolve this issue. However, I suggest the following consideration:

The Son sends the Spirit temporally or economically AFTER He ascends, as Scripture proclaims, to the right hand of the Father. However, when Jesus actualizes this action, He is doing so “IN” and “FROM” the realm of Eternity. Since there is no time as we know it in Eternity, then from our perspective, the Spirit can correctly be said to proceed from the Son eternally, though its effect for the world is temporal (i.e., in time).

Comments?

God bless,

Greg

In trying to figure out how better to communicate this topic with the Orthodox, our differences here look like the different way Latins and Greeks look at the Trinity.

"In Latin theology thought fixed first on the Nature and only subsequently on the Persons. Personality is viewed as being, so to speak, the final complement of the Nature: the Nature is regarded as logically prior to the Personality. Hence, because God’s Nature is one, He is known to us as One God before He can be known as Three Persons. And when theologians speak of God without special mention of a Person, conceive Him under this aspect. This is entirely different from the Greek point of view.

Greek thought fixed primarily on the Three distinct Persons: the Father, to Whom, as the source and origin of all, the name of God (Theos) more especially belongs; the Son, proceeding from the Father by an eternal generation, and therefore rightly termed God also; and the Divine Spirit, proceeding from the Father through the Son. The Personality is treated as logically prior to the Nature. Just as human nature is something which the individual men possesses, and which can only be conceived as belonging to and dependent on the individual, so the Divine Nature is something which belongs to the Persons and cannot be conceived independently of Them."

For full context

newadvent.org/cathen/15047a.htm#V

Comments?

 

[steve_b]

prodromos:

I asked you first Steve
Answer mine, and when we have finished discussing your answer, I’ll answer yours.

Technically you didn’t ask me a question. You responded to Aris and I jumped in at that point responding to you

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?postid=427887#post427887

I think the reason we seem to be talking past each other, is because Latins and Greeks talk about the Trinity differently. Review the differences which you can go to specifically by point and click, but review the entire article. .

newadvent.org/cathen/15047a.htm

 

[prodromos]

steve b:

Technically you didn’t ask me a question. You responded to Aris and I jumped in at that point responding to you

You’re right. I apologise for the confusion, however I would appreciate an honest answer to my question. Is it so difficult that no-one is willing to try?

[edit]
No actually, I went back and checked and my question was directed to you, so you’re not right, but I still apologise just in case someone else got confused
[/edit]

 

[steve_b]

prodromos:

You’re right. I apologise for the confusion, however I would appreciate an honest answer to my question. Is it so difficult that no-one is willing to try?

[edit]
No actually, I went back and checked and my question was directed to you, so you’re not right, but I still apologise just in case someone else got confused
[/edit]

I gave you the post where I thought it began. If that is not so then give me the post where you thought the question began

 

[GAssisi]

Dear SteveB,

Yes, that was a good observation regarding the difference in our Trinitarian approaches. I can see how it applies to the present issue of Procession. Focusing on the ONE Nature first would naturally take into consideration the interactive relationships of the Persons due to that one Nature primarily. This focus on the one Nature allows Western theology to ask and answer the question, “What is the relationship between each Person of the Trinity and how is this relationship evident in the Procession?”

On the other hand, focusing on the THREE Persons first would naturally take into consideration only the individual characteristics of those Persons primarily (the Father as monarchia, the Son as Begotten, the Spirit as generated). This focus on the three Persons allows Eastern theology to ask and answer the question, “What is it about each Person that makes them distinct and unique in the Procession?”

Not that the Eastern position is deficient, but I believe the Orthodox criticism of the Western position is deficient. Orthodox believe (without proof) that the Western theology teaches that the one Nature is the sole source and cause of the distinctive Persons. This is, of course, false. What the Western divines taught and teaches is that the Father is the sole source and cause of the Godhead, the Son eternally generated, the Spirit eternally proceeding. What the Westerns, however, took into account that the Orthodox, due to an apophatic approach, do not is the HOW of the Procession of the Spirit. Many Orthodox (and Eastern Christians in general) believe the HOW of the matter is unsearchable. The Westerns believe God revealed at least this matter of HOW to the Church through the God-inspired Scriptures. It is little wonder that the Scriptural proof for the Eastern position rests on one passage (John 15:26), while the Western position rests on a multitude of passages.

Note the concise wording of the sentence above, “What the Westerns, however, took into account that the Orthodox do not…” It is impossible for me to use the past tense for the verb “do” because there is as much patristic evidence from the East for the Procession of the Spirit through the Son as there is from the West.

God bless,

Greg

 

[steve_b]

GAssisi:

Dear SteveB,

This focus on the one Nature allows Western theology to ask and answer the question, “What is the relationship between each Person of the Trinity and how is this relationship evident in the Procession?”

On the other hand, focusing on the THREE Persons first would naturally take into consideration only the individual characteristics of those Persons primarily (the Father as monarchia, the Son as Begotten, the Spirit as generated). This focus on the three Persons allows Eastern theology to ask and answer the question, “What is it about each Person that makes them distinct and unique in the Procession?”

I posted an article on the HS as seen from Catholic theology to see where the EO agreements and disagreements are . Unfortunately no one responded to it.

GAssisi:

Not that the Eastern position is deficient, but I believe the Orthodox criticism of the Western position is deficient. Orthodox believe (without proof) that the Western theology teaches that the one Nature is the sole source and cause of the distinctive Persons. This is, of course, false. What the Western divines taught and teaches is that the Father is the sole source and cause of the Godhead, the Son eternally generated, the Spirit eternally proceeding.

I want the Orthodox to difine who the HS is from their perspective.

GAssisi:

What the Westerns, however, took into account that the Orthodox, due to an apophatic approach, do not is the HOW of the Procession of the Spirit. Many Orthodox (and Eastern Christians in general) believe the HOW of the matter is unsearchable. The Westerns believe God revealed at least this matter of HOW to the Church through the God-inspired Scriptures.

True

GAssisi:

It is little wonder that the Scriptural proof for the Eastern position rests on one passage (John 15:26), while the Western position rests on a multitude of passages.

When I gave the Greek word for “proceeds” and gave the definitions for that word, in not only that passage of John, but some 20 other NT passages also, I thought it would have generated discussion between EO and Catholics. But it didn’t

GAssisi:

Note the concise wording of the sentence above, “What the Westerns, however, took into account that the Orthodox do not…” It is impossible for me to use the past tense for the verb “do” because there is as much patristic evidence from the East for the Procession of the Spirit through the Son as there is from the West.

God bless,

Greg

I found this to be an interesting Catholic/Orthodox dialogue on the subject.
web.archive.org/web/20031204112815/http://ic.net/~erasmus

 

[Aris]

Greg, Steve,

great posts!

How about listing down the things that we Catholic believe in the Trinity? The orthodox can say if they also believe it to be true.

Ok let’s start

1. We believe in one God
2. We believe in that God is three Persons in one.
3. We believe that each Person is distinct from the other by their relationship, The Father is the origin, the Son is begotten and the Holy Spirit proceeds.

This should be a start to understanding and for the Orthodox to see that what we believe is the same.

 

[prodromos]

GAssisi:

Not that the Eastern position is deficient, but I believe the Orthodox criticism of the Western position is deficient. Orthodox believe (without proof) that the Western theology teaches that the one Nature is the sole source and cause of the distinctive Persons. This is, of course, false.

It is reflected in your churches ecclesiology Greg, as the Orthodox understanding of the Holy Trinity is reflected in ours.

John.

 

[prodromos]

steve b:

I gave you the post where I thought it began. If that is not so then give me the post where you thought the question began

Post #124 in this thread. I asked YOU a question which you have not answered, preferring to ask a question instead. Aris had not been involved in the thread for quite a number of posts at that point.

 

[GAssisi]

Dear John,

Can you please explain the statement, “it is reflected in your ecclesiology”? I have heard that claim often, but have seriously never understood it nor had the chance to have a conversation with the person who said it — until now.

God bless,
Greg

 

[steve_b]

prodromos:

Post #124 in this thread. I asked YOU a question which you have not answered, preferring to ask a question instead. Aris had not been involved in the thread for quite a number of posts at that point.

John, if this is that important, it’s much easier to give me the address where I can just open it and answer it.

 

[prodromos]

steve b:

John, if this is that important, it’s much easier to give me the address where I can just open it and answer it.

Steve, your post that I’m responding to now was post no #153. It says so at the top right corner of the box containing your post, as it does at the top right corner of every post. Is it really so difficult for you to scroll back until you reach post #124

 

[steve_b]

Aris:

Greg, Steve,

great posts!

How about listing down the things that we Catholic believe in the Trinity? The orthodox can say if they also believe it to be true.

Ok let’s start

1. We believe in one God
2. We believe in that God is three Persons in one.
3. We believe that each Person is distinct from the other by their relationship, The Father is the origin, the Son is begotten and the Holy Spirit proceeds.

This should be a start to understanding and for the Orthodox to see that what we believe is the same.

The USCCB gave a good impartial history and analysis of this subject. usccb.org/seia/filioque.htm

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

GAssisi:

Dear John,

Can you please explain the statement, “it is reflected in your ecclesiology”? I have heard that claim often, but have seriously never understood it nor had the chance to have a conversation with the person who said it — until now.

The most cogent explanation of the ways in which the *filioque * has distorted the understanding of the Holy Trinity and the impact of that distortion on the ecclesiology of the Roman Catholic Church is to be found in the relevant chapters of Philip Sherrard’s “The Greek East and the Latin West: a study in the Christian Tradition” published in 1959 by Oxford University Press.

However, if memory serves, you have pronounced some hard words on Sherrard’s scholarship so you may not wish to allow your mind to entertain what he says. But the fact remains that if you want to understand what the Orthodox themselves mean when they relate the filioque to the development of Roman Catholic ecclesiology then Sherrard’s writings are an excellent inttroduction.

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

steve b:

The USCCB gave a good impartial history and analysis of this subject. usccb.org/seia/filioque.htm

Dear Steve b,

This is the “Agreed Statement of the North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation” on the Filioque.

This group of New World theologians is not overburdened with the respect of the rest of the Orthodox world.

One has only to remember their “Agreed Statement” on Baptism which sent the Orthodox into tears of laughter over their convolutions to demonstrate when a Chrismation is not a Chrismation.

Baptism and "Sacramental Economy"
An Agreed Statement of The North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation
St. Vladimir’s Orthodox Seminary, Crestwood, New York
June 3, 1999
usccb.org/seia/agreed.htm