Filioque and Eastern Christian Trinitarian understanding

[GAssisi]

Sorry Father, but your memory does not serve you very well at the moment. Never heard of Sherrard. I’ll try to find his book at the library and check it out. Thanks for the reference.

God bless,
Greg

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

GAssisi:

Sorry Father, but your memory does not serve you very well at the moment. Never heard of Sherrard

Nothing wrong with my memory. I fear that it is yours which has failed you in this instance.

You wrote about Sherrard:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=320125&postcount=14

Everyone here has contributed beautifully to the understanding of the Filioque between East and West (especially Mtr’s incisive question regarding the Greek)–well, except for Father Ambrose. Even the short excerpt given by Father Ambrose from Sherrard’s book indicates that Sherrard does not understand the doctrine of Filioque enough to even write about it. The Filioque is a WESTERN development and can only be understood in light of WESTERN theology and terms. Sharrard obviously does not have this particular expertise.

 

[Aris]

Aris:

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.

Steve, Greg,

I am really interested to see the points where we differ. As I see it there is no difference except the point of view taken. ie Eastern mysticsm vs Western logic

Please put in more of the Catholic beliefs regarding the Trinity. Hopefully we can see, if my theory holds out, that out of a hundred things we believe, 99 is the same and that one difference really lies in the language and culture we are speaking.

John, Fr. Ambrose,

I hope you would engage us in this exercise as the title of the thread Filioque understanding.

So how about it guys?

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

Aris:

John, Fr. Ambrose,

I hope you would engage us in this exercise as the title of the thread Filioque understanding.

So how about it guys?

Not of much use I am afraid. GAssisi has already cut the Orthodox out of the conversation quite effectively. After his comments nothing we say will be treated with any seriousness. Best for us to stay away from the topic…

GAssisi: Therefore, reading this issue [filioque] from the Eastern Orthodox perspective is not recommended since there will always be an anti-papal agenda present, and so misrepresentations of the Catholic position will be rampant.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=320125&postcount=14

 

[GAssisi]

Dear Father,

Oh, THAT guy. Well, you know, Father, people have an instinctive habit of selectively forgetting information or characters that are offensive, meaningless, or factious – all traits which your suggested author (Sherrard) unfortunately possessed. I am guilty of such selective amnesia. I will nevertheless see if I can glean any information from him on my question.

BTW, you do have a rather annoying habit of simply avoiding the issue rather than making any admission of fault or error in your criticisms of Catholicism. I think you have at this point exposed yourself to the charge of hypocrisy since you have made posts on this issue at least five times already on this page alone, yet now appeal to some comment from another thread about a clearly polemic author to pretend that you cannot continue. The only way you can actually use that old quote from me is if you admit that you are meaninglessly and needlessly polemical. Otherwise, please do continue your (name removed by moderator)ut – which we welcome - or simply admit that you have been in error with your criticisms.

Dear John,

With all due respect to Father, your posts have been very meaningful, so I hope you continue to provide us with your knowledge.

Dear Aris,

I believe you are correct in the 99% similarity. Wait — no, let me rephrase. I believe we are OBJECTIVELY 100% in agreement. The only difference is subjective, as you point out, in the language, in the approach, and, I will add, in the misconceptions each party may have about what the other believes. Hopefully, this dialog will serve to correct those misconceptions.

BTW, together with the Orthodox, and Eastern Christianity in general, Western Christianity believes:

1. that the Persons of the Trinity are consubstantial;
2. that the Persons of the Trinity are distinct by virtue of their Names.
3. that the Persons of the Trinity are all equal; that there is no gradation of power or honor among the Persons.
4. that the Father works ALL things through the Son;
5. that the Spirit is able to comprehend the innermost thoughts of the Father and the Son;
6. that the Spirit is eternally the Spirit of the Father and of the Son.

God bless,

Greg

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

GAssisi:

together with the Orthodox, and Eastern Christianity in general, Western Christianity believes

5) that the Persons of the Trinity are distinct by virtue of their Names.

The Persons of the Trinity are not distinct simply because of their Names ( that is getting a bit close to Modalism.) They are distinct because of their origins.

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**.
St. Gregory Nazianzen

So, the distinctions are:

The Father is unbegotten.

The Son is begotten of the Father

The Spirit proceeds from the Father.

 

[GAssisi]

Dear Father,

Good point. But please don’t misunderstand me. The fact about Their ontological relationship was already addressed by Aris, so I didn’t feel the need to repeat it – which is why I started my list with #4.

Thank you for your (name removed by moderator)ut. It is a bit clearer than the way Aris expressed it.

God bless,

Greg

 

[prodromos]

Fr Ambrose:

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.

I have not read the above title, but rather his subsequent book titled “Church, Papacy and Schism. A Theological Enquiry”, which according to the writer of the foreword, Prof. Dimitri Obolensky, is clearer and more concisely formulated than the former title.
I could not possibly do Philip Sherrard justice by trying to summarise his points in a few posts on this forum so I’m just going to recommend you buy or borrow a copy and read it yourself. Interestingly enough, Amazon.co.uk has the book for less than a third of the price at Amazon.com. Caveat Emptor.
I also note with mild amusement that a Catholic fellow has made it his mission to try and disparage the book where ever it is sold by posting the same bad review where ever he finds it, even to the point af posting the same review multiple times at amazon.com
For Greg’s benefit, Philip Sherrard states the following in the book’s preface:

My understanding of Roman ecclesiology derives largely from the works of M.-J. Congar, Y. Congar, E. Mersch, and Henri de Lubac (above all his Corpus Mysticum). Two magisterial works by Walter Ullmann, The Growth of Papal Government in the Middle Ages and Principles of Government and Politics in the Middle Ages, have supplied me with most of my knowledge of the theory and structure of the medieval papacy, although I am also indebted here to M.J. Wilks’s The Problem of Sovereignty in the Later Middle Ages, and Ernst Kantorowicz’s The King’s Two Bodies. This list is by no means exhaustive, but it gives an indication of those whom I regard as my authorities in these matters, and to whom my acknowledgements are due.

 

[steve_b]

Fr Ambrose:

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

The practice of Rebaptism and its controversy goes back to Cyprian and pope Stephen. 1800 years later, we’re still talking about the same thing.

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

steve b:

The practice of Rebaptism and its controversy goes back to Cyprian and pope Stephen. 1800 years later, we’re still talking about the same thing.

The big-O’s are not just talking about it. They’re walking the talk. The Cyprianite position of *‘extra ecclesiam nulla sacramenta’ * is still the foundation of Orthodox ecclesiology, tempered when desirable by the principle of economia.

Have you seen this article? I recommended it somewhere else on the Forum.

Ecumenism and the Ecclesiology of Saint Cyprian of Carthage
by Fr. Daniel Degyansky (OCA)

*Saint Cyprian of Carthage developed with fearless consistency a doctrine of the complete absence of Grace in every sect which had separated itself from the True Church. His doctrine is one of the basic foundation blocks of Orthodox ecclesiology and it stands in direct opposition to the presuppositions of the ecumenical movement. *

Please read the rest at
orthodoxchristianity.net/newboard/index.php?board=3;action=display;threadid=3538

TinyUrl: tinyurl.com/4ukp6

 

[steve_b]

Fr Ambrose:

The big-O’s are not just talking about it. They’re walking the talk. The Cyprianite position of *‘extra ecclesiam nulla sacramenta’ *is still the foundation of Orthodox ecclesiology, tempered when desirable by the principle of economia.

Have you seen this article? I recommended it somewhere else on the Forum.

Ecumenism and the Ecclesiology of Saint Cyprian of Carthage
by Fr. Daniel Degyansky (OCA)

*Saint Cyprian of Carthage developed with fearless consistency a doctrine of the complete absence of Grace in every sect which had separated itself from the True Church. His doctrine is one of the basic foundation blocks of Orthodox ecclesiology and it stands in direct opposition to the presuppositions of the ecumenical movement. *

Please read the rest at
orthodoxchristianity.net/newboard/index.php?board=3;action=display;threadid=3538

TinyUrl: tinyurl.com/4ukp6

I’ll get to the URL’s later.

With regards to rebaptism, between the CC and the EO, if both taught this as necessary between both parties for a candidate who jumped one ship for another, this to me would suggest that both parties thinks the other really isn’t the Church regardless of what the rhetoric says. Therefore rebaptism is necessary because each party thinks the other is outside the Church and therefore their sacraments are null and void.

Anyone who was guilty of heresy under Cyprian’s watch was required to be rebaptised before being accepted back into communion, bishops included. And a heretic, even a bishop, couldn’t validly baptise or confect any sacrament until being rebaptised. Pope Stephen at the time disagreed with Cyprian on this.

But this is off the topic of the Trinity and procession

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

steve b:

Anyone who was guilty of heresy under Cyprian’s watch was required to be rebaptised before being accepted back into communion, bishops included. And a heretic, even a bishop, couldn’t validly baptise or confect any sacrament until being rebaptised. Pope Stephen at the time disagreed with Cyprian on this.

I agree, we’ve gone off topic but all the same I want to clarify one important point.

1. St Cyprian required the baptism of those who had been baptized in an heretical group and who then wished to join the Church.
2. He did not require the re-baptism (that would be a grave sin) of those who had been baptized in the Church, then apostasized, and then wanted to return to the Church.

If I did a little research in the Forum’s archives I could point you to Saint Cyprian’s own words on this important distinction. This has been discussed before.

 

[steve_b]

prodromos:

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

That’s fine if you chose linear mode to display posts as you have done. I chose threaded mode. Now, what’s your question?

 

[steve_b]

Fr Ambrose:

I agree, we’ve gone off topic but all the same I want to clarify one important point.

1. St Cyprian required the baptism of those who had been baptized in an heretical group and who then wished to join the Church.
2. He did not require the re-baptism (that would be a grave sin) of those who had been baptized in the Church, then apostasized, and then wanted to return to the Church.

If I did a little research in the Forum’s archives I could point you to Saint Cyprian’s own words on this important distinction. This has been discussed before.

I’ll have to do some re reading of Cyprian, but it seens to me #2 is incorrect

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

Fr Ambrose:
2. He did not require the re-baptism (that would be a grave sin) of those who had been baptized in the Church, then apostasized, and then wanted to return to the Church.

steve b:

I’ll have to do some re reading of Cyprian, but it seens to me #2 is incorrect

Trust me!

Saint Cyprian is very very clear that those who have received the Church’s Baptism do not have another Baptism -ever!

"It is observed and held by us, that all who are converted from any heresy whatever to the Church must be baptized by the only and lawful baptism of the Church, with the exception of those who had previously been baptized in the Church, and so had passed over to the heretics." (Epistle 73.12)

geocities.com/tertulliancyprian/c15.htm
On the Rebaptism of Heretics

Saint Cyprian is quite clear. There is no Baptism outside the Church and the Baptism performed by heretics is without grace. But Baptism performed by the Church is unique and absolutely irrepeatable. There can never be a second Baptism.

People often do not grasp St Cyprian’s teaching and ascribe to him a teaching on Baptism which he did not hold.

---

“Remove not the ancient landmarks which your fathers have set” -Proverbs 22.28

 

[Traditional_Ang]

Dear Fr. Ambrose:

I seem to recall that several other issues have come up besides divorce and remarraige. These were introduced by you and other Orthodox posters on other Threads, all of these were doctrines and dogmas that you consider to be heretical that are held by the Catholic Church. You’ve stated that the Catholic Church would have to reject these Dogmas before Unity with the Orthodox Churches could be possible…
Fr Ambrose:

I like this friar. He has some constructive and positive thoughts.

BUT… over the last few days there has been a light growing brighter and brighter at the end of the tunnel… and I now know what will keep us separated forever… Remarriage!

If I am to judge from this Forum, there is no way at all the Church of Rome will ever allow divorce and remarriage. It seems an absolute bete noire. And I am just as sure that the Orthodox will never allow their usage of one divorce and a remarriage to be denied them.

It is this which will turn out to be an irreconciliable difference…

…Among these differences are Papal Infallability, The Supremacy of the Pope as the Successor of Peter, The Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary, The Assumption of the BVM (as declared by Pope Leo), the Filioque Clause, The Catholic Doctrine of Original Sin and the Doctrine of Purgatory. There may be others, but these are the ones I seem to recall that you and the other Orthodox posters stated that the Catholic Church had to change it’s teaching and doctrine on.

As I’ve suggested, we could arrive at a Union of sorts by learning about each other and by praying with and for each other. Once we’ve done this for a while, and gotten to know each other a human beings and Brothers in Christs, then we can begin to look at some of the doctrine.

The reason people have been nasty to each other is that they’ve placed the cart before the horse. We’ve had the difficult converstions before we’ve learned to trust and care about each other.

Blessings to you and your parish as you finish your
Epiphanitide.

In Christ, Michael

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

Traditional Ang:

…

Michael,

I am glad to run across you here. Do you plan to open another thread on the TAC’s journey to Rome? The previous one was closed down only because it had gone off topic and some rather dreadful things were being said about the Bulgarians. But if you open a new thread and we all stay on topic, there won’t be any problems.

 

[Traditional_Ang]

Aris:

Steve, Greg,

I am really interested to see the points where we differ. As I see it there is no difference except the point of view taken. ie Eastern mysticsm vs Western logic

Please put in more of the Catholic beliefs regarding the Trinity. Hopefully we can see, if my theory holds out, that out of a hundred things we believe, 99 is the same and that one difference really lies in the language and culture we are speaking.

John, Fr. Ambrose,

I hope you would engage us in this exercise as the title of the thread Filioque understanding.

So how about it guys?

I think this site tends to agree with you (The first one is an Orthodox site run by Orthodox who are very committed to working out the differences between East and West):

orthodoxresearchinstitute.org/articles/dogmatics/john_zizioulas_single_source.htm
praiseofglory.com/filioque.htm/
praiseofglory.com/Stmaximus.htm/filioque.htm/
praiseofglory.com/frchrysostom.htm

The second appears to be a joint operation, although I first saw it cited by an Orthodox.

I believe that, even if the Doctrinal differences can’t be worked out, we must learn to pray and talk with each other in a language that sees each other as Brothers and Sisters in Christ.

This would be a far better testimony to God’s goodness and love than the bickering that’s tipified Catholic-Orthodx Relations on this board.

Blessings to you for the Lentin Season.

Michael

 

[Aris]

Fr. Ambrose, John,

Greg has extended the list. But I am wondering why he got suspended.

Please comment beside the statements whether you agree with the Catholic beliefs.

Steve and other Catholics, please extend the list if you can. We will see if we can get an understanding of each other’s position this way.

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 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.

 

[prodromos]

steve b:

That’s fine if you chose linear mode to display posts as you have done. I chose threaded mode. Now, what’s your question?

Oops that explains a few things. And here I was thinking you were just trying to be difficult. Mea culpa, mea culpa.

I hope the following link works. I don’t know if the addresses are different when referencing in linear or threaded mode

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=437592#post437592

Of course you could have used the search function to find it like I just did, but I won’t say anything about that since I’ve got this beam with the label “tempelis” stuck in my eye