V
Vico
Guest
Is this what you mean? The Father is begetting, the Son is being begotten, and the Holy Spirit is proceeding from and to forever.
With tense, it seems that the nearest equivalent is eternally in process or ongoing.
- Status
With tense, it seems that the nearest equivalent is eternally in process or ongoing.
S
sakares2
Guest
I am not sure that I understand your question. I do mean to say that the son is the only begotten and that the father is the one who begets and that the spirit is the one who proceeds.
but What I had meant in my post was to say that if the Trinity is eternally 3, and 2 of the 3 were caused. in order to have perpetually 3, the 2 that were caused (eternally) must be caused simultaneously. it would be impossible for one to be caused without the other and still have perpetually 3. For this reason the eternal origin of the Spirit is dependent on the Begetting of the Son, and conversely the Begetting of the Son is Dependent on the procession of the Spirit. They are not independent of one another, and as such one can make the statement that, it is by the begetting of the Son that the Spirit has his eternal origin. in such a way the Son could be legitimately termed a cause of the Spirit. Not cause in the sense He did something to “create” the Spirit, but Cause in the sense that if the Son did not exist, he was not begotten. If the Son was not begotten, the Spirit could not have proceeded. in this context Cause is being used as something integral for something to happen. Like the Plug on a boat, the motor gets us to the island (it causes us to get there in one sense of the word cause), but the plug causes us to get there as well (because without it we would sink), however in the case of the plug, the “cause” refers to the necessity of it being there.
I think yet another way that one could think of this would be that in order For the Spirit to proceed from the Father, the Father must be Father and cannot be Father without the Son.
but What I had meant in my post was to say that if the Trinity is eternally 3, and 2 of the 3 were caused. in order to have perpetually 3, the 2 that were caused (eternally) must be caused simultaneously. it would be impossible for one to be caused without the other and still have perpetually 3. For this reason the eternal origin of the Spirit is dependent on the Begetting of the Son, and conversely the Begetting of the Son is Dependent on the procession of the Spirit. They are not independent of one another, and as such one can make the statement that, it is by the begetting of the Son that the Spirit has his eternal origin. in such a way the Son could be legitimately termed a cause of the Spirit. Not cause in the sense He did something to “create” the Spirit, but Cause in the sense that if the Son did not exist, he was not begotten. If the Son was not begotten, the Spirit could not have proceeded. in this context Cause is being used as something integral for something to happen. Like the Plug on a boat, the motor gets us to the island (it causes us to get there in one sense of the word cause), but the plug causes us to get there as well (because without it we would sink), however in the case of the plug, the “cause” refers to the necessity of it being there.
I think yet another way that one could think of this would be that in order For the Spirit to proceed from the Father, the Father must be Father and cannot be Father without the Son.
V
Vico
Guest
It makes sense in some way because there is only one Divine will.
M
mardukm
Guest
Dear brother Sakares2,
Blessings,
Marduk
I would have to agree with Cavaradossi’s premise that the only way to claim that the Spirit is the principle of being “through” for the Son is if one believes that it is the Essence that forms the relations in the Godhead, not the personal Hypostases (i.e., since there is no distinction in Essence, there can be no distinction in properties). But Lyons II affirmed the doctrine that it is NOT the Essence that forms the relations, but rather the distinct, personal Hypostases. On that premise, it is impossible (as Bishop Zizoulias affirms) according to the Latin teaching for your proposal to hold any validity. In the Latin teaching, the Father ALONE is the principle of being “from,” the Son ALONE is the principle of being “through,” and the Holy Spirit is the one who proceeds (procedit/proienai) from the Father and the Son/ proceeds (ekporeusai) from the Father through the Son.
That is a good way to put it.
Blessings,
Marduk
M
mardukm
Guest
Daer brother Todd,
The article revealed that the pro-filioque version of the St. Basil text was contained in more ancient manuscripts than the pro-Greek version. In fact, at the Council, of the 6 sources presented, 5 came from the Greeks, and only one from the Latins. Of these 6, 5 of them (including the one from the Latins) contained the pro-filioque version.
The purpose of the article was to demonstrate that the Latins did not falsify the text of St. Basil, though the author himself was of the opinion that the pro-Greek version was the correct one.
Blessings,
Marduk
I read an assessment of the text from St. Basil recently. Unfortunately, I forgot to save the link. All I remember is that the author’s first name was Alexander and he had a Greek last name.
The article revealed that the pro-filioque version of the St. Basil text was contained in more ancient manuscripts than the pro-Greek version. In fact, at the Council, of the 6 sources presented, 5 came from the Greeks, and only one from the Latins. Of these 6, 5 of them (including the one from the Latins) contained the pro-filioque version.
The purpose of the article was to demonstrate that the Latins did not falsify the text of St. Basil, though the author himself was of the opinion that the pro-Greek version was the correct one.
Blessings,
Marduk
S
sakares2
Guest
Mardukm, Thank you for your insight, If I understand correctly you are saying that it pertains to the Son Alone to have the property of being through, and it pertains to the Father Alone to have the property of originator (The others coming from him), and it pertains to the Spirit alone to have the Property of being the one who proceeds.
I imagine that this is another way of saying the the Father is the Unbegotten and the Son is the Only Begotten and the Spirit is the one who proceeds?
I was not aware that it was Latin Dogma that the Spirit was not necessary for the Son to be Begotten. That being said I am not sure that this is the point that you are making… You say that If what I said is true, then one must believe that the Essence (this is the Nature/substace correct?) that forms the relations in the Godhead (The Trinity correct?), and there is Latin Dogma against this. Have I understood this part correctly?
I do not understand why underlined red portion necessitates that it must be the essence that forms the relation and not the Person? The Son is still the only one who is Unbegotten, and the Spirit is still the only one who proceeds, so they are still distinct. What I had meant is only that The Spirit cannot proceed without the Father Begetting the Son and that the Son cannot be Begotten from the Father without the Spirit Proceeding from the Father.
I don’t know If I have clarified any better, but I hope at least I have formulated my questions in a way that is understandable.
I imagine that this is another way of saying the the Father is the Unbegotten and the Son is the Only Begotten and the Spirit is the one who proceeds?
I was not aware that it was Latin Dogma that the Spirit was not necessary for the Son to be Begotten. That being said I am not sure that this is the point that you are making… You say that If what I said is true, then one must believe that the Essence (this is the Nature/substace correct?) that forms the relations in the Godhead (The Trinity correct?), and there is Latin Dogma against this. Have I understood this part correctly?
I do not understand why underlined red portion necessitates that it must be the essence that forms the relation and not the Person? The Son is still the only one who is Unbegotten, and the Spirit is still the only one who proceeds, so they are still distinct. What I had meant is only that The Spirit cannot proceed without the Father Begetting the Son and that the Son cannot be Begotten from the Father without the Spirit Proceeding from the Father.
I don’t know If I have clarified any better, but I hope at least I have formulated my questions in a way that is understandable.
C
Cavaradossi
Guest
I believe that it is a teaching on both sides that there is a certain ‘necessity’ in the being of the Son and the Spirit, insofar as the begetting of the Son (and the projection of the Spirit) is not according to the energy (operation) of the will but according to nature. This is not to say that one is exactly necessary for the other, but rather that there is a necessity for both simply to exist with the Father.
S
sakares2
Guest
That is what I mean, there is a necessity for both to exist with the Father perpetually. Thus it is necessary for the 2 to exist with the father perpetually, for there to be an eternal trinity. The 2 caused persons must have an eternal simultaneous origin from the Father for there to be eternally 3. Thus the Procession of the Spirit and the Begetting of the Son cannot be divorced from one another. in this manner I believe that the statement can be made that they are in this way mutually dependent, and as such the Begetting of the Son is necessary for the Procession of the Spirit and Vice Versa. Granted this is perhaps a strange way of expression but I believe that it is a legitimate expression.
I believe that it is equally true that the Son is Necessary for the Spirit to Proceed from the Father, Because without the Son, the Father is not Father. This statement does not have the reciprocal identity in relation to the Holy Spirit attached to it, but as I think the two concepts are complementary, I still think that it is possible to say that the the Spirit is necessary for the begetting of the Son.
While I think and agree that it is a strange way of thinking and expression, But I think that it is a legitimate expression That a either a Catholic or Orthodox in good standing “could” make.
I will be interested to hear from Mardukm on the matter, because He has expressed the greatest concern with the latter part of the Statement. I should like to add, that I think this concept that I am trying to express (perhaps poorly ) is I think very well expressed by a person speaking a word. Both the Word and the Breath are mutually dependent, Both have the Person Alone as Ultimate cause and Source, but there is a manner of speaking (because they are mutually dependent) that one can say the word “causes” the Breath and the Breath “causes” the word. In this sense of the word cause, it is being used as pertaining to something necessary for something else to be and not a causative agent like someone actively doing something like making a sculpture.
I believe that it is equally true that the Son is Necessary for the Spirit to Proceed from the Father, Because without the Son, the Father is not Father. This statement does not have the reciprocal identity in relation to the Holy Spirit attached to it, but as I think the two concepts are complementary, I still think that it is possible to say that the the Spirit is necessary for the begetting of the Son.
While I think and agree that it is a strange way of thinking and expression, But I think that it is a legitimate expression That a either a Catholic or Orthodox in good standing “could” make.
I will be interested to hear from Mardukm on the matter, because He has expressed the greatest concern with the latter part of the Statement. I should like to add, that I think this concept that I am trying to express (perhaps poorly ) is I think very well expressed by a person speaking a word. Both the Word and the Breath are mutually dependent, Both have the Person Alone as Ultimate cause and Source, but there is a manner of speaking (because they are mutually dependent) that one can say the word “causes” the Breath and the Breath “causes” the word. In this sense of the word cause, it is being used as pertaining to something necessary for something else to be and not a causative agent like someone actively doing something like making a sculpture.
C
Cavaradossi
Guest
You know, I was reading recently in a book that Mark of Ephesus wanted to present Palamas’ teachings and how they relate to the filioque at Florence, but he was suppressed by the emperor. Having nothing further to debate about, he was simply left with nothing to say other than to say that the Latins were mistaken without explanation. I often wonder how differently things might have turned out had he been able to bring that up.mardukm said:
Now that we’ve found some agreement on what Palamas means, let me see if I can’t parse out a bit of what I’ve been trying to say about the Filioque in relation to to the essence energies distinction, which I have been unable to do recently, probably on account of my love of argument and my temperament, which at times can be somewhat irascible, for which I apologize.
Fundamentally, I feel that the fathers when they talk about essence are sometimes talking about two different things, sometimes they are talking about essence in what pretty much matches the Palamite definition (like the quote from John of Damascus in the other thread). Other times, they are clearly referencing the commonality, including common attributes and names which properly belong to no person of the trinity (anhypostatic). In Palamite theology of course, this is exactly what the energies are. In Palamite theology, it would be perfectly correct to say that common attributes such as goodness and holiness manifest in the Spirit through the Son. Rather, what does not proceed through the Son is the hyper-essential essence, because the act of generating a divine hypostasis belongs to the Father alone.
I suspect if you would disagree with anything above, it would be the last statement, that the hyper-essential essence does not proceed through the Son, but if you look at it from a Byzantine perspective, where an hypostasis is a specific instance or existence of an essence which is otherwise an abstraction, it should make some sense where I am coming from here.
S
Schism_hater
Guest
There is no answer to it, those who defend it simply have to change the subject. The western teaching as developed by Anselm and Aquinas and dogmatized by Lyons II and Florence creates another entity within the Trinity, which Aquinas says is the Father and the Son “confusedly”, which process the Holy Spirit. Lip service is still paid to the monarchy of the Father, but if the Lyons/Florence teaching is taken seriously, it becomes an empty letter.
Of course the average Catholic in the pew does not know any of this when they say “and the Son” at Mass, which is probably all to the good.
S
Schism_hater
Guest
If you (or anyone) wants a scholarly but clear presentation of the Orthodox position on this issue, I would highly recommend the chapter on it Vladimir Lossky, In the Image and Likeness of God.
T
theistgal
Guest
I know it’s a little after the fact (sorry, thread resurrection & all that), but I want to apologize for my flippant remark above, because to be honest, I have the same problem understanding the filioque myself.If you already knew that, why did you ask? lol omg>ponies!
lol omg>ponies at myself!!!
C
CatholicServant
Guest
Thank you for the last quote from St. John Damascene…
C
chimo
Guest
I tend to see that both East and West are correct depending on their view and how they approach this additional part to our common creed. The Church of Rome and the Eastern Church have both grown up to their matured state and their respective theologies reflect in some manner their different approaches towards ministry. The Church of Rome is more of an outward evangelical Church which expresses herself more on the surface so we can see the tip the iceburg. The Eastern Church is much more of an inward comtemplative Church which expresses more below the surface so we know more of the bottom of the iceburg. These days as our two Churches have reached towards their matured status it is good and even beneficial to see the whole picture which means the whole iceburg. These two Churches have complimentary and different approaches so we are able by learning from both to see the whole picture.
The Church of Rome sees herself as an exterior ministry which expresses her outreach evangelizing outwardly. This expresses well within the Creed by giving the Holy Spirit the following words we see in the Nicene Creed. By describing the procession of the Holy Spirit in the Creeed the Church of Rome is describing her own vocational experience. The Eastern Church which is more of an inward ministry is reflected in the Creed also by giving the Holy Spirit its own inward activity contained within the Holy Trinity. The Eastern Church is thus describing its own vocational ministry.
Both Churches are then correct. The question of unity is dependant on this complete picture and seeing the whole “iceburg”. The question is not how come the other is not like us but more what makes the other distinct from the other. These distinctions are important for while they are different from each other they together form the complete gifts and talents for which each Church were ordained with. And remember for a Church to arrive into her own distinctness and character she must be formed by the same Holy Spirit. It is the same when two individuals are formed apart from each other into their disctinct personalities and characteristics like a man who will eventually meet up with his wife for the first time. Time and patience must come first within their formations before they can ever come together.
It is my opinion that all of this from the past about the filioque was only the Church’s own time into the spiritual growth to lead them toward the eventual maturity. It was necessary for these two Churches to developed into their own disctinctness and personality.
The Church of Rome sees herself as an exterior ministry which expresses her outreach evangelizing outwardly. This expresses well within the Creed by giving the Holy Spirit the following words we see in the Nicene Creed. By describing the procession of the Holy Spirit in the Creeed the Church of Rome is describing her own vocational experience. The Eastern Church which is more of an inward ministry is reflected in the Creed also by giving the Holy Spirit its own inward activity contained within the Holy Trinity. The Eastern Church is thus describing its own vocational ministry.
Both Churches are then correct. The question of unity is dependant on this complete picture and seeing the whole “iceburg”. The question is not how come the other is not like us but more what makes the other distinct from the other. These distinctions are important for while they are different from each other they together form the complete gifts and talents for which each Church were ordained with. And remember for a Church to arrive into her own distinctness and character she must be formed by the same Holy Spirit. It is the same when two individuals are formed apart from each other into their disctinct personalities and characteristics like a man who will eventually meet up with his wife for the first time. Time and patience must come first within their formations before they can ever come together.
It is my opinion that all of this from the past about the filioque was only the Church’s own time into the spiritual growth to lead them toward the eventual maturity. It was necessary for these two Churches to developed into their own disctinctness and personality.
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
Then the Creed isn’t common if one phrase has two different context. If we’re talking about two different things, then our Creed isn’t the same regardless of the correctness of the theology.
C
chimo
Guest
I did not imply that the creeds of both Churches will remain always the same. Somehow in the near future this will be corrected and both Churches will have the same words. What I was implying was durng the timeline of the last 1200 years the two Churches developed their teachings towards what the Holy Spirit was guiding them into. Since this same Holy Spirit permitted two disctinct characteristics that does not imply that one Church cannot be agreement with the other Church. It takes time to understand what the other believes just like it takes time for an individual to know someone else or when a man wants to learn more about his future wife. Her way of life and my way of life are going to be different but this does not mean we cannot come together. Our unique upbringing and disctinctness will help further our togetherness and strengthen it. Relationships can only be built by what each other can contribute to it.
The Creed was only one of those times when these two Churches just like two individuals needed this time to be develolped. Once this time is over then the next stage of discovery of each other will come and from this will eventually come towards the unified Creed which I believe everyone will want. It will come in its own good time.
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
The Creed was made in response to specific heresies that needed to be addressed. So even if th Filioque is theologically correct for both East and West, the other issue here is why is the context different? If the context is different from the original, then it still doesn’t serve the purpose why the original was written that way in the first place.
M
mardukm
Guest
Actually, if we look at the original context, then there is more convergence than one might think. The Creed of Constantinople made its additions to address the Pneumatomachian heresy which denied the divinity of the Holy Spirit. That was the context of it. Both East and West confess the same thing when they say the relevant line in the Creed - that the Holy Spirit is Divine, fully God as are the Father and Son.
The theological assumptions are different, of course. To the East, the divinity was ensured by the eternal origination from the Father; to the West, the divinity was ensured by the consubstantiality with the Father and Son. The East does not deny the meaning intended by the West; the West does not deny the meaing intended by the East. To repeat, both East and West are confessing the same thing - the Divinity of the Holy Spirit.
Blessings,
Marduk
- Status