Filioque??

[anthony022071]

Seriously, we have got to have better scholarship than this…

There is an Aramaic word for “proceeds” which shows up in the Aramaic Peshitta Bible in John 15:26: “npq”, which is pronounced by Chaldeans as: “napeq”

The above word does not show up in the Aramaic Creed of 410. Rather, the Creed simply has this: “dmin”, that is: “who(is) from”.

If the Spirit is “from” the Father and the Son,then he proceeds from both. Not in the sense of ekporeusis,but of “going forth”.

St. Epiphanius:
“No one knows the Spirit, besides the Father, except the Son, from Whom He proceeds (proienai) and of Whom He receives.” (OP… cit., xi, in P.G., XLIII, 35):

Do you have the text of the creed of the Council of Seleucia?

The Eastern Church has ‘never’ taught that the Holy Spirit has a dual origin. In fact, it has always argued that the West has conflated eternal origin with that of temporal origin.

The Catholic Church doesn’t teach a dual procession either.
The Father and Son are one in being,so it is not a matter of dual procession,unless you think of the Father and Son as separate beings. The filioque doctrine is directly related to the doctrine of consubstantiality. There’s no real distinction between the eternal origin of the Spirit and it’s temporal manifestation,because the Spirit originates on earth is as in heaven – through the Son.

St. Cyril of Alexandria:
"We must not say that the one Lord Jesus Christ has been glorified by the Spirit, in such a way as to suggest that through the Spirit He made use of a power foreign to Himself, and from the Spirit received the ability to work against unclean spirits, and to perform Divine signs among men; but must rather say that the Spirit, through Whom He did indeed work His Divine signs, is His own. [The Twelve Errors, Error 9, 430 A.D.]

 

[Isa_Almisry]

And Photian accepted it before he died.

So you are ready to recognize SAINT Photios?
I’ve seen the claim that he recognized the Pope’s claims to supremacy, but I’ve never seen the claim made that he accepted the filioque.

I was right then as I am now. The truth does not change.

This is merely a question of grammar and a Latin dictionary. You are just embarrasing yourself to anyone who can use either. As I posted

Actually, no.
a Patre Filioque procedere
versus
a Patre per Filium procedere
vatican.va/archive/catechism_lt/p1s2c1p2_lt.htm#I.%20«%20In%20nomine%20Patris%20et%20Filii%20et%20Spiritus%20Sancti%20».

is from your own CCC, the Latin, official version, from the Vatican City web site, the only place where Latin is official.

The point is that in Greek Grammar you can’t say Filioque, it would be grammatically wrong but in Latin it is grammatical and makes perfect sense. Beside, it is true.

yes, truly an inadequate and inaccurate translation.

In Latin we have no word that means both originate and proceed.

Get one. Romanian does, Latin can too.
You got one for consubstantial.

We have to use different verbs. The Greek verb has the ordinary meaning of originate with a secondary meaning of proceed, but even then it can’t take the kind of grammatical construction that exist in Latin. Greek does not posses the case or grammatical construction.

I can’t believe anyone with any knowledge of Greek would make the last statement.
And the Greek, not the Latin, is the original. No bishops from the West were at Constantinople I. In fact, the Fathers there were not in communion with Rome.

How do you say “from the Father THROUGH the Son” in Latin. The way the Latin Church decided to say that was to use an Ablative (which Greek does not have) and use a means construction (which Greek does not have). A litteral translation of Ex Patre Filioque into English should be “From the Father and by means of the Son.”

If the Latins had intened a simple “From the Father and the Son” they would have used Ex Patre et Filio.

I’ve never seen such a claim made. I’d like others (in particular communicants with the Vatican) to comment first.

Besides, even if they had done this, it would have been a bad translation but at the same time would still be correct when the functionality and grammar of the Latin verb is considered.

Any comments?

Nope.

Read it again and the point becomes obvious. How many times have ‘orthodox’ people just wanted to win an agruement and throw hate at me I can not count. I sometime get the impression that they will agrue with me about anything and everything. If I were to walk up to them and say exactly what they had said the day before they would take the opposite possition just to be in agruement with me.

Yes, we dedicate our existence to your destruction.

You need to take another look at history. Catholics and ‘orthodox’ were in communion with each other after the sack of Constantinople.

No, they were not in communion. The Russian Church, for instance, became autocephalous over the issue, before the fall of Constantinople.

That communion came to its final end when the muslim took the city and force you to proclaim a non christian as the head of your church and break communion.

Break a non-existent communion?
Besides having Christ, a Christian (hence the term) as head of the Church, your statement of a non christian proclaimed head of the Church makes no sense. On what do you make this claim?

You should leave it to God to decide. I will say this, for as much as you complain about it, we Catholics agree with you. It was a very wrong thing that happened. The Catholic church denounced it then as we do to this day. Oh, but you don’t care. I know. You hate me for an event that My Church denounces. You hate me personally for an event that I was not party to, nor anyone in my family, nor anyone in my race.

I don’t hate anyone. Don’t have the time, for one.
But I’m not taken in by recent repentance within my lifetime, after centuries of justification.

Want the Truth, then believe in the teachings that Christ gave us. Those teachings are found in the Catholic Church, complete and unaltered.

Amen.

We are not the ones allowing divorce.

Corban.

Yes and we should thank God for the reunions he made possible through his grace at Florence.

That fact that He didn’t make it is why it failed Acts 5:38-9.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

If the Spirit is “from” the Father and the Son,then he proceeds from both. Not in the sense of ekporeusis,but of “going forth”.

St. Epiphanius:
“No one knows the Spirit, besides the Father, except the Son, from Whom He proceeds (proienai) and of Whom He receives.” (OP… cit., xi, in P.G., XLIII, 35):

Do you have the text of the creed of the Council of Seleucia?

So do you:

Isa,

Here is an online link to the original. The relevant section are the first 9 words:

books.google.com/books?hl=en&id=TK0AAAAAMAAJ&dq=Three+Letters+of+Philoxenus&printsec=frontcover&source=web&ots=CtR0Jjbg9R&sig=JXCvKngwWpNpu6flFpf9udOTb24&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=3&ct=result#PPA76,M1

Thanks again Ronyodish.

The Catholic Church doesn’t teach a dual procession either.
The Father and Son are one in being,so it is not a matter of dual procession,unless you think of the Father and Son as separate beings.

the Fathers of Constinople I didn’t.

The filioque doctrine is directly related to the doctrine of consubstantiality.

by muddling it.

There’s no real distinction between the eternal origin of the Spirit and it’s temporal manifestation,because the Spirit originates on earth is as in heaven – through the Son.

At best it is perichoresis.

St. Cyril of Alexandria:
"We must not say that the one Lord Jesus Christ has been glorified by the Spirit, in such a way as to suggest that through the Spirit He made use of a power foreign to Himself, and from the Spirit received the ability to work against unclean spirits, and to perform Divine signs among men; but must rather say that the Spirit, through Whom He did indeed work His Divine signs, is His own. [The Twelve Errors, Error 9, 430 A.D.]

This has nothing to do with filioque.

 

[Claudius]

You know I don’t mean to fight with you but her it goes.

So you are ready to recognize SAINT Photios?

Sure, why not. He had his struggles as we all do. He died in the faith and I myself with to. He is celebrates as a saint by many Catholics. He is regarded as a very brilliant teacher. It is a shame that his legacy has so much of the schism that follows it. I pray that we can be like Photios and reconcile our differences with one another.

I’ve seen the claim that he recognized the Pope’s claims to supremacy, but I’ve never seen the claim made that he accepted the filioque.

I have, I will look it up for you.

This is merely a question of grammar and a Latin dictionary. You are just embarrasing yourself to anyone who can use either.

wow, what a mean thing to say, but whatever. I am fluent in Latin. My Greek is litterate and slow at that but I am completely fluent in Greek.

Did you notice the case that had to be use after “per”?

Also, this form of the creed was floting around, it just wan’t popular.

yes, truly an inadequate and inaccurate translation.

I will be the first to admit that if the Latin Church wants a better translation for translation sake then the Filioque should be dropped and the verb changed. I have said this many times.

However, changing the creed to a better translation does not make the theology behind the Filioque invalid.

Get one. Romanian does, Latin can too.

Easier said than done. I can just as easily say that Greek should adopt the ablative case with the Means construction.

I can’t believe anyone with any knowledge of Greek would make the last statement.

Why?

And the Greek, not the Latin, is the original.

True, but the Latin is still true.

No bishops from the West were at Constantinople I. In fact, the Fathers there were not in communion with Rome.

Got to tag you there, not true.

Yes, we dedicate our existence to your destruction.

And I wish you would stop.

No, they were not in communion. The Russian Church, for instance, became autocephalous over the issue, before the fall of Constantinople.

Read the history.

Break a non-existent communion?
Besides having Christ, a Christian (hence the term) as head of the Church, your statement of a non christian proclaimed head of the Church makes no sense. On what do you make this claim?

Read the history. We were in communion when the Turts took Constantinople and forced the Christians to proclaim the muslim Sultan the head of the Church.

He did not become the real head of the Church of course, it was his fantasy but the Christians let him think it.

I don’t hate anyone. Don’t have the time, for one.
But I’m not taken in by recent repentance within my lifetime, after centuries of justification.

Good. So let’s drop the it and focus on reconciliation. By the way, you shouldn’t hold me or the Cahtolic Church responsible for that since even we were against it. Remember, we Excommunited the sackers.

That fact that He didn’t make it is why it failed.

Christ prayed that we all be one. We must reconcile. It is a sin if we don’t. We are free to reconcile now. I know that it will take some time but I will not stand against it. I will not try to find things in orthodoxy to object to in order to keep you out. I just wish orthodox weren’t doing that to us.

I really believe this and I respect your church as a true Church. But rememeber, Christ founded ONE Church, not to divide itself but to be ONE.

 

[Formosus]

Read the history.

Read the history. We were in communion when the Turts took Constantinople and forced the Christians to proclaim the muslim Sultan the head of the Church.

He did not become the real head of the Church of course, it was his fantasy but the Christians let him think it.

The Greek Patriarch of Constantinople was in full communion with the Church as of the late 1300s/early 1400s. Yes this is true. That does not constitute the entire Orthodox church. Infact that forgets 3 other historical patriarchs, the serbians, the bulgarians, and those of the Russian tradition. Most people were not too pleased with the reunion sadly, and it was done more for political reasons most likely then anything else. Hence it was so quick to collapse after the fall of the Constantinople. Though, as mentioned in an earlier post, the last communion recieved by the Emperor was from a Catholic cardinal.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

I don’t have time right now for the grammatical/lexical discussion, and you mentioned having to look a few things up, so my comments are brief:

Got to tag you there, not true.

I have far better sources, but so as to not get into an arguement over authorities, here are some with the Vatican’s impreatur:
On St. Meletius, who opened the Council:
This exile was the immediate cuase of a long and deplorable schism between the Catholics of Antioch, henceforth divided into Meletians and Eustathians. The churches remaining in the hands of the Arians, Paulinus governed the Eustathians, while Flavius and Diodorus were the chiefs of the Meletian flock…The generous scheme of Basil for appeasement and union had ended unfortunately, and to make matters worse, Evagrius, the chief promoter of the attempted reconciliation, once more joined the party of Paulinus. This important conversion won over to the intruders St. Jerome and Pope Damasus; the very next year, and without any declaration concerning the schism, the pope showed a decided preference for Paulinus, recognized him as bishop, greeted him as brother, and considered him papal legate in the East. Great was the consternation of Meletius and his community, which in the absence of the natural leader was still governed by Flavius and Diodorus, encouraged by the presence of the monk Aphrates and the support of St. Basil.
newadvent.org/cathen/10161b.htm

On St. Gregory and the Church of Constantinople:
During the years of conflict between East and West, the Roman pontiff remained firm, defending the Catholic faith against heresies and unruly or immoral secular powers, especially the Byzantine emperor. The first conflict came when Emperor Constantius appointed an Arian heretic as patriarch. **Pope Julian excommunicated the patriarch in 343, and Constantinople remained in schism until John Chrysostom assumed the patriarchate in 398. **

Constantinople I was in 381.
catholic.com/library/Eastern_Orthodoxy.asp

Read the history. We were in communion when the Turts took Constantinople and forced the Christians to proclaim the muslim Sultan the head of the Church.

Fomosus has already answered. Thanks.

He did not become the real head of the Church of course, it was his fantasy but the Christians let him think it.

Can we have some citation. I know he took, among other things, the title Kayser-i Rum, “Emperor of the Romans.”

Good. So let’s drop the it and focus on reconciliation. By the way, you shouldn’t hold me or the Cahtolic Church responsible for that since even we were against it. Remember, we Excommunited the sackers.

And took the opporunity to proclaim a Latin patriarchate. And the loot (seen St. Marco’s in Venice?).

Christ prayed that we all be one. We must reconcile. It is a sin if we don’t. We are free to reconcile now. I know that it will take some time but I will not stand against it. I will not try to find things in orthodoxy to object to in order to keep you out. I just wish orthodox weren’t doing that to us.

I have a loner answer I will, Lord willing post when I have time.

I really believe this and I respect your church as a true Church. But rememeber, Christ founded ONE Church, not to divide itself but to be ONE.

And One we are.

 

[chrisb]

If the Spirit is “from” the Father and the Son, then he proceeds from both. Not in the sense of ekporeusis,but of “going forth”.

You are oversimplifying and conflating here.

The original phrase of our Symbol of Faith: “We believe … in the Holy Spirit … who proceeds from the Father” is directly from John 15:26:

When the Paraclete comes, whom I shall send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who issues from the Father, he will be my witness. ~ John 15:26

You are conflating ‘temporal origin’ ( i.e. ‘I shall send to you from the Father’) with ‘eternal origin’ (i.e. ‘From the Father’).

The difference between the “eternal origin” and the “sending in time (temporal) origin” is important. Most attempts to support the Filioque confuse the two or fail to recognize the difference. They are not the same.

St. Epiphanius:
“No one knows the Spirit, besides the Father, except the Son, from Whom He proceeds (proienai) and of Whom He receives.” (OP… cit., xi, in P.G., XLIII, 35):

Only in ‘temporal origin’. Break it apart. When you fail to make this distinction you are at least conflating the two person of the Father and the Son into one or at worst you are giving attribute to spirate to the Godhead which is then shared by the Father and the Son. Either way, it doesn’t appear to be the consensual teaching of the early Church.

Ask yourself…

Does the ability to “spirate” the Holy Spirit
come from the Godhead or from a specific Person?
If a specific Person, which one?

The Catholic Church doesn’t teach a dual procession either.

The Father and Son are one in being, so it is not a matter of dual procession, unless you think of the Father and Son as separate beings. The filioque doctrine is directly related to the doctrine of consubstantiality. There’s no real distinction between the eternal origin of the Spirit and it’s temporal manifestation,because the Spirit originates on earth is as in heaven – through the Son.

With this kind of logic wouldn’t we have to say that the Holy Spirit then spirates Himself as well?

You do see what you are doing don’t you? You are giving the attribute of spiration to the nature of God and saying that the Persons ‘share’ that attribute.

Pagan Greek ontology taught that God is first and foremost, His substance or nature. Heretics such as the Arians and Nestorians, working from this pagan Greek thought, taught that the substance or nature preceded God’s existence as Trinity, i.e. as Three Persons. This is the same interpretation that has come to prevail in Western Christian thought as can be seen by the typical arrangement of books on dogmatic and systematic theologies. (First is the existence of God, then the nature of God, then the attributes or qualities of God; all before the existence of the Trinity is broached.)
This interpretation is important inasmuch as it assumes a priori that the ontological “principle” of God lies not in a Person, but in the substance, the “being” of God. In the West, this has led to the belief that the unity of God consists of the one divine substance.

This is a distortion of Patristic theology. Among the Fathers the unity of God, the “cause” of the being and life of God consists not in the one substance of God, but in the Person of the Father (His hypostasis). The one God is not the one substance, but the Father who begets the Son and “spirates” the Holy Spirit. Thus, God is not bound by some ontological “necessity” to exist. God exists because the Father exists, He who out of love freely and eternally begets the Son and freely and eternally “spirates” the Holy Spirit. Substance or nature does not exist in a vacuum, without a mode of existence (i.e. a hypostasis or person, an individuation). The one divine substance/nature is the being of God only because it has three modes of existence — Three Persons — which it owes not to the substance, but to the source (αρχή) of the Three: the Father. Apart from the Holy Trinity there is no God, no divine substance because the ontological “principle” of God is the Father. By regarding some Divine substance as the source of the Holy Trinity, the existence of the Three Divine Persons is made a kind of logical necessity, thus undermining the autonomy of the Holy Trinity. In the Filioque, this emphasis on likeness of Divine substance between the Father and the Son results in the subordination of the Holy Spirit.

 

[JohnVIII]

-snip-

Yes, The Filioque or no Filioque is a matter of Faith as it is describing two different Gods.

-snip-

J8: I agree with you Christy. The fathers of the Council of Nicaea declared that the final wording of the Nicene Creed was "perfect ". No one can improve upon perfection! Furthermore, they declared that the words of a Symbol of the Faith are divinely inspired. To love the Nicene Creed is to love God himself the persons of the Holy Trinity.

If the Pope is the “Vicar of Christ” he would have to be the vicar of the Holy Trinity is well, as God cannot be divided; likewise, the faith of the Latins is in a “Vicar of the Nicene Creed”, not the Nicene Creed itself.

The key to being truly Catholic is to be in true unity and in true orthodoxy. Not to be in unity at the expense of orthodoxy, nor to be orthodox at the expense of unity. There is one Lord one Faith and one Baptism.

 

[Chaldean_Rite]

If the Pope is the “Vicar of Christ” he would have to be the vicar of the Holy Trinity is well, as God cannot be divided; likewise, the faith of the Latins is in a “Vicar of the Nicene Creed”, not the Nicene Creed itself.

I think you may need to go sit in a corner and think about that for a little buddy.

 

[JohnVIII]

I think you may need to go sit in a corner and think about that for a little buddy.

Okay I came back from the corner and I thought about it, and perhaps I should’ve said things are a bit different. ( I’m new on this list so please try to cut me a little slack - sorry) I tried to figure out how to edit my message because I think were supposed to be able to do that, but I couldn’t figure out how to do that. – So please allow me to post this corrective post/reply. I of course have no idea what is in the hearts of other men only my own. I submit to the will and love of my Lord Jesus Christ and his mercy for without his mercy there can be no hope.

The real issue with me with regard to the filioque is not whether it’s true or false, the primary/real issue is with regard to the moral authority a person may have to be able to alter the words of an inspired document.

My wife is Roman Catholic and it would bring a great deal of peace and my family if I were able to convert, from the heart, to the Roman Catholic faith. So, even though some words I say may sound a little offensive, I really mean no harm. Please don’t be offended and tell me I need to go sit in the corner again, I honestly would like to know an answer: If the Pope genuinely does have the authority to alter/correct the Nicene Creed; if this his God-given authority, still, how can something that is perfect be corrected by anybody?

(Colossians 2:9-10 “For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form, and in Him you have been made complete, and He is the head over all rule and authority.”)

 

[Isa_Almisry]

I think you may need to go sit in a corner and think about that for a little buddy.

I’m afraid the idea that the pope alone can change the Creed (and yes, filioque is a change, and yes, I’ve seen that idea promoted and defended), John VIII is right in his assessment.
He’s also right in his choosing charity.

My wife is Roman Catholic and it would bring a great deal of peace and my family if I were able to convert, from the heart, to the Roman Catholic faith. So, even though some words I say may sound a little offensive, I really mean no harm. Please don’t be offended and tell me I need to go sit in the corner again,

What does she tell you to do?

 

[JohnVIII]

What does she tell you to do?

She tells me to respect her church (the Roman Catholic Church) and to never, ever, use the word “heresy”. By the way she was once baptized by triple immersion into the Orthodox Church, but she thought better of it later on and decided her heart is with the Roman Catholic Church. My priest practically ordered me to give her a blessing to be a Roman Catholic, I did so - obedience usually leads to humility, but I can’t help but think that in this case it lead to false humility. Perhaps one day I need to come to confession over doing this. On the other hand, if this is oikonimia and it leads to the salvation of souls, maybe I was right to follow the advice of my priest.

 

[Ignatios]

She tells me to respect her church (the Roman Catholic Church) and to never, ever, use the word “heresy”. By the way she was once baptized by triple immersion into the Orthodox Church, but she thought better of it later on and decided her heart is with the Roman Catholic Church. My priest practically ordered me to give her a blessing to be a Roman Catholic, I did so - obedience usually leads to humility, but I can’t help but think that in this case it lead to false humility. Perhaps one day I need to come to confession over doing this. On the other hand, if this is oikonimia and it leads to the salvation of souls, maybe I was right to follow the advice of my priest.

Greeting and blessings to you my brother in CHRIST, I am an Antiochian my self, and here is my answer to you:
1 Cor 7:
12To the rest I say this (I, not the Lord): If any brother has a wife who is not a believer and she is willing to live with him, he must not divorce her. 13And if a woman has a husband who is not a believer and he is willing to live with her, she must not divorce him. 14For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified through her believing husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.

15But if the unbeliever leaves, let him do so. A believing man or woman is not bound in such circumstances; God has called us to live in peace. 16How do you know, wife, whether you will save your husband? Or, how do you know, husband, whether you will save your wife?

17Nevertheless, each one should retain the place in life that the Lord assigned to him and to which God has called him. This is the rule I lay down in all the churches.
So as the Bible said that she is saved by you, So you make sure not to leave the Church and strive in teaching your Family through giving them an example by showing them doing everything you have learned from the Holy Church of GOD. AND PRAY for them, for GOD is the Most generous HE will provide.
May GOD help us to stay on the right path. In CHRIST my dear brother in CHRIST.† † †

 

[Allyson]

Okay I came back from the corner and I thought about it, and perhaps I should’ve said things are a bit different. ( I’m new on this list so please try to cut me a little slack - sorry) I tried to figure out how to edit my message because I think were supposed to be able to do that, but I couldn’t figure out how to do that. – So please allow me to post this corrective post/reply. I of course have no idea what is in the hearts of other men only my own. I submit to the will and love of my Lord Jesus Christ and his mercy for without his mercy there can be no hope.

The real issue with me with regard to the filioque is not whether it’s true or false, the primary/real issue is with regard to the moral authority a person may have to be able to alter the words of an inspired document.

My wife is Roman Catholic and it would bring a great deal of peace and my family if I were able to convert, from the heart, to the Roman Catholic faith. So, even though some words I say may sound a little offensive, I really mean no harm. Please don’t be offended and tell me I need to go sit in the corner again, I honestly would like to know an answer: If the Pope genuinely does have the authority to alter/correct the Nicene Creed; if this his God-given authority, still, how can something that is perfect be corrected by anybody?

(Colossians 2:9-10 “For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form, and in Him you have been made complete, and He is the head over all rule and authority.”)

Welcome JohnVIII,
I think you will bring a lot of thoughtfulness to these boards.
God Bless,
R.

 

[anthony022071]

You are conflating ‘temporal origin’ ( i.e. ‘I shall send to you from the Father’) with ‘eternal origin’ (i.e. ‘From the Father’).

The difference between the “eternal origin” and the “sending in time (temporal) origin” is important. Most attempts to support the Filioque confuse the two or fail to recognize the difference. They are not the same.

Is not the Son in eternity with the Father? And are they not eternally one in being? The word ekporeusis refers to a single origin. The Son participates in that single origin.

Only in ‘temporal origin’. Break it apart. When you fail to make this distinction you are at least conflating the two person of the Father and the Son into one or at worst you are giving attribute to spirate to the Godhead which is then shared by the Father and the Son. Either way, it doesn’t appear to be the consensual teaching of the early Church.

The Church Fathers did not make a distinction between the way the Spirit is manifested on earth from its eternal origin. That distinction was only made after the Schism.

Ask yourself…

Does the ability to “spirate” the Holy Spirit
come from the Godhead or from a specific Person?
If a specific Person, which one?

The Father and Son spirate the Spirit. They are one in being,so it is spiration from one principle.

With this kind of logic wouldn’t we have to say that the Holy Spirit then spirates Himself as well?

No,he is not the Father and Son,and he is not divided.

You do see what you are doing don’t you? You are giving the attribute of spiration to the nature of God and saying that the Persons ‘share’ that attribute.

They do share spiration,because they are all involved. The Father and Son spirate the Spirit,and the Spirit is spirated.

Pagan Greek ontology taught that God is first and foremost, His substance or nature. Heretics such as the Arians and Nestorians, working from this pagan Greek thought, taught that the substance or nature preceded God’s existence as Trinity, i.e. as Three Persons.

Arianism,Nestorianism and Monophysitism resulted from the Eastern resistance to the Incarnation. These heresies undermined the eternal divinity of Christ because it could not be accepted that he was eternally one with the Father. Eastern thought prefers,out of false piety,to preserve the unknowability of God.

This is the same interpretation that has come to prevail in Western Christian thought as can be seen by the typical arrangement of books on dogmatic and systematic theologies. (First is the existence of God, then the nature of God, then the attributes or qualities of God; all before the existence of the Trinity is broached.)

The Catholic Church does not teach that the nature or essence of God precedes the persons. The arrangement of books on systematic theology does not suggest that idea.

This interpretation is important inasmuch as it assumes a priori that the ontological “principle” of God lies not in a Person, but in the substance, the “being” of God.

Catholics know that the Father is the first principle,simply because he is the “Father”. We’re not in danger of forgetting that.
But it is also true that the Son and Holy Spirit are of the same substance of the Father. And the persons are one Being.

In the West, this has led to the belief that the unity of God consists of the one divine substance.

It’s true that God is united in one divine substance.

This is a distortion of Patristic theology. Among the Fathers the unity of God, the “cause” of the being and life of God consists not in the one substance of God, but in the Person of the Father (His hypostasis).

The Church Fathers were Catholic,and Catholics still believe that the Father is the ultimate cause. But it is also true that the Son
and the Spirit are eternally one with the ultimate cause,and this unity is a unity of personal substance.
The Eastern theologians didn’t really understand that the persons,or substance of persons,are communicated into one another,while remaining themselves.

The one God is not the one substance, but the Father who begets the Son and “spirates” the Holy Spirit.

I totally disagree that the one God is not the one substance.
You may as well say that the essence of God is not God.
You’re making a dichotomy between God and God’s substance.
To say that the Father begets the Son and spirates the Holy Spirit,while it is true,does not express the oneness of God. Begetting and spirating are actions They do not,by themselves, express unity.

 

[chrisb]

Is not the Son in eternity with the Father? And are they not eternally one in being? The word ekporeusis refers to a single origin. The Son participates in that single origin.

Is not the Holy Spirit eternally one in being with the Father as well?

Saint Athanasius, To Serapion of Thmius

Insofar as we understand the special relationship of the Son to the Father, we also understand that the Spirit has this same relationship to the Son. And since the Son says, “everything that the Father has is mine” [John 16:15], we will discover all these things also in the Spirit…

The special relationship of the Son to the Father is not unique to the Father as it is also the same relationship between the Son and Spirit.

The Father and Son spirate the Spirit. They are one in being, so it is spiration from one principle.

So you are arguing the the Father and the Son are ‘one in being’… that they share a unique nature which is not shared by the Holy Spirit and in this unique nature is found the attribute to spirate the Spirit which is not an attribute shared in the common nature of the Godhead… is this true?

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Is not the Son in eternity with the Father? And are they not eternally one in being? The word ekporeusis refers to a single origin. The Son participates in that single origin.

by coming from Him.

The Church Fathers did not make a distinction between the way the Spirit is manifested on earth from its eternal origin. That distinction was only made after the Schism.

The Father and Son spirate the Spirit.

Making two sources.

They are one in being,so it is spiration from one principle.

And they being one in being with the Spirit, so it is spiration from one principle, so “spirituque.”

No,he is not the Father and Son,and he is not divided.

The Son is not divided nor is He the Father, but you’ve confused that.

They do share spiration,because they are all involved. The Father and Son spirate the Spirit,and the Spirit is spirated.

The Father begets the Son, the Son is begotten. What does the Spirit do?
No, spiration is hypostatic, and the Son is neither the Father nor the Spirit.

Arianism,Nestorianism and Monophysitism resulted from the Eastern resistance to the Incarnation. These heresies undermined the eternal divinity of Christ because it could not be accepted that he was eternally one with the Father. Eastern thought prefers,out of false piety,to preserve the unknowability of God.

False piety. The ECF should be told.
Where did Unitatiranism, JWs, Christian Science, Mormonism and well, Protestanism in general? Not from Eastern “false piety.”

The Catholic Church does not teach that the nature or essence of God precedes the persons. The arrangement of books on systematic theology does not suggest that idea.

Could have fooled us.

Catholics know that the Father is the first principle,simply because he is the “Father”. We’re not in danger of forgetting that.
But it is also true that the Son and Holy Spirit are of the same substance of the Father. And the persons are one Being.

It’s true that God is united in one divine substance.

The Church Fathers were Catholic,and Catholics still believe that the Father is the ultimate cause. But it is also true that the Son
and the Spirit are eternally one with the ultimate cause,and this unity is a unity of personal substance.
The Eastern theologians didn’t really understand that the persons,or substance of persons,are communicated into one another,while remaining themselves.

Yes, they do. It’s called perichoresis.

I totally disagree that the one God is not the one substance.
You may as well say that the essence of God is not God.
You’re making a dichotomy between God and God’s substance.
To say that the Father begets the Son and spirates the Holy Spirit,while it is true,does not express the oneness of God. Begetting and spirating are actions They do not,by themselves, express unity.

They express the hypostasis.

 

[anthony022071]

Is not the Holy Spirit eternally one in being with the Father as well?

He is.

The special relationship of the Son to the Father is not unique to the Father as it is also the same relationship between the Son and Spirit.

The Spirit is not a Son of the Son.

So you are arguing the the Father and the Son are ‘one in being’… that they share a unique nature which is not shared by the Holy Spirit and in this unique nature is found the attribute to spirate the Spirit which is not an attribute shared in the common nature of the Godhead… is this true?

I didn’t say that they share a unique nature not shared by the Spirit. The three persons are one in being and consubstantial. The Father and Son share the Spirit between them. The Spirit is the bond of unity in love between Father and Son.

 

[chrisb]

He is.

This good to hear. So we would then have to admit that if spiration is then an attribute ‘shared’ between the Father and the Son that such an attribute (of the Godhead i.e. Divine Nature) would then force us to argue that the Holy Spirit spirates Himself by your logic.

The Spirit is not a Son of the Son.

And Orthodoxy has never taught that He is. The East simply refuses to confuse the attributes of the Father with the Son or confuse with the Divine Nature. This is why the Filioque is such a concerning issue.

I didn’t say that they share a unique nature not shared by the Spirit. The three persons are one in being and consubstantial. The Father and Son share the Spirit between them. The Spirit is the bond of unity in love between Father and Son.

But by confusing the attributes of the hypostasis of the Father (i.e. spiration) you ‘are’ creating a sub-nature shared between the Father and the Son if you deny any Divine Attribute which finds it’s origin in the Divine Nature from the Holy Spirit. This is the problem.

By saying that both the Father and the Son spirate as if from a singular spiration (i.e. source of origin) and deny this from the Holy Spirit who must be admitted shares in the same Nature as the Father and the Son you are creating a a dual-hypostasis for the Father and the Son. The East considers this to be an error. When we look at the emanations of Neo-platonist (the One > Mind > World-Soul) the East finds the simularities between this and Blessed Augustine concerning. It seems to place Philosophy before Revelation. Thus the contension.

Blessed Augustine was a Neoplatonist, well-read in the Marius Victorinus’ Latin translation of Plotinus’ Enneads as evidenced by the numerous passages Augustine took and placed into his writings. (Augustine also expressed gratitude to Plotinus in the Confessions for leading him to the truth and even compared Plotinus’ writings to the Scriptures.)

Neoplatonism metaphysics held there to be a series of emanating principles beginning with an Uncaused Cause known as the “One”. This “One” was the source of all being, all will, all activity, all thought, all everything — yet the “One” was beyond all these things. According to Plotinus, one could not even ascribe thought to the “One” (or anything else) because thinking implies a distinction between thinker and the object of thought and there is no distinction in the “One”. The “One” is “utterly simple” (i.e. the quality or state of being not complex, consisting of no “parts”). Somehow (it is never really explained), the “One” overflows an emanation, and thus causality is attributed to the “One”. But since there are no distinctions within the “One”, there is no difference between causality and divinity. The first emanation is called “Thought” which causes the next emanation, the “World Soul” and the series of emanations continues.

Arianism was Neoplatonic. It identified the Father with the “One”, the Son/Logos with “Thought”, and the Holy Spirit with the “World Soul”. Arguing against Arianism, Augustine accepted the Neoplatonic assumptions. Reading his On the Trinity, the reader is struck by Augustine’s effort to show the Son’s equality with the Father. (The preoccupation is so great, the Holy Spirit seems largely overlooked.) Time and again, Augustine shows how the Son is like the Father in all ways, demonstrating Father, Son, and Holy Spirit were all equivalent to the Neoplatonic “One”.

 

[anthony022071]

Making two sources.

One in being.

Hilary of Poitiers:

“Concerning the Holy Spirit . . . it is not necessary to speak of him who must be acknowledged, who is from the Father and the Son, his sources”. (The Trinity 2:29 [A.D. 357])

And they being one in being with the Spirit, so it is spiration from one principle, so “spirituque.”

No divine person proceeds from the Spirit. Although the Spirit of the Father does give life to the Son.

The Son is not divided nor is He the Father, but you’ve confused that.

How?

The Father begets the Son, the Son is begotten. What does the Spirit do?

He gives the life of the Father and everything the Father has to the Son.

Yes, they do. It’s called perichoresis.

I stand corrected on that. But it is all the more strange that the Eastern churches would accept Photios’ ideas about the Trinity if they also accepted the doctrine of perichoresis.

They express the hypostasis.

Begetting and spirating express actions of the persons.