Filioque??

[bobzills]

! Somewhere (I don’t remember where) I even read that an Eastern Christian MUST deny St. Photius as a saint in order to be allowed to join the Roman Church! :

St Photius the Patriarch of Constantinople’s day is celebrated on the Ruthenian Catholic Liturgical Calendar in February 6th.
See: east2west.org/spirituality.htm#Photius
Saint Photius of Constantinople is also found in the large liturgicon published by the Ukrainian Greek-Catholic Eparchy of Parma, approved by Patriarch Myroslav-Ivan and Bishop Robert-Michael; this book also gives 6 February as the feast.

 

[tdgesq]

Jesus of Nazareth has ‘two’ Natures only one of which is that of the Second Person of the Holy Trinity. The Incarnation wasn’t the Second Person of the Holy Trinity walking around in a ‘flesh suit’… it was the Hypostatic Union of Man and God. I think this is vitally important for us to have a real understanding of the the submission of Our Lord’s Human Will to that of the Divine Will. Far more subtle teaching of the Incarnation than conflating Jesus the God-Man with the Logos prior. It was the submission of the Human Will to that of the Divine that makes Jesus a suitable “Lamb who takes away the sin of the World”. Yes it was God reconciling man to Himself but through the real submitted Human Will of the God-Man.

Is this point missed by everyone but me? Am I alone in this?

This is a very interesting question. At the risk of confusing things even further, here are some thoughts.

John 8 (New American Standard Bible)

58Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, (CW)I am.”

59Therefore they (CX)picked up stones to throw at Him, but Jesus (CY)hid Himself and went out of the temple.

John 17 (New American Standard Bible)

5"Now, Father, (J)glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had (K)with You before the world was.
. . .
24"Father, I desire that (BB)they also, whom You have given Me, (BC)be with Me where I am, so that they may see My (BD)glory which You have given Me, for You loved Me before (BE)the foundation of the world.

First Council of Constantinople (381)

We believe in one God the Father all-powerful, maker of heaven and of earth, and of all things both seen and unseen. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten from the Father before all the ages, light from light, true God from true God, begotten not made, consubstantial with the Father, through whom all things came to be; for us humans and for our salvation he came down from the heavens and became incarnate from the holy Spirit and the virgin Mary, became human and was crucified on our behalf under Pontius Pilate;

Is the Son of God that is being referred to here only the second person of the Trinity - the Logos - without reference to the human nature of Christ? I have always understood that God’s saving activity was done in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, regardless of when temporally Christ’s human nature existed. I’m not sure what this has to do with the Spirit proceeding eternally from/through the Son in any case, or whether that was even the question.

 

[Taboric_Light]

Hmm, I’m a little confused by the various expressions we have here of the Incarnation and the Son before the Incarnation. I’m not entirely sure what people are meaning or not meaning because I’m not entirely sure which distinctions are being made or not made, and how those distinctions are being applied. I’m putting forth the following distinctions and applications for the consideration of the forum.

1. We make a distinction between person and nature (who and what).
2. Because of this distinction we say that the Incarnation is one person with two natures.
3. That one person is Jesus Christ, Who is the Son of God, the Only-begotten, the Logos, Who is before all ages, the great I AM.
4. Jesus was not begotten of the Father with a human nature, only with a divine nature.
5. He received in time without change a human nature from the Holy Theotokos.
6. When Jesus acts it is He, the person, not His nature that is acting. A nature can’t act, only a person can.
7. So when Jesus died on the cross it wasn’t His nature that died, He, the person, died.
8. However, we say that He died in His humanity, not in His divinity.
9. In other words, we predicate the act of dying to His human nature.
10. So we make a distinction between the natures (which, of course, remain united in the one person, Jesus Christ) when we predicate certain acts to them.
11. In regards to person, we make no distinction between the Son of God before and after the Incarnation. The pre-eternal Logos and Jesus of Nazareth are one and the same person. The mystery is that from the beginning He is divine, but only from a certain point in time is He also human.

What do people think of this? Strong points, weak points? Please, please, please do not be offended by how simplistic I have been. I know that everyone reading this thread knows that we make a distinction between person and nature and that the Incarnation is one person with two natures, but for the sake of my own sanity I needed to start at the very beginning.

Concerning the procession, manifestation, progression (take your pick) of the Holy Spirit through the Son, I would say that this does not somehow imply a degree of humanity to the Holy Spirit because I would predicate the act of His manifestation through the Son to the divine nature, not the human. JohnVIII I am not familiar with the argument you had referred to. Does the predication of certain acts to the proper nature answer your question? Could you perhaps simplify the argument? I’d like to understand it, but I feel like I’m missing something. Ignatios, you and JohnVIII seem to be on the same page; in addition to your “2cents,” could you say more? I really do want to understand this better. Thanks a lot.

In Christ through Mary

 

[chrisb]

1. When Jesus acts it is He, the person, not His nature that is acting. A nature can’t act, only a person can.

When one acts it is not one’s nature that is acting but it is one’s ‘will’ that causes one to act. Our Lord had ‘two wills’ and the Human Will was Submitted to that of the Divine but the Human ‘had’ to be Submitted in order for Jesus to be the propitiation for our sins.

 

[Allyson]

Originally Posted by Taboric Light
6. When Jesus acts it is He, the person, not His nature that is acting. A nature can’t act, only a person can.

And a person acts one way or the other because he/she has a will. I know that Taboric Light was not forgeting about the two wills in Christ. He just likes to talk about persons a lot.

 

[jimmy]

I have always been confused about the two wills. It sounds like schizophrenia. How can someone have two wills and be one person? Doesn’t it seem like there would be a split personality, even if one is submissive to the other?

I realize that the Word had to become fully man in order to save man as the ancient statement says, what Christ assumed He saved.

I guess the Maronite in me is coming out.

 

[bobzills]

I have always been confused about the two wills. It sounds like schizophrenia. How can someone have two wills and be one person? Doesn’t it seem like there would be a split personality, even if one is submissive to the other?

I realize that the Word had to become fully man in order to save man as the ancient statement says, what Christ assumed He saved.

I guess the Maronite in me is coming out.

Yes. Suppose one person with two wills has one will which says that he wills to go to Boston on December 1, 2008, and the other will says he wills to go to Paris on December 1, 2008. Then what happens?

 

[Apotheoun]

I have always been confused about the two wills. It sounds like schizophrenia. How can someone have two wills and be one person? Doesn’t it seem like there would be a split personality, even if one is submissive to the other?

I realize that the Word had to become fully man in order to save man as the ancient statement says, what Christ assumed He saved.

I guess the Maronite in me is coming out.

The will is an energy of the nature of a rational being, and since Christ has two natures it follows that He must have two natural wills (one human and one divine). That said, there is no division in Christ so long as one remembers to distinguish between the will as a capacity of nature and its hypostatic enactment by a person.

 

[Apotheoun]

When one acts it is not one’s nature that is acting but it is one’s ‘will’ that causes one to act. Our Lord had ‘two wills’ and the Human Will was Submitted to that of the Divine but the Human ‘had’ to be Submitted in order for Jesus to be the propitiation for our sins.

Christ’s human will is not passive (i.e., it is not merely “submitted” to the divine will); instead, it is perfectly united with the divine will because it is one and the same person who wills in two natures.

 

[chrisb]

Christ’s human will is not passive (i.e., it is not merely “submitted” to the divine will); instead, it is perfectly united with the divine will because it is one and the same person who wills in two natures.

This seems only semantic to me. Do you think that Jesus had a ‘choice’ in his ‘unity’ with the Divine Will? Do you think that Jesus exercised restraint of his Human Will to conform to the Divine Will? It seems to me that Jesus did submit his Human Will… ‘not my will but thine’. This seems to be a rejection of what might had been his wish as a man.

 

[Apotheoun]

This seems only semantic to me. Do you think that Jesus had a ‘choice’ in his ‘unity’ with the Divine Will? Do you think that Jesus exercised restraint of his Human Will to conform to the Divine Will? It seems to me that Jesus did submit his Human Will… ‘not my will but thine’. This seems to be a rejection of what might had been his wish as a man.

You are making a division in Christ, a division that sounds quite Nestorian.

The Church teaches that Christ is one subject of predication and action, and so it is as a single agent that He acts in two natures, all the while possessing two natural energies and two wills. The only way that there could be any division between the divine and human in Christ would be if He were two persons.

 

[Apotheoun]

Chrisb,

The eternal Logos made man does not choose through deliberation as we do, i.e., as one who does not know the truth because his will has been wounded by the ancestral sin; instead, Christ simply chooses the good when enacting both His divine will and human will. In addition, not only does the incarnate Logos know no sin, as scripture itself testifies, but He cannot sin, because choosing to sin is not a valid option, but is instead an abuse of freedom.

I recommend – in order that you might better understand the teaching of the Sixth Ecumenical Council – that you read a copy of St. Maximos the Confessor’s treatise entitled, “The Disputation with Pyrrhus,” because after reading that text you should be better able to avoid any Nestorian tendencies in your theology.

God bless,
Todd

 

[Apotheoun]

Do you think that Jesus had a ‘choice’ in his ‘unity’ with the Divine Will?

Your question betrays a Nestorian tendency in your theological views. Christ is one person who acts in two natures, and so there can be no division in the person of Christ.

 

[chrisb]

You are making a division in Christ, a division that sounds quite Nestorian.

The Church teaches that Christ is one subject of predication and action, and so it is as a single agent that He acts in two natures, all the while possessing two natural energies and two wills. The only way that there could be any division between the divine and human in Christ would be if He were two persons.

So you are saying Jesus had two wills but he actually really could only use the Divine one?

I’m not sure how recognizing the legitimacy of Jesus having two wills as being Nestorian…

Did Jesus chose to die for the sins of the World, as a man, or did Jesus not have a functioning Human Will?

 

[Apotheoun]

So you are saying Jesus had two wills but he actually really could only use the Divine one?

No, that is precisely what I am not saying, but that is what you believe, since you want to say that Christ’s human will is utterly passive (i.e., submitted).

I believe that the one person of the eternal Word made man actively wills, in both His humanity and His divinity, to bring about the salvation of mankind.

 

[chrisb]

Your question betrays a Nestorian tendency in your theological views. Christ is one person who acts in two natures, and so there can be no division in the person of Christ.

Could you point out an example for me to consider? Perhaps there was no division but that doesn’t mean that Jesus did not have a functioning Human and Divine Will but that Jesus’ Human Will was in union (submitted) to that of the Father?

 

[Apotheoun]

Did Jesus chose to die for the sins of the World, as a man, or did Jesus not have a functioning Human Will?

He chooses, both humanly and divinely, to bring about the salvation of mankind.

 

[Apotheoun]

Could you point out an example for me to consider? Perhaps there was no division but that doesn’t mean that Jesus did not have a functioning Human and Divine Will but that Jesus’ Human Will was in union (submitted) to that of the Father?

What I reject in your comments is the view that Christ’s human will is “submitted,” you are basically a monenergist, while I believe in synergy.

 

[Apotheoun]

Christ, the eternal Son of God, positively and actively wills, in both His humanity and His divinity, the salvation of mankind. That said, I reject anything that would make Christ’s human will a merely passive quality of His human nature.

 

[chrisb]

No, that is precisely what I am not saying, but that is what you believe, since you want to say that Christ’s human will is utterly passive (i.e., submitted).

Perhaps submission, when there is no unity, is a problem for us but willing the Father’s Will be done is not passivity but Divine Action through our will.

I believe that the one person of the eternal Word made man actively wills, in both His humanity and His divinity, to bring about the salvation of mankind.

I believe the same thing.