Orthodox views on the Holy Spirit

  • Thread starter Thread starter brian614
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Cavaradossi said:
His criticism, in fact, is mainly of the theology of Thomas Aquinas. He criticizes Thomist triadology as being impersonal for the reason that in Thomism, the relations of opposition form the bases for the hypostases. Since opposition may only be formed between two terms the Father and Son out of necessity become an impersonal unity which is opposed to the Holy Spirit. That the Father and the Son form an impersonal principle of the Holy Spirit also implies that the hypostases in this scheme are subordinated because their diversity is relative (and according to Lossky, therefore secondary), as opposed to the primary unity of the essence. This is why Lossky characterizes the Western approach to the Trinity as being impersonal, because it stresses the unity of the essence over the diversity of the persons.
Click to expand...
These criticisms seem to be shared by Fr. Sergius Bulgakov as well.

EDIT: I realize I’m constantly referencing Fr. Sergius lately…
 
Cavaradossi said:
Yes, ignore the part where he misrepresents Lossky. Let’s just focus on the fact that I am not a fan of Hart (perhaps because his writing style is unbearably arrogant without warrant; I could understand one being slightly arrogant when he is right, but to be so arrogant when he is wrong…)
Click to expand...
Fair enough. But with the “clowns”, “idiots”, or the simply overeager and overzealous, it is difficult to tell what is actually understood and accepted broadly within EO, and what remains as point of contention, and why.
 
cavaradossi,

are you an ordained successor to the apostles?

also, when did, what is considered a general councilby the orthodox, last occur?
 
dvdjs said:
Fair enough. But with the “clowns”, “idiots”, or the simply overeager and overzealous, it is difficult to tell what is actually understood and accepted broadly within EO, and what remains as point of contention, and why.
Click to expand...
That is why one should himself consult the fathers, the teachings of the ecumenical councils, and the teachings of regional councils (like the Council of Blachernae), and test everything uttered by any modern “theologian” against the tradition.
 
Cavaradossi said:
But that does not matter, because it is a fact that procession from the Father and the Son as one principle has been condemned in Orthodoxy for at least 700 years.
Click to expand...
It does matter. First, if we cannot agree to what we actually agree to, then there has to be a great deal of doubt about our ability to discern what we disagree about - or why. Is this about the disagreement real of as illusory as those who claim that the Latins teach two causes. In particular, is this a matter of there being some restriction on the use of category “principle” by the Greeks, that not shared by the Latins? Not a theological issue but a semantic one?
But not even the much-maligned (wrongly in my opinion) Vladimir Lossky misrepresented the Latin teaching as being from two principles,
Click to expand...
Two causes or two principles?
…nor does he fall into denying the eternal manifestation of the Spirit through the Son (though Hart wrongly seems to imply that he caused others to do so).
Click to expand...
There sure do seem to be a lot of contemporary EOs that do. Are these, in your nomenclature, “clowns” or “idiots”?
 
dvdjs said:
It does matter. First, if we cannot agree to what we actually agree to, then there has to be a great deal of doubt about our ability to discern what we disagree about - or why. Is this about the disagreement real of as illusory as those who claim that the Latins teach two causes. In particular, is this a matter of there being some restriction on the use of category “principle” by the Greeks, that not shared by the Latins? Not a theological issue but a semantic one?

Two causes or two principles?
Click to expand...
The council of Florence in its decree equates the Greek aition with the Latin principle, so I think we can safely assume that there is no semantic problem here.
dvdjs said:
There sure do seem to be a lot of contemporary EOs that do. Are these, in your nomenclature, “clowns” or “idiots”?
Click to expand...
Who are they? Are they laymen posting on a forum? If so that stems from bad catechesis (something I am sure your Roman Catholic brethren can sympathize with). Are they theologians? Then they teach heresy, and are in need of reproof.
 
so 20% of all ordained ordained bishops meeting is considered a “general council” by the orthodox?
 
eddie_too said:
so 20% of all ordained ordained bishops meeting is considered a “general council” by the orthodox?
Click to expand...
There aren’t EO or OO bishops at Catholic “Ecumenical Councils,” so what’s the problem?

Besides, we’re not in communion. Our synods and councils have no authority to one another, much less would our bishops participate in the other.
 
that is a good question cavaradossi.

however, RC bishops comprise about 80% of all authentic bishops. also, i may be mistaken, but i recall that orthodox bishops were at vatican II although not as integrated participants.

signing off for the day.
 
Cavaradossi said:
That is why one should himself consult the fathers, the teachings of the ecumenical councils, and the teachings of regional councils (like the Council of Blachernae), and test everything uttered by any modern “theologian” against the tradition.
Click to expand...
This is a problem. Ancient writings tend to be a bit obscure, rhetorically. It is not so simple to have a sound interpretation of the meaning - at least without some training by scholars with grounded expertise. Has there been a continuity of this type of training and of sound interpretation within EOxy, notwithstanding both its real and imagined captivities?

Moreover, there are issues of translation. What fraction of the fathers have been rendered into modern languages? I am happy to leave all of this in the hands of people fluent - fluent - in Latin and Greek - but when could that happen?

I am bemused by the landscape of contemporary EOxy. You speak of holding to reason, and others seem to think that rejection of reason is an essential element of the phronema. Is there an obviously correct theological school - with others being obvious the home of “clowns” or “idiots”? Is there, in contemporary American Orthodoxy, such an infusion of scarcely enculturated folks, packing their own baggage while zealously seeking to save Orthodoxy, that another pseudomorphosis is underway? Essentially all of the many cradle Orthodox that I know are a least a little uneasy about this. Maybe they are less bemused because they have a better sense of “clowns” and “idiots”. :confused:
 
eddie_too said:
that is a good question cavaradossi.

however, RC bishops comprise about 80% of all authentic bishops. also, i may be mistaken, but i recall that orthodox bishops were at vatican II although not as integrated participants.

signing off for the day.
Click to expand...
There may have been Orthodox bishops present at Vatican II, but they in no way participated. It wasn’t because Catholics thought it was necessary to have them there.

The Orthodox view themselves as the true Church, not themselves plus the Catholic Church. So it be Catholic bishops are irrelevant to them.
 
Cavaradossi said:
The council of Florence in its decree equates the Greek aition with the Latin principle, so I think we can safely assume that there is no semantic problem here.
Click to expand...
I thought that this was a good and illuminating thread.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=595395&highlight=principle
Who are they? Are they laymen posting on a forum? If so that stems from bad catechesis (something I am sure your Roman Catholic brethren can sympathize with).
Click to expand...
And my Greek Catholic brethren, too.
 
Cavaradossi said:
That is why one should himself consult the fathers, the teachings of the ecumenical councils, and the teachings of regional councils (like the Council of Blachernae), and test everything uttered by any modern “theologian” against the tradition.
Click to expand...
This is a problem. Ancient writings tend to be a bit obscure, rhetorically. It is not so simple to have a sound interpretation of the meaning - at least without some training by scholars with grounded expertise. Has there been a continuity of this type of training and of sound interpretation within EOxy, notwithstanding both its real and imagined captivities?

Moreover, there are issues of translation. What fraction of the fathers have been rendered into modern languages? I am happy to leave all of this in the hands of people fluent - fluent - in Latin and Greek - but when could that happen?

I am bemused by the landscape of contemporary EOxy. You speak of holding to reason, and others seem to think that rejection of reason is an essential element of the phronema. Is there an obviously correct theological school - with others being obvious the home of “clowns” or “idiots”? Is there, in contemporary American Orthodoxy, such an infusion of scarcely enculturated folks, packing their own baggage while zealously seeking to save Orthodoxy, that another pseudomorphosis is underway? Essentially all of the many cradle Orthodox that I know are a least a little uneasy about this. Maybe they are less bemused because they have a better sense of “clowns” and “idiots”. :confused:
 
dvdjs said:
This is a problem. Ancient writings tend to be a bit obscure, rhetorically. It is not so simple to have a sound interpretation of the meaning - at least without some training by scholars with grounded expertise. Has there been a continuity of this type of training and of sound interpretation within EOxy, notwithstanding both its real and imagined captivities?
Click to expand...
It really is this simple, because at some point every one who is seriously engaged with theology (and I should hope that those who pontificate here are at least somewhat seriously engaged with theology, though sometimes I get the impression that they are not), needs to return to the fathers in order to test whether the claims made by modern theologians about them are true. Who, for example, is more faithful in his reading of Thomas Aquinas? Is it Karl Rahner or Cardinal Cajetan? Who is more faithful in his interpretation of Maximos? Is it Metropolitan John (Zizioulas) of Pergamon, or Fr. Nikolaos Loudovikos? If one is not willing to grapple with these questions, then he probably should not be reading theological works anyway, but rather he should affirm to the extent of his knowledge the formulae (like homoousios, two natures, hypostatic union, etc.) which were devised by the Church in order to distil the right doctrine into easily explainable, easily repeatable, and easily transmissible phrases, for the benefit of all.
dvdjs said:
Moreover, there are issues of translation. What fraction of the fathers have been rendered into modern languages? I am happy to leave all of this in the hands of people fluent - fluent - in Latin and Greek - but when could that happen?
Click to expand...
It is happening now, and the more works which are translated, the more American Orthodoxy will benefit.
dvdjs said:
I am bemused by the landscape of contemporary EOxy. You speak of holding to reason, and others seem to think that rejection of reason is an essential element of the phronema.
Click to expand...
That way of thinking is nonsensical, because the Orthodox do not reject reason, but we reject the incorrect use of reason against nature. The Orthodox reject the sufficiency of reason alone (rationalism), because reason, being a faculty of the intellect (nous) can be abused unnaturally by one with a darkened intellect (this state we know as ‘spiritual delusion’) toward unnatural ends (that is, towards falsehood). Unfortunately, it is true that some have misinterpreted this to mean that we reject reason all together.
dvdjs said:
Is there an obviously correct theological school - with others being obvious the home of “clowns” or “idiots”?
Click to expand...
No more so than there being an obviously correct theological school in Roman Catholicism. But if you will notice, I did not call Hart a clown on account of any deficiency in his theology, but rather for the reason that he misrepresents Lossky, and also because I dislike his haughty writing style.
dvdjs said:
Is there, in contemporary American Orthodoxy, such an infusion of scarcely enculturated folks, packing their own baggage while zealously seeking to save Orthodoxy, that another pseudomorphosis is underway?
Click to expand...
I doubt it, especially now with such a wealth of materials from Greece and Russia being translated into English.
dvdjs said:
Essentially all of the many cradle Orthodox that I know are a least a little uneasy about this. Maybe they are less bemused because they have a better sense of “clowns” and “idiots”. :confused:
Click to expand...
Most cradle Orthodox are probably not confused because they have a point of reference for what constitutes Orthodoxy, and that is normally what they grew up with. Of course, that sometimes can lead cradle Orthodox into the most bizarre of ideas (think GOARCH with its polyphonic choirs in red robes, the infrequent reception of communion, etc.), but these can usually be tempered by the parish priest, if the cradles are willing to listen.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top