J
jimmy
Guest
Then you’re a heretic by all standards of Christian orthodoxy.
- Status
J
jimmy
Guest
Yes, there is inequality in that the Father is the cause and source of divinity. That is the orthodox Christian approach, and it is accepted by Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Assyrian Church of the East, and the major Protestant churches. The Holy Spirit, like the Son, recieves his existence from the Father.
You are beginning to sound like a tritheist.
You deny your own church’s teaching because you deny the Orthodox? How does that make sense. It is reactionary. Your whole perspective is a reaction, and it doesn’t even conform to anyone’s theology other than your own.
C
Cavaradossi
Guest
All that remains, then, is that greater than is said here according to the account of cause. Since the Son’s principle comes from the Father, it is in this sense that the Father is greater, as cause and principle. For this reason too the Lord said the following: The Father is greater than I(Jn 14:28), clearly meaning insofar as he is Father.
St. Basil. Against Eunomius 1.25
How then are They [Son and Holy Spirit] not alike unoriginate, if They are coeternal? Because They are from Him, though not after Him. For that which is unoriginate is eternal, but that which is eternal is not necessarily unoriginate, so long as it may be referred to the Father as its origin. Therefore in respect of Cause They are not unoriginate; but it is evident that the Cause is not necessarily prior to its effects, for the sun is not prior to its light.
St. Gregory the Theologian, Third Theological Oration.
And if,** when we admit that in respect of being the Cause the Father is greater than the Son**, they should assume the premiss that He is the Cause by Nature, and then deduce the conclusion that He is greater by Nature also, it is difficult to say whether they mislead most themselves or those with whom they are arguing. For it does not absolutely follow that all that is predicated of a class can also be predicated of all the individuals composing it; for the different particulars may belong to different individuals.
St. Gregory the Theologian, from the same work
For that the same thing should be at once greater than and equal to the same thing is an impossibility; and the evident solution is that the Greater refers to origination, while the Equal belongs to the Nature.
St. Gregory the Theologian, fourth theological oration.
If, however, any one cavils at our argument, on the ground that by not admitting the difference of nature it leads to a mixture and confusion of the Persons, we shall make to such a charge this answer—that while we confess the invariable character of the nature, we do not deny the difference in respect of cause, and that which is caused,** by which alone we apprehend that one Person is distinguished from another—by our belief, that is, that one is the Cause, and another is of the Cause**
St. Gregory of Nyssa, On “Not Three Gods”
From this, they showed that they themselves do not make the Son the cause of the Spirit for they know that the Father is the one cause of the Son and the Spirit, the one by begetting and the other by procession, but they show the progression through him and thus the unity of the essence.
St. Maximus the Confessor, Letter to Marinus.
And if we say that the Father is the principle of the Son and greater than the Son, we are not giving to understand that He comes before the Son either in time or in nature, for ‘by him he made the world,’ nor in any other thing save causality. That is to say, we mean that the Son is begotten of the Father, and not the Father of the Son, and that** the Father is naturally the cause of the Son**.
St. John of Damascus, Orthodox Faith 1.8.
The Father is well-spring and cause of Son and Holy Ghost—He is Father of the only Son and Emitter of the Holy Ghost. The Son is son, word, wisdom, power, image, radiance, and type of the Father, and He is from the Father. And the Holy Ghost is not a son of the Father, but He is the Spirit of the Father as proceeding from the Father. For, without the Spirit, there is no impulsion. And He is the Spirit of the Son, not as being from Him, but as proceeding through Him from the Father—for the Father alone is Cause.
St. John of Damascus, Orthodox Faith 1.12.
St. Basil. Against Eunomius 1.25
How then are They [Son and Holy Spirit] not alike unoriginate, if They are coeternal? Because They are from Him, though not after Him. For that which is unoriginate is eternal, but that which is eternal is not necessarily unoriginate, so long as it may be referred to the Father as its origin. Therefore in respect of Cause They are not unoriginate; but it is evident that the Cause is not necessarily prior to its effects, for the sun is not prior to its light.
St. Gregory the Theologian, Third Theological Oration.
And if,** when we admit that in respect of being the Cause the Father is greater than the Son**, they should assume the premiss that He is the Cause by Nature, and then deduce the conclusion that He is greater by Nature also, it is difficult to say whether they mislead most themselves or those with whom they are arguing. For it does not absolutely follow that all that is predicated of a class can also be predicated of all the individuals composing it; for the different particulars may belong to different individuals.
St. Gregory the Theologian, from the same work
For that the same thing should be at once greater than and equal to the same thing is an impossibility; and the evident solution is that the Greater refers to origination, while the Equal belongs to the Nature.
St. Gregory the Theologian, fourth theological oration.
If, however, any one cavils at our argument, on the ground that by not admitting the difference of nature it leads to a mixture and confusion of the Persons, we shall make to such a charge this answer—that while we confess the invariable character of the nature, we do not deny the difference in respect of cause, and that which is caused,** by which alone we apprehend that one Person is distinguished from another—by our belief, that is, that one is the Cause, and another is of the Cause**
St. Gregory of Nyssa, On “Not Three Gods”
From this, they showed that they themselves do not make the Son the cause of the Spirit for they know that the Father is the one cause of the Son and the Spirit, the one by begetting and the other by procession, but they show the progression through him and thus the unity of the essence.
St. Maximus the Confessor, Letter to Marinus.
And if we say that the Father is the principle of the Son and greater than the Son, we are not giving to understand that He comes before the Son either in time or in nature, for ‘by him he made the world,’ nor in any other thing save causality. That is to say, we mean that the Son is begotten of the Father, and not the Father of the Son, and that** the Father is naturally the cause of the Son**.
St. John of Damascus, Orthodox Faith 1.8.
The Father is well-spring and cause of Son and Holy Ghost—He is Father of the only Son and Emitter of the Holy Ghost. The Son is son, word, wisdom, power, image, radiance, and type of the Father, and He is from the Father. And the Holy Ghost is not a son of the Father, but He is the Spirit of the Father as proceeding from the Father. For, without the Spirit, there is no impulsion. And He is the Spirit of the Son, not as being from Him, but as proceeding through Him from the Father—for the Father alone is Cause.
St. John of Damascus, Orthodox Faith 1.12.
R
Reuben_J
Guest
Thank you Jimmy for declaring that. And so is the Catholic Church.
A
AgainstHeretics
Guest
Rather blunt.
C
Cavaradossi
Guest
In the post above yours, I have provided quotes from three saints which the Roman Catholic Church considers to be Doctors (Ss. Basil, Gregory the Theologian, and St. John of Damascus), showing that they taught that the Father is the cause of the Son and the Holy Spirit, and also that the Father is said to be greater than the Son with respect to causation.
R
Reuben_J
Guest
Jimmy, I believe that the Father is a source of divinity. But if he is and so is the Son. Is not the Father and the Son are one? Is not what the Father has, and so son has the Son? Is not the Son the Word that exist before time begun?
What I do not agree here the argument that leads to saying that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone. The word alone bothers me and I disagree with it.
I believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father. But in the eternal sense beyond space and time, the Holy Spirit therefore must proceed from the Son also. To deny the Holy Spirit to proceed from the Son is not right.
If I must be a heretic so be it. But I believe that when I confess that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son I stand in unity with my Church. Call us heretics by all means.
N
neokarny
Guest
Have you read Fr Sergius Bulgakov’s The Comforter, by any chance? He seems to strongly dislike the interpretation of procession/generation along the lines of causal origination, from what I’ve read of it so far. He also stresses at great lengths what he perceived to be the underdeveloped triadology/pneumatology of the early (Eastern) Fathers - their unintentional separation of the Trinity into two “dyads,” subordinationism from perceiving the Father as the “Absolute Divine Subject” (i.e. God’s “I” = the Father), etc. Also points out the early ambivalence over the Spirit itself (not necessarily an Eastern critique), hence Constantinople I not explicitly affirming the Spirit’s Divinity like Nicaea I did with the Son’s Divinity.
If you’d read it, I just wondered what your thoughts were on these points.
A
AgainstHeretics
Guest
You’re being incoherent. Are you arguing against the belief that the Father is the source of the divinity, or against the belief that it is from he alone that the Holy Spirit proceeds? The Father is the source of divinity, for the Son proceeds from him by means of generation and the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and from the Son as from one principle by means of spiration. That is the orthodox teaching of the Catholic Church.
R
Reuben_J
Guest
Whatever is the theological argument it must trickle down the to man on the street, the simple lay Christians to know what it means. Words gymnastic is of no use for them. You have to tell them in plain language and that they will understand that resonate in their faith.
If you say the Holy Spirt does not proceed from the Son, the Second Person of the Trinity, and that what they would believe. For me I disagree with that because my Church teaches that the Holy Spirt proceeds both from the Father and the Son. And to me personally, despite my religious affiliation, that seems consistent with my understanding of what the Trinity is.
Edit: Correction. Typo - Holy Spirit.
If you say the Holy Spirt does not proceed from the Son, the Second Person of the Trinity, and that what they would believe. For me I disagree with that because my Church teaches that the Holy Spirt proceeds both from the Father and the Son. And to me personally, despite my religious affiliation, that seems consistent with my understanding of what the Trinity is.
Edit: Correction. Typo - Holy Spirit.
C
Cavaradossi
Guest
I’ve not read it, no. Fr. Bulgakov’s philosophy in general doesn’t really fit well into traditional models of thinking, so I’m not surprised that he would be critical of the Cappadocians.
A
AgainstHeretics
Guest
I’m beginning to think that you’re not actually reading the responses other people have made to you.
R
Reuben_J
Guest
N
neokarny
Guest
Seems true enough, with his regular reference to the “Ousia-Sophia.”
Now that I skim back through it, it seemed his attacks on causal origination (which I found more troubling than his critiques of the Fathers) are largely aimed against perceived Western theology. He criticizes impersonalism with the Hypostases coming out of a pre-personal Divinity. He also goes on to argue against the Filioque, saying that Father as the causal origin of the Son, and that the Father and Son together as the causal origin of the Spirit necessarily results in subordinationism (of the Spirit, at least).
M
marlo
Guest
M
marlo
Guest
Really Whose Latin Father is That?, Typical Orthodox argument, our Saint is better than your Saint, just like what happened in Trent 
R
Reuben_J
Guest
What? That they referenced their author and saints to support the argument? For that, I can quote two authors or saints for everyone they quoted to support mine. And then what? It would be their words against theirs, and my words against yours.
What I was saying I disagree. I disagree with the Orthodox position that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone, and not from the Son. There is no harm in saying that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father as long as this understanding does not preclude that the Holy Spirit also proceeds from the Son, remembering that the Son is consubstantial with the Father.
There is problem with saying that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone and not from the Son. One of the tell tale sign of that they begin saying that the existence of the Holy Spirit is from the Father, which I pointed out in a post earlier on. This to me this is sacrilegious as the three persons of the Trinity are co-equal, one and of the same nature.
I would not explain the Trinity in this manner to the atheists or the Muslims or the Arians if they still today, because this kind of understanding will only confirm their view of the multiplicity of the Trinity.
Thus more importantly, is what you want the ordinary lay Christian like me to know. And to me it is straight forward - the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son is more in line with the understanding of the Trinity than saying the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone and not from the Son (the Orthodox position).
C
Cavaradossi
Guest
Yes, just go on and stubbornly ignore all of those quotes from the fathers saying that the Father is the cause of the Son and the Holy Spirit, the decree of Florence which states that the Holy Spirit has subsistent being from the Father and the Son, my numerous clarifications that such patristic language is meant to be taken in a logical sense or priority/posteriority, and also the numerous Eastern Catholic posters here who have agreed with me. Just keep needlessly slandering me.Nope your the one who sounds Arian
C
Cavaradossi
Guest
Ad primum ergo dicendum quod, si attendatur virtus spirativa, spiritus sanctus procedit a patre et filio inquantum sunt unum in virtute spirativa, quae quodammodo significat naturam cum proprietate, ut infra dicetur. Neque est inconveniens unam proprietatem esse in duobus suppositis, quorum est una natura. Si vero considerentur supposita spirationis, sic spiritus sanctus procedit a patre et filio ut sunt plures, procedit enim ab eis ut amor unitivus duorum.
ST I, 36, iv, ad. 1.
If there is a distinction between proceeding a patre filioque and a patre et filio, which renders the latter improper, Aquinas must have been unaware. I remain unconvinced that the Latins distinguished between the two, because they seem to have used them interchangeably.
K
KathleenGee
Guest
So because of this, the Schism is justified?
I thought we believed in the Nicene Creed.
I thought we believed in the Nicene Creed.
- Status