Question for Orthodox brothers and sisters in Christ

[dzheremi]

While we’re on the subject of anathemas (because I think the subject of the OP is pretty much settled), ComeHome2Rome, do you know where I can find the text of the anathema against the Armenians that is read (I think) on the Sunday of Orthodoxy every year? I read it a long time ago, and thought it was the funniest thing…something about the Armenians being accursed because they don’t have cheesefare like the Byzantines do (the Copts don’t either, but I guess the Holy Spirit forgot about us this time).

 

[MartinJordan]

I’m an Orthodox convert and not much of a theologian, but one of the Eastern positions on the filoque is that the First Council of Ephesus condemned any changes to the Creed. The filoque developed hundreds of years later and was infamously (in the Orthodox view) adopted by The Western Church. The usual Catholic position seems to be that the filoque is right because it’s in the Western Creed, holding The Council of Ephesus as null and void on the matter of it he immutability of the Creed.

The specific theology is confusing to me because it deals with the nature of the trinity, a mystery that cannot be completely understood by me and perhaps not by others.

Orthodox strive to maintain the Church beliefs as outlined in the accepted ecumenical councils-three or seven-and to avoid the gradual evolution of doctrine which has occurred under successive Popes without church wide councils since the schism.

John

While I sympathize with the Orthodox position, how do we reconcile (and when I say **we reconcile ** meaning before the split when we were ONE) there is the “issue” of the additional Deum de Deo (“God from God”) clause, e.g., which appears in the Creed of Nicea but not in the Creed of Constantinople?

Nicea and Constantinople creeds were pre-Photius right?

Pardon me if I seem to be too simplistic in my thinking.

MJ

 

[Reuben_J]

I’m an Orthodox convert and not much of a theologian, but one of the Eastern positions on the filoque is that the First Council of Ephesus condemned any changes to the Creed. The filoque developed hundreds of years later and was infamously (in the Orthodox view) adopted by The Western Church. The usual Catholic position seems to be that the filoque is right because it’s in the Western Creed, holding The Council of Ephesus as null and void on the matter of it he immutability of the Creed.

The specific theology is confusing to me because it deals with the nature of the trinity, a mystery that cannot be completely understood by me and perhaps not by others.

Orthodox strive to maintain the Church beliefs as outlined in the accepted ecumenical councils-three or seven-and to avoid the gradual evolution of doctrine which has occurred under successive Popes without church wide councils since the schism.

John

Hi John. While I understand that position, it would pretty much stop any further enlightenment by the Holy Spirit in development of doctrine. While evolution of doctrine is always a danger, God protects it in his Church. As has been explained, the filoque does not contradict the concept of Trinity but a further explanation to it. Of course this is Orthodox objection, as too are the Immaculate Conception, Purgatory and Transubstantiation because they were not part of the process.

 

[MartinJordan]

Hi John. While I understand that position, it would pretty much stop any further enlightenment by the Holy Spirit in development of doctrine.

Hi Rueben J. You reminded me that the theology of the Holy Spirit was also in a flux and clarified/defined in 5th Century I think (not sure if flux is the right word)

MJ

 

[Reuben_J]

Hi Rueben J. You reminded me that the theology of the Holy Spirit was also in a flux and clarified/defined in 5th Century I think (not sure if flux is the right word)

MJ

It may be something like that MJ but probably I am worse off than you. Flux is a word we used in Physic during school days which roughly means the flow of current. As other posters said before this, doctrine can take years to develop. An example is the doctrine of Trinity. Council does not an end by itself; there would always another one. Most importantly there should be no contradiction to the earlier ones. And Filoque does not.

 

[Schism_hater]

The Gospel of St. John 14:26 (Christ speaking): “The Paraclete, the Holy Spirit, who the Father will send (pempsei) in my name…”

and

15:26: (again Christ speaking) “The Spirit of truth, who proceeds (ekporeuetai) from the Father…”

In the same discourse, Christ distinguishes between the “sending” of the Spirit by the Father in his name, and the (eternal) “procession” of the Father, from the Father alone. That should settle the matter. Everything else is speculation, and should bow to scripture, especially the words of Christ.

 

[Reuben_J]

The Gospel of St. John 14:26 (Christ speaking): “The Paraclete, the Holy Spirit, who the Father will send (pempsei) in my name…”

and

15:26: (again Christ speaking) “The Spirit of truth, who proceeds (ekporeuetai) from the Father…”

In the same discourse, Christ distinguishes between the “sending” of the Spirit by the Father in his name, and the (eternal) “procession” of the Father, from the Father alone. That should settle the matter. Everything else is speculation, and should bow to scripture, especially the words of Christ.

From my experience a quote from a line or two from the Bible usually did not settle the matter.

 

[MartinJordan]

From my experience a quote from a line or two from the Bible usually did not settle the matter.

Word!

Meanwhile, I was able to find a quote from St.Maximus who I gather who had his theology accepted by the 3rd Constantinople Council.

[The Romans] have produced the unanimous evidence of the Latin Fathers, and also of Cyril of Alexandria,** from the study he made of the gospel of St. John**. On the basis of these texts, they have shown that they have not made the Son the cause of the Spirit–they know in fact that the Father is the only cause of the Son and the Spirit, the one by begetting and the other by procession--but that they have manifested the procession through him and have thus shown the unity and identity of the essence. - St. Maximus, Letter to Marinus, PG 91, 136.

If that is not enough then we have this: From: 62nd meeting of the North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation, in June 2002. In October 2003, the Consultation issued an agreed statement, The Filioque: A Church-Dividing Issue?,
*
** In the judgment of the consultation, the question of the Filioque is no longer a “Church-dividing” issue, which would impede full reconciliation and full communion. It is for the bishops of the Catholic and Orthodox Churches to review this work and to make whatever decisions would be appropriate.*



MJ**

 

[GaryTaylor]

The problem with the on-going debate East-West isn’t the first principle being the Father. The Bible supports both East/West understanding or this wouldn’t be a 1000 year debate. Also we don’t have all the answers and I’ll show you specifically where the mystery resides. We all have to concede the above. God the Father is the First Principle and through divine intellect. The Holy Spirit does proceed from the Father as first principle this has to be conceded in order to zero in on the area of concern. Namely the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Son.

The Holy Spirit does proceed from the Son Biblically. This is not entirely the concern. The concern is the interdependence which reduces the Son. The Son does not depend on the Father of He would not be God. Here I say we can think triangle with all three sides of equal relation and interrelated in being the one whole. None act independently of the other to produce the total. None are able to be without the other to complete the whole. All are equal. The Son and the HS being one plane of the triangle lack nothing the third plane consists of or they would not be equal and in effect we would have a superior internal chain of command.

We can’t say the Son receives from the Father since this makes the Son passive and in need, thus He would lack and not be equal to the Father. Here we have to insist each of the Three divine individuals is the First person, the First principle or you would not have One God. This way each excludes the principle of origin, in other words it doesn’t suffice to state the Son is begotten without understanding this eternal relation in equality without time. So when we say proceeds, we are talking internal, not external. However when we say all three are First principle this is external not internal. Thus the Father alone in NOT the principle of origin.

With all due respect to the Faith the mystery of the Word who is True God of True God cannot be proven. Or I should clarify, it has not yet been proven. A theory is just that, and until its proven it remains a theory. We have theory not fact. This is why I said above we need to admit what we do not know today in order to move forward.

The dependence of the Word of God with respect to the Father cannot be proven.

Its does good to read “all” the Fathers without bias in arriving at or assuming East or West is right. That’s not a fact its a position each hold which remains to be proven.

My problem with the Easts position is it easily presents a heresy in reducing the Son and HS to dependence on the Father. This cannot be so or they would not be equal and one. Which isn’t to say you guys aren’t right either. This is something to remain aware of though.

 

[jonathan_hili]

Yes, but you asked for the Orthodox perspective in the OP so it does matter as the Orthodox only accept the first 7 ecumenical councils and don’t believe in the Catholic understanding of development of doctrine.

If you want the Orthodox perspective you can’t limit them by only allowing answers that are consistent with Catholic Church teaching.

My personal opinion is that no the filioque doesn’t make “more” sense of the eternal relationship between the three persons. If anything this thread shows that it can lead to some real rabbit holes.

Okay, why doesn’t it make “more” sense of the relationship? How does the monarchical model actually relate the Son to the Spirit in eternity?

 

[jonathan_hili]

In the eternal relationship within the Trinity I don’t believe we could ever get it perfectly right. I mean the only person who really knows God is God. I don’t think we can ever get close in understanding those relationships within each Person of the Trinity. You have to be God to do that and thank God we are not Him.

I believe all of this to be shortly resolve when the Holy Father, your Pope and a great shepherd for the Church will contact the Orthodox to meet in a great council. I believe this is the only way to iron all of this out.

We don’t really know the relationships that exists between the Persons of the Trinity for in my opinion that would be guess work on our part. For instance we have the Scriptures and we have the Holy Spirit in us and yet with what little there is in scripture we still are bogged down on words. I don’t think you need to be precisely accurate in defining God. I believe what is more important is to love Him and to be in a relationship with Him. That needs to be our top priority.

Oh, I agree, and this is just speculation. I think your idea of a Council where the Pope and Patriarchs all attend to discuss things is a great idea. It may even happen with Pope Francis, since he seems to be a very humble man, and would not be unwilling to put aside a little Roman dignity for the sake of reunion.

I’m still not sure though. I mean, if the Holy Spirit proceeds only from the Father, how can He be related to the Son? Or rather, what is His relationship to the Son?

I’m stuck on this point. Perhaps I shouldn’t be but I think if the Holy Trinity is truly a triune divine relationship each Person must be related to the other, that is, mutual relationship.

 

[jonathan_hili]

Jonathan, the “filioque” is an Addition to the Creed. And the Holy Spirit inspired the infallible Holy Ecumenical Councils to place an Anathema on anyone who would dare to Add to that Creed. No exception for those in Toledo, no exception for the Franks & no exception for the Bishop of Rome, no exception to the multiple Anathemas.

An Amathema by an Ecumenical Council can’t be lifted. God doesn’t change His mind.

To be frank, I don’t really care if it’s an addition or not, that’s not the point of my post. I’m interested in knowing which model makes more sense of our understanding of the Divine Trinity. As yet, nobody has explained how the monarchical model (with the Holy Spirit proceeding solely from the Father) can actually explain how the Spirit can be related eternally to the Son.

 

[jonathan_hili]

Jonathan, the “filioque” is an Addition to the Creed. And the Holy Spirit inspired the infallible Holy Ecumenical Councils to place an Anathema on anyone who would dare to Add to that Creed. No exception for those in Toledo, no exception for the Franks & no exception for the Bishop of Rome, no exception to the multiple Anathemas.

An Amathema by an Ecumenical Council can’t be lifted. God doesn’t change His mind.

Just to quickly return to this point though, Come Home, which Council pronounced it would be anathema to expand on the Creed? I can’t actually find that anathema in the Creed itself.

 

[jonathan_hili]

Hang on a sec, is it Canon VII you’re referring to?

If so, the text reads:

Canon VII.

When these things had been read, the holy Synod decreed that it is unlawful for any man to bring forward, or to write, or to compose a different (ἑτέραν) Faith as a rival to that established by the holy Fathers assembled with the Holy Ghost in Nicæa.

But those who shall dare to compose a different faith, or to introduce or offer it to persons desiring to turn to the acknowledgment of the truth, whether from Heathenism or from Judaism, or from any heresy whatsoever, shall be deposed, if they be bishops or clergymen; bishops from the episcopate and clergymen from the clergy; and if they be laymen, they shall be anathematized.

And in like manner, if any, whether bishops, clergymen, or laymen, should be discovered to hold or teach the doctrines contained in the Exposition introduced by the Presbyter Charisius concerning the Incarnation of the Only-Begotten Son of God, or the abominable and profane doctrines of Nestorius, which are subjoined, they shall be subjected to the sentence of this holy and ecumenical Synod. So that, if it be a bishop, he shall be removed from his bishopric and degraded; if it be a clergyman, he shall likewise be stricken from the clergy; and if it be a layman, he shall be anathematized, as has been afore said.

I can see that it is anathema to compose or put forward a “different faith” but it doesn’t say anything about not expanding in an authentic and clarifying manner on the Creed.

 

[jonathan_hili]

I’m an Orthodox convert and not much of a theologian, but one of the Eastern positions on the filoque is that the First Council of Ephesus condemned any changes to the Creed. The filoque developed hundreds of years later and was infamously (in the Orthodox view) adopted by The Western Church. The usual Catholic position seems to be that the filoque is right because it’s in the Western Creed, holding The Council of Ephesus as null and void on the matter of it he immutability of the Creed.

The specific theology is confusing to me because it deals with the nature of the trinity, a mystery that cannot be completely understood by me and perhaps not by others.

Orthodox strive to maintain the Church beliefs as outlined in the accepted ecumenical councils-three or seven-and to avoid the gradual evolution of doctrine which has occurred under successive Popes without church wide councils since the schism.

John

Hi John,

The problem with this approach, that is, “Orthodox strive to maintain the Church beliefs as outlined in the accepted ecumenical councils” is that you get stuck in a rut. If Christians held this view from the beginning, you would never have had the Creed or dogmatic statements about the Trinity, Christ’s personhood, etc. The Church needs to further develop and clarify doctrine as we grow in theological understanding; that’s one of the reasons why we have a Church, not solely to guard the past (even though this is important).

I’ve read the anathema from the Council of Ephesus. The words used are: “When these things had been read, the holy Synod decreed that it is unlawful for any man to bring forward, or to write, or to compose a different (ἑτέραν) Faith as a rival to that established by the holy Fathers assembled with the Holy Ghost in Nicæa.”

Now, this doesn’t mean that the Creed cannot be expanded on, only that a different Faith cannot be introduced into the Creed or established beliefs. The Catholic (Western) Church doesn’t believe the filioque is a different Faith but a
development of what was already contained in the Creed.

Jonathan

 

[GaryTaylor]

As yet, nobody has explained how the monarchical model (with the Holy Spirit proceeding solely from the Father) can actually explain how the Spirit can be related eternally to the Son.

And, how is the Son equal to the Father if indeed this is the case? The Son would be dependent on the Father thus “lacking”. Dangerous in my mind as I stated.

 

[jonathan_hili]

The Gospel of St. John 14:26 (Christ speaking): “The Paraclete, the Holy Spirit, who the Father will send (pempsei) in my name…”

and

15:26: (again Christ speaking) “The Spirit of truth, who proceeds (ekporeuetai) from the Father…”

In the same discourse, Christ distinguishes between the “sending” of the Spirit by the Father in his name, and the (eternal) “procession” of the Father, from the Father alone. That should settle the matter. Everything else is speculation, and should bow to scripture, especially the words of Christ.

Hi Schism Hater (great name, too!), thanks for the biblical references. What edition of the Bible are you using?

To quote from the RSV online (not a Catholic edition):

John 14:26:
“But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you.”

Okay, so the Father sends the Spirit in Jesus’ name. How does this help us understand the eternal relationship between the Son and the Spirit? (This is really what I’m looking for.)

As for John 15:26, it reads:
“But when the Counselor comes, whom I shall send to you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, he will bear witness to me…”

While it’s true that Jesus states that the Spirit proceeds from the Father, he also says that he shall send the Spirit.

It seems the two verses (who is sending the Spirit?) are in tension, unless they can be reconciled (such as in the filioque).

 

[jonathan_hili]

And, how is the Son equal to the Father if indeed this is the case? The Son would be dependent on the Father thus “lacking”. Dangerous in my mind as I stated.

I know, I don’t favour the monarchial model - that’s the Orthodox approach.

 

[GaryTaylor]

That’s what I as saying about the Biblical aspect. It just doesn’t resolve this point we arrived at. It back and forth with no resolve.

The Holy Spirit cannot come to help You until I leave. But after I am gone, I will send the Spirit to you. - John 16:5-7

Jesus sends the Holy Spirit “I will send the HS”. He didn’t say I need to see my Father first to receive permission. He is God equal to the Father.

Is the Second person Trinity completely equal to the Father or not?

 

[GaryTaylor]

Also from the Incarnation with Jesus, and as noted by Athanasius I believe first, is that here the 2nd person trinity is fully human and fully divine, however this is a temporary subordinate role due to the flesh. This is why the second person Trinity states “The Holy Spirit cannot come to help You until I leave. But after I am gone, I will send the Spirit to you”