Question for Orthodox brothers and sisters in Christ

[GaryTaylor]

One more point as I was thinking about the triangle and Ghostys analogy some time ago. Which I admit was used by the early church fathers also.

In the triangle the first angle does not cause but communicates its own surface area to the other two equal angles, and these two angles are not any less perfect than the first. And I further state this angle can be turned so either bottom angle is on top. The Father in His intellect is not able to produce the Word. What we have is communication of the divine essence and “without”… efficient causality [Aristotle]. All three exist forever eternal.

In other example Ghosty used an analogy which was great with a Spring, Stream, Ocean. And this is similar. However, this indicates origin. There is no origin. There is no time but in what we as mankind are subjected to. And never did the Trinity not exist. There is also no center command at the top of the mountain. There are three equal angles in perfect communication perfectly God, and perfectly one. Or we do not have one God. The water analogy indicates efficient cause. That aspect is incorrect.

Here’s a definition…

The “efficient cause” of an object is equivalent to that which causes change and motion to start or stop (such as a painter painting a house) (see Aristotle, Physics II 3, 194b29). In many cases, this is simply the thing that brings something about. For example, in the case of a statue, it is the person chiseling away which transforms a block of marble into a statue.

The Trinity is I AM since this is always in the immediate now un-subjected to time. And I further add this is exactly how miracles occur.

Marriage sounds good as in a triangle.

 

[ComeHome2Rome]

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.

The only explanation of the Holy Trinity provided by inspiration of the Holy Spirit is that which has been revealed by first two of the Ecumenical Councils that is found in the unaltered Creed produced under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

The Holy Trinity isn’t a math problem for which we can find a solution so that it can make sense to our finite minds. We must simply accept with Faith that which has been revealed. Going beyond that which has been revealed can only lead to errors while being a waste of time and energy.

 

[GaryTaylor]

This is true, however it is also true that the Original Nicene Creed and the Arian heresy overlap. My point above is what was the cause of the heresy. Which is from God there is no procession of effect and cause. For it would follow the Second Person Trinity and the HS would not be God. And of course opposed to Scripture. The root of the issue is the same with Sabellius. Thus there’s a inner transmission of intellect not corporal substance thus no motion or action.

Also when we say the HS proceeds from the Father, without the Son and HS being passive to receive? Passive indicates subordinate in the actual Godhead. This is where I’m at.

If you uphold this to be true than the proper understanding of “proceeds” must follow. I’m sure there is one?

“Who proceeds from the Father”, Its not so, because we are told its so, as this is indeed true blind Faith. Its so because it stands to reason, Which is why the heresies were not so.

I’m trying to learn what stands to reason in the East as I may live to see this communion. Scary as that is.

Ironic is that cause and effect being Aristotle is what Rome rejected. And this is the usual claim about the Latin Rite Church? Just wanted to clarify that.

 

[Cavaradossi]

My question is: doesn’t the filioque make more sense of the eternal mutual relationship between the Three Persons of the Divine Trinity?

From the Orthodox perspective it does not. The Son, in Orthodox thought, has the relation to the Spirit that the Spirit rests in Him (see John of Damascus in his Exposition on the Orthodox Faith), and that He manifests the Spirit (the teaching of Gregory Palamas, and the Synod of Blachernae). To say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from both opens up an ambiguity by which the Son’s non-causal relation to the Spirit could be conflated with the Father’s unique causal relationship to the Spirit.

Thus, the Son is begotten (γεννῆται) of the Father, and the Spirit proceeds (ἐκπορεύεται) from the Father alone and from the Father through the Son, and progresses (πρόεισι) and is poured forth (προχεῖται) from both (ἐξ ἀμφίων).

 

[Peter_J]

I think we end up with a different model:

"FROM THE FATHER"

FATHER SON
I
I
I
SPIRIT

“FROM THE FATHER AND SON”

FATHER SON
I I
SPIRIT

I understanding what you were going for with the typesetting that didn’t really work out; and I agree that the first diagram is wrong. But I find the second diagram to be wrong as well.

In a nutshell, I think they’re both wrong because the Father is the source of the Son as well as the Holy Spirit.

 

[jonathan_hili]

The Holy Trinity isn’t a math problem for which we can find a solution so that it can make sense to our finite minds. We must simply accept with Faith that which has been revealed. Going beyond that which has been revealed can only lead to errors while being a waste of time and energy.

I understand what you’re saying and agree to an extent, some things must be accepted on faith. But theology is precisely there to help rationally understand revelation. Now, since biblical evidence suggests either way, and I don’t believe the Councils are the be-all-end-all-without-development-of-doctrine, I think it worthwhile speculating on these matters. Or else, you have to admit - I don’t see any other way out of it - that in eternity, the Son has no relationship with the Spirit.

 

[jonathan_hili]

I understanding what you were going for with the typesetting that didn’t really work out; and I agree that the first diagram is wrong. But I find the second diagram to be wrong as well.

In a nutshell, I think they’re both wrong because the Father is the source of the Son as well as the Holy Spirit.

Hi Peter, maybe the second model isn’t clear, as the Father is the source in the second model as well - only, so is the Son or through the Son. However, I’m not sure I like the word “source”, it’s too cause-effect.

 

[jonathan_hili]

From the Orthodox perspective it does not. The Son, in Orthodox thought, has the relation to the Spirit that the Spirit rests in Him (see John of Damascus in his Exposition on the Orthodox Faith), and that He manifests the Spirit (the teaching of Gregory Palamas, and the Synod of Blachernae). To say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from both opens up an ambiguity by which the Son’s non-causal relation to the Spirit could be conflated with the Father’s unique causal relationship to the Spirit.

Thus, the Son is begotten (γεννῆται) of the Father, and the Spirit proceeds (ἐκπορεύεται) from the Father alone and from the Father through the Son, and progresses (πρόεισι) and is poured forth (προχεῖται) from both (ἐξ ἀμφίων).

Ah, so you would agree that the Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son eternally, that is, before the salvific economy was manifest? If so, that does show an eternal relationship and would work - and is really not in tension with the filioque.

 

[ComeHome2Rome]

I understand what you’re saying and agree to an extent, some things must be accepted on faith. But theology is precisely there to help rationally understand revelation. Now, since biblical evidence suggests either way, and I don’t believe the Councils are the be-all-end-all-without-development-of-doctrine, I think it worthwhile speculating on these matters. Or else, you have to admit - I don’t see any other way out of it - that in eternity, the Son has no relationship with the Spirit.

I don’t see Biblical evidence either way. Sorry! I feel like Mary, Mary quite contrary

In eternity the Son & Holy Spirit have an eternal relationship as they share the Father, the Souce & Fountainhead of both. Like how on earth, two children have a relationship with each other when their father is the same, while this analogy isn’t perfect as technically God the Father isn’t the “Father” of the Holy Spirit, but the “Father” of the Son & through the Son, the Father of us.

 

[Peter_J]

I understand what you’re saying and agree to an extent, some things must be accepted on faith.

No offense, but I don’t think I’ve known you long enough to have faith in you. Fortunately I’ve got the Church.

 

[chimo]

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.

The relationships that were defined in the Creed actually came from Holy Scripture. I am convinced though that the Catholic Church wants to know more. This is her greatest strength and a credit to her wisdom. God has not revealed everything yet for He desires us to find out more. That is why He gave us the Holy Spirit. He will help us to arrive into these deeper truths about Himself. I believe you are right that there exists a relationship within the Trinity we have yet to discover. Perhaps Rome is trying to hard to arrive at it without the counsel of the East. Who knows but it may be when the East and West finally get together that there will be a newer understanding of this relationship within the Trinity that needs to be discovered as truth.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Its based on Scripture, allow me to show you but again and a different way.

Nevertheless, Scripture tells only the out-line of the story.

Its the Father who begets, the Son [forever in communion]. It is the Father who begets, the Son who is begotten and the HS that proceeds from the Father and the Son. who again are forever in communion.

Thus there is no difference in beget and begotten. This is a perfect relationship lacking nothing. The Son did not receive less of what the Father is. This is a giver and receiver relationship. There in nothing lacking on either part. Perfect communion-[marriage] The Word is not principled which indicates subordination, its principle from principle. One does not have something the other does not have, that is “false”. Though the Father is the principle of the Word. The Word in not principled. This cannot be attributed to the Son as it implies “lack”. You would then have two levels of deity in a chain of command, not so.

Scripture…John 16:15 “ALL things whatsoever the Father hath, are mine” He said. All, what part of All did the Son not receive? You would be taking the liberty to add your own view to scripture here, but again as I showed you earlier.

Look at this yet another way between Father and Son. The Father being the teacher transmits all his knowledge to the student. The student then has all the knowledge. He doesn’t need to go back to the teacher to receive what was already given. he already has it ALL and forever.

Jesus Christ, I will send the Spirit to you. - John 16:5-7 This is all scripture, correct?

 

[jonathan_hili]

I don’t see Biblical evidence either way. Sorry! I feel like Mary, Mary quite contrary

In eternity the Son & Holy Spirit have an eternal relationship as they share the Father, the Souce & Fountainhead of both. Like how on earth, two children have a relationship with each other when their father is the same, while this analogy isn’t perfect as technically God the Father isn’t the “Father” of the Holy Spirit, but the “Father” of the Son & through the Son, the Father of us.

I get what you’re saying but I don’t think the analogy works because with human fathers and children (who might be brothers), we are talking about three separate beings but with the Divine Persons we aren’t talking about three separate gods.

I think for the Son and Spirit to have an eternal relationship they cannot just share the Father as Source, since this is not relationship, it’s just an identical relation. For example, two boys could have the same father but be separated at birth. While they have the same relation to the Father and one another as brothers, they have no relationship because they don’t even know each other. I guess what I’m getting at is: how do the Son and Spirit mutually relate to one another?

 

[jonathan_hili]

No offense, but I don’t think I’ve known you long enough to have faith in you. Fortunately I’ve got the Church.

Haha good! I ain’t gonna say: “You have faith in God, have faith also in me!”

I meant faith in the Trinity, of course!

 

[jonathan_hili]

The relationships that were defined in the Creed actually came from Holy Scripture. I am convinced though that the Catholic Church wants to know more. This is her greatest strength and a credit to her wisdom. God has not revealed everything yet for He desires us to find out more. That is why He gave us the Holy Spirit. He will help us to arrive into these deeper truths about Himself. I believe you are right that there exists a relationship within the Trinity we have yet to discover. Perhaps Rome is trying to hard to arrive at it without the counsel of the East. Who knows but it may be when the East and West finally get together that there will be a newer understanding of this relationship within the Trinity that needs to be discovered as truth.

Let’s hope so, Chimo, let’s hope so. I can’t wait for that day!

 

[Cavaradossi]

Ah, so you would agree that the Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son eternally, that is, before the salvific economy was manifest? If so, that does show an eternal relationship and would work - and is really not in tension with the filioque.

It is actually in disagreement with the filioque, as we do not allow for an eternal procession from the Son, only an eternal procession through the Son. The former implies that the Son has a causal role in the existence of the Spirit, while the later does not. For us, the Spirit’s unique procession from the Father alone is logically prior to the Spirit’s procession through the Son.

 

[jonathan_hili]

It is actually in disagreement with the filioque, as we do not allow for an eternal procession from the Son, only an eternal procession through the Son. The former implies that the Son has a causal role in the existence of the Spirit, while the later does not. For us, the Spirit’s unique procession from the Father alone is logically prior to the Spirit’s procession through the Son.

That’s cool, I get that. In fact, I think it’s more of a linguistic issue than a real one if this is the case. If the Orthodox are willing to say that the Spirit proceeds “through” the Son, though having His foundation in the Father, whether the word “through” or “from” is used seems to me academic, as “from” can mean “through”.

Huh?

Here are a couple of examples.

If I send a letter to my friend, it necessarily goes through the post office system before he receives it. Now, if you were to ask him: “Did you get a letter from your friend through the post office?” he’d say, “Yes”. But he’d equally say “Yes” - and not be wrong - if you asked him, “Did you get a letter from the post office.”

Or else, I’ve got slightly curly hair that genetically seems to have come from my grandfather. If you were to ask me, “Did you get your slightly curly hair from your grandfather through your father?” I could truthfully answer, “Yes”. Likewise, if you asked me, “Did you get your slightly curly hair from your father,” I could also truthfully answer, “Yes”.

I think that’s the issue we have here with the filioque. I think Catholics want to emphasise that the Spirit is sent and related to in some respects to the Son, whereas Orthodox want to protect the logical origination from the Father. I think both are right.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Well the thinking resides in essence from the Father and the Son to the Spirit, or consubstantial. This doesn’t negate the first principle that’s conceded, it simply doesn’t place the essence in question through procession uncreated energies. In other words it resolves at essence in the only begotten son consubstantial in communion for eternity.

In Palamas’ words, "Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy and the triad of divine hypostases. This is theory and a good one.

However, I’m stopping at essence. Often why its misunderstood as double procession. This is also incorrect as here I am speaking one God, conceding first principle, which the one God being that which the Holy Spirit proceeds from. And that is all Gods essence. Therefore there could not be the Father and the Son separately sending the Holy Spirit in some joint collaboration which in effect either one or the other would be sending the Holy Spirit, incorrect. But neither is there division in the essense of one God.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Also while the East concedes the Latin Fathers used the Trinity formula early, so too did the East.

St Athanasius- “We find that the same property the Son has to the Father, the Holy Ghost has to the Son.” [Ad Serapion epist III]

St Athanasius- calls the Son “The Font of the Holy Ghost” [De Incarnatione 9]

Gregory of Nyssa-“The Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost are like three lights of which the Second is lit by the First and the Third by the Second” [Oratio 31]

Cyril of Alexandria- “Since therefore the Holy Ghost dwelling in us makes us comfortable with the Father, He truly proceeds from the Father and the Son, it is clear from the Divine Essence that He is essentially in it and producing from it, and proceeding from it, just as a breath come from the human mouth, although this a humble and unworthy illustration of such a sublime thing” [Thesaurus, assert. 34 pg LXXV]

I believe we are saying the same thing differently.

 

[Schism_hater]

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

It is more than a “line or two from the Bible” , it is the words of Christ from one of the most, if not the most, solemn discourses He made, near the end of the Gospel of John which is recognized as the most theologically precise portions of scripture (it is where a great deal of Trinitarian doctrine is laid out). It is also the only scriptural passage directly on point (the eternal procession of the Spirit). Therefore, it is not to be tossed aside lightly.