Question for Orthodox brothers and sisters in Christ

[jonathan_hili]

Hi all, this is a question specifically for our Orthodox brethren.

Something about the filioque struck me today. I understand that the Western Church developed the Creed to include the filioque, foreign to the unchanged Creed in the East, where the Holy Spirit proceeds “from the Father”.

Some have argued that the filioque is not very different from what the East have because we can say that the Spirit proceeds “from the Father through the Son”. However, I think this misses the idea of what is going on here, and what is - at least I believe - the genius of the filioque.

And it’s this: the Holy Spirit proceeds “from the Father and from the Son” because of who the Holy Spirit is, namely, the divine love en-personed. As the Father loves the Son and the Son loves the Father, their love - like the love of a husband and wife - begets the Third Person of the Holy Trinity, the Spirit. If the Spirit proceeds only “from the Father”, how is He a consequence of the mutual love of Father and Son. Doesn’t this rather suggest a separation of Father/Spirit and Son?

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

(Okay, this editing is not working. In the first illustration, imagine a vertical line connecting Father and Spirit, but not the Son and Spirit; in the second, imagine diagonal lines from both Father and Son connecting to Spirit.)

Any ideas?

God bless.

Jonathan

 

[Cider]

In Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy Father Damick ( An Orthodox Priest) says this:

The Filioque violates the perfect balance of Orthodox Trinitarian theology: Instead of any particular attribute belonging only either to the divine Nature or the Person, the Filioque grants an attribute to two Persons but not the other. For instance, unbegottenness belongs only to the Father, begottenness belongs to the Son, while procession belongs to the Spirit. Likewise, all divine characteristics (e.g., immortality, perfection, omniscience, etc.) belong to all three Persons. But if being the eternal origin of the Spirit’s spiration belongs to both the Father and the Son, that subordinates the Spirit in that He does not possess something that the other two Persons do.

Damick, Fr Andrew Stephen (2011-11-22). Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy: Exploring Belief Systems through the Lens of the Ancient Christian Faith

Which seems to be similar to what you are saying.

In another part of the book he says that there is nothing that two possess. Either they all possess it or only one does. Wish I could find the quote at the moment.

 

[jonathan_hili]

I’m not sure how it can be maintained that all Three Persons of the Holy Trinity must stand in the same relation to one another, as Fr Damick seems to be suggesting. If so, how can there be any differentiation between the Persons? Furthermore, what of biblical texts where the Son is identified as begotten of the Father, and in the Creed?

 

[dzheremi]

The problem with the idea espoused in the OP is that the Holy Spirit is not a mere uniative force, or whatever you’d call it. He is a person and not a feeling. If it were as the OP claims (following St. Augustine, I believe? But I think this is one of the things that the Orthodox disagree with him on), then how would it make sense that Christ was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and of the Virgin Mary, as we say in the Creed? Or that the Holy Spirit descended upon the people gathered at Pentecost? Abstract feelings or emotions cannot do these things, and the idea that the Holy Spirit is love rather than a person seems to depersonalize the Holy Spirit. It is essential and ancient Orthodox theology to say that the Holy Trinity is three persons – that’s why it’s a Trinity. It’s not a duality; it’s not two persons and a feeling that they both share between each other. It’s three persons.

 

[marlo]

What he said was never a dogma, that is the summation of Photius on his Mystagogy,
Remember that the Son and Holy Spirit both takes their origin from the Father, or better said, gets their Divine Essence from the Father, if we follow the argument of Photius, then the Father should also gets his origin from someone, which shows the flaw of his argument

In Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy Father Damick ( An Orthodox Priest) says this:

Which seems to be similar to what you are saying.

In another part of the book he says that there is nothing that two possess. Either they all possess it or only one does. Wish I could find the quote at the moment.

 

[Cider]

He explains it better than I could. Here is his bullet points of Orthodox theology on the trinity.

There is only one God, who created all things out of nothing.

God is uncreated, existing before all created things, even time itself.

God is three divine Persons (hypostases) who are one in essence (homoousios).

The three Persons of the Trinity are all absolutely equal in deity, power, honor, and eternality.

Each Person of the Trinity shares all that it means to be God with the other two, but none of what it means to be that Person with the other two. There is nothing that two share without the third also sharing it.

The eternal source of the Godhead is the Father, from whom the Son is begotten and the Holy Spirit proceeds.

God is essence and energies. God is absolutely transcendent and unknowable in His essence, but immanent and knowable in His energies. Grace is another term for God’s energies.

Jesus Christ

Jesus Christ is the Son of God, the Second Person of the Trinity.

Jesus Christ is fully divine, by virtue of being the Son of God, begotten before all ages. He is of one essence, or consubstantial (homoousios), with the Father.

Jesus Christ is fully human, by virtue of being the son of the Virgin Mary, begotten in time of her and incarnate of her and the Holy Spirit. He is of one essence/consubstantial (homoousios) with all of mankind.

Jesus Christ is one Person (hypostasis) in two natures, the divine and the human. This union is the only hypostatic union in existence.

Jesus Christ was born, grew up, taught and healed, was crucified and died on the cross, and then rose from the dead on the third day.

Jesus is the Messiah prophesied in the Hebrew Scriptures.

 

[jonathan_hili]

The problem with the idea espoused in the OP is that the Holy Spirit is not a mere uniative force, or whatever you’d call it. He is a person and not a feeling. If it were as the OP claims (following St. Augustine, I believe? But I think this is one of the things that the Orthodox disagree with him on), then how would it make sense that Christ was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and of the Virgin Mary, as we say in the Creed? Or that the Holy Spirit descended upon the people gathered at Pentecost? Abstract feelings or emotions cannot do these things, and the idea that the Holy Spirit is love rather than a person seems to depersonalize the Holy Spirit. It is essential and ancient Orthodox theology to say that the Holy Trinity is three persons – that’s why it’s a Trinity. It’s not a duality; it’s not two persons and a feeling that they both share between each other. It’s three persons.

I wouldn’t say the Holy Spirit is an non-initiative force, and I don’t think that’s what I was saying in the post. But rather, as the procession of Persons in the Divine Trinity, the Holy Spirit proceeds from both Father and Son as an eternal begetting of their mutual love, as child is to husband and wife (and, as such, He doesn’t stand outside Father and Son but is reflective of their love, returning their love). I mean, even if you use the Orthodox model where the Spirit proceeds merely from the Father, you could accuse it of the same problem, and that’s my point. In fact, it’s worse in the Orthodox model because the Spirit seems to have no direct relationship to the Son.

 

[dzheremi]

if we follow the argument of Photius, then the Father should also gets his origin from someone, which shows that flaw of this argument

How do you figure, Marlo? Admittedly I have not read Photius (the OO were out of the picture before the Filioque ever existed, thank God), but how does saying that the Father is the originator of Christ and of the Holy Spirit mean that the Father must be originated from someone else? The Father is the origin of everyone and everything, so how could there even be anything before Him from which He was made, even if Photius’ argument were to demand that it be so?

 

[marlo]

Is the Apostle John wrong in saying that God is Love?

The problem with the idea espoused in the OP is that the Holy Spirit is not a mere uniative force, or whatever you’d call it. He is a person and not a feeling. If it were as the OP claims (following St. Augustine, I believe? But I think this is one of the things that the Orthodox disagree with him on), then how would it make sense that Christ was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and of the Virgin Mary, as we say in the Creed? Or that the Holy Spirit descended upon the people gathered at Pentecost? Abstract feelings or emotions cannot do these things, and the idea that the Holy Spirit is love rather than a person seems to depersonalize the Holy Spirit. It is essential and ancient Orthodox theology to say that the Holy Trinity is three persons – that’s why it’s a Trinity. It’s not a duality; it’s not two persons and a feeling that they both share between each other. It’s three persons.

 

[Cider]

Hi all, this is a question specifically for our Orthodox brethren.

Something about the filioque struck me today. I understand that the Western Church developed the Creed to include the filioque, foreign to the unchanged Creed in the East, where the Holy Spirit proceeds “from the Father”.

Some have argued that the filioque is not very different from what the East have because we can say that the Spirit proceeds “from the Father through the Son”. However, I think this misses the idea of what is going on here, and what is - at least I believe - the genius of the filioque.

And it’s this: the Holy Spirit proceeds “from the Father and from the Son” because of who the Holy Spirit is, namely, the divine love en-personed. As the Father loves the Son and the Son loves the Father, their love - like the love of a husband and wife - begets the Third Person of the Holy Trinity, the Spirit. If the Spirit proceeds only “from the Father”, how is He a consequence of the mutual love of Father and Son. Doesn’t this rather suggest a separation of Father/Spirit and Son?

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

(Okay, this editing is not working. In the first illustration, imagine a vertical line connecting Father and Spirit, but not the Son and Spirit; in the second, imagine diagonal lines from both Father and Son connecting to Spirit.)

Any ideas?

God bless.

Jonathan

I guess I don’t understand what the question is that you are asking regarding the Orthodox? Even Catholics don’t believe the whole enshrined love personified definition of the holy spirit.

 

[jonathan_hili]

He explains it better than I could. Here is his bullet points of Orthodox theology on the trinity.

There is only one God, who created all things out of nothing.

God is uncreated, existing before all created things, even time itself.

God is three divine Persons (hypostases) who are one in essence (homoousios).

The three Persons of the Trinity are all absolutely equal in deity, power, honor, and eternality.

Each Person of the Trinity shares all that it means to be God with the other two, but none of what it means to be that Person with the other two. There is nothing that two share without the third also sharing it.

The eternal source of the Godhead is the Father, from whom the Son is begotten and the Holy Spirit proceeds.

God is essence and energies. God is absolutely transcendent and unknowable in His essence, but immanent and knowable in His energies. Grace is another term for God’s energies.

Jesus Christ

Jesus Christ is the Son of God, the Second Person of the Trinity.

Jesus Christ is fully divine, by virtue of being the Son of God, begotten before all ages. He is of one essence, or consubstantial (homoousios), with the Father.

Jesus Christ is fully human, by virtue of being the son of the Virgin Mary, begotten in time of her and incarnate of her and the Holy Spirit. He is of one essence/consubstantial (homoousios) with all of mankind.

Jesus Christ is one Person (hypostasis) in two natures, the divine and the human. This union is the only hypostatic union in existence.

Jesus Christ was born, grew up, taught and healed, was crucified and died on the cross, and then rose from the dead on the third day.

Jesus is the Messiah prophesied in the Hebrew Scriptures.

Of course, this sounds very orthodox to me - apart from the God’s energies, that’s a bit odd.

But there must be a relational difference between the Persons, or else they would be the same Persons since they possess the same substantial attributes - it’s their relational attributes that are different. The point I’m trying to make is that relationally, if the Spirit proceeds only from the Father, then He has no direct relationship with the Son.

 

[marlo]

I did not say that, i’m referring to Father Damick, that is the argument of Photius, read my post again

How do you figure, Marlo? Admittedly I have not read Photius (the OO were out of the picture before the Filioque ever existed, thank God), but how does saying that the Father is the originator of Christ and of the Holy Spirit mean that the Father must be originated from someone else? The Father is the origin of everyone and everything, so how could there even be anything before Him from which He was made, even if Photius’ argument were to demand that it be so?

 

[dzheremi]

I wouldn’t say the Holy Spirit is an non-initiative force, and I don’t think that’s what I was saying in the post. But rather, as the procession of Persons in the Divine Trinity, the Holy Spirit proceeds from both Father and Son as an eternal begetting of their mutual love, as child is to husband and wife (and, as such, He doesn’t stand outside Father and Son but is reflective of their love, returning their love).

No. That’s entirely my point: The Holy Spirit is not mutual love; He’s not a feeling. He’s a person. If the Holy Spirit is not a person in your theology, you are not a Trinitarian Christian. You’re something else entirely.

I mean, even if you use the Orthodox model where the Spirit proceeds merely from the Father, you could accuse it of the same problem, and that’s my point. In fact, it’s worse in the Orthodox model because the Spirit seems to have no direct relationship to the Son.

Is it not enough that Christ Jesus Himself says in John 14:26 that the Father will send the Holy Spirit in His (Christ’s) name? That seems like a pretty direct connection to me.

 

[jonathan_hili]

No. That’s entirely my point: The Holy Spirit is not mutual love; He’s not a feeling. He’s a person. If the Holy Spirit is not a person in your theology, you are not a Trinitarian Christian. You’re something else entirely.

Hey Dzheremi, who’s saying the Holy Spirit is not a person? If the Son is begotten by the Father, why can’t the Spirit proceed (or be begotten in turn) by Father and Son? He is the person of their mutual love, just as a child is the person of the mutual love of husband and wife.

Is it not enough that Christ Jesus Himself says in John 14:26 that the Father will send the Holy Spirit in His (Christ’s) name? That seems like a pretty direct connection to me.

Sure, it’s a connection in the salvific economy but how is it an eternal connection?

 

[Cider]

Hey Dzheremi, who’s saying the Holy Spirit is not a person? If the Son is begotten by the Father, why can’t the Spirit proceed (or be begotten in turn) by Father and Son? He is the person of their mutual love, just as a child is the person of the mutual love of husband and wife.

Sure, it’s a connection in the salvific economy but how is it an eternal connection?

Where is the Catholic teaching source for your claim that the holy spirit is the person of the father and sons mutual love? I don’t remember seeing that in the CCC for example? I’d like to look this source up and read it for myself.

 

[jonathan_hili]

Where is the Catholic teaching source for your claim that the holy spirit is the person of the father and sons mutual love? I don’t remember seeing that in the CCC for example? I’d like to look this source up and read it for myself.

It’s not an official teaching of the Church. What is an official teaching is that the Spirit proceeds from both Father and Son. The question is - why? Well, if God is love and the Father generates the Son out of love, it makes sense that the Spirit is likewise generated out of love.

 

[ComeHome2Rome]

This argument takes away the eternal nature of the Holy Spirit, and consequently the Holy Trinity, because in order for the Holy Spirit to exist, the Father & the Son had to exist first and through their mutual love for each other another Person proceeded from them.

The Holy Spirit inspired the Holy Ecumenical Councils which gave us & confirmed the Creed- why mess with what is Not broken, but remember if you decided to call it broken, remember the Creed was provided by the very Holy Spirit we’re discussing through the holy Bishops who attended those Ecumenical Councils. The Ecumenical Councils themselves inspired by the Holy Spirit brought down Anathema against Anyone who added to the Creed. Those Anathema have Never been lifted & can’t be lifted by the very nature of how they came into being.

Hi all, this is a question specifically for our Orthodox brethren.

Something about the filioque struck me today. I understand that the Western Church developed the Creed to include the filioque, foreign to the unchanged Creed in the East, where the Holy Spirit proceeds “from the Father”.

Some have argued that the filioque is not very different from what the East have because we can say that the Spirit proceeds “from the Father through the Son”. However, I think this misses the idea of what is going on here, and what is - at least I believe - the genius of the filioque.

And it’s this: the Holy Spirit proceeds “from the Father and from the Son” because of who the Holy Spirit is, namely, the divine love en-personed. As the Father loves the Son and the Son loves the Father, their love - like the love of a husband and wife - begets the Third Person of the Holy Trinity, the Spirit. If the Spirit proceeds only “from the Father”, how is He a consequence of the mutual love of Father and Son. Doesn’t this rather suggest a separation of Father/Spirit and Son?

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

(Okay, this editing is not working. In the first illustration, imagine a vertical line connecting Father and Spirit, but not the Son and Spirit; in the second, imagine diagonal lines from both Father and Son connecting to Spirit.)

Any ideas?

God bless.

Jonathan

 

[ComeHome2Rome]

It’s not an official teaching of the Church. What is an official teaching is that the Spirit proceeds from both Father and Son. The question is - why? Well, if God is love and the Father generates the Son out of love, it makes sense that the Spirit is likewise generated out of love.

Then according to your words, the Catholic Church falls under the repeated anathema by from the 2nd Ecumenical Council on. That’s a very serious matter. Read the canons of the seven Ecumenical Councils.

 

[jonathan_hili]

This argument takes away the eternal nature of the Holy Spirit, and consequently the Holy Trinity, because in order for the Holy Spirit to exist, the Father & the Son had to exist first and through their mutual love for each other another Person proceeded from them.

The Holy Spirit inspired the Holy Ecumenical Councils which gave us & confirmed the Creed- why mess with what is Not broken, but remember if you decided to call it broken, remember the Creed was provided by the very Holy Spirit we’re discussing through the holy Bishops who attended those Ecumenical Councils. The Ecumenical Councils themselves inspired by the Holy Spirit brought down Anathema against Anyone who added to the Creed. Those Anathema have Never been lifted & can’t be lifted by the very nature of how they came into being.

No, it doesn’t because the begetting and proceeding are eternal: the order is only logical, not metaphysical. I mean, you could make the same accusation against the Father begetting the Son.

Ummm I’m agreeing with the Creed - it says the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son.

 

[jonathan_hili]

Oh, you’re talking about the Creed before the filioque was added.

Fair enough.

However, the problem remains for the begetting of the Son, and how He can be related to the Spirit in this model.