RC Church becoming more Eastern?

[mardukm]

Dear brother Michael,

You have tried to pull this dissembling before in the non-Catholic section, and it didn’t work then either.

The Holy Spirit being con-substantial is not the issue here, it is the monarchy of the father that is the issue.

Oh, you mean the discussion I had with brother Ryan Black? Our disagreement was on whether or not the phrase in question was meant to primarily refer to the consubstantiality of the Spirit, or to primarily refer to the origin of the Spirit. However, we both agreed that
(1) It was a novelty for Patriarch St. Photius to accuse the Latins of denying the monarchy of the Father; and
(2) It was NEVER the intention of the Second Ecumenical Council to add “proceeds from the Father…” to teach about the monarchy of the Father, which no one, not even heretics, denied.

Your position is a relative novelty.

Thanks for admitting that.

Sure. The Catholic Encyclopedia isn’t infallible. But the teachings of those Councils are infallible (never mind their Ecumenical status), and Catholics should be affirming the teachings of those Councils, not some opinion from an Encyclopedia.

It didn’t look like a big mistake at the time because that is what it [filioque] actually says,

That’s just EO uniatism, brother.

and that was how Roman Catholics thought of it. The proof is that the article has a Nihil Obstat from an official Roman Catholic church censor named Remy Lafort S.T.D. (doctor of Sacred Theology) and an Imprimatur (“let it be printed”) from the Cardinal Archbishop of New York. It forms part of the Ordinary Magisterium of the church for that time.

Well, no one would let you get away with that sloppy rhetoric in the Apologetics section, and you certainly won’t get away with that sloppy rhetoric here in the ECF, since we all know that Nihil Obstats and Imprimaturs are Latin symbols. Informed Latins know that those symbols are not meant to signify infallibility in ANY way, much less will you persuade anyone here, where those symbols don’t even have relevance.

I dare say if we wait around a while we will still see some Roman Catholics come here to CAF and argue for the double-procession of the Holy Spirit. It happens every so often. The mistake is so deeply ingrained in the Roman Catholic populace we may never see an end of it.

And you can be rest assured that if I see it, I will oppose it and attempt to correct it, as I’m sure my fellow Eastern and Oriental Catholics are also willing to do, and I have no doubt MANY informed Latin Catholics are also willing to do.

I would have no objection to the concept of filioque as meaning proceeding THROUGH the Son (it would be proper, although it does not belong in the creed), but the filique does not say that. It actually says the Holy Spirit has two sources

If you insist on employing EO uniatism on the issue, yes, that would be the case. But if you seek to actually try to understand what procedit means, instead of trying to impose ekporeusai onto the Latin paradigm, then we could get somewhere.

although the modern Roman Catholic church agrees that is not what the church means any more (if ever).

Thank you.

So it needs to be reworded.

No. The Latin Creed is perfectly fine the way it is. It is the EO who made the mistake of using the word “proceeds” in the English translation of its own Creed.

Then of course, if it was reworded it wouldn’t be the filioque any more would it? *It would be something else *in Latin, and it would look like the Roman Catholic church had reversed itself. The Papacy could never admit that, or give the impression that it had changed it’s position, so it does nothing and lets this poorly worded theological opinion stand as a dogma which must be believed by all (even if they don’t really understand what it really says ) because of the church’s own pride.

Or maybe, it is the EO who need to fess up that they made the mistake of using “proceeds” in its English translation. Or is it EO pride that is getting in the way of that change?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[dvdjs]

The terminology of “double procession” has been discussed many, many times here - of course no one learns a thing, we just repeat our postures.

I suppose one could call that terminology unfortunate: since the EO can’t seem to admit the difference between origination and procession, they would likely try to confuse double procession with double origin, or source, or principle even those these latter ideas are in opposition to the teaching of the Catholic church.

The truth is that - human ingenuity and disingenuity being what it is - there is probably no formulation of words to describe the Trinity that cannot be twisted.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother dvdjs,

The truth is that - human ingenuity and disingenuity being what it is - there is probably no formulation of words to describe the Trinity that cannot be twisted.

That is true. An example that turns the tables is the normal Eastern language of “the Energy IS God” or “the Essence IS God.” Both Latins and Orientals have been known to interpret that to mean that the East teaches some sort of Pentarchy of the Godhead (I admittedly used to think that way, as well). One can very well ask, “Why does the East use this language that can so easily be misinterpreted in an heretical sense? Why don’t they just get rid of it altogether?” Sure, the East has a valid explanation. But if the EO are not willing to understand the Latin teaching on the filioque on the Latin’s own terms, what right do they have to insist that non-EO understand their Essence/Energy theology/terminology on the East’s own terms? (I know that is your theology as well, brother dvdjs, but I know you don’t have the same log in the eye on the matter as some of our EO brethren do.)

And yes, I admit I could be accused of the same with my adamant attitude regarding removal of “double procession” from the language of the Latins, but at least I understand that their use of “double procession” does not actually mean “double source” or somesuch, and I’m not accusing the Latins of any heresy.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I’m getting a headache! Energies, processions, states of being…I’m exhausted!

 

[Dave_in_Dallas]

Mardukm,
thank you for your posts – they are very enlightening!

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

If only the pope had consulted the bishops in the East in a council requesting the wording you have here below, Michael, and would’ve been less unilaterial and quick to add to an ancient creed, we might not have had a schism…

I would have no objection to the concept of filioque as meaning proceeding THROUGH the Son (it would be proper, although it does not belong in the creed), but the filique does not say that. It actually says the Holy Spirit has two sources, although the modern Roman Catholic church agrees that is not what the church means any more (if ever). So it needs to be reworded.

 

[Dave_in_Dallas]

If only the pope had consulted the bishops in the East in a council requesting the wording you have here below, Michael, and would’ve been less unilaterial and quick to add to an ancient creed, we might not have had a schism…

Would I be out of line if when I attended a RC Mass I said “through” while reciting the creed – would that cause scandal?

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I doubt it. Nobody is probably listening to you anyway… People can get pretty zoned out at Mass! I can see it all now, Dave. Pretty soon you’re gonna be crossing yourself right to left and growing a long beard and standing through the entire Mass, never sitting down!

Would I be out of line if when I attended a RC Mass I said “through” while reciting the creed – would that cause scandal?

 

[Dave_in_Dallas]

I doubt it. Nobody is probably listening to you anyway… People can get pretty zoned out at Mass! I can see it all now, Dave. Pretty soon you’re gonna be crossing yourself right to left and growing a long beard and standing through the entire Mass, never sitting down!

Funny enough – when in social situations I prefer standing up – I prefer to stand when talking on the phone – I’m better able to think when I am standing or moving… LOL!
Also I was one of the first embrace the goatee / beard look when it came back into style 15 or so years ago… lol.

I occassionaly use the 3-finger cross… I remember doing the 2-finger I think it was when I was a kid before they switched to the 5 finger…

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Sounds to me like we need start calling you St. Maximos in Dallas!

Funny enough – when in social situations I prefer standing up – I prefer to stand when talking on the phone – I’m better able to think when I am standing or moving… LOL!
Also I was one of the first embrace the goatee / beard look when it came back into style 15 or so years ago… lol.

I occassionaly use the 3-finger cross… I remember doing the 2-finger I think it was when I was a kid before they switched to the 5 finger…

 

[Dave_in_Dallas]

Sounds to me like we need start calling you St. Maximos in Dallas!

I am definitely no Saint…LOL

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I hear ya bro…same here:blush:

I am definitely no Saint…LOL

 

[Vico]

Dear brother dvdjs,

That is true. An example that turns the tables is the normal Eastern language of “the Energy IS God” or “the Essence IS God.” Both Latins and Orientals have been known to interpret that to mean that the East teaches some sort of Pentarchy of the Godhead (I admittedly used to think that way, as well). One can very well ask, “Why does the East use this language that can so easily be misinterpreted in an heretical sense? Why don’t they just get rid of it altogether?” Sure, the East has a valid explanation. But if the EO are not willing to understand the Latin teaching on the filioque on the Latin’s own terms, what right do they have to insist that non-EO understand their Essence/Energy theology/terminology on the East’s own terms? (I know that is your theology as well, brother dvdjs, but I know you don’t have the same log in the eye on the matter as some of our EO brethren do.)

And yes, I admit I could be accused of the same with my adamant attitude regarding removal of “double procession” from the language of the Latins, but at least I understand that their use of “double procession” does not actually mean “double source” or somesuch, and I’m not accusing the Latins of any heresy.

Blessings,
Marduk

The problem being that if proceession ‘through the Son’ is in a temporal sense only, (i.e., energies and not essence), then the procession is not of the eternal Sonship of God but an adoption, like in Arianism.

Gregory Palamas says that there is an eternal Personal connection between the Son and the Spirit which effects the Spirit’s Personal identity.
“The Spirit of the most high Word is like an ineffable Love of the Father for this Word ineffably generated. A Love which this same Word and beloved Son of the Father entertains (chretai) towards the Father: but insofar as He (the Son) has the Spirit coming with Him (sunproelthonta) from the Father and reposing connaturally in Him”
– Gregory Palamas (Capita physica XXXVI, PG 150, 1144, D-1145 A).

 

[Formosus]

Vico, the energies are not just in a temporal sense. Some of God’s actions (energies) are temporal and others are eternal. In Palamas’ theology, the Spirit is manifested through the Son eternally, but it is by means of mission and not the Spirit’s hypostasis. Sorry for not being more clear on the matter but I’m writing this from my phone…

 

[Vico]

Vico, the energies are not just in a temporal sense. Some of God’s actions (energies) are temporal and others are eternal. In Palamas’ theology, the Spirit is manifested through the Son eternally, but it is by means of mission and not the Spirit’s hypostasis. Sorry for not being more clear on the matter but I’m writing this from my phone…

That particular sending of the Holy Spirit is temporal mission. The uncreated energies are non-temporal and are the procession with regard to the consubstantial (see Cyril of Alexandria, Maximus the Confessor, Gregory Palamas, others). And the Light of Tabor which man can participate is the supernatural uncreated energy.

 

[Formosus]

Did you even read what I wrote? Gregory viewed the Spirit’s mission as not just temporal, but also eternal and it is in that sense he thought the Spirit proceeded through the Son, but he absolutely was against the idea that the Spirit’s hypostasis proceeded in that manner.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Formosus,

Did you even read what I wrote? Gregory viewed the Spirit’s mission as not just temporal, but also eternal and it is in that sense he thought the Spirit proceeded through the Son, but he absolutely was against the idea that the Spirit’s hypostasis proceeded in that manner.

I believe brother Vico’s point was indeed slightly different from yours.

You identified the eternal aspect of the procession as it relates to the Son with only the mission of the Holy Spirit, and rightly distinguishing it from the procession of hypostasis.

In distinction, brother Vico identified the eternal aspect of the procession as it relates to the Son with, more generally, the Energy of the Holy Spriit, also rightly distinguishing it from the procession of hypostasis.

From my own reading of St. Palamas, and I admittedly read him last a few years ago, both of your positions are basically correct.

St. Palamas taught the principle of the eternal energetic procession from (the Father and or through) the Son, to be rightly distinguished from the eternal hypostatic procession from the Father alone.

You are correct insofar as the energy (which eternally proceeds from the Father and the Son) manifests itself as missio in the termporal. This would be equivalent to saying an “eternal missio.” I believe brother Vico’s presentation was focused more on the eternal energetic procession itself, distinct (though not separate) from the missio.

You are both correct, IMHO.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Does anyone need help relating St. Palamas’ distinction between eternal energetic procession and eternal hypostatic procession to a possible resolution of the filioque issue with the Latins?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Dave_in_Dallas]

Does anyone need help relating St. Palamas’ distinction between eternal energetic procession and eternal hypostatic procession to a possible resolution of the filioque issue with the Latins?

Blessings,
Marduk

yes… I’m not sure I understand what you are saying… (I’m a cradle Latin and thus am not entirely familiar St Palamas

 

[Formosus]

I apologize for my tone in my last post. I was a bit worn out from work and I came off fairly rude. I’ll try and get around to rummaging through my thesis and my notes to provide proper quotations for my position.