Since the Eastern Orthodox Church is said to have valid Holy Orders, doesn't that indirectly mean that they have a valid Eucharist?

[Madaglan]

Madaglan said:

I don’t think your analogy is appropriate. Equating the procession of the Holy Spirit to an incorrect theory of dual parenthood of Christ is just incorrect. By example, think of it this way: Bill owns a book which he gives to John, who in turn, gives it to Mike. Although the originator of the ultimate transfer of the book is Bill, the process includes John as the conduit to Mike. Thus, while John is not the originator of the transaction, he is nevertheless intimately involved in the transfer of the Book to Mike. In that sense, the book proceeds to Mike from Bill and John. It would likewise be appropriate to say that the book came to Mike from Bill through John. There is no difference.

Procession is one way of origination in the Godhead. Another way of origination in the Godhead is generation. If you write that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, what should prevent you likewise from asserting that the Son is eternally begotten by the Father and the Holy Spirit? In fact, it would be logically consistent to argue for this, lest you risk making the Spirit inferior to the Father and the Son by virtue of not giving the Spirit the quality of origination, of making him simply caused and not a cause in the Trinity (as would be the other two persons in the Trinity). .

My illustration may not have been the best, but what I was trying to show is that origination and procession cannot be distinguished apart from each other that easily. Procession is one way of origination in the Godhead, just as generation is another way of origination in the Godhead.

Your analogy is difficult because what is given by the Father is not something extrinsic (like a book) but personal existence, and divinity, which is held common by all three persons of the Trinity, and of which the Father is the source.

In philosophical and theological language, principle translates into cause. Lyons does well in declaiming two principles or two causes in the Trinity, However, the proceeds from the Father and Son…as from one principle clause is still problematic. Causation is a personal quality that subsists in a hypostasis. In interpreting this clause of Lyons you can take it in, so far as I can tell, two ways: 1) the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father as a primary cause or principle and the Son as a secondary cause or principle; 2) the Holy Spirit proceeds not from a single person, a single hypostatic principle, but from that which is common to the Father and the Son and which becomes a principle or cause of its own: the common divine essence. In case one, you still have two principles or causes in the Godhead, the Spirit being simply caused. In case two, there is the problem of the Holy Spirit not having its source in a single hypostasis of the Trinity. The Spirit is neither directly caused by the Father or the Son, but by the principle of commonality between the Father and the Son–the divine essence. The Holy Spirit needs hypostatic existence; it needs to proceed from a hypostasis. It therefore must needs proceed from itself or from a fourth member of the Trinity.

Many Orthodox are willing to allow procession per or through the Son, but this still tends towards two principles in the Godhead.

 

[Jean_Anthony]

This thread is closed. Thank you all.