|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Filioque - thoughts on validity?
|
Manx Taffy
Shipmate
# 301
|
Posted
This has probably been done to death but I am interested in real thoughts on whether people think it is more accurate for this to be in the creed or not.
From my point of view it makes sense for the wording to say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father AND the Son. I think this for two reasons;
1. It is in line with how I understand the trinity as three persons in one,in some way equal and indivisible.To think of the Holy Spirit proceeding from only the Father means that the trinity does not posess those characteristics - it makes it too complicated for me to understand (this doesn't mean its not right though.)
2. I am convinced by the arguement, put forward by the Roman Catholic Church that there is sufficient instances in scripture refering to the Holy Spirit as being the "spirit of Christ" or something similar to add weight to the arguments that this what the Apostles would have thought.
I am interested in what conclusions other people have on this matter (if any) and the reasons for their conclusions, other than just "its what my Church believes".
This is not intended to an East v West battle or an arguement about whether historically the filioque was added or removed sometime after the Council of Nicea!
Thoughts?
[fixed typo in thread title]
[ 06. April 2006, 09:21: Message edited by: Duo Seraphim ]
Posts: 397 | From: Isle of Man | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Manx Taffy:
This is not intended to an East v West battle or an arguement about whether historically the filioque was added or removed sometime after the Council of Nicea!
It is unfortunately impossible to discuss the validity of the Filioque without talking about when and why it was added.
The Nicene Creed was an ecumenical council. Therefore, according to the Eastern understanding of authority within the Church, it could only be altered by another ecumenical council. According to the Western understanding of authority within the Church, it could be altered by, or with the consent of, the Patriarch of Rome.
Whether the filioque is valid, then, depends on whose ecclesiology is correct. If the Pope could legitimately authorize the change, then we Orthodox are in schism, need to repent, and need to catch up on all the stuff we've missed over the last thousand years or so. If only another ecumenical council could authorize the change, then the Catholics are in schism, they need to repent, etc.
Naturally, I believe the Pope was wrong, the change was invalid, and it represents an incorrect understanding of the Holy Trinity. But then, I would say that, since I'm Orthodox.
--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!
Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Foaming Draught
The Low in Low Church
# 9134
|
Posted
I've not been around long enough to know whether this is a Dead Horse or not.
John's gospel chapter 14 is quite clear. Anyone who has Tallis' beautiful anthem for Whitsunday going round in their head as I do now will know that Jesus asked the Father (verse 16) to send the Counsellor, and that Jesus believed (verse 26) that the Father would respond to the Son's prayer by sending the Spirit.
So it's "Proceedeth from the Father" for me.
--------------------
Australians all let us ring Joyce
For she is young and free
Posts: 8661 | From: Et in Australia Ego | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by josephine:
Whether the filioque is valid, then, depends on whose ecclesiology is correct. If the Pope could legitimately authorize the change, then we Orthodox are in schism, need to repent, and need to catch up on all the stuff we've missed over the last thousand years or so. If only another ecumenical council could authorize the change, then the Catholics are in schism, they need to repent, etc.
All this is unfortunately wrong. The schism of the Orthodox consists in disobeying the pope. If one is so inclined, one could consider this itself as heretical (denying the doctrine of the primacy of the pope). The filioque has contributed to that disobedience, sure, and was long trumped up as a heresy. But only the fanatics on both sides still regard the persisting difference in theological opinion on the filioque itself as outright heresy. That the Orthodox should catch up with lots of stuff that has happened in the Western Church is hence related to the papal power schism, not to the filioque per se. As for the filioque itself, its "validity" has utterly nothing to do with ecclesiology. Rather, the filioque's "liceity" is decided by that. Depending on who got the ecclesiology right, it was either "licit" or not to add the filioque to the creed. But whether it is "valid" simply depends on whether it is a Divine Truth.
And so the important question here is not at all whether the pope was allowed to add this or not. The important question is whether it is true. For let's say the filioque is true, but it was not licit for the pope to add it to the creed. What then? Well, clearly it would be in both sides' best interest to rapidly find ways to make the addition licit - who would want to deny such an important doctrine if it is true? But what if the filioque is wrong, but it was licit for the pope to add it to the creed (licit only in the sense that he indeed has on his own the ecclesiastical power to change the creed)? Clearly it would be in the best interest of both sides to remove such an important error as quickly as possible.
I'm not saying, of course, that the question of the powers of the pope is unimportant. To the contrary, I'm saying that this is the issue in this schism. Whereas the filioque is not. The filioque is a doctrine which is either true or not. If it is true, it should be in the creed. If not, it shouldn't be. If it's true, but could be better expressed, it should be in there modified (my favorite compromise option). If it is true, but not deemed important enough to impede communion, it should be optional (a more likely compromise). Whatever may be the case concerning that, as soon as the schism concerning papal power is removed, the filioque can be dealt with accordingly. But agreement on the filioque, even if obtained, would only remove an obstacle but not heal the schism.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
FreeJack
Shipmate
# 10612
|
Posted
An excellent response, IngoB.
Very helpful to me as an onlooker.
Posts: 3588 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Please read this ...
Filioque
Who is it exactly that has marginalised the Holy Spirit and Trinitarian doctrine ... the west or the east?
[ 04. February 2006, 08:13: Message edited by: Father Gregory ]
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by josephine:
It is unfortunately impossible to discuss the validity of the Filioque without talking about when and why it was added.
Unfortunately, this is true. Though there is plenty of room to discuss our understanding of the Holy Spirit and his relationship with the rest of the Godhead, putting that discussion within the context of the filioque brings in an awful lot of unhelpful historical baggage. In an ideal world, one in which the Church hadn't parted company I expect that at some point after 381 an Ecumenical Council would have debated the nature of the Spirit in more detail, and probably significantly expanded the relevant section of the Creed to include that better shared understanding - including, perhaps, more on the relationship between the Spirit and the Church which is pretty much absent from the Creed. Who's to know whether, at that point, such a Council would have concluded that the Spirit proceeds from both Father and Son? Personally, I can see value in the arguments from both sides.
As I see it, the Nicene Creed (the original one, without the filioque) doesn't rule out the Spirit proceeding from Father and Son. Whereas the filioque does rule out the Spirit proceeding from just the Father. That, in itself is enough for me to wish to omit the phrase from the Creed - it divides Christians over an issue that the Church hasn't reached a consensus.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
The council of Nicea defined the cause of the Spirit's existence accurately.
I would like to point you to the Pope's praying the Creed in ancient Greek, when he omits the filioque clause, and to the papal document where it is written that in Greek, the verb apostle John uses (the one you translate as proceed), the same verb the Creed of Nicea uses, cannot be used for two sources, but only for one. The Pope has already admitted that the Spirit ekporevetai from the father alone, i.e. He has His being from the Father alone.
So, we have the Pope saying that his "proceed" is different from the Greek ekporevetai. Now, whether this is historically consistent, i.e. if the Roman Church at the time She fell in heresy believed the same thing the Pope now days accepts as true, remains to be seen.
Alan, the Church made most of Her councils after the date you talk about. Plus, the very verb used makes it impossible for a "filioque" to be added in the original Creed.
[ 04. February 2006, 09:28: Message edited by: andreas1984 ]
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Custard
Shipmate
# 5402
|
Posted
I also tend to avoid the filioque, preferring "who proceeds from the Father through the Son".
Oh, and I'm quite happy to declare that
quote:
The visible church of Christ is a congregation of believers in which the pure Word of God is preached and in which the sacraments are rightly administered according to Christ's command in all those matters that are necessary for proper administration. As the churches of Jerusalem, Alexandria, and Antioch have erred, so also the church of Rome has erred, not only in their practice and forms of worship but also in matters of faith.
[ 04. February 2006, 09:29: Message edited by: Custard. ]
--------------------
blog
Adam's likeness, Lord, efface;
Stamp thine image in its place.
Posts: 4523 | From: Snot's Place | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
R.A.M.
Shipmate
# 7390
|
Posted
Can I ask a genuine question? I know very little about this issue but would like to know how our understanding of the Holy Spirit effects our relationship with it and with God-as-a-whole. Please stamp on me if this is likely to be too much of a tangent.
--------------------
Formerly Real Ale Methodist
Back after prolonged absence...
Posts: 1584 | From: (Sunshine on) Leith | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
The way I see it all divine teachings have implications for the Christian's life. The things we call "dogmas" are expressions of the experience of the Church throughout the centuries. Therefore it has implications.
Now, on the implications of the filioque. I have not thought about it in depth, but I think it is important for us being monotheists. There can be no monotheism if there are two causes in the Trinity.
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Manx Taffy:
2. I am convinced by the arguement, put forward by the Roman Catholic Church that there is sufficient instances in scripture refering to the Holy Spirit as being the "spirit of Christ" or something similar to add weight to the arguments that this what the Apostles would have thought.
To me, this is the only issue. What are those passages?
It seems that there are quite a few instances in Scripture that raise these kinds of questions.
For example the Holy Spirit is said to be sent in the name of Jesus:
quote:
John 14.25 “These things I have spoken to you while being present with you. 26 But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things that I said to you."
To be sent "in Jesus' name" means that He speaks what Jesus speaks, or even that He is Jesus.
Other places clarify that the Holy Spirit speaks what He hears from Jesus:
quote:
John 16.13 When He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth; for He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears He will speak; and He will tell you things to come. 14 He will glorify Me, for He will take of what is Mine and declare it to you. 15 All things that the Father has are Mine. Therefore I said that He will take of Mine and declare it to you.
It seems as though the Father gives it to the Son and the Son gives it to the Holy Spirit.
Other places seem to say that Jesus sends the Holy Spirit from the Father:
quote:
John 15.26 “But when the Helper comes, whom I shall send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify of Me. 27 And you also will bear witness, because you have been with Me from the beginning.
John 16.7 Nevertheless I tell you the truth. It is to your advantage that I go away; for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you; but if I depart, I will send Him to you.
John 20.21 So Jesus said to them again, “Peace to you! As the Father has sent Me, I also send you.” 22 And when He had said this, He breathed on them, and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit.”
After His resurrection, especially, Jesus seems to be the one giving the Holy Spirit. This would fit with John 7
quote:
John 7.37 “If anyone thirsts, let him come to Me and drink. 38 He who believes in Me, as the Scripture has said, out of his heart will flow rivers of living water.” 39 But this He spoke concerning the Spirit, whom those believing in Him would receive; for the Holy Spirit was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet glorified.
The Holy Spirit was in some sense dependent on Jesus' glorification.
Both Jesus and the Holy Spirit “abide with us forever” or “to the end of the age.”
quote:
John 14.16 I will pray the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may abide with you forever— 17 the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees Him nor knows Him; but you know Him, for He dwells with you and will be in you. 18 I will not leave you orphans; I will come to you.
Matthew 28.20 “Lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.”
The sense in which Jesus is "with us always" is apparently similar to the sense in which the Holy Spirit "dwells with" and "in" us.
These passages seem to me to justify the Filioque. It seems to me that they do more than this, since they closely identify Jesus and the Holy Spirit. In any case they don't leave much room for the idea that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father only, with the Son being uninvolved.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
Freddy, neither the Orthodox nor the Roman Catholics think that the term "proceed" has anything to do with "being sent"! No more than "begotten of the Father" implies Jesus's human birth.
[ 04. February 2006, 10:37: Message edited by: andreas1984 ]
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
daisymay
St Elmo's Fire
# 1480
|
Posted
I understand the Trinity as wholly, totally, interactive, and equal, and therefore it would be inaccurate to imply that One was sent only by Another...
... but in the Bible there are bits telling us what Individuals within the Trinity did and so it makes sense that some theologians go for "Filioque" and others don't.
But it doesn't really seem to be a vitally essential doctrine to fight each other over....
--------------------
London
Flickr fotos
Posts: 11224 | From: London - originally Dundee, Blairgowrie etc... | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
Freddy, neither the Orthodox nor the Roman Catholics think that the term "proceed" has anything to do with "being sent"! No more than "begotten of the Father" implies Jesus's human birth.
So then the two relevant passages are these?
quote:
John 8:42 Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love Me, for I proceeded forth and came from God; nor have I come of Myself, but He sent Me."
John 15:26 “But when the Helper comes, whom I shall send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify of Me."
Both Jesus and the Holy Spirit "proceed" from the Father.
What is the relevance, then, of who "sends" the Holy Spirit? Or, for that matter, of whether Jesus *is* the Holy Spirit?
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
"ενεργεί", "αυτουργεί", "συνεργεί" are the three verbs used in ancient Orthodoxy. When Jesus became man, God acted, Christ acted Himself and about Himself, God's Spirit co-acted. I'm not sure if I communicate the Orthodox experience in a right way. Perhaps a native English speaker can be of more help. The Spirit is sent by the Father, the Spirit is sent also by the Son, the Spirit is sent by Himself also. I hope this helps.
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Both Jesus and the Holy Spirit "proceed" from the Father.
What is the relevance, then, of who "sends" the Holy Spirit? Or, for that matter, of whether Jesus *is* the Holy Spirit?
No, this is not accurate. The original ancient Greek text does not use the same word for the Spirit proceeding from the father alone and the Spirit and Jesus being sent by God. In the text you quote the verb "sent" is used, not "ekporevetai"!
All three of them send the Spirit to mankind. But only the Father gives existence to the Spirit, which is what "ekporevetai" means.
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Manx Taffy
Shipmate
# 301
|
Posted
Freddy I agree, though in some of those passages I can see how it could be said that the Spirit is proceeding from Father at the will of the Son. Then you're into semantics as tohow you interpret those.
Other texts that add weight to the validity of the filioque are;
Romans 8:9 where the "Spirit of God" and the "Spirit of the Son" appear tomeanone and the same thing.
Galatians 4:6 which seems to describe the Spirit as "the Spirit of His Son"
I did say I wanted to avoid the historic arguements about how the filioque got there, but I also understand how to a certain extent to both Orthodox and Roman Catholics the authority behind why it is there defines in some way the truth of it.
But I am trying to understand other reason why people think it is true or not.
WHile there isnot consensus on the matter I can see the mileage in saying the exact relationship of the persons of the trinity is a mystery on is currently no consensus andlooking to heal wounds on the matter. But then perhaps the real underlying issue of authority would quickly arise in other areas unless a consensus, yes even a compromise, on that can be reached.
Posts: 397 | From: Isle of Man | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
I think that many people confuse economy (i.e. the way God acts in human history) and the cause of each of the Trinity's persons (i.e. something that is outside history and does not have to do with the way the Trinity interacts with man, although it has to do with the fact that the Trinity interacts with man).
So, the Spirit inside history is sent by the Son (to be more accurate, He is sent by all three of them, the Father, the Son and Himself) and points to the Son, who, in turn, is sent by the Father (again: by all three of them) and points to the Father.
Therefore we talk about the Son's Spirit, but we never say that the Spirit ekporevetai from the Son.
The Father exists with no cause for His existence, and He gives existence to His Son and His Spirit. This is why we call Him Father and Lamp. The Son exists because of the Father. The same applies for the Spirit. If we can say that the Spirit exists because of both the Father and the Son, why not say that the Son exists because of both the Lamp aka Father and the Spirit?
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
The truth of the filioque is arrived at with ease, both from a philosophical and a spiritual point of view. The philosophical argument simply points out that a triangle requires three sides between its three corners. If two of the points are instead "on top of each other", i.e., indistinguishable, then there's only one side between two points. Since the Trinity is built up only by relations of origin, we need a relation of origin from the Son to the Holy Spirit. Otherwise, the Son and the Holy Spirit become indistinguishable and the Trinity collapses into a Duality. The Orthodox never seem to get this argument, and typically respond with a "distinction by jobs". But of course we know that this doesn't even work in our world: my gardner can also be my driver, without thereby becoming two distinct persons.
But the spiritual argument is even more compelling. Since the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of God - Love Personified - to state that the Holy Spirit is exclusively from the Father means plain and simply that in all eternity only the Father loves the Son, but the Son does not love the Father. Which is crazy. Or at least one would have to assert that only the love of the Father personifies as Holy Spirit, whereas the love of the Son does not. That means the Son is a lesser God, which is plainly heretic. Or finally one may attempt to say that the Son does love the Father, but only as a sort of entirely passive relay station for the Father's own Holy Spirit. In this case the Holy Spirit is reduced to mere narcissistic self-love of the Father. Which is sick. Only by assuming that the Father loves the Son and the Son loves the Father, and their unitive mutual love is the Holy Spirit, do we arrive at an idea of a self-sufficient Trinity as eternal communion of love.
So all there really is to be done is to check that our easy to follow logic is compatible with scripture and the teaching of the Early Fathers. Of course it is. Now, there are ecumenical reasons why the RCC is currently bending over backwards to accomodate the Orthodox. If the only effect appears to be that the Orthodox intepret this as a sign of weakness to be exploited by ramping up the apologetics, then this will cease eventually.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
IngoB, stop talking about what the Orthodox think. We do not talk about a distinction of jobs. We are talking about a distinction in the way the three persons of the trinity exist.
Also, stop talking about what the Eastern Fathers thought. You have nothing to do with them. I think that their original texts speak for themselves.
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
As for the Spirit's being Love personified, this introduces polytheism. If the Spirit is Love personified, then the Father is not Love. But this is against what is written that God is love. If the Father is also love, then there is no need to talk about the Spirit the way you do.
It is ignorant to speak of the Spirit as "Love personified" and it misses the point entirely. Love is essential to all three divine persons and it is not the idiom of the Spirit.
[ 04. February 2006, 12:00: Message edited by: andreas1984 ]
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
St. Sebastian
Staggering ever onward
# 312
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Only by assuming that the Father loves the Son and the Son loves the Father, and their unitive mutual love is the Holy Spirit, do we arrive at an idea of a self-sufficient Trinity as eternal communion of love.
IngoB, doesn't that kind of make the Holy Spirit a bit . . . "less-than" the other Two? I'm probably misunderstanding you, but it seems to me to that your explanation lessens the Personhood of the Holy Spirit.
--------------------
St. Seb
In Spite of Everything: Yes.
Posts: 962 | From: Burlington, North Carolina | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by josephine:
Whether the filioque is valid, then, depends on whose ecclesiology is correct. If the Pope could legitimately authorize the change, then we Orthodox are in schism, need to repent, and need to catch up on all the stuff we've missed over the last thousand years or so. If only another ecumenical council could authorize the change, then the Catholics are in schism, they need to repent, etc.
All this is unfortunately wrong. The schism of the Orthodox consists in disobeying the pope. <snip> That the Orthodox should catch up with lots of stuff that has happened in the Western Church is hence related to the papal power schism, not to the filioque per se.
I think that's what I said. If the pope has the authority that he claimed for himself, then we are in schism because of our disobedience, and the filioque is simply one example of that disobedience. If that were the case, we would need to repent of the disobedience, and we would be missing out on important changes subsequent to the schism, changes we'd need to catch up on.
And the same situation would exist, in reverse, if the pope is wrong. Which, of course, I believe he is.
quote:
And so the important question here is not at all whether the pope was allowed to add this or not. The important question is whether it is true.
And that leads us, of course, to the question of how one determines truth in the Church. It's not like chemistry, where you can set up an experiment in a lab and develop an experiment that has an objective result that can be replicated and peer-reviewed.
In the Church, truth is inevitably tied up with authority. If the pope has the authority, given to him by the Most High God, to say, "This is most certainly true," then I would trust that the Holy Spirit would ensure that what he said was most certainly true. If he does not have that authority, then there is no reason to give what he says any particular credence.
[quote]I'm not saying, of course, that the question of the powers of the pope is unimportant. To the contrary, I'm saying that this is the issue in this schism. Whereas the filioque is not. <snip> agreement on the filioque, even if obtained, would only remove an obstacle but not heal the schism. [/qb]
I agree with this entirely, IngoB. I'm sorry if what I said earlier was not clear.
--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!
Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Since the Trinity is built up only by relations of origin, we need a relation of origin from the Son to the Holy Spirit. Otherwise, the Son and the Holy Spirit become indistinguishable and the Trinity collapses into a Duality. The Orthodox never seem to get this argument, and typically respond with a "distinction by jobs".
If that's what you think, IngoB, then you've misunderstood us. The Son and the Spirit are distinguished in that the Son is begotten of the Father and the Spirit proceeds. That distinction has nothing at all to do with their actions, their "jobs," but in their relationships.
quote:
But the spiritual argument is even more compelling. Since the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of God - Love Personified - to state that the Holy Spirit is exclusively from the Father means plain and simply that in all eternity only the Father loves the Son, but the Son does not love the Father. Which is crazy.
Certainly. Which is why we don't believe that.
quote:
Only by assuming that the Father loves the Son and the Son loves the Father, and their unitive mutual love is the Holy Spirit, do we arrive at an idea of a self-sufficient Trinity as eternal communion of love.
This is, from our POV, utter nonsense. It makes the Holy Spirit into nothing more than one of the energies of God, resulting in your having a Duality and not a Trinity.
quote:
So all there really is to be done is to check that our easy to follow logic is compatible with scripture and the teaching of the Early Fathers.
As if easy-to-follow logic and a bit of proof-texting is going to allow you to define the Godhead.
Good luck.
--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!
Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Since the Trinity is built up only by relations of origin, we need a relation of origin from the Son to the Holy Spirit. Otherwise, the Son and the Holy Spirit become indistinguishable and the Trinity collapses into a Duality.
ISTM that rather depends on the principle that there can only be one kind of relation of origin, ie that the Father can't cause the Spirit in a different way from the way in which He causes the Son.
Intuitively this seems sound to me, and I say Filioque, but I'm not convinced it necessarily follows.
[ 04. February 2006, 15:02: Message edited by: Ricardus ]
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
ISTM that rather depends on the principle that there can only be one kind of relation of origin, ie that the Father can't cause the Spirit in a different way from the way in which He causes the Son.
Intuitively this seems sound to me, and I say Filioque, but I'm not convinced it necessarily follows.
The church has taught otherwise. Read Damascene's "exact exposition of the orthodox faith" where he teaches that there is such a difference and that while we cannot comprehend the origination itself, we are to safeguard the distinction. Damascene's work is accepted as authoritative by both the Orthodox and the Roman Catholic Church and is an exposition of the faith of the entire church at the time he lived.
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
ISTM that rather depends on the principle that there can only be one kind of relation of origin, ie that the Father can't cause the Spirit in a different way from the way in which He causes the Son.
This doesn't even work for people. The way I originated my daughter is quite different from the way I originate, say, a work of art. If humans can have (at least) two modes of generating, why can't GOd?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
Andreas,
I think the Roman Catholic view is that
begetting = Son is caused by Father
proceeding = Spirit is caused by Father AND Spirit is caused by Son
which means that begetting and proceeding are different, but only because one is unilateral and the other bilateral. But the word "cause" in both equations refers to the same sort of event.
Whereas the Orthodox view is - correct me if I'm wrong -
begetting = Son is caused by Father
proceeding = Spirit is caused by Father
BUT the word "cause" refers to a different kind of event in the two equations.
Mousethief,
Yes, but the work of art and your daughter have different attributes, so you have to do different things to give them those attributes.
As I say, though, my feeling is only intuitive. I don't really trust it.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
Ricardus, Damascene says that difference exists but we do not know what the difference is. It is written: "tell me what begotten means, and I will tell you what proceed means". Just like we don't know how he begets him, we also don't know how he proceeds from him.
"For the Father alone is ingenerate, no other subsistence having given Him being. And the Son alone is generate, for He was begotten of the Father's essence without beginning and without time. And only the Holy Spirit proceedeth from the Father's essence, not having been generated but simply proceeding. For this is the doctrine of Holy Scripture. But the nature of the generation and the procession is quite beyond comprehension."
and
"But the Son is derived from the Father after the manner of generation, and the Holy Spirit likewise is derived from the Father, yet not after the manner of generation, but after that of procession. And we have learned that there is a difference between generation and procession, but the nature of that difference we in no wise understand. Further, the generation of the Son from the Father and the procession of the Holy Spirit are simultaneous."(book I)
[ 04. February 2006, 15:36: Message edited by: andreas1984 ]
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
The son and the spirit have different attribute also. For one thing the son became incarnate and the spirit never did.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
Mousethief, you confuse the way they act in history with the way they are. The Incarnation is not an attribute of the Son. It is something that happened.
Like Damascene teaches: "All then that the Son and the Spirit have is from the Father, even their very being: and unless the Father is, neither the Son nor the Spirit is. And unless the Father possesses a certain attribute, neither the Son nor the Spirit possesses it: and through the Father, that is, because of the Father's existence, the Son and the Spirit exist, and through the Father, that is, because of the Father having the qualities, the Son and the Spirit have all their qualities, those of being unbegotten, and of birth and of procession being excepted. For in these hypostatic or personal properties alone do the three holy subsistences differ from each other, being indivisibly divided not by essence but by the distinguishing mark of their proper and peculiar subsistence."
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
Ricardus, one last quote (I promise! People please don't hate me for quoting) from Damascene.
quote:
The Holy Spirit is one Spirit, going forth from the Father, not in the manner of Sonship but of procession; so that neither has the Father lost His property of being unbegotten because He hath begotten, nor has the Son lost His property of being begotten because He was begotten of that which was unbegotten (for how could that be so?), nor does the Spirit change either into the Father or into the Son because He hath proceeded and is God. For a property is quite constant. For how could a property persist if it were variable, moveable, and could change into something else? For if the Father is the Son, He is not strictly the Father: for there is strictly one Father. And if the Son is the Father, He is not strictly the Son: for there is strictly one Son and one Holy Spirit.
Further, it should be understood that we do not speak of the Father as derived from any one, but we speak of Him as the Father of the Son. And we do not speak of the Son as Cause or Father, but we speak of Him both as from the Father, and as the Son of the Father. And we speak likewise of the Holy Spirit as from the Father, and call Him the Spirit of the Father. And we do not speak of the Spirit as from the Son: s but yet we call Him the Spirit of the Son. For if any one hath not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of His, saith the divine apostle. And we confess that He is manifested and imparted to us through the Son. For He breathed upon His Disciples, says he, and said, Receive ye the Holy Spirit. It is just the same as in the case of the sun from which come both the ray and the radiance (for the sun itself is the source of both the ray and the radiance), and it is through the ray that the radiance is imparted to us, and it is the radiance itself by which we are lightened and in which we participate. Further we do not speak of the Son of the Spirit, or of the Son as derived from the Spirit.
[ 04. February 2006, 15:55: Message edited by: andreas1984 ]
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
andreas, i disagree. I think the incarnation is an essential part of who the Son is. God doesn't do things by accident.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fauja
Lesser known misfit
# 2054
|
Posted
Why not just stick to what the Bible says instead of re-packaging the word of God with creeds and the like?
If the Holy Spirit is in essence, God the Spirit then why quibble about whether the Spirit proceeds from Jesus?
Posts: 829 | From: uk | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fauja:
Why not just stick to what the Bible says instead of re-packaging the word of God with creeds and the like?
Because no two people can agree on what the Bible says to stick to it?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fauja
Lesser known misfit
# 2054
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Fauja:
Why not just stick to what the Bible says instead of re-packaging the word of God with creeds and the like?
Because no two people can agree on what the Bible says to stick to it?
I'm sure we can agree on plenty of what the Bible says. We might vary more in our interpretation of it.
Take John 14:26 (NIV) for example:
quote:
But the Counsellor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.
It is straightfoward enough for me.
Posts: 829 | From: uk | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
The original creed was developed to answer the question: is Jesus a creature, or God? If he's God, how can he be God if there's only one God?
If that's not an important question to answer to you, that's swell, I suppose. It was to the early church; it was tearing the church apart.
We can't just say, "Well I'll believe what the Scriptures teach." Both the Arians and the Trinitarians had their pet passages that "proved" their point of view. The creed answers the question, "which of these two interpretations is the correct one?"
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Scrumpmeister
Ship’s Taverner
# 5638
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fauja:
Why not just stick to what the Bible says instead of re-packaging the word of God with creeds and the like?
Cos that isn't how the Holy Spirit has led Christianity to work. As I said on another thread, the Spirit of Truth was promised to the Church, not to a collection nof writings, however important that collection of writings may be.
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
andreas, i disagree. I think the incarnation is an essential part of who the Son is. God doesn't do things by accident.
Just wanted to respectfully say that I agree with Andreas on this one. I think there's an important distinction between the eternal natures/hypostases of the Persons of the Trinity and the temporal acts of the Persons in relation to creation.
For example, Jesus breathed on the Apostles and said, 'Receive the Holy Spirit'. This was a temporal act in relation to creation and is not evidence that the eternal nature of the Holy Spirit is in procession from the Son.
I'd say the same about the Incarnation - that it was a temporal act in creation and not to be taken as evidence that the quality of being incarnate is part of the eternal nature of the Son.
Just my own thoughts, though.
--------------------
If Christ is not fully human, humankind is not fully saved. - St John of Saint-Denis
Posts: 14741 | From: Greater Manchester, UK | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
We do not talk about a distinction of jobs. We are talking about a distinction in the way the three persons of the trinity exist.
Yep, that's what I meant.
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
Also, stop talking about what the Eastern Fathers thought. You have nothing to do with them. I think that their original texts speak for themselves.
I'm sorry andreas1984, as much as you would like to own the Eastern tradition exclusively, you don't, and as much as you would like your own voice to be the infallible intepretation of their writings, it isn't. And, by the way, you are simply in no position to shut me up. Thank God.
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
As for the Spirit's being Love personified, this introduces polytheism. If the Spirit is Love personified, then the Father is not Love. But this is against what is written that God is love. If the Father is also love, then there is no need to talk about the Spirit the way you do.
And calling the Father the "creative source" is also polytheism? You are of course correct that all God is Love. But from ancient times on it has been custom to attribute features predominantly to one Person of the Trinity, to talk about "a distinction in the way the three persons of the trinity exist." (Now, who said that? Oh yes, you.) That's more an aid to our understanding than reality, but it does indeed aid our understanding. What would you characterise God's Spirit as, hate?
But if you don't like all that in-spir(it)-ing talk about love, I can rephrase all that simply in terms of relations: Given that the begetting of the Son is logically prior to the breathing of the Spirit, how come that the Son - true God from God - is not involved in the breathing? What's the Son doing, twiddling His thumbs waiting for the Father to get on with it? He's true God, not a lesser god. He is logically already begotten. Of course He has an equal share in the breathing, anything else diminishes Him.
quote:
Originally posted by St. Sebastian:
IngoB, doesn't that kind of make the Holy Spirit a bit . . . "less-than" the other Two? I'm probably misunderstanding you, but it seems to me to that your explanation lessens the Personhood of the Holy Spirit.
In what way? In particular, in what way which would not also declare the Son to be "less-than" just because He is the begotten Word? I certainly don't see any "less-than".
quote:
Originally posted by josephine:
If that's what you think, IngoB, then you've misunderstood us. The Son and the Spirit are distinguished in that the Son is begotten of the Father and the Spirit proceeds. That distinction has nothing at all to do with their actions, their "jobs," but in their relationships.
No, Josephine. If it was truly "pure relation of origin" in Orthodoxy, then it would be game over for you and you would have to say the filioque. For immediately my "triangle" argument holds. Your only chance is to "color" the relations of origin, to make those relations themselves different. That's precisely what you are doing by saying that one is "begotten" and the other "proceeds". By using different words, you are attaching a distinction here. But of course it doesn't work. For the Holy Spirit is true God from God, not god created by God. However, the very reason why we say "begotten" for the Son is simply that the Son is true God from God, not god created by God. "Begotten" is used as analogy for true man from man in procreation. Thus your "proceeds" must mean "begotten", thus your Son and your Holy Spirit collapse into one person, thus you believe in a Duality. I know that you don't, but your reasoning is simply faulty.
quote:
Originally posted by josephine:
This is, from our POV, utter nonsense. It makes the Holy Spirit into nothing more than one of the energies of God, resulting in your having a Duality and not a Trinity.
See above. Again I ask, what would you instead "attribute" to the Holy Spirit? What did Jesus give to His disciples, the Spirit of ...?
quote:
Originally posted by Back-to-Front:
For example, Jesus breathed on the Apostles and said, 'Receive the Holy Spirit'. This was a temporal act in relation to creation and is not evidence that the eternal nature of the Holy Spirit is in procession from the Son.
Oh, good. Glad we can put John 14:26 to rest as mere temporal act in relation to creation then as well... ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif) (In other words, bovine excrement.)
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Given that the begetting of the Son is logically prior to the breathing of the Spirit, how come that the Son - true God from God - is not involved in the breathing?
What? Why is the begetting logically prior to the procession? I don't see any logical necessity for one to be before the other; in fact, I think it's absurd to speak of one being before the other, or at the same time, or anything of the sort, since time has no bearing on the Godhead.
quote:
He is logically already begotten. Of course He has an equal share in the breathing, anything else diminishes Him.
Again, this logic of which you speak doesn't seem logical to me.
quote:
Your only chance is to "color" the relations of origin, to make those relations themselves different. That's precisely what you are doing by saying that one is "begotten" and the other "proceeds". By using different words, you are attaching a distinction here.
Yes, in much the same way that I use different words for black and white. As I'm sure you know, using different words to convey different ideas is a fairly normal practice.
quote:
Thus your "proceeds" must mean "begotten", thus your Son and your Holy Spirit collapse into one person, thus you believe in a Duality. I know that you don't, but your reasoning is simply faulty.
No, proceeds doesn't mean begotten. The procession is not the same thing as the begetting. Your saying they are synonymous does not make them so.
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by josephine:
This is, from our POV, utter nonsense. It makes the Holy Spirit into nothing more than one of the energies of God, resulting in your having a Duality and not a Trinity.
See above. Again I ask, what would you instead "attribute" to the Holy Spirit? What did Jesus give to His disciples, the Spirit of ...?
You're not making sense here, IngoB. The Holy Spirit is certainly the Spirit of Love. But that attribute is not unique to the Spirit. I'm afraid I don't understand your point here at all.
[ 04. February 2006, 22:25: Message edited by: josephine ]
--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!
Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
If the 'filioque' is so wonderful why do we have Spirit renewal movements in the western Church throughout the Second Millennium? All these movements speak of putting something back that was missing. Doesn't that tell you something? Moreover why is it that western trinitarian doctrine so often comes over as binitarian with a glancing impersonal reference to the Spirit bonding the Big Two? IngoB, why are you so enamoured with the apologetic that sustains your loyalty?
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by josephine:
What? Why is the begetting logically prior to the procession? I don't see any logical necessity for one to be before the other; in fact, I think it's absurd to speak of one being before the other, or at the same time, or anything of the sort, since time has no bearing on the Godhead.
It's logically prior, not temporally prior. In the same way as the Father is logically prior to the Son, since He is the one who begets the Son, but not temporally prior, since both are eternal. Plenty of Eastern Fathers say that the Spirit comes from the Father through the Son. Obviously, that is impossible if the Son isn't there. He's there prior to the Spirit, not in the temporal sense, but in a logical sense (e.g., if I say A->B->C, then B is logically prior to C, but there need not be time involved).
quote:
Originally posted by josephine:
Again, this logic of which you speak doesn't seem logical to me.
Since the Father is logically prior to the Son, and the Son is logically prior to the Spirit, the Spirit can have two sources: Father and Son. To say it's only one diminishes the other's Divine activity. Since both are true God, they must collaborate equally in this.
quote:
Originally posted by josephine:
Yes, in much the same way that I use different words for black and white. As I'm sure you know, using different words to convey different ideas is a fairly normal practice.
Except that in this case we are talking about God, one in essence, distict as three Persons only due to relations of origin. Hence the only distinction your word labels can possibly carry is one concerning the relation of origin. Thus you must say with the Westerners that the origin of the Spirit is distinct from that of the Son, or you end up collapsing the Spirit and the Son. Simply put, the only meaningful difference between "begetting" and "proceeding" (in the narrow sense of "breathing forth") is precisely that suggested by the filioque: whereas "begetting" means "originates from the Father", "proceeding" means "originates from the Father and the Son".
quote:
Originally posted by josephine:
No, proceeds doesn't mean begotten. The procession is not the same thing as the begetting. Your saying they are synonymous does not make them so.
Indeed, they are not synonyms. But only one way is available for guaranteeing that, if you will maintain the unity in essence and avoid Tritheism.
quote:
Originally posted by josephine:
You're not making sense here, IngoB. The Holy Spirit is certainly the Spirit of Love. But that attribute is not unique to the Spirit. I'm afraid I don't understand your point here at all.
The point was simply that understanding the nature of love means supporting the filioque. That the projection of separate attributes onto the Trinity is not really correct does not really subtract from this spiritual insight. Just as one can usefully argue with the Father as "creative source" in spite of the fact that the Trinity cannot be so split. Under intense scrutiny one can always go back to the defense by philosophical argument, but I thought it important to point out that the filioque can inspire more than just philospophy.
quote:
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
If the 'filioque' is so wonderful why do we have Spirit renewal movements in the western Church throughout the Second Millennium? All these movements speak of putting something back that was missing. Doesn't that tell you something?
Uhh, yeah, that the Holy Spirit is still alive and well and active in His church, which continues to be made up by fallible humans. Your point is?
quote:
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
Moreover why is it that western trinitarian doctrine so often comes over as binitarian with a glancing impersonal reference to the Spirit bonding the Big Two?
Your personal judgement of Western spirituality luckily is not normative. Anyway, this is entirely pointless, mere emotional argueing about individual or even corporate spiritual failures. It cannot in any way touch a discussion of the truth of the doctrine.
quote:
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
IngoB, why are you so enamoured with the apologetic that sustains your loyalty?
Thanks for that question. There I was, happily cruising along, just saying that the filioque isn't the problem anyway. But somebody Orthodox just had to post the usual Orthodox apologetics, which only seeks to separate and exalt itself, never tries to build bridges. And right after, somebody else Orthodox just had to interpret the diplomatic and ecumenical efforts of the Vatican towards the Eastern churches as admission of fault. I should indeed know better than to react to such nonsense...
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
IngoB said that generation is logical prior to spiration. I think that we cannot compare spiration with generation, but if we could, then the opposite of what IngoB said would be correct. Because we cannot think of one having a son without having breathed in his life. First we breathe, and we breathe for many years before we have a son. So, aspiration, or breath, is logically prior to giving birth to a son.
But I say that we cannot compare breath with generation. We can only compare the Word with the Spirit. When the Father speaks, His Word and His Spirit come forth. The Word is not prior to the Spirit. The Spirit does not proceed from the Word; the Breath proceeds from Him that breaths and the Word comes from Him that breaths.
Thus, it is shown that the Spirit proceeds from the Father alone.
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
In the same way as the Father is logically prior to the Son, since He is the one who begets the Son, but not temporally prior, since both are eternal. Plenty of Eastern Fathers say that the Spirit comes from the Father through the Son. Obviously, that is impossible if the Son isn't there. He's there prior to the Spirit, not in the temporal sense, but in a logical sense (e.g., if I say A->B->C, then B is logically prior to C, but there need not be time involved).
I see. Thanks for clarifying. But you're begging the question. The Son is only logically prior to the Spirit if the filioque is true, and that is precisely the assertion that is in question.
quote:
Simply put, the only meaningful difference between "begetting" and "proceeding" (in the narrow sense of "breathing forth") is precisely that suggested by the filioque: whereas "begetting" means "originates from the Father", "proceeding" means "originates from the Father and the Son".
Again, you're begging the question.
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by josephine:
No, proceeds doesn't mean begotten. The procession is not the same thing as the begetting. Your saying they are synonymous does not make them so.
Indeed, they are not synonyms. But only one way is available for guaranteeing that, if you will maintain the unity in essence and avoid Tritheism.
Red and green are not synonyms, but some people, because of a lack of appropriate receptors in their eyes, can't distinguish them directly. Let's say a man learns by rote that the top light on a traffic signal is what is called red, and the bottom one is what is called green. That's good so far. But what of this difference between red and green that he keeps hearing about? Is he to insist that the difference he knows is the only way the two can be distinguished? That if you put them in some other position, the distinction would collapse and they'd be a single color? He can do that, or he can accept on faith that they are, in fact, different, even if he doesn't quite see how.
You might say that we're colorblind, with respect to the Persons of the Godhead. Because we are finite, we can't distinguish them directly. But we have learned, by revelation, that the processing and the begetting are entirely different things, and they describe different relationships, even if we don't quite see how.
The fact that we don't see how doesn't bother me. It apparently bothers you tremendously. But that doesn't change the fact that your stuffing your finger in your ears and saying "they're the same thing if you don't accept the filioque" doesn't make them the same thing.
--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!
Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Scrumpmeister
Ship’s Taverner
# 5638
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Back-to-Front:
For example, Jesus breathed on the Apostles and said, 'Receive the Holy Spirit'. This was a temporal act in relation to creation and is not evidence that the eternal nature of the Holy Spirit is in procession from the Son.
Oh, good. Glad we can put John 14:26 to rest as mere temporal act in relation to creation then as well...
IngoB, I never claimed that the actions of the Persons in relation to creation were merely anything. I was drawing a distinction between the two - temporal acts and eternal nature - not saying that either one of them is of little value. Please don't infuse my words with ideas that just aren't there.
quote:
(In other words, bovine excrement.)
I knew there was a reason I wans't posting to this thread. I suppose it took posting to make me realise what it was.
--------------------
If Christ is not fully human, humankind is not fully saved. - St John of Saint-Denis
Posts: 14741 | From: Greater Manchester, UK | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
Because we cannot think of one having a son without having breathed in his life.
Indeed. But we are not talking about a son, a creature, who needs God's breath to animate it. We are talking about the Son, true God from God. Clearly, the Son does not need to be "animated", or he would be a godlet, a creature.
quote:
Originally posted by josephine:
The Son is only logically prior to the Spirit if the filioque is true, and that is precisely the assertion that is in question.
The Son is logically prior according to the universal witness of the Eastern Fathers. Check all those nice quotations in the Orthodox apologetics Father Gregory posted above, just one example: By nature the Holy Spirit in his being takes substantially his origin from the Father through the Son who is begotten. (Saint Maximus the Confessor, Questions to Thalassium, 63) The Holy Spirit takes his origin from the Father (who obviously then is logically prior) through the Son (who obviously then also is logically prior). We can track this opinion back to scripture, of course, if you wish.
quote:
Originally posted by josephine:
The fact that we don't see how doesn't bother me. It apparently bothers you tremendously. But that doesn't change the fact that your stuffing your finger in your ears and saying "they're the same thing if you don't accept the filioque" doesn't make them the same thing.
No, josephine. We also know that there is only one God. That tremendously restricts our options. If we allow any sort of "accidents" in the Persons, and the "red" and "green" of your traffics lights are just that, then immediately we would have three gods. Only distinctions that do not lead to tritheism are allowable. So the point is not at all whether we can see "red" and "green", that's totally irrelevant. The point is that we know that there cannot be any "color".
quote:
Originally posted by Back-to-Front:
IngoB, I never claimed that the actions of the Persons in relation to creation were merely anything. I was drawing a distinction between the two - temporal acts and eternal nature - not saying that either one of them is of little value. Please don't infuse my words with ideas that just aren't there.
That was hardly my point. My point is that we do not have any clear and direct information about the "eternal nature" of the Trinity in scripture, and that therefore doctrines are invariably based precisely on the evidence of temporal acts. So if temporal acts cannot count as evidence, as you say, then both Orthodox and RC doctrines lose any scriptural justification... I think the Trinity instead demonstrates that evidence for the eternal nature can be abstracted from temporal acts to some extent. But then we must be allowed to look at all scripture for such evidence, including the passage where you say we shouldn't, in which case the filioque is in pretty good shape.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
If we allow any sort of "accidents" in the Persons, and the "red" and "green" of your traffics lights are just that, then immediately we would have three gods. Only distinctions that do not lead to tritheism are allowable. So the point is not at all whether we can see "red" and "green", that's totally irrelevant. The point is that we know that there cannot be any "color".
Once again, you missed the point of what I was saying. I'm not sure what the problem is. I don't know if you're having trouble reading for comprehension, or if my writing has somehow become incomprehensible.
Whichever it is, at the moment, I find that I'm tired of beating my head against this particular wall.
[ 06. February 2006, 04:19: Message edited by: josephine ]
--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!
Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
Because we cannot think of one having a son without having breathed in his life.
Indeed. But we are not talking about a son, a creature, who needs God's breath to animate it. We are talking about the Son, true God from God. Clearly, the Son does not need to be "animated", or he would be a godlet, a creature.
You didn't understand what I was saying. I said that in order for one to become at some point of his life a father, one has to live first up to that point, and in order to live, one has to breathe. The baby breathes, the kid breathes, the teen breathes but the man has a son. So, breathing is logically prior to begetting for the father.
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
So, breathing is logically prior to begetting for the father.
I understood you perfectly well. You are right for human fathers, wrong for our heavenly Father. This is attested by multiple Eastern sources talking about spiration "through the Son", which is clearly impossible unless the Son is logically prior to the Holy Spirit. That you got messed up just goes to show that an analogy is just an analogy, and should not be treated as an identity - in particular not if it's an analogy from the human to the Divine...
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
