homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   » Ship's Locker   » Limbo   » Purgatory: Filioque - thoughts on validity? (Page 2)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4  5  6 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: Purgatory: Filioque - thoughts on validity?
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757

 - Posted      Profile for Ricardus   Author's homepage   Email Ricardus   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by josephine:
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.

I think IngoB's point is something like this. The Orthodox doctrine can be characterised (very crudely) as "the Father does something, and produces the Son; He does something else, and produces the Spirit". The problem is that the Son and the Spirit are identical. As a general principle, to produce identical results, you must necessarily do the same thing, and hence the difference (on your view) between begetting and proceeding is not just inconceivable (like colour to a colourblind person) but actually a logical impossibility.

As I say, this sounds reasonable to me, but I am by no means rationally convinced that the part in italics is a necessary principle. It is (I think) our experience that it is the case, in which case I suppose the Filioque is a more parsimonious doctrine.

--------------------
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      Profile for El Greco   Email El Greco   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
I think IngoB's point is something like this. The Orthodox doctrine can be characterised (very crudely) as "the Father does something, and produces the Son; He does something else, and produces the Spirit". The problem is that the Son and the Spirit are identical. As a general principle, to produce identical results, you must necessarily do the same thing, and hence the difference (on your view) between begetting and proceeding is not just inconceivable (like colour to a colourblind person) but actually a logical impossibility.

If that was true then the father should have came to existence with the same "procedure". But the father is identical with the son and the spirit without having been "generated" from anyone. Hence what you said is wrong.

Now, IngoB says that the eastern fathers use the word "through". He thinks that this supports his case of begetting being logically prior to proceeding. He does not explain why this is so, but he says that the fathers thought so too.

Let him learn that when the fathers do so, they speak in a twoforld manner: a) in a manner appropriate to economy. Because truly, the Spirit comes to mankind through the Son, just like the Son came to mankind from the Spirit. b) in a manner appropriate to God uttering the Word. When we speak our words, we breathe. Just like that, the Spirit is closely connected to the Word, without getting his being from the son.

But since IngoB talks about the fathers, they also said that we do not know what the difference between begetting and proceeding is. So, why is IngoB saying that the difference lies in the filioque?

[ 06. February 2006, 08:04: Message edited by: andreas1984 ]

--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.

Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
IngoB

Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700

 - Posted      Profile for IngoB   Email IngoB   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Not quite, Ricardus. Since God is One, we must avoid any accident or activity in God which would split the Trinity into three gods, so to speak. Since God is Three Person, we nevertheless must find some real distinction. The only thing that is available for this - as seen already by the Early Fathers, including the Eastern ones, but with particular clarity expounded by Aquinas - are relations. And it is revealed that in the Trinity we have relations of origin. So not only is the "result" of the distinction identical according to essence, there's only one means of distinction available. But if so, then the distinction between Son and Spirit must be made by it - that means the filioque. The Eastern "answer" is instead to declare that something distinguishes the relations of origin themselves other than merely different origins. Given that nothing else is revealed and that the "One God" constraint is severe, what that could be is truly a "mystery". The Orthodox would like to claim it's a Divine mystery. I would say it's unnecessary (and unscriptural) obfuscation.

--------------------
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      Profile for El Greco   Email El Greco   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Thinking that Jesus's using two different words, i.e. "begetting" and "proceeding", does not imply difference in the way the Son exists from the way the Spirit exists is itself contrary to the scriptures.

The very names "Son" and "Spirit" reveal that the two persons exist in a different way. The fact that there is difference between proceeding and begetting and that we do not know what this difference is, is taught by the ancient fathers. If you choose to say differently then you do not share the same faith with them. You are using the fathers when it suits you; you do not learn from them. Your entire theology is dependent on what Augustine and Aquinas said. I guess the need to find "Popes" is inherent in Roman Catholicism.

--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.

Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
CDLauffer
Apprentice
# 10983

 - Posted      Profile for CDLauffer   Email CDLauffer   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
The answers have probably all been given but the summary of why I believe strongly that the "filioque" does not belong in the creed in the place it is situated is as follows:

1. It confuses what it clearly taught in Scripture. John 14 has been mentioned already but even more to the point is Jesus' insistence in John 15:26 that "the Spirit of truth...proceeds from the Father" ought to be enough to settle the question.

2. The creed does not include it and no council has reversed the decisions of Nicaea and Constantinople.

3. The Pope himself approves of the creed without the "filioque".

I should think that if Western Churches wish to continue to use the "filioque" they ought to consider adding the word "through" and they should leave the Eastern Churches to follow the Creed as it was written.

BTW I'm new here and am a member of the Byzantine Catholic Church.

CDL

--------------------
Listen to "Light from the East" at www.byzantinecatholic.com radio

Posts: 10 | From: Joliet, Ill | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
St. Sebastian

Staggering ever onward
# 312

 - Posted      Profile for St. Sebastian   Email St. Sebastian   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
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".
Because to say the Son is the begotten Word seems, to me, qualitatively different than saying the Holy Spirit is their unitive mutual love . I have a hard time seeing "unitive mutual love" as a Person instead of a thing/event/energy/adjective. Quite possibly this is a failure of the intellect on my part, I realize, but it still seems to make the Holy Spirit less . . . real than the other Two.

--------------------
St. Seb

In Spite of Everything: Yes.

Posts: 962 | From: Burlington, North Carolina | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
The Scrumpmeister
Ship’s Taverner
# 5638

 - Posted      Profile for The Scrumpmeister   Author's homepage   Email The Scrumpmeister   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by CDLauffer:
BTW I'm new here and am a member of the Byzantine Catholic Church.

Wow! We've had the discussions about WRite Orthodoxy. Maybe we can persuade you, in time, to tell us a bit more about ERite Catholicism.

Welcome!

--------------------
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
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757

 - Posted      Profile for Ricardus   Author's homepage   Email Ricardus   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Not quite, Ricardus. Since God is One, we must avoid any accident or activity in God which would split the Trinity into three gods, so to speak. Since God is Three Person, we nevertheless must find some real distinction.

OK, I see. Sort of. But...

"Begetting" can't be part of the essence of the Father, because otherwise all the Persons, being consubstantial, would be begetting Sons of Their Own, and you would end up with an infinity of Persons. But it can't be an activity or accident either, because that would imply tritheism.

So what's left? Or is that the point?

--------------------
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
IngoB

Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700

 - Posted      Profile for IngoB   Email IngoB   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
Let him learn that when the fathers do so, they speak in a twoforld manner: a) in a manner appropriate to economy. Because truly, the Spirit comes to mankind through the Son, just like the Son came to mankind from the Spirit. b) in a manner appropriate to God uttering the Word. When we speak our words, we breathe. Just like that, the Spirit is closely connected to the Word, without getting his being from the son.

First, it is ridiculous that you criticize me for projecting economy into eternity and then you proceed to claim that the Holy Spirit is logically before the Son because the Father must breathe in order to say a word. This is silly literalism and of course nails down the eternal configuration of the Trinity as much as the filoque does, just without any good justification. And for saying something about the eternal Trinity you criticize me for going beyond John of Damascus' "I have no idea." Well, criticize yourself!

Second, it seems to me from the context of all those quotes from Eastern fathers in Fr Gregory's Orthodox apologetics that one can hardly claim that it is obvious that the "through the Son" only refers to the economy. Most of the fathers instead are in full swing talking about the eternal Trinity when they say that. Indeed, I find it telling that the text of Saint Gregory the Wonderworker apparently was later fudged - quite clearly contrary to the run of the text - to make it appear as if he was talking about the economy only. I bet a good apologetic case could be made that the Orthodox here read back into the early fathers a distinction which is simply not there.

Third, as I mentioned to Back-to-Front, this is at any rate pointless. What can we say about the Trinity which is not based on what is revealed through the economy? Basically nothing! Jesus never gave a lecture on the Trinity in eternity. All we have here then is the Orthodox picking and choosing which parts of scripture they wish to abstract to eternity, and which ones not.

quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
But since IngoB talks about the fathers, they also said that we do not know what the difference between begetting and proceeding is. So, why is IngoB saying that the difference lies in the filioque?

Let's be perfectly clear that the early father's are simply not in agreement on the structure of the Trinity. In cases where they are not in overwhelming agreement, we are not bound to their insights. By the way, Fr Gregory's apologetics link is a real riot on that one. First it asserts precisely what I've just said, that universal consensus is what counts. Next it excludes all the Latin fathers plus any "problematic" eastern fathers from consideration concerning that consensus. [Killing me]

quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
Thinking that Jesus's using two different words, i.e. "begetting" and "proceeding", does not imply difference in the way the Son exists from the way the Spirit exists is itself contrary to the scriptures.

Indeed. "Begetting" mean "from the Father", "proceeding" (in the narrow sense) means "from Father and Son". The difference is clearly seen.

quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
The fact that there is difference between proceeding and begetting and that we do not know what this difference is, is taught by the ancient fathers. If you choose to say differently then you do not share the same faith with them.

This is taught by some early fathers, hence it is in no way binding. But anyway, I'm not disagreeing with John of Damascus et al. They indeed did not understand the difference and were prudent to say so rather than teaching error. Luckily now we do understand the difference better.

quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
You are using the fathers when it suits you; you do not learn from them. Your entire theology is dependent on what Augustine and Aquinas said.

Well, maybe you should learn from Saint Augustine, one of the greatest early fathers of the Church? A bit of Saint Thomas Aquinas wouldn't hurt either.

quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
I guess the need to find "Popes" is inherent in Roman Catholicism.

In Catholicism, full stop. Indeed. Without St Peter in the long run no unity and no prevailing against the gates of hell for the Church.

To return to my first post, I think CDLauffer's post shows quite clearly how diplomatic and accomodating the Vatican is willing to be to those who are ... reluctant about the filioque but nevertheless wish to be in full *cough* communion with Rome. His take can be distinguished from the ... reluctance of the Orthodox on this thread concerning only one thing - that he "allows" the Western Church to keep its filoque if they absolutely must. One wonders if the Orthodox can come to a similar position.

quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
So what's left? Or is that the point?

That is the point indeed.

--------------------
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      Profile for FreeJack   Email FreeJack   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
So this is not really an argument about the filioque at all. That is not the cause of the continuing schism. The question of Papal authority is.
Posts: 3588 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313

 - Posted      Profile for El Greco   Email El Greco   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Jonathan, maybe it's so from the Roman point of view, but it is not so for the Orthodox. Power is one thing; heresy is another.

By the way, here's something St. Gregory the Theologian says on the Spirit, in his fifth theological oration:

quote:
What was Adam? A creature of God. What then was Eve? A fragment of the creature. And what was Seth? The begotten of both. Does it then seem to you that Creature and Fragment and Begotten are the same thing? Of course it does not. But were not these persons consubstantial? Of course they were. Well then, here it is an acknowledged fact that different persons may have the same substance. I say this, not that I would attribute creation or fraction or any property of body to the Godhead (let none of your contenders for a word be down upon me again), but that I may contemplate in these, as on a stage, things which are objects of thought alone. For it is not possible to trace out any image exactly to the whole extent of the truth. But, they say, what is the meaning of all this? For is not the one an offspring, and the other a something else of the One? Did not both Eve and Seth come from the one Adam? And were they both begotten by him? No; but the one was a fragment of him, and the other was begotten by him. And yet the two were one and the same thing; both were human beings; no one will deny that. Will you then give up your contention against the Spirit, that He must be either altogether begotten, or else cannot be consubstantial, or be God; and admit from human examples the possibility of our position? I think it will be well for you, unless you are determined to be very quarrelsome, and to fight against what is proved to demonstration.
Do you think that the ancient church believed in the same things IngoB says, that to proceed means to be from the father and the son while to be begotten means to be from the father only?

--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.

Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
GreyFace
Shipmate
# 4682

 - Posted      Profile for GreyFace   Email GreyFace   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Andreas, why is St Gregory's opinion to be preferred over that of St Augustine?
Posts: 5748 | From: North East England | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313

 - Posted      Profile for El Greco   Email El Greco   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Dear GreyFace

I have not read St. Augustine's work on the trinity. I have read however the eastern fathers' work on the trinity and St. Ambrose's works.

I have found that the eastern father (along with St. Ambrose) agree totally when they say that we speak of one God not numerically but as far as the divine nature is concerned. They also agree totally when they say that to proceed is not the same as to be begotten. Again, they agree that the Father is the cause of the Trinity.

Now, you seem to imply that St. Augustine says something different than St. Gregory.

Let me remind the readers that St. Gregory the Nazianzen was called "Theologian" by the Church, a title given only to three persons (apostle John, Gregory and Symeon).

If such a difference exists, and I say if, because I have not read St. Augustine's works on the trinity, then either Augustine or the eastern fathers plus Ambrose are wrong. I understand that much of the western understanding is based on Augustine (and Boethius and Aquinas), but if a difference exists then the truth lies in the majority, not in the one voice that says different.

This does not mean that the church is a democratic institution and we let majorities decide. This means that we get our faith from what the Lord and His apostles taught (aka tradition), not by what any individual might come up with.

As far as St. Augustine is concerned, I have read some works of him and I find them in total agreement with the other ancient fathers and with the faith I hold long after they lived. So, I would be surprised if he has reached to different conclusions on the trinitarian issue.

--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.

Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
Pontifical
Shipmate
# 9875

 - Posted      Profile for Pontifical     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Well,

It has been quite some time since I have posted on this board, but I couldn't resist having a quick peek to see what people are discussing these days. And what comfort to see that it is the same old set of things!

And the same old people! I have to say, Andreas, that as well as disagreeing profoundly with some of your points, I find your latest post on this board to be highly contradictory.

Firstly, the fact that Augustine mentions the filioque idea suggests that it was common currency, in the time he is writing. I think that is the point that is being made.

Secondly, you are, of course, correct to name the three saints officialy having received the title "theologian". But do you really expect to contend seriously that these are the only three theologians in the history of the Church thus far? Can we really NOT trust the works of any others? If not, what is the point you are making?

Next, perhaps you haven't read the bit of Augustine which says

quote:
so He who is the Father is not the Son; and the Son is begotten by the Father, and so He who is the Son is not the Father; and the Holy Spirit is neither the Father nor the Son, but only the Spirit of the Father and of the Son, Himself also co-equal with the Father and the Son, and pertaining to the unity of the Trinity.
De Trinitate

On your post:

quote:
...but if a difference exists then the truth lies in the majority, not in the one voice that says different.

...This means that we get our faith from what the Lord and His apostles taught (aka tradition), not by what any individual might come up with.

This is an interesting viewpoint, but not one which I could subscribe to. What about St. Mark of Ephesus? As I understand it, during this "difference", all of the Greek bishops except for him signed the final document of the Council of Florence. (Incidentally, for those (like my good self) who have a thing for manuscripts, we can see the signatures here: http://asv.vatican.va/en/doc/1439.htm ... one of the vast advantages of having a central library which keeps EVERYTHING!!).

So, where is the evidence here of the truth lying in the majority? Isn't St. Mark of Ephesus just an individual coming up with something that the majority (in time of difference) do not subscibe to?

It seems to me that there is an inherent paradox in two Orthodox ideas; firstly that if only two people hold the faith of the Church, then the Church subsists in those two people. And secondly, that in order for a doctrine to be the doctrine of the Church, it has to be received by ALL of the faithful. How can this be resolved? How can the true view of the Church's Magisterium be discerned from these two, apparently contradictory, assertions?

And a (belated) happy new year to all of you. Sorry if this has repeated anything earlier in the post!

Best wishes,

Pontifical.

--------------------
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
Nihil carius Christo
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-

Posts: 58 | From: UK | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313

 - Posted      Profile for El Greco   Email El Greco   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I think that you don't understand what I am saying

I said that the "one is not used numerically but with regards to the divine nature" is something revealed by the Lord and taught by the Apostles. I don't think it's a development, something the Church came up with by reading the gospels.

I also said that this faith has been handed down by the apostles to the bishops they ordained and so on. Therefore, because it is a matter of the revealed faith, the majority must hold the same opinions on the matter; else the very menaing of tradition is void and the protestants are right in accepting nothing but the bible.

Of course, Christians can build upon what was given. But if the development is at odds with the faith given, then it is wrong.

By the way, the text you quoted does not show that the Spirit proceed from the Son also. I don't know why you thought that it has to do with that.

We have had the conversation on St. Markos again.

You say that my argument is contradictory because the bishops signed. In my argument I said nothing about signatures. I spoke of faith. The bishops you quoted the moment they reached their homeland they declared that their signatures are void and that their faith is contrary to what they have signed while in Italy.

Now, as far as I am concerned, I would sign whatever document you gave me, if the population of a small country was to be spared, let alone for the population of an entire empire.

[ 07. February 2006, 18:48: Message edited by: andreas1984 ]

--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.

Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
Pontifical
Shipmate
# 9875

 - Posted      Profile for Pontifical     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Thank you for your reply, Andreas.

quote:
I think that you don't understand what I am saying.
This is curiously often the case, Andreas; when people disagree with your opinions, you firstly fail to answer the substance of THEIR points and assume that because they don't assent to yours, they clearly can't understand what you are saying!

However, to make a more constructive set of points:

quote:
You say that my argument is contradictory because the bishops signed. In my argument I said nothing about signatures. I spoke of faith. The bishops you quoted the moment they reached their homeland they declared that their signatures are void and that their faith is contrary to what they have signed while in Italy.

Do you REALLY believe this??? Do you REALLY believe that at an Ecumenical Council the Orthodox Fathers committed so grievous a sin against Truth as to falsely sign an article pertaining to FAITH to which they did not assent? I'm sorry, Andreas, but whatever the cause, I'm not sure that to do so can ever be warranted in the Christian life. After all, as Christians, we are all called, like Christ, to be obedient to the Faith "unto death, even death on the Cross." How easy it would have been for those early Roman Martyrs to spare even a few lives by saying a prayer (which, of course they wouldn't believe in) to the Roman Gods. No, I'm sorry Andreas. I just don't buy your argument about the Greek Bishops. After all, Mark of Ephesus did NOT sign the document, and it would have been perfectly possible for the others not to do so either, had they not believed in it. Such things had, believe it or not, happened at reunification councils in the past. And besides which, I happen to believe that the Greek bishops had a great deal more integrity than that. No, here we have a key case of the majority being usurped by a delicate political situation, and, it must be conceded, by the minority.

And as for saving the empire, how could this be so if they all unanimously refuted the document when they got home? And if they all universally refuted it, why was only Markos recognised in such a way?

In the Orthodox model of the Trinity, what has the Holy Spirit to do with Christ? What is the relation between them? How is it that the bible (see Freddy's posts above) and such eminent fathers as St Cyril of Alexandria:

quote:
All of us who have received one and the same Spirit, that is, the Holy Spirit, are in a sense blended together with one another and with God. For if Christ, together with the Father's and his own Spirit, comes to dwell in each of us, though we are many, still the Spirit is one and undivided.
can maintain that the Spirit is of Christ as well?

Lastly, two things:

quote:
I said that the "one is not used numerically but with regards to the divine nature" is something revealed by the Lord and taught by the Apostles. I don't think it's a development, something the Church came up with by reading the gospels.
I'm glad to know what you think, but what is your basis for this? I also don't think that, since the Church wrote the Gospels, anything which is written in the Gospels can be fundamentally described as a non-Apostolic development...

Last of all:

quote:
I also said that this faith has been handed down by the apostles to the bishops they ordained and so on. Therefore, because it is a matter of the revealed faith, the majority must hold the same opinions on the matter; else the very menaing of tradition is void and the protestants are right in accepting nothing but the bible.
I'm sorry, but is Truth decided by Majority vote, or not? This, I think, is the same issue as for St. Mark of Ephesus.

quote:
It seems to me that there is an inherent paradox in two Orthodox ideas; firstly that if only two people hold the faith of the Church, then the Church subsists in those two people. And secondly, that in order for a doctrine to be the doctrine of the Church, it has to be received by ALL of the faithful. How can this be resolved?
This sort of intellectual pincer movement is a neat way of confirming that Orthodoxy is always correct... but it's not really helpful in trying to dissect the relationship between Orthodoxy and orthodoxy.

Pontifical.

--------------------
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
Nihil carius Christo
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-

Posts: 58 | From: UK | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
The Scrumpmeister
Ship’s Taverner
# 5638

 - Posted      Profile for The Scrumpmeister   Author's homepage   Email The Scrumpmeister   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I'd also be grateful should somebody be able to provide a (brief) exposition of the Orthodox perspective of the relationship between the Second and Third Persons of the Trinity, for my own understanding.

Thanks muchly. [Smile]

--------------------
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
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313

 - Posted      Profile for El Greco   Email El Greco   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pontifical:
This is curiously often the case, Andreas; when people disagree with your opinions, you firstly fail to answer the substance of THEIR points and assume that because they don't assent to yours, they clearly can't understand what you are saying!

Dear man, I wrote a post and then you made a post saying that I have said things that I do not recognise as mine. If I am not to judge whether something represents what I have said, then who is?

I am not answering to your points? Show me the points I have not addressed. I think I have addressed them all. But if I didn't then quote the points from your post that I did not address. In all cases don't accuse me of not answering the substance of your points.

quote:
Do you REALLY believe this??? Do you REALLY believe that at an Ecumenical Council the Orthodox Fathers committed so grievous a sin against Truth as to falsely sign an article pertaining to FAITH to which they did not assent? I'm sorry, Andreas, but whatever the cause, I'm not sure that to do so can ever be warranted in the Christian life. After all, as Christians, we are all called, like Christ, to be obedient to the Faith "unto death, even death on the Cross." How easy it would have been for those early Roman Martyrs to spare even a few lives by saying a prayer (which, of course they wouldn't believe in) to the Roman Gods. No, I'm sorry Andreas. I just don't buy your argument about the Greek Bishops.
The martyrs were dealing with their lives. The bishops were dealing with the flock's lives.

Even the people that denied the faith in order to save their lives were forgiven by the church. How much more forgiveness is to be given for them, putting themselves in danger to save their flock.

You are lying when you say that this was an ecumenical council. This is not the way ecumenical councils are done. You are the first person I ever meet saying it was an "ecumenical" council.

Perhaps you are forgetting that the eastern bishops never presented their theses to the latins. Perhaps you forget that the bishops attending were not chosen following the rules that must be obeyed for an ecumenical council.

quote:
And besides which, I happen to believe that the Greek bishops had a great deal more integrity than that.
Indeed they had; giving their lives for their flock.


quote:
No, here we have a key case of the majority being usurped by a delicate political situation, and, it must be conceded, by the minority.
The situation was bad for them; they were to fall to the Turks. Their only way out was the union. Your above statement is incorrect.

quote:
And as for saving the empire, how could this be so if they all unanimously refuted the document when they got home?
The people did not accept the union. They preffered to fall in turkish occupation than be united with the latins on these conditions.

quote:
And if they all universally refuted it, why was only Markos recognised in such a way?
They refuted it after they have signed it.

quote:
In the Orthodox model of the Trinity, what has the Holy Spirit to do with Christ? What is the relation between them?
We do not think that "begetting" and "proceeding" have anything to do with relations. They denote the cause of their existence, not their relations. Do you think that God is like man to be related to God?

quote:
All of us who have received one and the same Spirit, that is, the Holy Spirit, are in a sense blended together with one another and with God. For if Christ, together with the Father's and his own Spirit, comes to dwell in each of us, though we are many, still the Spirit is one and undivided.
Christ sent the Spirit. Economy has nothing to do with the cause for the Spirit's existence.

quote:
I'm glad to know what you think, but what is your basis for this? I also don't think that, since the Church wrote the Gospels, anything which is written in the Gospels can be fundamentally described as a non-Apostolic development...
This is the definition of Tradition. "What was given" by the Lord and the Apostles. The fact that the church decided to put in writing some of these things does not mean that there are not other things as well that have not been written.

quote:
I'm sorry, but is Truth decided by Majority vote, or not? This, I think, is the same issue as for St. Mark of Ephesus.
This Truth is proved by historical consistence. Not by majorities. Both Mark and the other bishops knew what the easterns always believed.

Use Arius as an example. He didn't say "I read the bible and conclude thus; you read the bible and conclude thus. Your arguments are illogical; mine are logical; therefore I am right". It was more like this: "You are saying this and you are teaching this, and thus have I been taught too, but I don't think that this is right".

quote:
This sort of intellectual pincer movement is a neat way of confirming that Orthodoxy is always correct... but it's not really helpful in trying to dissect the relationship between Orthodoxy and orthodoxy.
Historical consistence is the answer to the "problem" you see.

Pontifical, I do not want to continue discussing things with you, seeing that communication can be painful.

--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.

Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
Father Gregory

Orthodoxy
# 310

 - Posted      Profile for Father Gregory   Author's homepage   Email Father Gregory   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Dear Back to Front

We know nothing of intra-trinitarian relations. What we know qua creation is that both Word and Spirit create at the Father's behest. The Spirit moves over the face of chaos and by the Word all comes to be where naught was before.

Interestingly St. Irenaeus in anthropomorphic mode refers to the Word and the Spirit as the "two hands of the Father." This is also the case in the Eucharist. The Word speaks and the Spirit effects the spoken transformation. It is also true of our sanctification ... Christ calls, the Spirit enflames.

Both Christ and the Spirit are mutually related in the sense that the Spirit brings us to the full stature of Christ and Christ prays the Father to send the Spirit being conferred through him, (that is through Christ).

I don't see how any of this can apply as to the distinct hypostasis of the Spirit if He is simply (to use Augustine's phrase) the "bond of love" between the Father and the Son. The FRUIT of the Spirit's WORK is Love.

[ 07. February 2006, 21:55: 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
GreyFace
Shipmate
# 4682

 - Posted      Profile for GreyFace   Email GreyFace   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
I don't see how any of this can apply as to the distinct hypostasis of the Spirit if He is simply (to use Augustine's phrase) the "bond of love" between the Father and the Son. The FRUIT of the Spirit's WORK is Love.

Then God is not Love, Father?

I'm getting more and more confused at the Orthodox position as presented by Andreas here. It looks to me like he's saying there are three gods, God the Father, the Son and the Spirit and they're different entities with different identities, but we can speak of one God because they share divine attributes just as there's only one Man because humans are consubstantial.

Surely this is tritheism? The common substance in such a model of the trinity doesn't look to me like Divinity but rather divine capabilities if you will, three divine gods, not one Divine Triune God.

Perhaps I've misunderstood you, Andreas.

Posts: 5748 | From: North East England | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged
Pontifical
Shipmate
# 9875

 - Posted      Profile for Pontifical     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Well, Andreas,

Irini soi en to kurio iesou Christo!

Many thanks for your post.

quote:
Pontifical, I do not want to continue discussing things with you, seeing that communication can be painful.
I'm very sorry to read this, Andreas; I hope you did not take me to be intending to cause offence either to you personally, or to the Orthodox Church; I happen to hold both in some respect. And so if any offence was caused, then please accept my sincerest apologies.

However, I'm afraid I am still a little confused on various points.

Firstly, as we know, the Council of Basle, the 17th Ecumenical Council, was moved first to Ferrara and then to Florence (hence 'COuncil of Florence'), where it is had as Ecumenical by the West until its 25th Session. So I hope that that answers your queries about the Ecumenicity point.

quote:
The martyrs were dealing with their lives. The bishops were dealing with the flock's lives.

Even the people that denied the faith in order to save their lives were forgiven by the church. How much more forgiveness is to be given for them, putting themselves in danger to save their flock.

Now, you insist that the bishops were in the right to sign the document 'falsely' to save the lives of their flock. I take your point about the martyrs, but still think it is stretching somwhat what the role of an apostle should be. But bizarrely, this indicates that St Markos, the only bishop (1) not to sign the document and (2) to be canonised as a direct result of (1) above, must have been gloriously in the wrong, then, and presumably very careless with the lives of his flock?

I know this sounds as if this thread is diverting towards one on the Council of Basle, but my point is this: in sincerest terms, I have (with St. Anselm, I might add) always regarded the filioque dispute to be somewhat political; I do however believe that the signatures of the Greek bishops were indicative of the fact that they accepted the document and the Council as valid. (I am only sorry that the ensuing (military) campaign of the Turks meant that a real period of Unity could not ensue. And this Council reaffirms the filioque, which is my point. I don't understand how (1) the rest of the Bishops can be right to sign and (2) Markos (the Canonised one, after all) can be right not to sign, and thus (presumably) be right "in the Faith" at the expense of the lives of his flock? And, come to think of it, I'm not sure that the day-to-day people of Constantinople were sitting in their taverns debating the finer points of Trinitarian philosophy...

And finally, to my mind at least, you have not demonstrated adequately that the mind of the early Church was anti-filioque.

With best wishes,

Ian.

--------------------
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
Nihil carius Christo
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-

Posts: 58 | From: UK | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Father Gregory

Orthodoxy
# 310

 - Posted      Profile for Father Gregory   Author's homepage   Email Father Gregory   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Dear Greyface

St. Gregory the Theologian was arguing analogically as if to say it was not inconsistent to assert that 3 different things could share the same nature ... but that was but one part of his argument for in other places he specifically refers to "3" not being a mathematical summation of individual parts.

Love.

God is Love. The Father, the Son and the Spirit is Love in that God loves in and through each hypostasis. To reduce the third to relation between the other two is, however, to disturb the harmony engendered by the equality of the hypostases in loving as being Love each and all. The unity of the Trinity is in the essence and dynamically from the Father. The Spirit is not a relational entity of the other two but rather is a hypostasis in eactly the same way as the other two are.

Following St. Gregory's admonition, "one" "two" and "three" here are not mathematical whole numbers, ie., individuals. Neither are they simply relations qua Augustine and his successors. Pry too far and you go mad (to paraphrase St. Gregory).

--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™

Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Triple Tiara

Ship's Papabile
# 9556

 - Posted      Profile for Triple Tiara   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
You will recall, Fr Gregory, that St Augustine was saying that we can only talk in analogies when it comes to God. The love analogy was one among many he used. He found each of them wanting and so tried to find other ways of discussing the Trinity. It is unfair on him to suggest the love analogy was his answer - he himself found it lacking.

You must know the story - he became very frustrated and went for a walk on the beach where he saw a kid digging a hole in the ground and running to the sea, bringing back buckets of water, which he emptied into his hole. "What are you doing?" the bishop asked. "You see that sea?" he was told "I am going to put it all into my hole". Augustine knew he was trying to do the same with God. Ultimately God is mystery and our analogies are always lacking.

Having read his Treatise on the Trinity I can see why he got a headache from it all - it gave me one too!

--------------------
I'm a Roman. You may call me Caligula.

Posts: 5905 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313

 - Posted      Profile for El Greco   Email El Greco   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
I'm getting more and more confused at the Orthodox position as presented by Andreas here. It looks to me like he's saying there are three gods, God the Father, the Son and the Spirit and they're different entities with different identities, but we can speak of one God because they share divine attributes just as there's only one Man because humans are consubstantial.

Surely this is tritheism? The common substance in such a model of the trinity doesn't look to me like Divinity but rather divine capabilities if you will, three divine gods, not one Divine Triune God.

Perhaps I've misunderstood you, Andreas.

Dear GreyFace

the fathers used many ways to solve the issue. One of them, is to affirm that God's unity lies in the one divine nature. They said that the term one is not used numerically but with regards to the divine nature. This is why I am saying that modern West might be unitarian. Because, from what I see here, I get the impression that people think that God has "something" and this "something" is shared by all three divine persons, as if my body could be shared by three persons. But God does not have a material something to be shared. There is not one "thing" in which the three persons live.

Another explanation used by the fathers is that we say we are monotheists to show our opposition to those called polytheists (you know, the ones who had idols etc).

Another explanation given by father Gregory (not the Shipmate; the ancient one) is that the term God does not denote nature but the beholding. He went on explaining how the beholding is one.


What all these explanations had in common is that they attribute the name God to the Father mainly, and because the Son and the Spirit are from God, they are also divine.

This is what I think about the problem: The Easterns defined the monarchy in two meanings. In one of the meanings, all three divine persons interact with the world with one action, will, power etc (hint: these words are not used in the meanings the last few ecumenical councils used them). This is because they are immaterial and we are material. So, the Trinity operates in unity as far as the world is concerned. This means that God is one.

The Westerns, seeing the monarchy of the Trinity, for it is too obvious to miss, they tend to assume that this extends to the three persons themselves. An average Shipmate has not heard of what the fathers meant by "one will in God" and "one essence in God", so, confused by the manarchy, he attributes this to the three persons, forgetting the fact that we have kept from the Jews the unity of the nature and from the Gentiles the plurality of the persons (to quote the ancient fathers).

What do you think now?


Pontifical, you are a nice person, and your post makes things OK. I'm sorry for getting upset.

Allow me to address what you said on the people of the East and their theological concerns. Did you know that when a few Orthodox came to celebrate the eucharist with a few latins in Constantinople, thinking that a union was achieved, the people stoned them and expelled them from the city?

[ 08. February 2006, 07:30: Message edited by: andreas1984 ]

--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.

Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
Pontifical
Shipmate
# 9875

 - Posted      Profile for Pontifical     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Good day, Andreas,

Thank you for your message.

It's a side point, but...

quote:
Allow me to address what you said on the people of the East and their theological concerns. Did you know that when a few Orthodox came to celebrate the eucharist with a few latins in Constantinople, thinking that a union was achieved, the people stoned them and expelled them from the city?

... without meaning any offence whatsoever to those people, sadly, I don't see how this shows that they were being concerned about the hyperstases of the Trinity, and not just expelling them on political grounds beause they had dealings with the 'evil' Latins (and I accept that, frankly, at that time in particular, some of them certainly were very bad)... and could stoning ever be the just, Christian response to even a debate on the Faith? Sadly, political motivation is something which, I'm afraid, has tragically motivated both sides of the debate since the Great Schism, and even before... let us hope that this is something which will pass away in the current age.

Pontifical.

Posts: 58 | From: UK | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313

 - Posted      Profile for El Greco   Email El Greco   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I agree that when politics influences the Christians the result is bad and contrary to Christ's teachings and will.

--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.

Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
Father Gregory

Orthodoxy
# 310

 - Posted      Profile for Father Gregory   Author's homepage   Email Father Gregory   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Dear Triple Tiara

You are of course correct and St. Augustine is of course commemorated in the Greek calendar even if some Slavs insist on calling him "Blessed" instead. However I do think that the following matters are a great pity ...

(1) That the west should rely so much on St. Augustine ... it distorts the theology.
(2) When St. Augustine tried other analogies they nearly all fell into the One-Oh-Dear-How-Can-He-Be-Three? variety. So, for example, the psychological analogy (memory, intellect, will) doesn't come anywhere near doing justice to the hypostatic differentiations in Christian experience. You do get the feeling that this father started from a rather abstract philosophical notion of the divine unity and then tried to "fit" the Trinity into that.

--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™

Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Triple Tiara

Ship's Papabile
# 9556

 - Posted      Profile for Triple Tiara   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Aymen brother! I agree on that one - I wish St Irenaeus was more influential: a good alternative to many Augustinian contentions.

--------------------
I'm a Roman. You may call me Caligula.

Posts: 5905 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Pontifical
Shipmate
# 9875

 - Posted      Profile for Pontifical     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
I agree that when politics influences the Christians the result is bad and contrary to Christ's teachings and will.

I'm glad, Andreas: I think that this is almost what the RC/Orthodox Church should sort out before even looking at the theology. It really is SO important, and can get in the way of any fruitful dialogue.

On a personal level, what is your experience of reactions to reunion from within Orthodoxy? Do you think Orthodox people actively desire it? If so, why/how? If not, hot/why not? Is there any difference between the views of the laity/hierarchy?

I ask this, because I would say that from our end there are probably (1) a very, very few Super-ultra-neo-con types who would say that the Church is sullied by doing anything, and ecumenism is dialoguing with the heretics (I certainly do not subscribe to these views, and neither does the RC Church). (2) A lot of laity, who probably don't think about it a great deal (even if Roman documents about Orthodoxy are not as difficult to dig up as all that) (3) Many laity who actively desire reunion, and pray for it regularly, and with a special effort during the Week of Prayer for Christian Unity and (4) The hierarchy who, together with the Pope, appear to desire it quite strongly.

And how much do you think that the view of the average Orthodox parishioner today is based on politics/theology? I ask this without any prejudice, but just with an acute knowledge that politics, as in the 15th century, still plays an influential role (sadly) in Ecclesial relations. I think, for instance, that (admittedly among other things) John Paul's Polish nationality hampered Orthodox-relations because of the sensibilities of the Russians, for example. (Admittedly, erecting those dioceses may have been a mistake...). From the Roman end, in the past it has often been the case that people (avid readers of the 'Penny' Catechism, no doubt) could readily quote theological problems of other denominations to their hearts' content, but without necessarily any real understanding of their import. A friend of mine tells me for instance that in S Africa, to quote another example, one finds Dutch Reformed people clearly getting to the point where what they want is the sacramental side of the Faith, which they feel, that particular brand of protestantism doesn't provide. They predominantly end up joining the Orthodox Church (rather than the RC Church), perhaps not only for doctrinal reasons, but sometimes predominantly for reasons of the typical anti-Catholic prejudice, which means any idea of entertaining becoming a Roman Catholic is just hopeless. Politics in action again.

Finally, I'm not convinced that we really think that Orthodox are WRONG; after all, we have our own Eastern Rites, which I know prove controversial in Orthodox Circles, and I can obviously understand the sensitivity. But their influence on Catholic theology and spirituality is concrete and significant. On the subject of the Holy Spirit, one only need look at the Catechism to see many of the teachings underlined by quotations from the Byzantine liturgy. The Pope, it seems, has been eager to include the Byzantine end of things at the very High Liturgies in Rome. A reminder, I think, that whether we like it or not (and I have to say, I hope that we LIKE it), the Church is, and was, forever Latin and Greek, and we can't really expect to be effective without 'completing' each other, as it were.

Anyway, I'd be interested to hear your thoughts.

Best wishes,

Pontifical.

[ 08. February 2006, 10:24: Message edited by: Pontifical ]

--------------------
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
Nihil carius Christo
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-

Posts: 58 | From: UK | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313

 - Posted      Profile for El Greco   Email El Greco   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pontifical:
On a personal level, what is your experience of reactions to reunion from within Orthodoxy? Do you think Orthodox people actively desire it? If so, why/how? If not, hot/why not? Is there any difference between the views of the laity/hierarchy?

Dear Pontifical, the way I see it no reunion is possible in the near future. What I mean is that I don't think that a reunion will ever be made, but I leave some room for God to act or people to change their minds.

The vast majority of the laity in Greece are rather indifferent. They are not interested in the Church, let alone being interested in the Roman Church. However, I think they would see a reunion as something positive (you know, we are all Christians and Christ taught love).

Now, from those interested in the Church, there are many ultra-conservatives that would never agree with a reunion.

As far as the hierarchs are concerned, I think that the situation is strange: When the Pope invited the Archbishop of Athens to Rome, the synod decided that he won't go. I think that this shows their opposition to ideas of re-union.

However, when the Pope said in Athens that he was sorry for what the latins did in Constantinople in 1054, the Archbishop (and I think some synodics) clapped their hands enthousiastically.

Some have been influenced by the Romans when they were studying in countries like France or Italy.

quote:
And, of course, I'm not convinced that we really think that Orthodox are WRONG;
The official thesis, the way I understand it, is that you see us as schismatics but not heretics and that we see you as heretics.

quote:
after all, we have our own Eastern Rites, which I know prove controversial in Orthodox Circles, and I can obviously understand the sensitivity.
I think that the sensitivity does not arise from a theological point of view; you are free to have whatever rite you want. It comes from a practical point of view: there are Eastern Rite priests that have kicked Orthodox priests out of the Orthodox churches while they were in the middle of administering the sacrament of communion. Orthodox churches have been destroyed. Help has been given to Orthodox people provided they joined the Eastern Rite Catholics. And so on. All these terrible things have been made known and the Orthodox blame the Roman Church for endorsing those that commit such crimes.

quote:
And how much do you think that the view of the average Orthodox parishioner today is based on politics/theology?
I think that the average parishioner has forgoten all about politics and will follow the Church if agreement will be reached.

[ 08. February 2006, 10:46: Message edited by: andreas1984 ]

--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.

Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
GreyFace
Shipmate
# 4682

 - Posted      Profile for GreyFace   Email GreyFace   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
What do you think now?

I think I don't understand the subtle difference between attribute, essence and nature.

I can conceive of one humanity possessed wholly by each human person. By analogy I can conceive of one divinity possessed wholly by each person of the Holy Trinity.

But I can't see how that is not polytheistic, since anyone who believes in more than one god presumably thinks that each of the gods is divine and can thus claim monotheism on the grounds of consubstantiality. Incidentally I would have a hard time arguing against certain universalism on the grounds of consubstantiality of each human person with Christ - but I don't want to get into Cappadocian thought just now. Or is that the point?

This is, it seems to me, the weakness of a substance/accident philosophy. You can identify similarities as essential in order to categorise something as the same, or you can identify differences as essential in order to categorise them as different. Look at the arguments of transubstantiation vs consubstantiation, for instance.

In this case, what is the nature that is common amongst the persons of the Trinity such that we can say there is one God? Filioquists will of course say that God's nature is his entire being and the only distinction left is relational.

Posts: 5748 | From: North East England | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313

 - Posted      Profile for El Greco   Email El Greco   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Dear GreyFace, polytheism does not mean what you seem to imply. It is a historical term and its meaning has been shaped because of the practices of many ancient peoples believing in deities that differ in nature. For example, a god that resembles a cow has a different nature from a god resembling a man and a god resembling an apocalyptic monster. But the ancient peoples believed that they were gods. We say that the deity has nothing to do with these things. It neither resembles man, nor does it lust; it neither has a horrible form, nor has it legs, and so on. We say that the deity is immaterial, all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving etc. It has nothing to do with what the polytheists believed. These are not deities. There is only one deity.

Now, if this is not enough for you, then you can understand that the Word and the Spirit are not the causes of their existence; that they exist only because of the Father. So, there is one God, the Father. It depends on what you mean by "one God".

I want to ask you, in what way do you reject the unitarian approach to God?

--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.

Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
Pontifical
Shipmate
# 9875

 - Posted      Profile for Pontifical     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Hello again,

quote:
Dear Pontifical, the way I see it no reunion is possible in the near future. What I mean is that I don't think that a reunion will ever be made, but I leave some room for God to act or people to change their minds.
This is disappointing, Andreas. Primarily becuase it is a betrayal of that founding Christian principle of hope, and can only indicate that the reasons for reunification not applying are principally because Christians do not want it, or pray for it hard enough. We know, after all, that God wants it: "hina pantes en osin" - "ut unum sint". But there we go.

quote:
The official thesis, the way I understand it, is that you see us as schismatics but not heretics and that we see you as heretics.
I think that you are correct to suggest that this is the official position on how each Church views the other.

Is it not the case, however, that the great problem with the Filioque, as with the monophysites, is that a thousand years later, we have realised that the so-called disputes over this clause are syntactical in nature, and not theological? But the (forgotten) politics of the situation have thus far prevented us from making any progress ecumenically speaking...

quote:
I think that the sensitivity does not arise from a theological point of view; you are free to have whatever rite you want. It comes from a practical point of view: there are Eastern Rite priests that have kicked Orthodox priests out of the Orthodox churches while they were in the middle of administering the sacrament of communion. Orthodox churches have been destroyed. Help has been given to Orthodox people provided they joined the Eastern Rite Catholics. And so on.
I have to say that I have never heard/read abot the violence of which you speak, but in any case I'm not entirely in agreement; there is, we know, the pejoritive use of the word Uniates, and the branding of such Eastern Rite Catholics as traitors to orthodoxy. This, I think is both political and theological in genesis, since there is the political aspect of "caving in to Rome" and the Theological aspect of not seing unity with the Successor of Peter as an essential part of ecclesiology. Further, such violence is never one-sided. There is, for example, the extremely violent protesting in the Ukraine last year, where Eastern Rite Catholics were attacked and prevented from attending the Divine Liturgy on a Sunday, for example. I don't think that it is balanced to suggest that those nasty Catholics are always destroying our Churches (again, I have to say I have never read of this) since violence is, and always has been a two-way street. I neither think it beneficial to ascribe this to the Churches; these are individuals acting, sadly, vastly outside the boundaries of Christian Charity (agape). I'm sure you agree that this (not being beneficial to ecumenism) is true, as you rightly say:

quote:
All these terrible things have been made known and the Orthodox blame the Roman Church for endorsing those that commit such crimes.
I hope without claiming that the Roman Church does actually endorse them. I certainly don't believe, for example, that the Orthodox Church endorses the behaviour of some Orthodox in the Ukraine.

Pontifical.

--------------------
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
Nihil carius Christo
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-

Posts: 58 | From: UK | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
GreyFace
Shipmate
# 4682

 - Posted      Profile for GreyFace   Email GreyFace   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
Dear GreyFace, polytheism does not mean what you seem to imply. It is a historical term and its meaning has been shaped because of the practices of many ancient peoples believing in deities that differ in nature. For example, a god that resembles a cow has a different nature from a god resembling a man and a god resembling an apocalyptic monster. But the ancient peoples believed that they were gods. We say that the deity has nothing to do with these things. It neither resembles man, nor does it lust; it neither has a horrible form, nor has it legs, and so on.

Isn't this just to say, there are no divine persons with these attributes? You seem to be arguing that polytheism is not wrong because there is one God but rather that polytheism is wrong because although there are many (three) gods, none of them have such attributes.

quote:
We say that the deity is immaterial, all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving etc. It has nothing to do with what the polytheists believed. These are not deities. There is only one deity.
In order for this to make sense, you must be using 'deity' to mean 'characteristics of a divine person'.

quote:
Now, if this is not enough for you, then you can understand that the Word and the Spirit are not the causes of their existence; that they exist only because of the Father. So, there is one God, the Father. It depends on what you mean by "one God".
Okay, thanks, I think I'm following your arguments at last. However, you've switched now from defining divinity to showing how there can be more than one divine person, which I admit was going to be my next question.

Just to be clear, is it your belief (as it is mine) that everything about God must be divine - otherwise God is not God but merely an entity that shares some Godlike characteristics with the true God, and therefore a divine person must have all divine characteristics?

If so then if three divine persons exist, there must be a way to distinguish them that does not involved their nature. At this point my alleged reasoning and philosophical skills fail me, because I cannot see how begetting versus processing is a distinction that does not affect nature other than playing the substance/accident game. The same applies to the filioque at first glance.

Yet it seems that IngoB's earlier argument has some merit in this sense at least - if you cannot say what processing is, you equally cannot say what it is not and so you cannot argue that (processing == generation from the Father through the Son) is definitely wrong.

quote:
I want to ask you, in what way do you reject the unitarian approach to God?
I don't quite know what you mean by the unitarian approach, but if you mean modalism...
I reject it for a variety of scriptural, experiential and traditional reasons. The most blindingly obvious one to me is that the Father is not the Son.

Posts: 5748 | From: North East England | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313

 - Posted      Profile for El Greco   Email El Greco   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pontifical:
We know, after all, that God wants it: "hina pantes en osin" - "ut unum sint". But there we go.

From the Orthodox point of view, the hierarchical prayer of Christ is fulfilled inside the Orthodox Church.

quote:
Is it not the case, however, that the great problem with the Filioque, as with the monophysites, is that a thousand years later, we have realised that the so-called disputes over this clause are syntactical in nature, and not theological?
For me the issue of filioque is not the most important difference. I think that we have spent centuries talking about it because it is easy to define this issue. There are other issues, issues that have to do with the way we experience God's grace, issues that are hard to get defined. For example, when I read the desert fathers, I think to myself "this is what I too experience, this is too the conclusion I have reached, this is the Church I know and have faith in". I mean, that even if they have written their texts back in the fourth century, they are as if written by me in modern era. They reflect a continuity in understanding and life. Now, I don't know about Roman Catholics, but I want to ask you, is this the way you understand things also? Is the ancient fathers' way your way too?

My understanding is this: When the barbarians conquered the West, the Roman Church gave a great fight. It is not easy for the conqueror to get taught by the one he conquered. The Church in the West eventually turned them from Arians to Trinitarians, but She lost the game as far as the everyday practices of the new peoples were concerned. The new peoples influenced the West with a way of life contrary to the gospel. The entire Western civilization is based on anti-Christian premises. So, the only bearer of the "kaino" Christ brought remained the East.


To your next point: I don't know enough about what happens in Eastern Europe, so I can't speak about it.

--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.

Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313

 - Posted      Profile for El Greco   Email El Greco   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
You seem to be arguing that polytheism is not wrong because there is one God but rather that polytheism is wrong because although there are many (three) gods, none of them have such attributes.

I am saying that there is one God because the three divine persons are of the same nature. I do not recognise any other nature as divine. There is only one divine nature. This I worship. (worship in Greek means to acknowledge someone as God).

quote:
In order for this to make sense, you must be using 'deity' to mean 'characteristics of a divine person'.
Exactly. This is what the term means, i.e divine nature. At least, this is the way we traditionally understood the term in the East from the first centuries. What's your understanding of the term "deity"?


quote:
]Okay, thanks, I think I'm following your arguments at last. However, you've switched now from defining divinity to showing how there can be more than one divine person, which I admit was going to be my next question.
Yep.

quote:
Just to be clear, is it your belief (as it is mine) that everything about God must be divine - otherwise God is not God but merely an entity that shares some Godlike characteristics with the true God, and therefore a divine person must have all divine characteristics?
I don't really understand what you mean. Experience tells me that the computer I have in front of me at the moment exists and operates not by itself. The same applies to all the things I see and interact with. I understand and know that what-cannot-be-named-or-described wills for everything to exist and operate. I am amazed by the power. Imagine: everything that is exists and moves because the Ineffable wills.

Now, from human history I learnt that Him whom the Hebrews called God has a Son and a Spirit. When I try to approach them, I understand and know that they are Ineffable.


quote:
If so then if three divine persons exist, there must be a way to distinguish them that does not involved their nature.
Well, inside history I distinguish between them this way: I pray to God, because the Son has taught me to do so and because the Spirit empowers me to do so.

When I approach Christ I understand that He is not the Father. When I approach the Father, I understand that He is not the Spirit. And so on.

quote:
Yet it seems that IngoB's earlier argument has some merit in this sense at least - if you cannot say what processing is, you equally cannot say what it is not and so you cannot argue that (processing == generation from the Father through the Son) is definitely wrong.
I can say that IngoB is wrong from experience, just like I can say from experience that "proceeding" is different from "frog". I am beholding what I am talking about. I do not argue; I describe what I experience. (well, some times that is [Yipee] )

quote:
I don't quite know what you mean by the unitarian approach, but if you mean modalism...
I reject it for a variety of scriptural, experiential and traditional reasons. The most blindingly obvious one to me is that the Father is not the Son.

There are two kinds of unitarianism, the "masks" things being one of them. But if you say that the Father is not the Son, then how do you confess "One God"?

--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.

Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
GreyFace
Shipmate
# 4682

 - Posted      Profile for GreyFace   Email GreyFace   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
What's your understanding of the term "deity"?

In English, the focus of the word deity is not the divinity of a divine person but the entity that is divine, thus you are using the language correctly when you say "Loki, Set, Jupiter, Christ and Allah are deities".

Theologically speaking of course you wouldn't want to let the statement stand, but the most common use of the word deity is to refer to the entity rather than their nature.

quote:
quote:
Just to be clear, is it your belief (as it is mine) that everything about God must be divine - otherwise God is not God but merely an entity that shares some Godlike characteristics with the true God, and therefore a divine person must have all divine characteristics?
I don't really understand what you mean.
What I mean is this - you seem to use essence and characteristic interchangeably, so if you're presenting a list of characteristics that are divine, any characteristic of a divine person must be on that list or the person possesses characteristics that are not divine.

Otherwise, I could claim to be a divine person by virtue of the fact that I am, that I reason, that I love (however imperfectly), and so on. I am not divine, because I lack whatever it is that makes a person divine, and I have things about me that a divine person does not.

Is it not the case then that a divine person cannot have a characteristic/nature that another divine person does not have? I don't know but it seems that this is one of the arguments behind filioque.

quote:
quote:
If so then if three divine persons exist, there must be a way to distinguish them that does not involved their nature.
Well, inside history I distinguish between them this way: I pray to God, because the Son has taught me to do so and because the Spirit empowers me to do so.
Temporal economy? Then the Son sending the Spirit confirms filioque. As you think this is not the case, how can you distinguish between them in eternity? The Orthodox do so by claiming a distinction between modes of generation, well and good - but how do you arrive at the conclusion that they have different modes of generation if not by extrapolation from temporal events?

quote:
I can say that IngoB is wrong from experience
How? Explain to me the difference between eternal procession and eternally begetting and then you can definitely deny that generation from the Father through the Son is not procession.

quote:
There are two kinds of unitarianism, the "masks" things being one of them. But if you say that the Father is not the Son, then how do you confess "One God"?
Because of what I understand (however little I understand it, and believe me it is little) about the nature of divinity.

You see, I think you could hypothetically consider a model of divinity in which the only thing common between divine persons was eternal existence. I would argue that this is polytheistic unless there only happened to be one divine person. As more and more of the characteristics of divinity come to be seen to be part of the common divine essence, the distinction between persons in their attributes yet not in their personhood becomes less and less visible and in Christian theology I find that the divine persons are so united that my admittedly limited perception of divinity is a unity of three - so the consubstantiality leads me to be able to think of the Trinity as One as well as Three.

Make any sense?

Posts: 5748 | From: North East England | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged
Pontifical
Shipmate
# 9875

 - Posted      Profile for Pontifical     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Andreas,

Firstly, let me deal with the...

quote:
...the way we experience God's grace, issues that are hard to get defined. For example, when I read the desert fathers, I think to myself "this is what I too experience, this is too the conclusion I have reached, this is the Church I know and have faith in". I mean, that even if they have written their texts back in the fourth century, they are as if written by me in modern era. They reflect a continuity in understanding and life. Now, I don't know about Roman Catholics, but I want to ask you, is this the way you understand things also? Is the ancient fathers' way your way too?

I am in complete agreement with you. I too am a particular devotee of the Desert Fathers; their practices and principles have inspired generations of Christians from then to the present day. Indeed, you are also right to emphasise continuity. Continuity with Apostolic Tradition and Faith is, as you rightly suggest, the one guarantee of Doctine. The Roman Catholic Church is entirely in agreement with this and, I would venture, upholds this entirely. Even, it has to be said, in circumstances when, in human terms, it might be desirable not to. For example, questions relating to divorce and remarriage for us are difficult indeed; pastorally one would like to arrive at a solution, but sadly we feel bound by the Gospel texts on divorce and past practice. And there are many other issues which in disputes, not with the Orthodox but with others, the RC Church has not been able to concede on, not due to some slavish obstinance, but to continuity with the Apostles, such as the Real Presence, for example. And society usually agrees with the point you make conerning time, but conversely by saying "this is as if this document were written in the Fourth Century", which is, in Christian terms, saying the same thing, I suppose; we don't care whether it is Antiquity that seems Modern or Modernity that seems Antique, as long as they are the same in substance.

What is, however, important, I think, is to distinguish legitimate continuity with the Apostles and a different way of living out that continuity. Not everyone is called to the Desert Fathers' severe asceticism and the hermit lifestyle. Christ was, for example, not a hermit. He did not live in a remote place, where people came to receive instruction. He actively instructed people, although it is true that he did go through a desert phase. I think there are many Christian callings, ways of living out God's Will for us, all based on the various stages and facets of Christ's Life and Ministry. It would not, for example, be possible for any one Order within the RC Church to criticise the legitimacy of the others in terms of a way of life, thinking that only theirs conforms to the lifestyle of the Apostles. After all, I don't make tents and I go to Church in a Church, not in somebody's house!

My point is that with you, I (and the RC Church in general) can read the Desert Fathers and say:

quote:
"this is what I too experience, this is too the conclusion I have reached, this is the Church I know and have faith in."
But we can, for instance say the same if we consider St. John Bosco, and his extremely moving care for the education of the poor, young boys he encountered, mirroring beautifully the Lord's concern for the Poor and the little Children; or in St. Thomas More, a secular, married man, dying like Sts. Peter and Paul, for the Faith of the Early Church; and so on. The Faith in these cases is the same, though the way of living out that Faith is extremely rich, and no one strand (in Ecclesial terms) is, on its own, sufficient:

quote:
Now there are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit; and there are varieties of service, but the same Lord; and there are varieties of working, but it is the same God who inspires them all in every one.
1Cor12:4-6

We need the varieties of gifts, service and works. So, I agree. To turn to another point:

quote:
For me the issue of filioque is not the most important difference. I think that we have spent centuries talking about it because it is easy to define this issue.
Once again, "Pontifical has spoken through the mouth of Andreas!" we could cry out! I agree entirely. Does this mean that you concede that the Roman and Byzantine traditions on the Procession (ekporeusis) of the Holy Spirit are equal? With the Holy Spirit by both being said to proceed (ekporeusthai) 'ek tou pater (i.e. arche anarche) dia tou huiou?'

Best wishes,

Pontifical.

--------------------
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
Nihil carius Christo
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-

Posts: 58 | From: UK | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313

 - Posted      Profile for El Greco   Email El Greco   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
In English, the focus of the word deity is not the divinity of a divine person but the entity that is divine, thus you are using the language correctly when you say "Loki, Set, Jupiter, Christ and Allah are deities".

I understand now. In Greek, Jupiter and Christ would be two deities because their nature is different, but the Father and Christ are one and the same deity because they have ona nature.

This is what I realise: you (plural you) are using patristic terms, but with different meanings! All the ancient fathers I have read difine the term "deity" as "divine nature". You are using the term, but with a different meaning!

The same happens with will. Maximos died for the "one will of God", but meant that the Father, the Son and the Spirit will with the same way, just like all people will with the same human way. I.e. Maximos's will is not what you would descibe as "will" in modern English! It's "to will" rather than "will". Just like "being" is "to be", and "one operation" is "one way of operating" etc.

GreyFace, let me ask you this: Maximos's confessed two essences in Christ. Do you make the same confession?

Because from what you said above on "entities" it would seem that you don't! Also, the fathers taught that we don't speak of one God numerically, but you seem to imply that we do speak of one God numerically. Is this the case?

quote:
What I mean is this - you seem to use essence and characteristic interchangeably, so if you're presenting a list of characteristics that are divine, any characteristic of a divine person must be on that list or the person possesses characteristics that are not divine.
Maximos's says: "person, that is hypostases, and essence, that is nature." This expresses what all the ancient fathers thought, that essence and nature is the same thing.

Think about what you said in the quotation above using "man" as an example. What is it that makes us all men? You cannot arbitrarily say that e.g. "all that lives is man", although "to live" is part of human nature.

Yet, eventhough we all have the same characteristics, and we are men, there are characteristics each individual has, that other men do not have.

The same applies with the Trinity. The way the threee divine persons exist is their individual characteristic.

quote:
Is it not the case then that a divine person cannot have a characteristic/nature that another divine person does not have? I don't know but it seems that this is one of the arguments behind filioque.
Nature is the set of characteristics things of the same order share; not one single characteristic.

quote:
Temporal economy? Then the Son sending the Spirit confirms filioque. As you think this is not the case, how can you distinguish between them in eternity? The Orthodox do so by claiming a distinction between modes of generation, well and good - but how do you arrive at the conclusion that they have different modes of generation if not by extrapolation from temporal events?
Revelation. We know that this difference exists because Jesus revealed so. The gospel itself is clear. The Spirit ekporevetai from the Father.

quote:
How? Explain to me the difference between eternal procession and eternally begetting and then you can definitely deny that generation from the Father through the Son is not procession.
A similar question has been asked during the many controversies of the early church. The reply has been: "explain to me what unbegotten means, and I will explain what begotten means". We deny generation for the Spirit. That would make the Spirit a Son, and God would have two Sons instead of one. But we confess Christ to be "only-begotten". God is both called the Father (because of the Son) and the Emitter (because of the Spirit).

quote:
Make any sense?
It's hard to understand, but we will pursue the issue further. I hope everything will be clear eventually [Yipee]

--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.

Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
FreeJack
Shipmate
# 10612

 - Posted      Profile for FreeJack   Email FreeJack   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
...I hope everything will be clear eventually

I hope so too. I am really struggling to follow this thread.

I know I am a neutral onlooker rather than a direct participant so I don't expect to understand it all. I have an open mind on the filioque question itself.

Posts: 3588 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313

 - Posted      Profile for El Greco   Email El Greco   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Dear Pontifical,

if you experience the faith in the same way, then I reckon that a reunion is not only possible but also desirable.

quote:
Originally posted by Pontifical:
Does this mean that you concede that the Roman and Byzantine traditions on the Procession (ekporeusis) of the Holy Spirit are equal? With the Holy Spirit by both being said to proceed (ekporeusthai) 'ek tou pater (i.e. arche anarche) dia tou huiou?'

I don't think so. Let me explain why. I read the document the Pope wrote on the issue, and eventhough I am used to reading texts, I wasn't able to understand what he is saying. He says that he agrees with us. OK, so the Orthodox do not have a problem in their theology of the procession. That's good.

Then he goes on quoting something Maximos wrote. Now, the text is disputed, because it quotes more ecumenical councils than the ones that actually have taken place before Maximos died, but let's assume that the text is authentic. It says that the latins do not mean with the verb "proceed" what we mean by "ekporevetai", that they only mean that the Spirit is cosubstantial with the Father and the Son. But if this is the case, then why shouldn't use an equivalent expression for the Son?

His document seems to be self-contradictory, and frankly, I cannot understand it.

But, I know this. The word used in the gospel for the Spirit "ekporevetai" can only be used for one source. If you say that the Spirit ekporevetai from the Father and the Son then you are really saying that the Father and the Son are one and the same person, and this is heresy.

You propose a different formula. "through the Son". Well, what do you mean by through? If you mean that the Son sends the Spirit to the Christians, then I agree with the meaning. But if you mean something else, then you have to explain what you mean in great detail, before I can tell you whether I agree or not. However, note that if you mean that the Son sends the Spirit, then you have to remove it from the Creed, because, in that place, the Creed is talking about the cause for the Spirit's existence, and not about economy.

[ 08. February 2006, 13:44: Message edited by: andreas1984 ]

--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.

Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
GreyFace
Shipmate
# 4682

 - Posted      Profile for GreyFace   Email GreyFace   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
This is what I realise: you (plural you) are using patristic terms, but with different meanings!

Not quite, we're using English terms. Deity is an English word. Confusion arises when it is assumed that words are directly transliterable.

For example, it has been argued with considerably merit to my mind, that compatibility between the "filioqued" and original versions of the Creed may be possible because the Latin used for "proceeds" is not the same as the Greek used for "proceeds", and different again from the English "proceeds" of course.

quote:
All the ancient fathers I have read difine the term "deity" as "divine nature". You are using the term, but with a different meaning!
My guess is that divinity is a better translation for the concept than deity.

quote:
GreyFace, let me ask you this: Maximos's confessed two essences in Christ. Do you make the same confession?
I'm too lazy to look it up and I don't remember what he said. If it's humanity and divinity, human nature and divine nature united in Christ, then yes.

quote:
Because from what you said above on "entities" it would seem that you don't! Also, the fathers taught that we don't speak of one God numerically, but you seem to imply that we do speak of one God numerically. Is this the case?
I would have to ponder this a fair bit, but yes, I think it is the case but I'd want to emphasise that in my thought it is inadequate.

The One God is the Holy Trinity - Father, Son and Holy Spirit. I do not confess One God because I believe the three persons share a few characteristics but are mostly thoroughly different, but rather because I believe the nature they have is such as to be able to say they are united.

quote:
The same applies with the Trinity. The way the threee divine persons exist is their individual characteristic.
Ah, but there's a difference in degree here, I think, which is what I'm trying to get at. The way in which the persons exist, or if you prefer to phrase it in a Western manner their relation to each other, is their eternally distinguishing characteristic. But there are not, as far as I can tell, a multitude of others. I'm suggesting that the divine persons, as a consequence of the divine nature, are united to a degree that humans are currently not, and that a Trinity is not a group of three with some similarities but a Three-In-One.

It seems to me that I can then legitimately speak of what God does, what God is like, meaning the Trinity and discussing the divine nature, without confounding the persons.

quote:
Revelation. We know that this difference exists because Jesus revealed so. The gospel itself is clear. The Spirit ekporevetai from the Father.
If the meaning of this as precluding filioque was so clear I suspect the Catholic Church would agree. I am not sufficiently skilled in koine Greek to judge.
Posts: 5748 | From: North East England | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313

 - Posted      Profile for El Greco   Email El Greco   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Dear GreyFace,

before the latins added "filioque" in the creed, no one confessed that.

The faith we received can be summed up to what Justin the martyr said: "Just like the Son is from the Father, the Spirit is from the Father, except for the way of existence; for the One was from Light begotten, the Other from Light also, not begotten though, but proceeding."

Now, if the apostles have taught differently, Justin would have confessed differently also.

The faith has been kept pure from Justin's times to Basil's times, when St. Basil the Great said: "The fact that the Spirit is from God, the apostle has clearly taught saying 'we received the Spirit of God'. The fact that the Spirit was revealed to mankind through Jesus, the apostle has clearly taught calling the Spirit the Son's, by calling Him 'the mind of Christ'."

We have learnt that the only way to distinguish between the persons is their idioms. But if the Father and the Son have in common the emission of the Spirit, then the emission becomes of the nature. So, either the Spirit is not God, or the Spirit causes another divine person to exist.

To the father belongs procession and generation, to the Son generation and to the Spirit procession. If we apply procession to the Son also, then we cannot distinguish between the Father and the Son.

The ancients are clear on that:

St. Cyrill taught thus: "we believe and worship three persons in Father who Himself is of no source, and in Son who is beloved, and in Holy Spirit who proceeds from the Father, not being begotten, like the Son, but proceeding just like it is said from only the Father, as from a mouth, being revealed through the Son and spoken in all the holy prophets and apostles" and again "not like the Son is begotten from the Father, also the Spirit proceeds from the Son; take away that blasphemy and polytheism from me, because, for us, one is the cause and the bond of both persons, the Father."

I think that this addresses the points you made on polytheism and monotheism.

So, to sum up, like John the Damascene said: "We call the Spirit 'the Son's Spirit', we don't say that He is from the Son, because it is through the Son that the Spirit has been revealed and has been given to us."

--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.

Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313

 - Posted      Profile for El Greco   Email El Greco   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Let me make a proper reply to your post:

quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
Not quite, we're using English terms. Deity is an English word. Confusion arises when it is assumed that words are directly transliterable.

You do realise that this makes it very difficult to find out if we have the same religion or not.

quote:
For example, it has been argued with considerably merit to my mind, that compatibility between the "filioqued" and original versions of the Creed may be possible because the Latin used for "proceeds" is not the same as the Greek used for "proceeds", and different again from the English "proceeds" of course.
First of all, the creed has been written in Greek. Additions to the Creed are not permitted. If the word "proceed" has a different meaning from the word "ekporevomai", then why are you using it as a translation of the word "ekporevetai" Jesus uses in the gospel for the Spirit?

quote:
My guess is that divinity is a better translation for the concept than deity.
Are you using the plural form of the word divinity?

quote:
I'm too lazy to look it up and I don't remember what he said. If it's humanity and divinity, human nature and divine nature united in Christ, then yes.
My point is that you took the ancient "God is one because there is one divine essence" but changed the meaning of the ancient "essence". Christ has two essences; God has one essence. These statements are orthodox.

quote:
I would have to ponder this a fair bit, but yes, I think it is the case but I'd want to emphasise that in my thought it is inadequate.
If one uses "one" numerically, then the ancient faith has not been held.

quote:
The One God is the Holy Trinity - Father, Son and Holy Spirit. I do not confess One God because I believe the three persons share a few characteristics but are mostly thoroughly different, but rather because I believe the nature they have is such as to be able to say they are united.
Dear GreyFace, the Lord tells us that we will be united in God too. Does this mean that we will have the divine nature? Is union what makes one divine?

quote:
Ah, but there's a difference in degree here, I think, which is what I'm trying to get at. The way in which the persons exist, or if you prefer to phrase it in a Western manner their relation to each other, is their eternally distinguishing characteristic. But there are not, as far as I can tell, a multitude of others. I'm suggesting that the divine persons, as a consequence of the divine nature, are united to a degree that humans are currently not, and that a Trinity is not a group of three with some similarities but a Three-In-One.
I think you are using the term "relations" in a different meaning from the patristic one. When the Orthodox speak of "relations" we do so in the Aristotelian approach that accepts essence, quantity, quality, relation, place, time, position, state, action and passion. We do not mean "relationship". Begetting is the idiom of the Son and Proceeding is the idiom of the Spirit, while begetting and emitting is the idiom of the father. If you apply emitting to the Son also, then the Father is shown to be the Son.

quote:
It seems to me that I can then legitimately speak of what God does, what God is like, meaning the Trinity and discussing the divine nature, without confounding the persons.
I will not judge your approach, but it seems strange to me because I'm not used to approaching natures in everyday life. I find Paul's and John's approaches better.

quote:
If the meaning of this as precluding filioque was so clear I suspect the Catholic Church would agree. I am not sufficiently skilled in koine Greek to judge.
Actually, this argument is not used by the Greeks. But I did found it in the document the Roman Catholic Church made. The Romans say that in Greek it makes no sense at all to say "ekporevetai" from two sources. This is why the Pope himself does not recite the filioque in Greek. I think that the same approach is used by the Eastern Rite Catholics. I have read that they are forbidden from saying filioque in the Greek Creed.

--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.

Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
Pontifical
Shipmate
# 9875

 - Posted      Profile for Pontifical     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Well, Andreas,

Many thanks for a somewhat surprising post!

You state:

quote:
You propose a different formula. "through the Son". Well, what do you mean by through? If you mean that the Son sends the Spirit to the Christians, then I agree with the meaning. But if you mean something else, then you have to explain what you mean in great detail, before I can tell you whether I agree or not.
Well, I'm sorry to report that it is not I who propose this, but St. Tarasius, as I'm sure you're aware, the Patriarch of Constantinople at the 7th Ecumenical Council, who says:

quote:
to Pneuma to agion, to kurion kai zoopoion (sorry - omegas are impossible on this board), to ek tou Patros dia tou Huiou ekporeuomenon

.. the Holy Spirit, the Lord and life creator, the one proceeding (having-his-being - ekporeuoMENON) from the Father, through the Son.

So you see, we agree that this is the Faith. The problem creeps in because the whole proced- verb in Latin languages does not have only ekporeusthai connotations, but also has connotations of actual movement, simple movement. If I say in (admittedly rather stilted English) "Let us proceed to the cinema" I am in no way connecting the ideas of my being coming from the Father and the new film I want to see; and in the common (Anglican) verset of "Let us proceed in peace/in the Name of Christ, Amen." those who recite it are not saying "let us have-our-being-from-the-Father in Peace"; I think all Christians can relax on the subject of where our being comes from: it's something of a done deal.

As I understand it, this can be communicated in Greek by the idea "proeisi", proceeds (in the sense of simple movement, like your "Holy Spirit sent from the Son" idea. And thus, we can follow (among other, venerable Eastern Fathers) St. Cyril of Alexandria in using this term to describe the relationship of the Holy Spirit and the Son:

quote:
The Spirit proceeds (proeisi) from the Father and the Son; clearly, he is of the divine substance, proceeding (proion) substantially (ousiodos - again, sorry about the omegas) in it and from it"
So to recap: the Latin processio is NOT always equivalent to the Greek ekporeusis. If this were true, then the LATIN (language) creed saying "qui ex Patre Filioque procedit" would indeed be false, by claiming that Christ is a second Cause (aitia). This is why the Catholic Church has refused the addition of kai tou Huiou to the formula ek tou Patros ekporeuomenon of the Symbol of Nicaea-Constantinople in the Churches, even of Latin rite, which use it in Greek.

As you see, even the Greek-language, Latin-rite Churches would have to use it without "kai tou Huiou"; so this is not just some flaccid concession to those Catholic Churches of Greek Rite.

So the confusion arises from the Latin procedere having both Greek meanings. In the West, all Trinitarian theology confesses the Father to be the only aitia. This is how, with Augustine (who you say you have not read, I think) says:

quote:
and God the Father alone is He from whom the Word is born, and from whom the Holy Spirit principally proceeds.
Hope this helps,

Pontifical.

--------------------
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
Nihil carius Christo
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-

Posts: 58 | From: UK | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313

 - Posted      Profile for El Greco   Email El Greco   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pontifical:
to Pneuma to agion, to kurion kai zoopoion (sorry - omegas are impossible on this board), to ek tou Patros dia tou Huiou ekporeuomenon

This is what I think: nobody argues about whether the Son sends the Spirit to mankind, just like nobody argues about whether the Spirit sent the Son to earth.

A problem arises when some want to say something more than economy.

I have thought about it, and the only non-economical "through" I can understand is the analogy between someone uttering a word. When we speak a word, at the same time we breath. The breath comes through the word, and the word through the breath; they are inter-connected, and they come from the one who utters the word.

So, what do you mean by "through"?

--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.

Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
GreyFace
Shipmate
# 4682

 - Posted      Profile for GreyFace   Email GreyFace   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Andreas, if you'll forgive me I'm only going to answer the first part of your post, because I think you've missed something that makes the rest of the discussion very difficult.

quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
Not quite, we're using English terms. Deity is an English word. Confusion arises when it is assumed that words are directly transliterable.

You do realise that this makes it very difficult to find out if we have the same religion or not.
This is something that can't be helped - it's one of the limitations of language. We could say a million words to each other in the same language and never be certain that we meant precisely the same thing, and we have far less certainty in using different languages. But we can't step out of the use of language to converse.

quote:
quote:
For example, it has been argued with considerably merit to my mind, that compatibility between the "filioqued" and original versions of the Creed may be possible because the Latin used for "proceeds" is not the same as the Greek used for "proceeds", and different again from the English "proceeds" of course.
First of all, the creed has been written in Greek.
This is precisely the point. It was written in early-Church Greek yet it is being applied and used in cultures that are not early-Church Greek - including incidentally, modern Greece.

quote:
If the word "proceed" has a different meaning from the word "ekporevomai", then why are you using it as a translation of the word "ekporevetai" Jesus uses in the gospel for the Spirit?
Is this not obvious? Because words in different languages have subtly different meanings. From my reading I can get a general sense that in English, one might say something like "has his being from the Father as ultimate source by a mode of generation that is not begetting but might analogically be loosely described as like spiration, but we don't actually know what that means in any way" but that is not adequate, and there is no adequate English word to describe it. Traditionally we use the word "proceeds". Now, that word carries additional connotations - as does its Latin predecessor as Pontifical has tried to explain.

Now, in considering filioque or more precisely "proceeds... from the Son" you are translating that into "ekporevomai" and saying it's bollocks, but the mistake you're making is that proceeds is a perfect precise one-to-one mapping of ekporevomai. Languages don't work that way.

As a native English speaker I can say that the nature of the word "proceeds" is such that "proceeds from the Father and the Son", "proceeds from the Father through the Son" and "has Father as ultimate principal source yet comes through the Son" and so on, would all be compatible at the language level. In order to refute "proceeds... from the Son" you have to refute what is meant by it, and you can't tell us what it means by translating it into Greek first. You have to find out what it means before you can translate.

Now, unless Greek is the language of the angels [Biased] I would ask you to open your mind to the possibility that the use of Greek to convey truths about God with utter precision might be suspect.

Posts: 5748 | From: North East England | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313

 - Posted      Profile for El Greco   Email El Greco   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
The first time I read that "proceed" is not a translation for "ekporevomai" was from the document the pope composed a few years ago.

I think that if this was the case, then the Romans and the Greeks would have solved the matter when it arose.

The document gave me the impression that in retrospect they want to change their position in a way so that they don't appear to change their position, something like "look, we always believed that, it was all a misunderstanding."

--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.

Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
GreyFace
Shipmate
# 4682

 - Posted      Profile for GreyFace   Email GreyFace   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Perhaps, Andreas, perhaps.

But the political and physical separation of East and West may have been a fair bit harder to overcome in the last years of the first millennium than they are now.

If I wanted to know what the Greek Orthodox thought of something in 980AD I'd have to go to Greece. If I want to know now, I can ask several Orthodoxen without leaving the room.

Posts: 5748 | From: North East England | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313

 - Posted      Profile for El Greco   Email El Greco   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
If I wanted to know what the Greek Orthodox thought of something in 980AD I'd have to go to Greece.

This is what happened. There have been councils in Greece, where latins presented their case, people who knew both Greek and Latin, and they had their case refuted. The written accounts we have from these councils is that the latins knew exactly what they were talking about. They were speaking of a double ekporefsis.

--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.

Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4  5  6 
 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
follow ship of fools on twitter
buy your ship of fools postcards
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
 
  ship of fools