As One

[CDHealy]

Take your time.  It's a rather lengthy work.

[LightHammer]

You can find The Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit by St Photios the Great online here:

http://www.myriobiblos.gr/texts/english/photios_mystagogy.html

For if the Son and the Spirit came forth from the same cause, namely, the Father (even though the Spirit is by procession whilst the Son is by begetting); and if — as this blasphemy cries out — the Spirit also proceeds from the Son, then why not simply tear up the Word [Logos] and propagate the fable that the Spirit also produces the Son, thereby according the same equality of rank to each hypostasis by allowing each hypostasis to produce the other hypostasis? For if each hypostasis is in the other, then of necessity each is the cause and completion of the other. For reason demands equality for each hypostasis so that each hypostasis exchanges the grace of causality indistinguishably.

This particular piece provoked intriguing thought for me Big Brother. Do "procession" and "begetting" suggest that God the Son and God the Holy Spirit are the products of God the Father? Perhaps that is the wrong wording. The Orthodox position, at leats as I am trying to further understand it, seems to suggest that the Father existed before the Son or the Holy Sprit.

Did I fall off somewhere or is it accurate that Orthodoxy implies that the Father is prior, if even at least logically prior, to the Son and the Holy Spirit?

[CDHealy]

You can find The Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit by St Photios the Great online here:

http://www.myriobiblos.gr/texts/english/photios_mystagogy.html

For if the Son and the Spirit came forth from the same cause, namely, the Father (even though the Spirit is by procession whilst the Son is by begetting); and if — as this blasphemy cries out — the Spirit also proceeds from the Son, then why not simply tear up the Word [Logos] and propagate the fable that the Spirit also produces the Son, thereby according the same equality of rank to each hypostasis by allowing each hypostasis to produce the other hypostasis? For if each hypostasis is in the other, then of necessity each is the cause and completion of the other. For reason demands equality for each hypostasis so that each hypostasis exchanges the grace of causality indistinguishably.

This particular piece provoked intriguing thought for me Big Brother. Do "procession" and "begetting" suggest that God the Son and God the Holy Spirit are the products of God the Father? Perhaps that is the wrong wording. The Orthodox position, at leats as I am trying to further understand it, seems to suggest that the Father existed before the Son or the Holy Sprit.

Did I fall off somewhere or is it accurate that Orthodoxy implies that the Father is prior, if even at least logically prior, to the Son and the Holy Spirit?

The Orthodox teach that the Persons of the Trinity have their origin (arche) from the Father (pater)--thus we believe in a literal patriarchal theology.  All persons of the Trinity of course are equal in being and honor, since all share the same essence of the Father.  The Father does not exist before the other Persons of the Trinity, as the essence of God is eternal, or atemporal.  We say that the Son is eternally begotten of the Father, and the Spirit eternally proceeds from the Father.

I'm hesitant to say that this is a logical priority, as this may lead some to conclude a sort of theological nominalism and incipient Sabellianism, and because the priority here described is a metaphysical reality.

[LightHammer]

You can find The Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit by St Photios the Great online here:

http://www.myriobiblos.gr/texts/english/photios_mystagogy.html

For if the Son and the Spirit came forth from the same cause, namely, the Father (even though the Spirit is by procession whilst the Son is by begetting); and if — as this blasphemy cries out — the Spirit also proceeds from the Son, then why not simply tear up the Word [Logos] and propagate the fable that the Spirit also produces the Son, thereby according the same equality of rank to each hypostasis by allowing each hypostasis to produce the other hypostasis? For if each hypostasis is in the other, then of necessity each is the cause and completion of the other. For reason demands equality for each hypostasis so that each hypostasis exchanges the grace of causality indistinguishably.

This particular piece provoked intriguing thought for me Big Brother. Do "procession" and "begetting" suggest that God the Son and God the Holy Spirit are the products of God the Father? Perhaps that is the wrong wording. The Orthodox position, at leats as I am trying to further understand it, seems to suggest that the Father existed before the Son or the Holy Sprit.

Did I fall off somewhere or is it accurate that Orthodoxy implies that the Father is prior, if even at least logically prior, to the Son and the Holy Spirit?

The Orthodox teach that the Persons of the Trinity have their origin (arche) from the Father (pater)--thus we believe in a literal patriarchal theology.  All persons of the Trinity of course are equal in being and honor, since all share the same essence of the Father.  The Father does not exist before the other Persons of the Trinity, as the essence of God is eternal, or atemporal.  We say that the Son is eternally begotten of the Father, and the Spirit eternally proceeds from the Father.

I'm hesitant to say that this is a logical priority, as this may lead some to conclude a sort of theological nominalism and incipient Sabellianism, and because the priority here described is a metaphysical reality.

So in other words I was wrong to suggest such. Maybe it was arrogance that led me to think that I could somehow explain the nature of the Trinity and thus further defend the filioque. It is more difficult and complex than I thought.

This is tough stuff that (although it pains my great pride to say) I am not blessed enough to settle this. I'm going to keep studying and take some one on one with God to help better understand the Trinity.  As such if you wouldn't mind I would like to differ from this subtopic to the vow of celibacy and its mandate in the Latin Rite.

[CDHealy]

Brother, don't be too self-critical.  None of us will ever understand the Trinity.  At most we will know what we cannot say about the Trinity, not understand what we can say.  When it comes down to it, the Trinity is worshipped not understood.

Re: celibacy--if you want to, introduce a new thread.

[LightHammer]

Brother, don't be too self-critical.  None of us will ever understand the Trinity.  At most we will know what we cannot say about the Trinity, not understand what we can say.  When it comes down to it, the Trinity is worshipped not understood.

Re: celibacy--if you want to, introduce a new thread.

But what of the schism? I mean we have to at least be able to understand the Trinity to the point where the West and the East can come to some sort of a consensus. I mean, right? Maybe I'm just howling at the moon again.

New Thread to follow.

[Ladonia]

This is one good thread! It is a good thing to add some more info onto my already overtaxed brain about the theology of the Eastern Church. Thanks for the thread and I will be looking forward more of what you two have to offer.

[highrigger]

Brother, don't be too self-critical.  None of us will ever understand the Trinity.  At most we will know what we cannot say about the Trinity, not understand what we can say.  When it comes down to it, the Trinity is worshipped not understood.

CD,

What is the value of a doctrine no one understands? Yet the trinity causes more arguments than anything else it seems. It was the reason for the first church council.

It seems to me fine to define it as it makes sense to us. No point in big arguments. Scripture did not define it or even teach it anyway. Why make up more things to argue about and cliam infallibiity about? Actually most doctrines are in this catagory.

This is why Jesus put doctrines second place to what was the most important. He showed this attitude in the parable of the Good Samaritan. It was why He used a Samaritan as the center of His story. He aske us to be unified but so many cannot and justify it for the sake of doctrines which most do not really understand anyway. Peace, JohnR

[CDHealy]

What is the value of a doctrine no one understands?

I never claimed that no one understands the teaching regarding the Trinity.  I said the Trinity itself is infinitely beyond human comprehension.  There's a difference.

The dogma is not hard to grasp.  God has one nature or essence, and is Three Persons.  With this as our standard, we can make sense of teaching about Jesus and about the Holy Spirit and whether it conforms to what has been revealed to us.

Yet the trinity causes more arguments than anything else it seems. It was the reason for the first church council.

The reason for the first Church Council was the matter of Jesus' divinity.  At stake was the Gospel.  If Jesus wasn't the Son of God, God in the flesh, then we are not saved.

It seems to me fine to define it as it makes sense to us. No point in big arguments. Scripture did not define it or even teach it anyway. Why make up more things to argue about and cliam infallibiity about? Actually most doctrines are in this catagory.

The Scripture clearly teaches the doctrine of the Trinity, though it does not do so in bullet-point or systematic form.  Jesus' baptism is a clear teaching of the Holy Trinity, as are the accumulated references to God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit.  A word was "invented" (or, rather, used) to indicated this teaching on God, "Trinity" (from the Greek "triadas"), but the doctrine itself is throughout Scripture.

This is why Jesus put doctrines second place to what was the most important.

He did no such thing.

He showed this attitude in the parable of the Good Samaritan. It was why He used a Samaritan as the center of His story. He aske us to be unified but so many cannot and justify it for the sake of doctrines which most do not really understand anyway. Peace, JohnR

The Good Samaritan is not about everything having a Coke and singing kum-by-ya.  It is about the person of Jesus Christ, who himself teaches that NO ONE comes to the Father except through him.  That's not a doctrine you can ignore.

[Joel, the Son of Pethuel]

What is the value of a doctrine no one understands? Yet the trinity causes more arguments than anything else it seems. It was the reason for the first church council.

It seems to me fine to define it as it makes sense to us. No point in big arguments. Scripture did not define it or even teach it anyway. Why make up more things to argue about and cliam infallibiity about? Actually most doctrines are in this catagory.

This is why Jesus put doctrines second place to what was the most important. He showed this attitude in the parable of the Good Samaritan. It was why He used a Samaritan as the center of His story. He aske us to be unified but so many cannot and justify it for the sake of doctrines which most do not really understand anyway. Peace, JohnR

If I may interject...

We don't have "doctrines" for the sake of having doctrines, nor are doctrines a set of correct bullet points. Rather, doctrine/dogma is the articulation of the experience of knowing God. People have experienced the life of God, and have tried to put that experience into words. It's not that we have talking points about God so that we can say correct things about Him for the sake of being correct. These "doctrines" allow us to get a glimpse into how others (and the Church at large) have come to know God so that we can be sure that we're coming to know the same God.