GCM Home | Your Posts | Rules | DONATE | Bookstore | RSS | Facebook | Twitter | FAQs


Author Topic: As One  (Read 5728 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline LightHammer

  • Defender of the Faith
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8424
  • Manna: 273
  • Gender: Male
  • I.C.T.H.Y.S.
    • View Profile
As One
« on: Tue Mar 22, 2011 - 09:45:25 »
Hey Brothers. I had a question that I have been thinking about sense I've been studying to debate Trifecta. What do you guys think it would take for the two lungs to breathe as one again? Do you think like another joint council to clarify doctrine and stuff like that would be necessary or what? Like I was ust looking up Augustine and stuff because Trifecta was telling me how thats where the whole Original/Ancestral Sin things get its roots and I ws just thinking about it?

It seems like every Orthodox I meet and every RC I meet openly speaks about a reuniting of the East and West and a restoration of the Catholic Church, pre 1054 AD.

Is it really possible to achieve this and if so what do you think it will take?

Christian Forums and Message Board

As One
« on: Tue Mar 22, 2011 - 09:45:25 »

p.rehbein

  • Guest
Re: As One
« Reply #1 on: Fri Mar 25, 2011 - 04:52:06 »
I haven't the slightest idea concerning the historical/academic aspect of the "split" but from a Spiritual viewpoint/opinion, I would think that the return of the Lion of Juda should do it.

God bless................


Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: As One
« Reply #1 on: Fri Mar 25, 2011 - 04:52:06 »

Offline LightHammer

  • Defender of the Faith
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8424
  • Manna: 273
  • Gender: Male
  • I.C.T.H.Y.S.
    • View Profile
Re: As One
« Reply #2 on: Fri Mar 25, 2011 - 12:05:27 »
This isn't a matter that would interest you much then. 

Offline CDHealy

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 4397
  • Manna: 120
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: As One
« Reply #3 on: Tue Mar 29, 2011 - 18:43:39 »
From the Orthodox perspective, the Bishop of Rome would have to reject the innovations the Western Church has introduced (filioque, papal universal jurisdiction, papal infallibility, priestly celibacy, etc.) and repent of schism.

Orthodox do no see reunion as quite so easily done as does Rome.

Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: As One
« Reply #3 on: Tue Mar 29, 2011 - 18:43:39 »

Offline LightHammer

  • Defender of the Faith
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8424
  • Manna: 273
  • Gender: Male
  • I.C.T.H.Y.S.
    • View Profile
Re: As One
« Reply #4 on: Tue Mar 29, 2011 - 19:12:22 »
The filoque? Why? Do you even disagree with the filoque or do you disagree with the contents of its teaching?

Papal universal jurisdiction? What does the Primacy of Peter entitle if not a position of overseer?

Papal infallibility I give you that one. Easier said than done.

Priest celibacy can't be agreed upon by the leadership? What's everyone's beef about being like Paul and Christ?


Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: As One
« Reply #4 on: Tue Mar 29, 2011 - 19:12:22 »



Offline CDHealy

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 4397
  • Manna: 120
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: As One
« Reply #5 on: Tue Mar 29, 2011 - 21:10:17 »
The filoque? Why? Do you even disagree with the filoque or do you disagree with the contents of its teaching?

It was an unauthorized addition to the universal Creed.  And it's theology destroys the Trinity.

Papal universal jurisdiction? What does the Primacy of Peter entitle if not a position of overseer?

There is no logical necessity between primacy and universal jurisdiction.  There is no evidence to support universal papal jurisdiction prior to the political machination of Rome in the ninth through thirteenth centuries, especially after the thirteenth.  (This is not to say proponents of universal papal jurisdiction do not read their doctrine back into patristic comments.)

Papal infallibility I give you that one. Easier said than done.

Actually, Vatican I has enough evidence to support rejection of papal infallibility.

Priest celibacy can't be agreed upon by the leadership? What's everyone's beef about being like Paul and Christ?

Voluntary celibacy is fine.  Prohibiting priestly marriage is the problem.

Offline LightHammer

  • Defender of the Faith
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8424
  • Manna: 273
  • Gender: Male
  • I.C.T.H.Y.S.
    • View Profile
Re: As One
« Reply #6 on: Sun Apr 03, 2011 - 19:09:59 »
Ok I did a little research, not a lot so I won't speak primarily from research, but I did do a little.

I guess to start off I'll ask why you think "its theology destroys the Trinity" to say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and from the Son.

I'll address the other ones later this one is the first up.

Offline CDHealy

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 4397
  • Manna: 120
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: As One
« Reply #7 on: Mon Apr 04, 2011 - 07:49:29 »
I'll try to be as brief as I can.  But it takes some unpacking.

The filioque's original intent was to affirm the divinity of the Son over against the Arians.  But despite the intention, the consequences are fatal to proper Christian Trinitarian thought.

The thinking is this: for the Son to be divine, like the Father is divine, then the Son must cause the Holy Spirit to proceed just as the Father causes the Holy Spirit to proceed.  Thus the insertion of the filioque: the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son.  We have thus further shored up the divinity of the Son against the Arians.

But not so fast.

If the Son's divinity must be preserved by the Son being a double cause of the Holy Spirit's procession, then where does that leave the Holy Spirit?  How can he (the Holy Spirit) cause himself to proceed?  And if he cannot, then by inference he cannot be divine, at least not in the same way that the Father and Son are divine.  If causation of procession of the Holy Spirit is the proof of divinity (as it is for the Father and the Son), then the Holy Spirit lacks such divinity, or his divinity is of a lesser degree than that of the Father and the Son, since he (the Holy Spirit) lacks one of the divine attributes, namely the causing of the procession of the Holy Spirit.  The Trinity is this not really a Trinity but is a Bi-unity with an appendage.

Aside from demoting the Holy Spirit through the promotion of the Son, there is another fatal error with the filioque, namely that it makes one of the Trinitarian personal acts essential to the nature of the Godhead, thus doing away with the distinction of Persons.  That is to say, in classical traditional Christianity, the proof of Christ's divinity was not that he caused, with the Father, the Holy Spirit to proceed but that he was eternally begotten of the Father.  Likewise, the proof of the Holy Spirit's divinity was that he was eternally caused to proceed by the Father.  In other words, it was the personal actions of the Father, in which the Son and the Holy Spirit shared as Persons that was a sign of their divinity.  That is to say: proof of divinity is guaranteed not by the divine nature--which is unknowable to humans anyway--but by the Person of the Father.

What the filioque did, however, was to turn that upside down and to make the sharing of the essence/nature of the Godhead the proof of their divinity.  But to do that, the filioque takes what is a Personal act and makes it part of the essence/nature of the Godhead.  In so doing, however, it eliminates the distinction between Father and Son--in other words, the Father is no longer distinguishable from the Son as being the sole cause of the Holy Spirit's procession, but now the Father and Son are indistinguishable from one another and the difference between their Persons begins to collapse.  Further, as noted above, the Holy Spirit is cut off from the divine nature--at least in terms of procession--because it does not share this divine attribute of the essence/nature of the Godhead with the Father and the Son.  But if the Holy Spirit is not divine, then there is no Third Person of the Trinity.  And if the Father and the Son are indistinguishable as Persons, then there really isn't a First and Second Person of the Trinity either.  So, by focusing the proof of divinity in the essence/nature of the Godhead, the Persons are done away with and we no longer have a Trinity, we have Sabellianism, in which the "Persons" of the Trinity are simply labels masking the divine essence/nature.

The intention was laudable: preserve the divinity of the Son over against the Arians.  But in this case quite literally: hell is paved with good intentions.  The Trinity is lost by the insertion of the filioque.  And having lost the Trinity, we lose the Gospel and we are not saved.

Additionally--and this is no small thing--the change of the Creed by the insertion of the filioque apart from the united consensus of the Church is tantamount to schism.

Offline LightHammer

  • Defender of the Faith
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8424
  • Manna: 273
  • Gender: Male
  • I.C.T.H.Y.S.
    • View Profile
Re: As One
« Reply #8 on: Mon Apr 04, 2011 - 08:22:41 »
Quote
If the Son's divinity must be preserved by the Son being a double cause of the Holy Spirit's procession, then where does that leave the Holy Spirit?  How can he (the Holy Spirit) cause himself to proceed?  And if he cannot, then by inference he cannot be divine, at least not in the same way that the Father and Son are divine.  If causation of procession of the Holy Spirit is the proof of divinity (as it is for the Father and the Son), then the Holy Spirit lacks such divinity, or his divinity is of a lesser degree than that of the Father and the Son, since he (the Holy Spirit) lacks one of the divine attributes, namely the causing of the procession of the Holy Spirit.  The Trinity is this not really a Trinity but is a Bi-unity with an appendage.

This thesis is only valid if you are suggesting that the West is asserting that Jesus Christ was divine because of the procession of the Holy Spirit. It seems to me that the West was using this as support and not the determining factor of divinity. I hope that came out right.

As you mentioned the cause was to further build support for the divinity of Christ against the Arian heresy. The divinity was already universal so no addition to the Creed could be a determining factor to something that was already determined before the addition. It can be used as suuport but not the sole basis and proof. Aside from Tradition, Scripturally speaking it was by Christ's own words that we know He sent the Holy Spirit. However we also know, by the baptism of Christ, that the Holy Spirit comes forth from the Father as well. It is also by Scripture that we know that the Holy Spirit is God Himself procceeding from Himself.


Quote
Aside from demoting the Holy Spirit through the promotion of the Son, there is another fatal error with the filioque, namely that it makes one of the Trinitarian personal acts essential to the nature of the Godhead, thus doing away with the distinction of Persons.  That is to say, in classical traditional Christianity, the proof of Christ's divinity was not that he caused, with the Father, the Holy Spirit to proceed but that he was eternally begotten of the Father.  Likewise, the proof of the Holy Spirit's divinity was that he was eternally caused to proceed by the Father.  In other words, it was the personal actions of the Father, in which the Son and the Holy Spirit shared as Persons that was a sign of their divinity.  That is to say: proof of divinity is guaranteed not by the divine nature--which is unknowable to humans anyway--but by the Person of the Father.

Brother, I really don't see the filioque as the determining act and verification of Christ's divinty. The West didn't say, "Jesus Christ is Divine and 2nd Persona of God because the Holy Spirit procceeds from Him just as it does the Father." at least that is not how I took it. I saw it more as, "Jesus Christ is Divine and the 2nd Persona of God, as further validation of this Truth we know that just as the Father sends out the Holy Spirit so does the Son."

When I started to type this up it made sense but then as I continued your point became more and more evident. It makes the Holy Spirit seem like a tool of divine verification instead of Divinity itself.

That was what I felt at first. However I realized that God Himself said that He would pour out His Spirit upon all men. These are God's words so my inner sanctum is the thing that needs adjusting.

Let's stop for a minute and break this down.

If God said He would send His Spirit and The Father, The Son and The Holy Spirit are God then how is the filioque inappropriate?

It doesn't demote the Holy Spirit for the Father to say that He is sending Him. So how does it demote the Holy Spirit and promte the Son to suggest that they both do so in the same breath?


Quote
Additionally--and this is no small thing--the change of the Creed by the insertion of the filioque apart from the united consensus of the Church is tantamount to schism.

I completely agree. Although I believe the succession of Peter holds primacy as universal overseer, the prohibition on altering the Creed was universally established and set in stone. Although the insertion does not contradict anything its insertion was not valid on its own.

Offline CDHealy

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 4397
  • Manna: 120
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: As One
« Reply #9 on: Mon Apr 04, 2011 - 12:54:50 »
This thesis is only valid if you are suggesting that the West is asserting that Jesus Christ was divine because of the procession of the Holy Spirit. It seems to me that the West was using this as support and not the determining factor of divinity. I hope that came out right.

In point of fact this is *precisely* what the filioque was meant to assert: Jesus' divinity is predicated on the fact that he causes the Holy Spirit to proceed in the same way that the Father causes the Holy Spirit to proceed.

In any case "supporting" vs. "determining" is merely semantics.  More on that as I respond to the below.

As you mentioned the cause was to further build support for the divinity of Christ against the Arian heresy. The divinity was already universal so no addition to the Creed could be a determining factor to something that was already determined before the addition. It can be used as suuport but not the sole basis and proof.

If the belief in the divinity was, as you claim, universal, then there would have been no need for the filioque to be inserted into the Creed.  There would have been no need for "mere" "support" since it was already universally accepted.  But clearly it was *not* universally accepted otherwise it would not have been felt to have been necessary to insert it into the Creed itself.  After all, Gregory Nazianzen and Basil the Great (among others, such as Ambrose of Milan) had already written on the Holy Spirit, the Son and the Trinity.  Another theological treatise or consistent preaching would have been just fine--if it was in fact universally accepted.  But, in fact, by inserting it into the Creed, proponents of the filioque were doing a sort of end run on the Arians.  Arians were already utilizing Scripture to disprove the divinity of the Son, so proponents of the filioque determined that if we insert this into the Creed, then the Arians will have no response since the Creed is to be affirmed at all Eucharists by all Christians.

Aside from Tradition, Scripturally speaking it was by Christ's own words that we know He sent the Holy Spirit. However we also know, by the baptism of Christ, that the Holy Spirit comes forth from the Father as well. It is also by Scripture that we know that the Holy Spirit is God Himself procceeding from Himself.

First of all, procession is not the same thing as sending.  Nowhere in all of Scripture is it said the the Holy Spirit processes from the Son.  Only the Father.  Yes, Jesus sends the Holy Spirit, but this is not the same activity (it's easier to see in the Greek, but even so, the English does not translate it the same way) as the Father causing the Holy Spirit to proceed.  Notice the verse:

John 15:26--But when the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, he will bear witness about me.

The Greek is the same for both emphasized phrases: para tou patros.  Jesus does send (pempo) the Spirit, but even when he does, this Spirit is para tou patros.  And of course the Spirit proceeds para tou patros.  There is no kai para tou huiou.  Yes, it is an argument from silence, but it may hold some persuasive value: if the apostle John had wanted to indicate that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son he would have written it that way.  He did not.

Brother, I really don't see the filioque as the determining act and verification of Christ's divinty. The West didn't say, "Jesus Christ is Divine and 2nd Persona of God because the Holy Spirit procceeds from Him just as it does the Father." at least that is not how I took it. I saw it more as, "Jesus Christ is Divine and the 2nd Persona of God, as further validation of this Truth we know that just as the Father sends out the Holy Spirit so does the Son."

Then there was no need for the filioque to be inserted into the Creed.

If God said He would send His Spirit and The Father, The Son and The Holy Spirit are God then how is the filioque inappropriate?

Because while we cannot lose the identity of essence/nature between the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, neither can we lose the distinction of Persons.  The filioque at minimum erases a Personal distinction between Father and Son on one side and the Holy Spirit on the other.  So either Father and Son are the same in a way the Holy Spirit is not--thus demoting the Holy Spirit from equality with the Father and the Son--or the distinction between Father and Son in their Persons is erased, which leads to a collapse from Christian Trinitarianism into modalist Sabellianism.

It doesn't demote the Holy Spirit for the Father to say that He is sending Him. So how does it demote the Holy Spirit and promte the Son to suggest that they both do so in the same breath?

Because it either erases the distinction between Father and Son (Sabellianism) or it predicates of the Father and the Son an essential quality of nature that the Holy Spirit does not share.  And if it is essential, i.e., of the very essence of divinity, then it means that the Holy Spirit fails to share in some essential aspect of divinity that the Father and Son share in.  That demotes the Holy Spirit to a different/lesser state of being than Father and Son.

I completely agree. Although I believe the succession of Peter holds primacy as universal overseer, the prohibition on altering the Creed was universally established and set in stone. Although the insertion does not contradict anything its insertion was not valid on its own.

In fact the filioque does contradict Christian Trinitarian teaching as well as the clause in the Creed that the Holy Spirit is "with the Father and the Son both worshipped and glorified."  This could only be the case if the Holy Spirit is divine in the same way that the Father and the Son are both divine.  But if the Father and the Son share an essential characteristic of the divine nature that the Holy Spirit does not (procession of the Holy Spirit), then, in fact, the filioque contradicts the Creed's teaching about the divinity of the Holy Spirit.

Offline LightHammer

  • Defender of the Faith
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8424
  • Manna: 273
  • Gender: Male
  • I.C.T.H.Y.S.
    • View Profile
Re: As One
« Reply #10 on: Sat Apr 16, 2011 - 14:48:09 »
Quote
In point of fact this is *precisely* what the filioque was meant to assert: Jesus' divinity is predicated on the fact that he causes the Holy Spirit to proceed in the same way that the Father causes the Holy Spirit to proceed.

In any case "supporting" vs. "determining" is merely semantics.  More on that as I respond to the below.

If the belief in the divinity was, as you claim, universal, then there would have been no need for the filioque to be inserted into the Creed.  There would have been no need for "mere" "support" since it was already universally accepted.  But clearly it was *not* universally accepted otherwise it would not have been felt to have been necessary to insert it into the Creed itself.  After all, Gregory Nazianzen and Basil the Great (among others, such as Ambrose of Milan) had already written on the Holy Spirit, the Son and the Trinity.  Another theological treatise or consistent preaching would have been just fine--if it was in fact universally accepted.  But, in fact, by inserting it into the Creed, proponents of the filioque were doing a sort of end run on the Arians.  Arians were already utilizing Scripture to disprove the divinity of the Son, so proponents of the filioque determined that if we insert this into the Creed, then the Arians will have no response since the Creed is to be affirmed at all Eucharists by all Christians.

We believe in one God,
the Father, the Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is, seen and unseen. 
We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, light from light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one Being with the Father;
through him all things were made.
For us and for our salvation
he came down from heaven,
was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary
and became truly human.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered death and was buried.
On the third day he rose again
in accordance with the Scriptures;
he ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,
and his kingdom will have no end. 

We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father [and the Son],
who with the Father and the Son is worshiped and glorified,
who has spoken through the prophets.
We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.
We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
We look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come. Amen.


The Original Creed was a universally accepted declaration of Faith in the Catholic Church (pre1054 AD). As such the Trinity was universally excepted. When we consider the major controversies to the Trinity,(Adoptionism, Sabellianism, Arianism) we see that these are follwings gained in contradiction of the universal doctrine. When I say universal I mean acepted by all the patriarchates.

With that in mind and the Trinity universally declared doctrine, there is no logical reason to assert that Christ's divinty could be intended on being predicated on an addition that came nearly 60 years after the case pertaining to such was already closed.

I'm harping on this so much because I don't believe that you really object to the words but to its supposedly imposed meaning. Procession of the Holy Spirit is not meant to be the sole attribute of God but only God can do such. That was the point.

Its like with creation. If God never made anything that wouldn't change the fact that He is still God, however the fact that He can and did create something out of nothing is proof of such.

Quote
First of all, procession is not the same thing as sending.  Nowhere in all of Scripture is it said the the Holy Spirit processes from the Son.  Only the Father.  Yes, Jesus sends the Holy Spirit, but this is not the same activity (it's easier to see in the Greek, but even so, the English does not translate it the same way) as the Father causing the Holy Spirit to proceed.  Notice the verse:

John 15:26--But when the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, he will bear witness about me.

The Greek is the same for both emphasized phrases: para tou patros.  Jesus does send (pempo) the Spirit, but even when he does, this Spirit is para tou patros.  And of course the Spirit proceeds para tou patros.  There is no kai para tou huiou.  Yes, it is an argument from silence, but it may hold some persuasive value: if the apostle John had wanted to indicate that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son he would have written it that way.  He did not.

An argument from silence is usually always messy.

However can you try to break down "proccession" for me, what it means and how it differs from "send"?

In my mind I'm viewing procession as a characteristic of a great body with one outpouring flowing from another. Kind of like a lake and a waterfall. The water is of the same body and essence as the rest of the lake but the fall itself procceeds from the still body.

Understanding such is a bit difficult.

 
Quote
Then there was no need for the filioque to be inserted into the Creed.

You're starting to sound like a protestant Big Brother.lol Need can be argued day and night but then again it has never been the history of our Church to do only what is necessary. St. Francis of Assisi, St. Ignatius of Antioch, Mother Teresa, oh I'm sure you know more than me. The need is not what drives the Church.

I will concure that a need was not the driving force of the insertion but I will continue to prick at its content. As of now I'm not seeing whats so bad about it apart from the fact that it was inserted without universal consensus.

Quote
Because while we cannot lose the identity of essence/nature between the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, neither can we lose the distinction of Persons.  The filioque at minimum erases a Personal distinction between Father and Son on one side and the Holy Spirit on the other.  So either Father and Son are the same in a way the Holy Spirit is not--thus demoting the Holy Spirit from equality with the Father and the Son--or the distinction between Father and Son in their Persons is erased, which leads to a collapse from Christian Trinitarianism into modalist Sabellianism.


I respectfully disagree. The filioque does not achieve such a grand fleet on its own. The only indisputable objection is its unauthorized insertion. The rest seems to be a theological position that is only valid if you can introduce an idea that Christ divinty is predicated and dependent solely on procession of the Holy Spirit and thus the insertion. Such simply can not be the case when the divinity of Christ and the nature of the Trinity was settled at the Council of Nicea in 325 AD. the Council of Constatinople was about 60 years later in 381 AD.





Offline CDHealy

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 4397
  • Manna: 120
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: As One
« Reply #11 on: Tue Apr 19, 2011 - 16:07:25 »
The Original Creed was a universally accepted declaration of Faith in the Catholic Church (pre1054 AD). As such the Trinity was universally excepted. When we consider the major controversies to the Trinity,(Adoptionism, Sabellianism, Arianism) we see that these are follwings gained in contradiction of the universal doctrine. When I say universal I mean acepted by all the patriarchates.


The history of Arianism unfortunately contradicts your account here.  Especially, and this is of vital importance, how it manifested itself among the Germanic tribes in the West.  (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arianism#Early_medieval_Germanic_kingdoms )  It was the council in Toledo that first inserted it into the Creed, and which was later taken up again in the eleventh century (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filioque#Adoption_in_the_Roman_Rite ).  "The phrase Filioque first appears as an anti-Arian interpolation in the Creed at the Third Council of Toledo (589), at which Visigothic Spain renounced Arianism, accepting Catholic Christianity. The practice later spread then to France, the territory of the Franks, who had adopted the Catholic faith in 496. In 680 in opposition to Monothelitism,, the Council of Hatfield under Theodore of Canterbury required subscription to et filio, an equivalent to filioque, in the creed. [footnotes scrubbed]"

So, in point of fact, in the West, the filioque was inserted into the Creed, in major part, to fight off Arianism.

With that in mind and the Trinity universally declared doctrine, there is no logical reason to assert that Christ's divinty could be intended on being predicated on an addition that came nearly 60 years after the case pertaining to such was already closed.


Then, on what basis was it inserted (and what historical evidence do you have for that basis)?  That is to say, since it is clear that the filioque is not original to the Creed, and since, as you yourself admit, the non-ecumenical basis for its assertion rightly gives pause for accepting it, then why, precisely, was it inserted into the Creed?  Since on your argument it was not inserted to combat Arianism, as everyone universally acknowledged the Trinity, and I guess by extension, acknowledged the divinity of Christ, and since it's assertion violates universal ecclesial polity, then there is no basis whatsoever for its assertion.

This is an odd thing to do: to violate universal ecclesiology for no reason at all.

I'm harping on this so much because I don't believe that you really object to the words but to its supposedly imposed meaning. Procession of the Holy Spirit is not meant to be the sole attribute of God but only God can do such. That was the point.


It's not clear what you're asserting here.  The procession of the Holy Spirit is the solely the Personal act of the Father.  That's what the Creed (sans filioque) and the Church, teaches.  It is not an act tied to God's nature (i.e., a common attribute of all the Persons of the Trinity).

In other words, the "rule" for orthodox Trinitarianism is this: what is common to God's nature/essence all the Persons of the Trinity share.  What is not common to God's nature/essence is uniquely the Personal act of one of the members of the Trinity.  The Father begets the Son.  Neither the Holy Spirit nor the Son begets anyone.  The Father causes the Holy Spirit to proceed; neither the Son nor the Holy Spirit causes anyone to proceed.  So if you are predicating an activity common to God's nature/essence (i.e., procession), then all the Persons of the Holy Trinity must share that activity OR the Person who does not so share that common activity does not share in the nature/essence of God.

Its like with creation. If God never made anything that wouldn't change the fact that He is still God, however the fact that He can and did create something out of nothing is proof of such.


Creation is an act common to God's nature/essence; i.e., all three Persons of the Holy Trinity caused the creastion (God the Father created, through God the Word, and God the Spirit was hovering over the waters; "Let Us" make man in "Our image" etc.)

There is no logical connection between creation and the procession of the Holy Spirit.

An argument from silence is usually always messy.


Admittedly so, which is why I acknowledged it.  By the same token, it does care a corresponding inductive strength if the remainder of the argument is deductively sound.

However can you try to break down "proccession" for me, what it means and how it differs from "send"?

In my mind I'm viewing procession as a characteristic of a great body with one outpouring flowing from another. Kind of like a lake and a waterfall. The water is of the same body and essence as the rest of the lake but the fall itself procceeds from the still body.

Understanding such is a bit difficult.


This may help:

Quote
In 1995 the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity published in various languages a study on The Greek and the Latin Traditions regarding the Procession of the Holy Spirit, which pointed out an important difference in meaning between the Greek verb ἐκπορεύεσθαι and the Latin verb procedere, both of which are commonly translated as "proceed". The pontifical council stated that the Greek verb ἐκπορεύεσθαι indicates that the Spirit "takes his origin from the Father ... in a principal, proper and immediate manner", while the Latin verb, which corresponds rather to the verb προϊέναι in Greek, can be applied to proceeding even from a mediate channel.


You're starting to sound like a protestant Big Brother.lol Need can be argued day and night but then again it has never been the history of our Church to do only what is necessary. St. Francis of Assisi, St. Ignatius of Antioch, Mother Teresa, oh I'm sure you know more than me. The need is not what drives the Church.

I will concure that a need was not the driving force of the insertion but I will continue to prick at its content. As of now I'm not seeing whats so bad about it apart from the fact that it was inserted without universal consensus.


So apart from the theological difficulties, there is the issue of schism.  That's not unimportant.

I respectfully disagree. The filioque does not achieve such a grand fleet on its own.


I'm not sure what you're arguing here, but the Photian critique is classic and has not been successively addressed by the West.

The only indisputable objection is its unauthorized insertion.


So you agree that the insertion is schismatic?  That's a big problem, theology aside.


The rest seems to be a theological position that is only valid if you can introduce an idea that Christ divinty is predicated and dependent solely on procession of the Holy Spirit and thus the insertion. Such simply can not be the case when the divinity of Christ and the nature of the Trinity was settled at the Council of Nicea in 325 AD. the Council of Constatinople was about 60 years later in 381 AD.


See my comments regarding your revisionist history above.

Offline LightHammer

  • Defender of the Faith
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8424
  • Manna: 273
  • Gender: Male
  • I.C.T.H.Y.S.
    • View Profile
Re: As One
« Reply #12 on: Tue May 03, 2011 - 09:34:24 »
Sorry its been taking so long to reply CDHealy. I've been trying to make an effrt to research as much as I can before responding so that my statements hold some more weight to them. I was wondering if you could give me a link to where I could find the Photian Critique? You said that it had not been properly addressed by the West and thus I would really like to know more about it but I can't find a pdf file or anything I can read online.

Offline CDHealy

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 4397
  • Manna: 120
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: As One
« Reply #13 on: Tue May 03, 2011 - 17:18:35 »
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

Offline LightHammer

  • Defender of the Faith
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8424
  • Manna: 273
  • Gender: Male
  • I.C.T.H.Y.S.
    • View Profile
Re: As One
« Reply #14 on: Tue May 03, 2011 - 17:20:56 »
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


Thanks Big Brother. Give me 24 hours to produce a response. Its finals weeks so I've been a bit buiser than usual.

Offline CDHealy

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 4397
  • Manna: 120
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: As One
« Reply #15 on: Tue May 03, 2011 - 17:27:37 »
Take your time.  It's a rather lengthy work.

Offline LightHammer

  • Defender of the Faith
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8424
  • Manna: 273
  • Gender: Male
  • I.C.T.H.Y.S.
    • View Profile
Re: As One
« Reply #16 on: Sat May 14, 2011 - 10:09:30 »
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?

Offline CDHealy

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 4397
  • Manna: 120
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: As One
« Reply #17 on: Thu May 26, 2011 - 08:24:20 »
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.

Offline LightHammer

  • Defender of the Faith
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8424
  • Manna: 273
  • Gender: Male
  • I.C.T.H.Y.S.
    • View Profile
Re: As One
« Reply #18 on: Thu May 26, 2011 - 11:26:10 »
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.


Offline CDHealy

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 4397
  • Manna: 120
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: As One
« Reply #19 on: Thu May 26, 2011 - 11:32:04 »
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.

Offline LightHammer

  • Defender of the Faith
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8424
  • Manna: 273
  • Gender: Male
  • I.C.T.H.Y.S.
    • View Profile
Re: As One
« Reply #20 on: Thu May 26, 2011 - 11:53:45 »
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.

Offline Ladonia

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 2483
  • Manna: 119
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: As One
« Reply #21 on: Thu Jul 07, 2011 - 13:58:30 »
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.

Offline highrigger

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1112
  • Manna: 26
    • View Profile
Re: As One
« Reply #22 on: Thu Jul 28, 2011 - 15:26:59 »
Quote
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

Offline CDHealy

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 4397
  • Manna: 120
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: As One
« Reply #23 on: Sun Jul 31, 2011 - 21:18:30 »
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.

Offline Joel, the Son of Pethuel

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 56
  • Manna: 7
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: As One
« Reply #24 on: Mon Aug 01, 2011 - 17:32:41 »
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.

 

     
anything