In the topic
Patristic Sources on the Papacy CD Healey said this:
:
The filioque:
No Apostle, and no Church Father ever taught the filioque. The filioque itself was a noble-intentioned attempt to fend of Arianism, but because it was not part of the Apostolic deposit, because it was a true innovation, it necessarily ends up with an heretical Trinity in which the Spirit is not of the same essence as the Father and the Son (which explains in part, in my opinion, that the Western churches have had such problems with their understanding of the charismata).
I'm curious as to why:
it necessarily ends up with an heretical Trinity in which the Spirit is not of the same essence as the Father and the SonAlso CD can you explain what you mean by this comment:
(which explains in part, in my opinion, that the Western churches have had such problems with their understanding of the charismata).thanks
The filioque teaches the essential procession of the Spirit from both the Father and the Son. If that is the case, then, since all Persons share the same essence, either the Spirit is not of one essence with the Father and the Son (since the Spirit causes nothing to proceed), and if not of one essence, then not God, or we are forced to conclude that there are not three Persons of the Trinity, the Spirit then being some sort of force or activity shared between the Father and the Son.
I understand that proponents of the filioque teach that there are three Persons of the Trinity and that all share the same essence, and so intend an orthodox, apostolic doctrine of the Trinity, but since they teach the filioque their intention contradicts their teaching and vice versa.
One of the inescapable effects of the filioque is that, whatever logical conclusion one wants to draw, it is necessarily the case that the Spirit is a lesser Person than the Father and the Son since the Spirit does not share in the essential characteristic of causing to proceed. It is this lessening of the Spirit that leads to a diminishing of the role of the Spirit in the believer's life. But this vacuum must be filled, and so it ends up with the extreme reactions of Pentecostalism and charismaticism as they rightly intend to recapture the role of the Holy Spirit in the life of the Christian. They do so in potentially dangerous, ecstatic ways, but at least instinctively realize that there is a deficiency in the teaching about the Holy Spirit.
The Eastern Churches have never had a similar phenomenon as Pentecostalism/charismaticism because they have properly maintained the correct teaching about the Holy Spirit. All Orthodox liturgies, for example, begin with prayers to the Holy Spirit, and our repetitive invocations of the fully Trinity throughout our services is a demonstration of our proper understanding of the role of the Holy Spirit and of his Person and essence.
: CDHealy Thu Dec 10, 2009 - 11:40:59
The filioque teaches the essential procession of the Spirit from both the Father and the Son. If that is the case, then, since all Persons share the same essence, either the Spirit is not of one essence with the Father and the Son (since the Spirit causes nothing to proceed), and if not of one essence, then not God, or we are forced to conclude that there are not three Persons of the Trinity, the Spirit then being some sort of force or activity shared between the Father and the Son.
I understand that proponents of the filioque teach that there are three Persons of the Trinity and that all share the same essence, and so intend an orthodox, apostolic doctrine of the Trinity, but since they teach the filioque their intention contradicts their teaching and vice versa.
One of the inescapable effects of the filioque is that, whatever logical conclusion one wants to draw, it is necessarily the case that the Spirit is a lesser Person than the Father and the Son since the Spirit does not share in the essential characteristic of causing to proceed. It is this lessening of the Spirit that leads to a diminishing of the role of the Spirit in the believer's life. But this vacuum must be filled, and so it ends up with the extreme reactions of Pentecostalism and charismaticism as they rightly intend to recapture the role of the Holy Spirit in the life of the Christian. They do so in potentially dangerous, ecstatic ways, but at least instinctively realize that there is a deficiency in the teaching about the Holy Spirit.
The Eastern Churches have never had a similar phenomenon as Pentecostalism/charismaticism because they have properly maintained the correct teaching about the Holy Spirit. All Orthodox liturgies, for example, begin with prayers to the Holy Spirit, and our repetitive invocations of the fully Trinity throughout our services is a demonstration of our proper understanding of the role of the Holy Spirit and of his Person and essence.
Thank you for that explanation. However it leads me to further questions.
I understand that in the Orthodox view the Spirit proceeds from the Father alone. But still nothing is caused to proceed from the Spirit. Why does not that make the Spirit of a different essence to Father in that case? And also if the Spirit does not proceed from the Son does that not make (according to your logic as I understand it) the Son of a different essence from the Father since the Son causes nothing to proceed?
And why in either case does the causing something to proceed mean the essence is different (perhaps a definition of essence might be useful here as well).
I think further questions may follow. I hope you don't mind me pursuing this but I would like to understand it.
thanks
thanks, winsome, for your questions.
In short, the causing to proceed is not part of the essence of God, but is rather specifically a quality of the Person of the Father. Not only is commonality of essence essential to the Trinitarian Godhead, so is distinction of Persons. The Father is distinguished from the Spirit in that he "processes" the Spirit and the Spirit proceeds (clumsy I know). Similarly, the Father is distinguished from the Son in that he begets the Son and the Son is begotten. The Spirit and the Son are distinguished from one another in that one (the Spirit) proceeds from the Father, and the Son is begotten of the Father. So we have full distinction of Persons, and can also affirm commonality of essence apart from procession and begetting.
So procession and begetting belong to the Persons of the Trinity, not to the essence of the Godhead.
I hope that is helpful.
: CDHealy Thu Dec 10, 2009 - 16:03:12
thanks, winsome, for your questions.
In short, the causing to proceed is not part of the essence of God, but is rather specifically a quality of the Person of the Father. Not only is commonality of essence essential to the Trinitarian Godhead, so is distinction of Persons. The Father is distinguished from the Spirit in that he "processes" the Spirit and the Spirit proceeds (clumsy I know). Similarly, the Father is distinguished from the Son in that he begets the Son and the Son is begotten. The Spirit and the Son are distinguished from one another in that one (the Spirit) proceeds from the Father, and the Son is begotten of the Father. So we have full distinction of Persons, and can also affirm commonality of essence apart from procession and begetting.
So procession and begetting belong to the Persons of the Trinity, not to the essence of the Godhead.
I hope that is helpful.
Hi CD,
That is helpful in that I can see the logic of your argument. However it depends on the initial statement that
the causing to proceed is ......specifically a quality of the Person of the Father. On what basis do you claim that? Could not the
causing to proceed be a quality of the both the Father and the Son?
I'm also interested in your previous comments about charismatics as I have been involved in Catholic Charismatic Renewal for many years (although less so now). However that is something for later, or another thread. Perhaps best stick to the fililoque topic for now.
thanks
Added:
Another question. You said
One of the inescapable effects of the filioque is that, whatever logical conclusion one wants to draw, it is necessarily the case that the Spirit is a lesser Person than the Father and the Son since the Spirit does not share in the essential characteristic of causing to proceed.If the
causing to proceed is a characteristic of the personhood why should the SPirit not having that characteristic mean he was not of the same
essence as the Father, since that characteristic is linked to
personhood not
essence?
: winsome Fri Dec 11, 2009 - 04:24:06That is helpful in that I can see the logic of your argument. However it depends on the initial statement that the causing to proceed is ......specifically a quality of the Person of the Father. On what basis do you claim that? Could not the causing to proceed be a quality of the both the Father and the Son?
There are two things that Trinitarian theology must maintain: commonality in essence, distinction in Persons. If a quality is shared by more than one Person then it must be of the essence and common to all--otherwise we lose the distinction in Persons. On the flip side, if a quality is not shared among all Persons, then it is not of the essence, and therefore must be particular to one and only one Person--otherwise we lose the distinction in Persons.
So, if causing to proceed is a shared quality between Father and Son it must also be shared with the Spirit, because it is part of God's essence--otherwise we lose the distinction in Persons. But if the Spirit causes nothing to proceed, as the Father and Son do (according to the
filioque), then either a) the Father and Son are not distinct from one another (because they share a quality that is not shared by the Holy Spirit and therefore is not common to the essence or b) the Holy Spirit does not share the essence of the Father and Son and therefore is not part of the essential Godhead.
In other word, the logic doesn't flow from the premise that causing to proceed is a quality of the Father alone (that's actually the conclusion). The logic flows from the premise that what is distinct among the Persons cannot be shared by the essence, and what is common to the essence must be common to all Persons.
: winsome Fri Dec 11, 2009 - 04:24:06I'm also interested in your previous comments about charismatics as I have been involved in Catholic Charismatic Renewal for many years (although less so now). However that is something for later, or another thread. Perhaps best stick to the fililoque topic for now.
Although it is probably impossible to account for both the lack of a Pentecostalism/charismaticism among the eastern Churches and its presence among the western churches along simple causal lines, it is my view that one of the factors for the development of the phenomenon in the west was that the west has, for more than 800 years suffered under a deficient Trinitarian doctrine about the Holy Spirit due to the
filioque. Western Christians do believe in the Trinity, they do believe in the Holy Spirit, but the logic of the
filioque among other factors caused a deficiency of understanding and a neglect regarding the Holy Spirit. I take Pentecostalism/charismaticism as an inherent Christian instinct to recover the worship of and experience of the Holy Spirit in the western churches. Unfortunately, I also find that the movements are far too prone to ecstatic experience which can lead to influence of evil spirits. Can. Doesn't necessarily do so, but can.
: winsome Fri Dec 11, 2009 - 04:24:06Added:
Another question. You said
One of the inescapable effects of the filioque is that, whatever logical conclusion one wants to draw, it is necessarily the case that the Spirit is a lesser Person than the Father and the Son since the Spirit does not share in the essential characteristic of causing to proceed.
If the causing to proceed is a characteristic of the personhood why should the SPirit not having that characteristic mean he was not of the same essence as the Father, since that characteristic is linked to personhood not essence?
I hope my explanation of the logic above addresses your question here. If not, please follow up with me.
: CDHealy Fri Dec 11, 2009 - 10:07:28
There are two things that Trinitarian theology must maintain: commonality in essence, distinction in Persons.
Agreed
: CDHealy Fri Dec 11, 2009 - 10:07:28
If a quality is shared by more than one Person then it must be of the essence and common to all--otherwise we lose the distinction in Persons. On the flip side, if a quality is not shared among all Persons, then it is not of the essence, and therefore must be particular to one and only one Person--otherwise we lose the distinction in Persons.
So, if causing to proceed is a shared quality between Father and Son it must also be shared with the Spirit, because it is part of God's essence--otherwise we lose the distinction in Persons. But if the Spirit causes nothing to proceed, as the Father and Son do (according to the filioque), then either a) the Father and Son are not distinct from one another (because they share a quality that is not shared by the Holy Spirit and therefore is not common to the essence or b) the Holy Spirit does not share the essence of the Father and Son and therefore is not part of the essential Godhead.
In other word, the logic doesn't flow from the premise that causing to proceed is a quality of the Father alone (that's actually the conclusion). The logic flows from the premise that what is distinct among the Persons cannot be shared by the essence, and what is common to the essence must be common to all Persons.
If a quality is shared by more than one Person then it must be of the essence and common to all--otherwise we lose the distinction in Persons. On the flip side, if a quality is not shared among all Persons, then it is not of the essence, and therefore must be particular to one and only one Person--otherwise we lose the distinction in Persons.Why should a quality that is shared by two persons, and not shared by a third, lose the distinctions of persons if there are other qualities that make the two persons distinct – in the case of the Son his begotteness?
This seems to be an assertion but I cannot see why it should be so. It would seem to me that distinction of persons would be maintained if there was at least
one quality that was distinct between persons. You say that if a quality is shared by two persons then it must be of the essence. But why?
thank you for you patience on this.
: winsome Fri Dec 11, 2009 - 12:26:02Why should a quality that is shared by two persons, and not shared by a third, lose the distinctions of persons if there are other qualities that make the two persons distinct – in the case of the Son his begotteness?
This seems to be an assertion but I cannot see why it should be so. It would seem to me that distinction of persons would be maintained if there was at least one quality that was distinct between persons. You say that if a quality is shared by two persons then it must be of the essence. But why?
thank you for you patience on this.
No problem. Indeed, I am grateful for your persistence, as I sometimes do not communicate as clearly as I'd like to.
Okay, we are agreed on the principle of commonality in essence and distinctions among Persons. What we need to try to do is to reveal the connection between how if more than one Person has the same quality, then that belongs to the essence and therefore needs to be shared by all the Persons.
Let's see if we can pick an obvious one. We would say that the Son is eternally begotten of the Father, and that is what makes the distinction between Father and Son: the Father begets and the Son is begotten. The Father does not beget the Holy Spirit, so this eternal begetting is unique to the relationship between the Father and the Son, and the Father's begetting differs from the Son's being begotten. But in this act of begetting is a quality that is shared: eternality. The Father eternally begets the Son, and the Son is eternally begotten. The Father's begetting and the Son's being begotten are different, but the eternality is the same. So we would say the eternality is part of the essence of the Godhead.
Similarly we would say that the Father eternally causes the Holy Spirit to proceed (leaving aside the
filioque for now). The Holy Spirit is eternally proceeding from the Father. Causing to proceed and proceeding are different, but the common element is the eternality. So again we would say that the eternality is part of the essence of the Godhead.
Hopefully, then it is clear, by way of an example, that even though there are different qualities being asserted (begetting, begottenness, causing to proceed, proceeding, and eternality), the ones that attach to Persons are distinct and not shared by the other Persons, and the one that is common is not distinct of Persons and is shared of the essence.
Now, let's flesh this out a little more. Relative to the Father begetting the Son and the Son being begotten, hopefully it can be seen that the Son does not beget the Father, and therefore the Son's being begotten is different from the Father's begetting. Similarly, hopefully it can be seen that the Father's causing the Holy Spirit to proceed is different from the Spirit's proceeding. We would not say, for example that the Holy Spirit causes the Father to proceed. So here we acknowledge that these actions between Persons are not identical, are distinct, and are located specifically in that particular Person (the Father begetting and causing to proceed, the Son being begotten, and the Spirit proceeding).
So, coming back to the
filioque, if we assert that both the Father and the Son cause the Holy Spirit to proceed, then we have two choices: it's a quality both the Father and the Son share, or it is common to the essence of the Godhead.
If it's common to the essence of the Godhead, then what does the Holy Spirit cause to proceed? The Father? The Son? Something else? The Church has never taught that the Holy Spirit causes anything to proceed. So this cannot be an element common to the Godhead. But if the Father and the Son together cause the Holy Spirit to proceed, and it's a quality common to them both, and if a quality common to them both, then part of their essence. And if part of their essence, and it's a quality the Holy Spirit doesn't have, and doesn't that make the Holy different in essence from the Father and the Son?
But if it's a quality the Holy Spirit doesn't have, but the Father and the Son do, then how do we distinguish between Father and Son? If this quality is common to both Father and Son, it is either common to their Persons or common to their essence. If it's the latter, then the Holy Spirit is different from them. But if it's common to their Persons, how do we distinguish between Father and Son? Doesn't the distinction collapse? We can never actually point out that the Father or the Son is causing the procession. Aren't we then required to say that Father-Son causes the Holy Spirit to proceed? But who is this Father-Son? Have we lost the Trinity to a Biunity?
If we agree on the principle that what is common is of the essence and what is distinct is of the Persons, then if there is any quality that is shared it has to be of the essence and cannot be of the Person. So if the Father and the Son share the quality of causing the Holy Spirit to proceed, then it must be of their essence to do so. And if of their essence, then of the Holy Spirit's too. But the Holy Spirit cannot cause himself to proceed. But if we refuse to go that road, then we are left with the causing to proceed being a Personal quality, and since shared between Father and Son, then there is no distinction between Father and Son. And no Trinity.
I hope that helps. If not, please continue being patient and I'll try again from another angle.
: CDHealy Fri Dec 11, 2009 - 13:11:08
: winsome Fri Dec 11, 2009 - 12:26:02Why should a quality that is shared by two persons, and not shared by a third, lose the distinctions of persons if there are other qualities that make the two persons distinct – in the case of the Son his begotteness?
This seems to be an assertion but I cannot see why it should be so. It would seem to me that distinction of persons would be maintained if there was at least one quality that was distinct between persons. You say that if a quality is shared by two persons then it must be of the essence. But why?
thank you for you patience on this.
No problem. Indeed, I am grateful for your persistence, as I sometimes do not communicate as clearly as I'd like to.
Okay, we are agreed on the principle of commonality in essence and distinctions among Persons. What we need to try to do is to reveal the connection between how if more than one Person has the same quality, then that belongs to the essence and therefore needs to be shared by all the Persons.
Let's see if we can pick an obvious one. We would say that the Son is eternally begotten of the Father, and that is what makes the distinction between Father and Son: the Father begets and the Son is begotten. The Father does not beget the Holy Spirit, so this eternal begetting is unique to the relationship between the Father and the Son, and the Father's begetting differs from the Son's being begotten. But in this act of begetting is a quality that is shared: eternality. The Father eternally begets the Son, and the Son is eternally begotten. The Father's begetting and the Son's being begotten are different, but the eternality is the same. So we would say the eternality is part of the essence of the Godhead.
Similarly we would say that the Father eternally causes the Holy Spirit to proceed (leaving aside the filioque for now). The Holy Spirit is eternally proceeding from the Father. Causing to proceed and proceeding are different, but the common element is the eternality. So again we would say that the eternality is part of the essence of the Godhead.
Hopefully, then it is clear, by way of an example, that even though there are different qualities being asserted (begetting, begottenness, causing to proceed, proceeding, and eternality), the ones that attach to Persons are distinct and not shared by the other Persons, and the one that is common is not distinct of Persons and is shared of the essence.
Now, let's flesh this out a little more. Relative to the Father begetting the Son and the Son being begotten, hopefully it can be seen that the Son does not beget the Father, and therefore the Son's being begotten is different from the Father's begetting. Similarly, hopefully it can be seen that the Father's causing the Holy Spirit to proceed is different from the Spirit's proceeding. We would not say, for example that the Holy Spirit causes the Father to proceed. So here we acknowledge that these actions between Persons are not identical, are distinct, and are located specifically in that particular Person (the Father begetting and causing to proceed, the Son being begotten, and the Spirit proceeding).
So, coming back to the filioque, if we assert that both the Father and the Son cause the Holy Spirit to proceed, then we have two choices: it's a quality both the Father and the Son share, or it is common to the essence of the Godhead.
If it's common to the essence of the Godhead, then what does the Holy Spirit cause to proceed? The Father? The Son? Something else? The Church has never taught that the Holy Spirit causes anything to proceed. So this cannot be an element common to the Godhead. But if the Father and the Son together cause the Holy Spirit to proceed, and it's a quality common to them both, and if a quality common to them both, then part of their essence. And if part of their essence, and it's a quality the Holy Spirit doesn't have, and doesn't that make the Holy different in essence from the Father and the Son?
But if it's a quality the Holy Spirit doesn't have, but the Father and the Son do, then how do we distinguish between Father and Son? If this quality is common to both Father and Son, it is either common to their Persons or common to their essence. If it's the latter, then the Holy Spirit is different from them. But if it's common to their Persons, how do we distinguish between Father and Son? Doesn't the distinction collapse? We can never actually point out that the Father or the Son is causing the procession. Aren't we then required to say that Father-Son causes the Holy Spirit to proceed? But who is this Father-Son? Have we lost the Trinity to a Biunity?
If we agree on the principle that what is common is of the essence and what is distinct is of the Persons, then if there is any quality that is shared it has to be of the essence and cannot be of the Person. So if the Father and the Son share the quality of causing the Holy Spirit to proceed, then it must be of their essence to do so. And if of their essence, then of the Holy Spirit's too. But the Holy Spirit cannot cause himself to proceed. But if we refuse to go that road, then we are left with the causing to proceed being a Personal quality, and since shared between Father and Son, then there is no distinction between Father and Son. And no Trinity.
I hope that helps. If not, please continue being patient and I'll try again from another angle.
I'm going to have to read this though several times. It's late here and my brain hurts from reading it through once, so I'll try and digest it tomorrow. ::smile::
Thanks
IMO, the filioque is incorrect because it violates common sense and ignores the words used.
Breath does not proceed from the Word. Breath proceeds from the Head, and gives expression to the Word.
Jarrod
: Wycliffes_Shillelagh Fri Dec 11, 2009 - 15:07:52
IMO, the filioque is incorrect because it violates common sense and ignores the words used.
Breath does not proceed from the Word. Breath proceeds from the Head, and gives expression to the Word.
Jarrod
I don't think that is valid. Head and Breath are analogies (or metaphors - I never get the hang of the difference). They are not literal as God is Spirit. They are useful for understanding but you can't argue further from them.
Hi CD, I'm with you down to here:
: CDHealy Fri Dec 11, 2009 - 13:11:08
But if it's a quality the Holy Spirit doesn't have, but the Father and the Son do, then how do we distinguish between Father and Son? If this quality is common to both Father and Son, it is either common to their Persons or common to their essence. If it's the latter, then the Holy Spirit is different from them. But if it's common to their Persons, how do we distinguish between Father and Son? Doesn't the distinction collapse? We can never actually point out that the Father or the Son is causing the procession. Aren't we then required to say that Father-Son causes the Holy Spirit to proceed? But who is this Father-Son? Have we lost the Trinity to a Biunity?
If we agree on the principle that what is common is of the essence and what is distinct is of the Persons, then if there is any quality that is shared it has to be of the essence and cannot be of the Person. So if the Father and the Son share the quality of causing the Holy Spirit to proceed, then it must be of their essence to do so. And if of their essence, then of the Holy Spirit's too. But the Holy Spirit cannot cause himself to proceed. But if we refuse to go that road, then we are left with the causing to proceed being a Personal quality, and since shared between Father and Son, then there is no distinction between Father and Son. And no Trinity.
But if it's a quality the Holy Spirit doesn't have, but the Father and the Son do, then how do we distinguish between Father and Son? We can distinguish between Father and Son because the Father and Son have other qualities of their personhood that distinguish them (namely begetting and being begotten). I can't see that them both processing the Holy Spirit together necessarily makes them some sort of Biunity. Take this analogy (and it may not be a good one but it's the only one I can think of at the moment), my wife and I have a daughter, Helen. We are both individually a parent to her, and she is a child to us individually. The being a parent is not part of my essence as it is a quality of my relationship with Helen and therefore of my personhood. And similarly with my wife. Us both being parents to Helen does not make us some sort of hybrid person. We are still distinct persons. So too if the Father and the Son do something jointly I don't see that necessarily it stops them being distinct in their persons.
I'm also interested in the Orthodox understanding of the Holy Spirit, and
processing, but I'll raise another thread for that.
thanks
: winsome Sat Dec 12, 2009 - 06:21:42But if it's a quality the Holy Spirit doesn't have, but the Father and the Son do, then how do we distinguish between Father and Son?
We can distinguish between Father and Son because the Father and Son have other qualities of their personhood that distinguish them (namely begetting and being begotten). I can't see that them both processing the Holy Spirit together necessarily makes them some sort of Biunity.
But remember the principle: what is shared must be common to the essence, what is distinct is proper to the Persons. So if there is a quality that is shared, then it is an essential quality and common to all Persons. If we then say that causing to proceed is common to the Father and the Son, then it must also be common to the Spirit. If it is not common to the Spirit, then either the Spirit is not part of the Godhead, since it does not share in the common quality of causing to proceed; or, if it is common to both Father and Son, and yet not part of the essence of the Godhead, then the distinction between Father and Son begins to collapse because we have a common quality that is not essential. Thus, we have a Biunity--Father/Son and Holy Spirit, or the Holy Spirit is not God.
: winsome Sat Dec 12, 2009 - 06:21:42Take this analogy (and it may not be a good one but it's the only one I can think of at the moment), my wife and I have a daughter, Helen. We are both individually a parent to her, and she is a child to us individually. The being a parent is not part of my essence as it is a quality of my relationship with Helen and therefore of my personhood. And similarly with my wife. Us both being parents to Helen does not make us some sort of hybrid person. We are still distinct persons.
I recognize that metaphors have limited argumentative force, but let us take your analogy seriously enough to analyze it more carefully.
If you claim that "parenthood" is personal and not essential, and if it is a quality both you and your wife share, then we collapse the distinction between mother and father, making either interchangeable, and potentially one unnecessary (you can guess which our society says is unnecessary).
I think a way to take your analogy such that it maps on to an Orthodox viewpoint is to understand parenthood as an essential quality common to human nature. That is to say all humans have the potential to be parents; it's hardwired into us. And most humans do become parents in actuality. But parenthood is common to all humans. What is distinct to the persons who are parents is being a mother or a father. A father cannot be a mother, a mother cannot be a father, and both are necessary to children. A man exercises his parenthood (his essential quality he shares with his wife) as a father (his distinct quality differentiating himself from his wife); and vice versa.
Another way to take parenthood as an essential quality is to locate it not in human nature per se (though I think that's where it belongs) but to locate it in the marital union. That is to say, what is essential to the marital union is parenthood, but each person of the marital union exercises that essence in distinctly personal ways, one as father one as mother. This way of viewing it is as legitimate it seems to me as the other way I mention above. And maybe the full view is a combination of these both.
: winsome Sat Dec 12, 2009 - 06:21:42So too if the Father and the Son do something jointly I don't see that necessarily it stops them being distinct in their persons.
It's not the sharing of a quality per se that loses them the distinction, but their sharing a quality between themselves that the Holy Spirit doesn't also share. What is common to more than one Person is essence and therefore common to all; what is not common to all must distinct to one and only one Person.
CD,
I think I understand your line of reasoning. Though I don't agree fully you have given me much to ponder on and pray about. I will leave it there.
Thank you for your explanations.
God bless
winsome
: winsome Sun Dec 13, 2009 - 06:26:40
CD,
I think I understand your line of reasoning. Though I don't agree fully you have given me much to ponder on and pray about. I will leave it there.
Thank you for your explanations.
God bless
winsome
Timothy Ware, in his book, The Orthodox Church, explained this well when he wrote:
... there is one God because there is one Father. The other two persons trace their origin to the Father and are defined in terms of their relation to Him. As the sole source of being within the Trinity, the Father constitutes in this way the principle or ground of unity for the Godhead as a whole. But the west, in regarding not only the Father but also the Son as the source of the Spirit, finds its principle of unity, no longer in the
person of the Father, but in the
essence which the three persons share...
In short, Ware explains that, though it is not intended by Latin Theology, the persons are overshadowed/made subject to the essence/substance.
Ryan, that is a very interesting point. Thanks for bringing it up
I think if the Filioque is wrong then Jesus is inferior and not of the same essence as the Father.
If Jesus is 100% God and 100% Human (which I believe), then the 100% God part is able to give the Holy Spirit, if not then Jesus is really NOT 100% God but something else (inferior) as the Arians claimed. There are a number of instances in the NT where Jesus gave the Holy Spirit to his disciples. The Orthodox claim that God gave the Holy Spirit through Jesus, but then one (Arian) can make the same argument about all the miracles Jesus made.
Furthermore, believing that Jesus is able to give the Holy Spirit does not imply at all that the Holy Spirit is of a different ousia; all it implies is that Jesus is of the same ousia as the Father.
I'm not saying the Orthodox are Arian, far from it. But in their effort to "discover" thelogical differences with the West they have made the filioque a bigger deal than it is. The schism between the Orthodox and Catholics was and remains POLITICAL. Orthodox adherents are allowed to receive the Eucharist in a Catholic Church, it's time for the Orthodox Church to do the same in the name of the unity of the Body of Christ, since both Churches have the same understanding of the Eucharist
I think if the Filioque is wrong then Jesus is inferior and not of the same essence as the Father.
If the filioque is right, wouldn't the essence be what is superior to both the Father and the Son? More than this, isn't the Holy Spirit then "inferior" to both the Father and the Son and made all the more inferior to the essence? I'll try to explain.
If Jesus is 100% God and 100% Human (which I believe), then the 100% God part is able to give the Holy Spirit, if not then Jesus is really NOT 100% God but something else (inferior) as the Arians claimed.
The problem here is not that the idea of Jesus not being able to "send" the Holy Spirit. To say that "to send" and "proceeds from" are synonymous distorts the revelation of the incomprehensible Holy Trinity. The filioque states that the Holy Spirit "proceeds" from both the Father and the Son. The Son indeed does send the Holy Spirit, WHO proceeds from THE Father. So we know that "to send" and "who proceeds from" are not synonymous. Find a bible verse that states otherwise.
John 15:26
"When the Helper comes, whom I will send to you
from the Father, that is the Spirit of truth
who proceeds from the Father, He will testify about Me..."
While the filioque was first formulated to fight against the heretical Goths, the problem here is that the formulation, though it may have strengthened the fight against the Goths, did so at the expense of the reality.
In the person of the Father is where the foundation of the Godhead rests. If we were to say that the Holy Spirit proceeds FROM both the Father and the Son, it confuses the two Holy persons of the Trinity and then the only way to restore balance is to elevate the Essence above the person of the Father. This then makes the essence the foundation wherein the God head rests.
While you believe the Orthodox position might leave a door open for the Arians (but admit that the door is only open and not at all something the Arians can realistically enter through) I could say that the filioque leaves the door open for any and all modalists. To explain:
If we take terms like "proceeds from" and "whom I will send" to be synonymous, then a modalist could say that Jesus IS his own Father. And if they were to put much weight on the fact that you have two persons of the Trinity from which the Holy Spirit proceeds, they might, in an attempt to restore order, make the Holy Spirit then proceed from Himself. The reason they would do this is because if NOT proceeding from the Son makes the Son inferior to the Father then the Holy Spirit is necessarily inferior because He's the one being "sent".
The reason they could say that Jesus IS his own Father based on the filioque is because it's the ESSENCE that becomes the foundation of the Godhead in the filioque. If the "essence" is the foundation of the Godhead, then it's as if the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are subject TO the Essence and therefore are not unlike "masks" of the One True God who would then be, in the mind of the modalist, The Essence. The Essence is what the Three persons of the Holy Trinity would have to be subject to.
There are a number of instances in the NT where Jesus gave the Holy Spirit to his disciples. The Orthodox claim that God gave the Holy Spirit through Jesus, but then one (Arian) can make the same argument about all the miracles Jesus made.
Again, you are making "proceeds from" to be synonymous with "sending" and or "giving". This is not about Jesus not being able to send or give but the fact that we have three persons of the Holy Trinity. Each person has distinctions though without division. Each person has distinctions that the other two do not. For instance, one is begotten. Is the Holy Spirit and the Father begotten? Of course, Jesus is begotten, not made. He has his source in the Father. One has His source in the Father but proceeds from the Father. Does the Son and or the Father proceed from the Father? One has His source in Himself. Does the Holy Spirit and or the Son have His source in Himself?
The way the filioque confuses the persons of the Trinity is by destroying the distinctions for the sake of a way to attack the Goths and then was, as you mentioned, used as a political tool. If we have to sacrifice and or distort the reality of who God is in order to defeat an adversary, this will only serve to defeat ourselves.
Furthermore, believing that Jesus is able to give the Holy Spirit does not imply at all that the Holy Spirit is of a different ousia; all it implies is that Jesus is of the same ousia as the Father.
While it does rely on the Essence to save the argument, it necessarily subjects the Holy Spirit and defeats itself.
I'm not saying the Orthodox are Arian, far from it. But in their effort to "discover" thelogical differences with the West they have made the filioque a bigger deal than it is.
Neither do I believe that the Roman Catholics are modalists. However, you are implying that the Orthodox position is based on their
seeking to "discover" theological differences. As if we define ourselves and form our identity "against" Rome. Perhaps this seems like standard procedure having dealt with so many Protestants who seem to be bringing Roman Catholic doctrines to logical conclusion. You are saying that the filioque is no big deal. If it's no big deal then why doesn't Rome just drop the filioque? And why do the Orthodox have to adapt it?
One, you admit that it's only a political "move". This political move serves no purpose. Just because you block off one avenue to keep the heretics from advancing, the insertion of the filioque only opens an avenue for another group of heretics to attack. How does the filioque then "improve" upon what an entire council already decided upon and is even supported by scripture. And so, why so persist to "keep" this addition to the creed? Why do you portray the Orthodox as being stubborn when Rome could just as easily drop the addition to the creed.
More than this, an 8th century Pope even anathematized anyone that attempted to add to or change the very creed we are talking about. What makes this pope less infallible/supreme that his successors? This question alludes a bit to the way in which Rome views tradition - as if Holy Tradition could be "improved" upon. The Holy Spirit does not draw us to improve upon that which is already revealed. Just because we get better at math doesn't mean that we have a leg up on our early Church Fathers. What living tradition does do is "magnify" that which is already present.
What's more, the filioque was at first rejected by a Pope and wasn't until later, after political pressure, that it was unilaterally inserted. You might want to take a look in the History section of this forum wherein I posted a series a videos and a link to the study on the motives behind the filioque among other issues our traditions wrestle with. It's called, FRANKS, ROMANS, FEUDALISM, AND DOCTRINE.
You can read the excerpt on the filioque here: http://www.romanity.org/htm/rom.03.en.franks_romans_feudalism_and_doctrine.03.htm
The schism between the Orthodox and Catholics was and remains POLITICAL.
If you study Orthodoxy you will see that our theologies are quite different on many levels. For Orthodox Christians, communion and being of One mind is very important. To simply try and sweep doctrines of Christ under the rug for the sake of an outward and statistical population increase is self-defeating, insincere unity and if you study our doctrines on the Ecumenical movement, heresy.
Orthodox adherents are allowed to receive the Eucharist in a Catholic Church
Of course we are. It was a bold bold move. But it shows a lack of respect for The Orthodox Church and is insincere.
1. Let the Orthodox receive the Eucharist at the Roman Church despite that the parishioners are subject to their Bishops and that we aren't supposed to. This will either put pressure on the Bishops and or at least in the eyes of the unconverted Roman Catholics, make the Orthodox look like their being unreasonable and maybe even give Rome a little much needed public relations boost.
2. The only point of such a move is to have the Orthodox become subject to the Pope/Rome but without having the Pope/Rome recant her heresies. Of course it wouldn't happen over night but allow them take the Eucharist with us and we'll blur the line between "communion" and soften them a bit. Most of their cradle Orthodox are being bombarded by the Ecumenism movement thanks to the protestants anyway...
"No one may share in the eucharist with us unless he believes that what we teach is true..." -- St. Justin Martyr
I won't post what St. Ignatius wrote on schisms.
Orthodox do not believe that what Rome teaches is true and neither does Rome believe what the Orthodox Church teach is true. There's a reason we don't receive the Eucharist at the Roman Church. The Orthodox believe Rome's positions to be heretical.
it's time for the Orthodox Church to do the same in the name of the unity of the Body of Christ, since both Churches have the same understanding of the Eucharist
Common understanding on one point (that the Eucharist is the body and blood of Our Lord and Savior) is not equivalent to the "same understanding".
Just because
how we understand
what we understand is similar, doesn't mean that
what we understand is similar.
You are asking us to ignore the "what" and embrace the how and all in the name of unity. This is not true unity.
Further, the reality is, the how isn't even the same. I mean, if we look at Aquinus vs Gregory Palamas we can see that Aquinus is the beginning of scholasticism (which is hardly, The Way as the ancients understood and practiced it). If you've studied how the Orthodox view and approach Blessed Augustine, you'll see that the very beginning of the narrative of the story of salvation totally differs from Rome. Not only are the "whats" totally different but because of the way in which Rome builds off Aquinus/Aristotle etc. -- the "how" is totally different too.
Realize that if you start off the narrative of a story with a totally different understanding you'll fast realize that you wind up with two entirely different stories. Despite the schism being political, perhaps it was just Divine Providence in that it served to make underlying differences more apparent.
Had they called a council back in the day to simply try to repair the schism, perhaps they would have fared better. However, as for where we are now? Both the Orthodox and Rome have a looooong way to go before there is any real "unity".
True unity is based on the Holy Trinity. It's based on Eucharist. Surrounds the Bishop. In other words, just as there is True Unity in the Holy Trinity, the Church too must have True Unity, be of one mind, of one body for all partake of the One loaf which is the body of Christ.
You're asking us to eat a divided body which is the ante-type of the Holy Trinity (though I don't think that is your intention. Just know that this is what it "sounds" like from an Orthodox perspective).
Rome's Ecumenical movements and the Protestant's Ecumenical movements are not a picture of unity. If anything, they are an attempt to make what is truly divided against itself look like it isn't what everybody knows it is - dashed to pieces as if struck by an iron rod.
I do pray that both Roman Catholics and Protestant divisions would cease to be in schism against the Orthodox. However, it would ultimately mean that someone somewhere would have to admit heresy, repent and enter into right belief. Not an easy thing to do and yet if we are Christian, we should be better at it than any other group of people on the earth.
John 17
20"My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, 21that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. 22I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one: 23I in them and you in me. May they be brought to complete unity to let the world know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me. 24"Father, I want those you have given me to be with me where I am, and to see my glory, the glory you have given me because you loved me before the creation of the world. 25"Righteous Father, though the world does not know you, I know you, and they know that you have sent me. 26I have made you known to them, and will continue to make you known in order that the love you have for me may be in them and that I myself may be in them."
God bless
Here are a few articles which will help you understand the Orthodox position as it relates to false Ecumenism/Union:
http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/ea_articles.aspx
http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/ea_docs.aspx
http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/ea_rome.aspx
Dear Ryan2010,
You posted:
" Why do you portray the Orthodox as being stubborn when Rome could just as easily drop the addition to the creed."
Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI have recited the Nicene Creed jointly with Patriarchs Demetrius I and Bartholomew I in Greek without the Filioque clause. In addition, Eastern Catholic Churches, even if not of Greek language or tradition, do not necessarily include "Filioque".
So The Catholic Churches of the East (in full communion with Rome) do not include filioque. For the Catholic Church the filioque is not a deal breaker, and thus the Orthodox Church could unite without having to adopt the filioque. In fact for Bartholomew the filioque is not a deal breaker either, which is why he was more than happy to have a united liturgy with Benedict XVI. It's a deal breaker only for the nationalistic ethnics.
It's only the Orthodox that play with words and try to turn a mystery (the Holy Spirit) into some 100% legalistic formula, as if God really cares about the linquisitc difference between "proceeds from" and "sends".
In terms of me studying Orthodoxy. I'm Greek and I grew up in Greece and was educated by the Orthodox Church. I have deep respect for the Traditions and beliefs of the Orthodox Church. What I don't have respect for is that the Orthodox Church has in fact become a bunch of fragmented ethnic silos. There's the Greeks and the Russians and the Serbs and the Romanians etc...and they have not been able to meet in an Ecumenical council since 787!! The Greek Church is first Greek (and very nationalistic) and then Christian. Same thing with the individual ethnic slavic churches. This I believe is the big problem with the Orthodox Churches.
What Christianity needs is an ecumenical Church, the "body of Christ", not a series of fragmented ethnic churches who can not do effective missionary work and can not address the global issues of today.
I really believe that the so called dogmatic differences between the Catholic and the Orthodox are a nationalistic attempt coming from the fear of the West that exists in the East. The sad truth is that most Greeks and Bulgarians and Romanians today are very secular and the ethnic Churches have become irrelevant for the local populations. I think only a reunification of the Orthodox and Catholic Churches can revive the ethnic Orthodox churches in their home countries.
Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI have recited the Nicene Creed jointly with Patriarchs Demetrius I and Bartholomew I in Greek without the Filioque clause. In addition, Eastern Catholic Churches, even if not of Greek language or tradition, do not necessarily include "Filioque".
True. However, just because John Paul and Benedict have both recited the original doesn't change the doctrinal disposition. This may not mean much to you but for some (and not only the "nationalistic" types) this would be too much.
So The Catholic Churches of the East (in full communion with Rome) do not include filioque.
Well, again, that might suit some but in regards to others it would be a no-go.
For the Catholic Church the filioque is not a deal breaker, and thus the Orthodox Church could unite without having to adopt the filioque.
True. But could the unite without having to adopt Papal Supremacy, Papal Infallibility, Immaculate Conception, Original Sin, Purgatory, Celebrate Priests etc..
Just as a side note, though Rome says that it allows the Eastern Churches that communed with Rome to have their Priests marry, they make it quite difficult. It's apparent that they're trying to squash the practice.
In fact for Bartholomew the filioque is not a deal breaker either, which is why he was more than happy to have a united liturgy with Benedict XVI. It's a deal breaker only for the nationalistic ethnics.
While I agree that a Nationalistic view isn't Kosher, it's a stretch to say that the only groups that have an issue with the filioque are nationalist ethnics.
It's only the Orthodox that play with words and try to turn a mystery (the Holy Spirit) into some 100% legalistic formula, as if God really cares about the linquisitc difference between "proceeds from" and "sends".
It's not legalism at work here. The thing is, there's a reason why certain words with certain meanings within certain contexts are used within certain passages of the bible. To distort the reality and just gloss over verses in the Holy Scriptures is hardly "Apostolic".
In terms of me studying Orthodoxy. I'm Greek and I grew up in Greece and was educated by the Orthodox Church. I have deep respect for the Traditions and beliefs of the Orthodox Church. What I don't have respect for is that the Orthodox Church has in fact become a bunch of fragmented ethnic silos.
Well, that's a valid point and definitely something to keep an eye out for. However, it's hardly reason to jump ship. I go to an OCA Church. We have Greeks, Cretes, Americans mostly. But nearly fifty percent (if not more) of the congregation is made up converts from protestantism with all kinds of different cultural backgrounds. I'm sure that in certain regions where Orthodoxy's been around the block for a millennium have some cultural massaging going on but it's hardly a reason to embrace Rome.
I mean, if that was the criteria, we could choose a protestant church that had even fewer problems with "ethnicity" and "nationalism". Though, trying to avoid Nationalism would probably leave you in some pretty liberal protestant wings (in America anyway).
There's the Greeks and the Russians and the Serbs and the Romanians etc...and they have not been able to meet in an Ecumenical council since 787!! The Greek Church is first Greek (and very nationalistic) and then Christian. Same thing with the individual ethnic slavic churches. This I believe is the big problem with the Orthodox Churches.
I agree.
But have you read the stories of the Saints wherein they seemed like the only Orthodox person on the planet? Didn't many of the great Saints go into exile from "the Church" itself. I mean, true Orthodoxy is right belief but
within Orthodoxy. None of the Saints looked to jump ship only to return to her (though they never left).
What Christianity needs is an ecumenical Church, the "body of Christ", not a series of fragmented ethnic churches who can not do effective missionary work and can not address the global issues of today.
?
Well, if you believe that Rome's doctrines are on point then you probably have no problem bringing people to her. However, I wouldn't say that the Orthodox Church only has a "series of fragmented ethnic churches who can not do effective missionary work and can not address the global issues of today".
That's a mouthful.
When the old lady only gave her two cents and the rich guy complained, Our Lord, Jesus corrected the so-called rich guy and told him that when she gave her two cents, she gave a hundred percent. But the guy that supposedly gave "much" gave little.
We both know that it's not about money or numbers or how "seemingly" effective we appear to be. It's about communion with God. Yep, there's bad apples. You don't abandon the good ones for the bad ones. And you stay and seek to restore the "bad" ones. Why jump ship?
I really believe that the so called dogmatic differences between the Catholic and the Orthodox are a nationalistic attempt coming from the fear of the West that exists in the East.
You think that it's Nationalism that has people disagreeing with Papal Supremacy, Infallibility, Original Sin, Purgatory, Immaculate Conception etc... ???
Why would a Nationalist, more than someone that is genuinely concerned about who God is, be at the root of doctrinal disputes?
The sad truth is that most Greeks and Bulgarians and Romanians today are very secular and the ethnic Churches have become irrelevant for the local populations.
There are always nominal Christians. And they always make it hard for the secular world to see Christ in them. Makes the job of the laborers in the field all the more harder. However, God sees. You still stay in the field and work. How is it any different in the Roman or in any Church in regards to nominal Christians?
I think only a reunification of the Orthodox and Catholic Churches can revive the ethnic Orthodox churches in their home countries.
God's capable.
It would be interesting though. Do you think that if the Orthodox just communed with Rome (regardless of doctrinal contradictions) that the nominal and ethnic ties would just vaporize or what??? I'm not sure why you see communion with Rome as the "only" way to revive certain regions of Orthodox Churches?
Rome's got a lot of things tugging at her seams at the moment. From Charismatics to the Traditionalists vs. the post Vatican II camp vs the Liberals vs the Conservatives (just like we find in most groups populated by humans).
So you think that Orthodox should just adapt Roman Catholic dogma?
Why not the other way around?
Would this make Rome ineffective?
God bless
Dear Ryan2010,
you posted "So you think that Orthodox should just adapt Roman Catholic dogma?" No far from it. I do not consider the Orthodox Churches dogmatically inferior to the Catholic Church. Pope Benedict doesn't either and has written in length about his deep respect for the dogmas and Traditions of the Orthodox Church. What I do think is that Orthodox and Catholics should come in full communion respecting each-other's (IMHO minor) dogmatic differences.
I do believe that Christ would be very happy if his flock on earth were able to set aside their little egos and reunite the Body of Christ (as He said "one flock, one shepherd"). The dogmatic differences between the Orthodox and the Catholic are extremely minor compared to their differences vs. the Protestant sects (I hope you would agree with that)
Now I also think that the Orthodox Churches have some very serious problems that Rome doesn't have. They are very fragmented (I know you don't like the Papacy, but in practical terms it does bring a unity in the Catholic Church), they have not been able to call an Ecumenical Council since 787, they don't have the resources to do real missionary work in Africa and Asia. Maybe more importantly they have taken the "autocefalous" concept to an extreme. Every local Church (including the one in the USA) feels they can just ignore everyone else when it doesn't suit their politics (remember what happened in 1997 when the newly appointed Archbishop Spyridon had to be withdrawn?).
So the big benefit from a reunification would be for the Orthodox Churches because it would impose some badly needed unity and consistency and would give them access to many thriving seminaries (Bartholomew recently complained on CBS that he has nowhere to educate his aspiring clergy because the Turks closed down the seminary). Maybe most importantly it would make the local Orthodox Churches in Europe less financially dependent on the secular governments of their home countries
you posted "So you think that Orthodox should just adapt Roman Catholic dogma?" No far from it. I do not consider the Orthodox Churches dogmatically inferior to the Catholic Church. Pope Benedict doesn't either and has written in length about his deep respect for the dogmas and Traditions of the Orthodox Church. What I do think is that Orthodox and Catholics should come in full communion respecting each-other's (IMHO minor) dogmatic differences.
How can we be in full communion if we have different dogmas? How is that any different than what the protestants are doing? Wouldn't this just throw out 2,000 years of Apostolic continuity and totally destroy the two ecclessiologies?
I do believe that Christ would be very happy if his flock on earth were able to set aside their little egos and reunite the Body of Christ (as He said "one flock, one shepherd"). The dogmatic differences between the Orthodox and the Catholic are extremely minor compared to their differences vs. the Protestant sects (I hope you would agree with that)
I believe that Rome and the Protestants are more like each other in many ways than are Orthodox dogmatics like either of them. I don't say this to be prideful but I used to be protestant and still study the various protestant doctrines/traditions. The vast majority of them are just bringing Roman Catholic doctrine to their logical ends.
Now I also think that the Orthodox Churches have some very serious problems that Rome doesn't have. They are very fragmented (I know you don't like the Papacy, but in practical terms it does bring a unity in the Catholic Church), they have not been able to call an Ecumenical Council since 787, they don't have the resources to do real missionary work in Africa and Asia. Maybe more importantly they have taken the "autocefalous" concept to an extreme. Every local Church (including the one in the USA) feels they can just ignore everyone else when it doesn't suit their politics (remember what happened in 1997 when the newly appointed Archbishop Spyridon had to be withdrawn?).
You're advocating Papal Supremacy/Infallibility for the sake of something that seems "rationalistic" and "practical". Like, well, they have a president over all presidents and that would probably help x,y,z and though the dogmas are incorrect in regards to "president over all presidents" that's ok because it will fix a temporal and humanistic "issue".
So the big benefit from a reunification would be for the Orthodox Churches because it would impose some badly needed unity and consistency and would give them access to many thriving seminaries (Bartholomew recently complained on CBS that he has nowhere to educate his aspiring clergy because the Turks closed down the seminary). Maybe most importantly it would make the local Orthodox Churches in Europe less financially dependent on the secular governments of their home countries
Matthew 4
8Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor. 9"All this I will give you," he said, "if you will bow down and worship me."
10Jesus said to him, "Away from me, Satan! For it is written: 'Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only.'[d]"
11Then the devil left him, and angels came and attended him.
Luke 4
1Jesus, full of the Holy Spirit, returned from the Jordan and was led by the Spirit in the desert, 2where for forty days he was tempted by the devil. He ate nothing during those days, and at the end of them he was hungry.
3The devil said to him, "If you are the Son of God, tell this stone to become bread."
4Jesus answered, "It is written: 'Man does not live on bread alone.'[a]"
5The devil led him up to a high place and showed him in an instant all the kingdoms of the world. 6And he said to him, "I will give you all their authority and splendor, for it has been given to me, and I can give it to anyone I want to. 7So if you worship me, it will all be yours."
8Jesus answered, "It is written: 'Worship the Lord your God and serve him only.'
False communion for the sake of making life easier would be an apostate move. The simple fact is that if you're Orthodox, Rome is in schism and heretical. If you study Orthodox dogmatics vs Rome's dogmatics, unification with Rome would hardly impose unity or consistency.
True Unity, continuity and consistency can not be had by tossing the doctrines of Christ into the wind for a few seminaries, a larger bank account and a Bishop unequally above, supreme and infallible over all other bishops.
Matthew 12:25
Jesus knew their thoughts and said to them, "Every kingdom divided against itself will be ruined, and every city or household divided against itself will not stand.
Mark 3:24
If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand.
Mark 3:25
If a house is divided against itself, that house cannot stand.
Luke 11:17
Jesus knew their thoughts and said to them: "Any kingdom divided against itself will be ruined, and a house divided against itself will fall.
The above verses are not an affirmation of denominationalism, pluralism, dualsim and or the false ecumenism movement.
1 Timothy 4:16
Watch your life and doctrine closely. Persevere in them, because if you do, you will save both yourself and your hearers.
1 Timothy 6:3
If anyone teaches false doctrines and does not agree to the sound instruction of our Lord Jesus Christ and to godly teaching...
Titus 1:9
He must hold firmly to the trustworthy message as it has been taught, so that he can encourage others by sound doctrine and refute those who oppose it.
Titus 2:1
You must teach what is in accord with sound doctrine.
1 Timothy 1:3
As I urged you when I went into Macedonia, stay there in Ephesus so that you may command certain men not to teach false doctrines any longer
Dear Ryan 2010,
Do you seriously believe that the fractured Orthodox Churches are today the only true "Church of God"? and that someone can not be saved if he's not an Orthodox Christian (that's the official Orthodox dogma, No?).
If yes, you're basically saying that Jesus' work on earth failed. First of all, today only 4% of the earth's population (and about 10-15% of all Christians) are Orthodox Christians (I'm including the nominal ones). Not only that, but this % is rapidly shrinking since the Orthodox Churches do not gain any new converts in Africa and Asia (where Christianity is still growing) and Russia's population is shrinking because Russians do not adequately procreate.
Let's now assume that God actually cares about the Human race's salvation. If God really believed (like you seem to do) that the only true Church is the Orthodox Church(es) would he let these disasters fall on the Orthodox? Let's count them.
1) The Arabs/Turks overnight become a superpower (at around 620 AD) and destroy the large majority of the Eastern Churches (except Greece) while the local populations convert to Islam. According to most historians, the local populations refused to fight for the corrupt Byzantine emperors. The same emperors who appointed the (many times heretic) Archbishops (I'm sure you know that in the Byzantine empire the Church was an extension of the Emperor).
2) Russians embrace the atheist Soviet revolution, as they viewed their own ethnic Church as hopelessly corrupt and tied to the hated Czar.
3) Population collpases in the two largest Orthdox countries (Russia and Ukraine - that have 70% of all Orthodox Christians), as the Orthodox there view the concept of "family" as outdated. As per Wikipedia
"Only a few countries have severe enough or sustained sub-replacement fertility (combined with other population factors like emigration) to have population decline, such as Russia, Japan, Lithuania, and Ukraine"
Let's see now what happened in the West.
1) The Barbarians invade from the North. The Roman army is defeated but the Catholic Church manages to convert the Barbarians (who sucked Rome) to Christianity, thus saving Christianity. On the other hand, the already fractured Orthodox Church was completely incapable of stopping the spread of Islam in the East
2) America is discovered. The Catholic and Protestant Churches convert the local populations and spread Christianity.
3) The Catholic Church spreads Christianity in Africa and Asia. The Protestant Churches too.
4) The Catholic Church with Lech Valessa (a devout Polish Catholic) and the Pope at the time bring about the fall of atheist Communism in Europe.
I do not believe that God has abandoned the human race and has let His "true Church" fall into one, self-inflicted, disaster after another and let it shrink to an ever decreasing 4% of the population, while He let the "heretic" Churches grow and protect Christianity like they did.
Dogmas are not very useful when the Churches are empty. I think a little humble attitude would have served the ever shrinking and ever fractured Orthodox Churches well
Sorry to interject here so I will make is short:
: Angelos Tue Feb 09, 2010 - 12:28:53
Dear Ryan 2010,
Do you seriously believe that the fractured Orthodox Churches are today the only true "Church of God"?
Well, yes. There can be only ONE holy catholic and apostolic church. And we're not that fractured. It's just here in the U.S.
and that someone can not be saved if he's not an Orthodox Christian (that's the official Orthodox dogma, No?).
Absolutely not. We dare not set limits on where the Holy Spirit can work.
You're whole argument is based on numbers. The church isn't about numbers; it's about the truth.
I believe many RCC and Protestants will be saved and some Orthodox won't. Only God can judge these things.
I think you are confusing church with the number of people saved. In short, the Church is about truth, not the Protestant view of the church as the sum of all believers.
The filioque today shows that the Catholic Church is not as concerned about the truth. Rome says the Filioque is okay for those in the east today (in its Eastern Rite church) , but not so for anyone in 1054. Does the Trinity change over time? place?
Thanks for reading.
Dear Trifecta,
You touched on the biggest philosophical difference between the shrinking Easter Churches and the thriving, growing Western Churches.
The big issue is, why did God sent his only Son on earth to suffer? Did Jesus come to give us a rigid theological dogma, set in stone, that only a few understand? Or did he come to save the world? (that is 6.6 billion of us - that's a big number)
IMHO, The Orthodox Church is too preoccupied with purity of dogma and has done a poor job helping Christ in His core mission (i.e.,make disciples of all nations). On the other hand, the Catholic church has been, and remains, much more effective in spreading the "Good news" (as Jesus wants His Church to do).
So for me Yes it is about "the number of people saved" It is about the "Church of God" on earth doing the work of Christ, not sitting in some room pontificating about mysteries that no mere mortal can know for sure, while the disciples outside embrace alcohol, abortion and fornication (as is the case in Russia and Ukraine).
The fact that the Catholic Church is willing to compromise on the filioque does not mean that it does not care about dogma, it means that it cares MORE about restoring the body of Christ and it's thus willing to compromise. The Trinity does not change over time, but maybe the Orthodox can be a little more humble, like Christ advised His disciples to be, and admit that some things are just "mysteries".
To refuse to restore the body of Christ because of a linguistic detail between "proceeds from" and "is sent", shows, IMHO, the perverse priorities of many Orthodox today and partly explains why the Orthodoxy is shrinking.
PS: I was always wondering where's an Orthodox Mother Teresa? Where are the Orthodox missions to Africa, trying to eradicate malaria?, or the Orthodox missions to Haiti? Where's the Orthodox Church helping "the least of these"?
Dear Ryan 2010,
Do you seriously believe that the fractured Orthodox Churches are today the only true "Church of God"?
The Orthodox Church is not fractured and yes.
and that someone can not be saved if he's not an Orthodox Christian (that's the official Orthodox dogma, No?).
Like Trifecta said, absolutely not. God will have mercy upon whom He has mercy. And NO that is not the Orthodox "dogma". The RCC rolled with that dogma all the way up to Vatican II. - the idea that anyone outside the Roman Church was toast. You should honestly read and study up on Orthodox ecclessiology (the way they view what church is). It might help clear up true Orthodox teaching so you won't confuse rhetoric (I imagine you must have heard someone say this) for Orthodoxy.
If God really believed (like you seem to do) that the only true Church is the Orthodox Church(es) would he let these disasters fall on the Orthodox?
Hebrews 2:10
In bringing many sons to glory, it was fitting that God, for whom and through whom everything exists, should make the author of their salvation perfect through suffering.
Romans 8:17
Now if we are children, then we are heirs—heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ, if indeed we share in his sufferings in order that we may also share in his glory.
2 Corinthians 1:5
For just as the sufferings of Christ flow over into our lives, so also through Christ our comfort overflows.
Philippians 3:10
I want to know Christ and the power of his resurrection and the fellowship of sharing in his sufferings, becoming like him in his death
1 Peter 5:9
Resist him, standing firm in the faith, because you know that your brothers throughout the world are undergoing the same kind of sufferings.
1 Peter 4:13
But rejoice that you participate in the sufferings of Christ, so that you may be overjoyed when his glory is revealed.
Hebrews 12:4
4In your struggle against sin, you have
not yet resisted to the point of shedding your blood.
Hebrews 11:32-38
32And what more shall I say? I do not have time to tell about Gideon, Barak, Samson, Jephthah, David, Samuel and the prophets, 33who through faith conquered kingdoms, administered justice, and gained what was promised; who shut the mouths of lions, 34quenched the fury of the flames, and escaped the edge of the sword; whose weakness was turned to strength; and who became powerful in battle and routed foreign armies. 35Women received back their dead, raised to life again. Others were tortured and refused to be released, so that they might gain a better resurrection. 36Some faced jeers and flogging, while still others were chained and put in prison. 37They were stoned[a]; they were sawed in two; they were put to death by the sword. They went about in sheepskins and goatskins, destitute, persecuted and mistreated— 38the world was not worthy of them. They wandered in deserts and mountains, and in caves and holes in the ground.
Dogmas are not very useful when the Churches are empty. I think a little humble attitude would have served the ever shrinking and ever fractured Orthodox Churches well
We aren't humble if we abandon even the most elementary doctrines of Christ, let alone pretend communion can be had with a divisive body. You may not like that word dogma but it helps us to understand what is important in regards to our doctrines. Our doctrines are like windows through which, if there is no spot on them, one can see Christ. They tell us in a round about way who he is. Why would St. Paul tell us to watch our doctrines so closely?
Here are two pictures that explain both why God might let "bad" things happen to The Church and also answer the question as to what true humility is:
Philippians 2:5-8
5Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus:
6Who, being in very nature God,
did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,
7but made himself nothing,
taking the very nature of a servant,
being made in human likeness.
8And being found in appearance as a man,
he humbled himself
and became obedient to death—
even death on a cross!
Luke 23
36The soldiers also came up and mocked him. They offered him wine vinegar 37and said, "If you are the king of the Jews, save yourself."
38There was a written notice above him, which read:|sc THIS IS THE KING OF THE JEWS.
39One of the criminals who hung there hurled insults at him: "Aren't you the Christ? Save yourself and us!"
40But the other criminal rebuked him. "Don't you fear God," he said, "since you are under the same sentence? 41We are punished justly, for we are getting what our deeds deserve. But this man has done nothing wrong."
42Then he said, "Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom."
Which criminal should we strive to imitate?
43Jesus answered him, "I tell you the truth, today you will be with me in paradise."
You touched on the biggest philosophical difference between the shrinking Easter Churches and the thriving, growing Western Churches.
I believe you have mis-characterized what the Orthodox Church is let alone what she teaches.
The big issue is, why did God sent his only Son on earth to suffer? Did Jesus come to give us a rigid theological dogma, set in stone, that only a few understand?
Of course not. This is not what the Orthodox believe.
Or did he come to save the world? (that is 6.6 billion of us - that's a big number)
Just as it would be foolish to think that we alone are privy to whom God will judge how, it would also be foolish to presuppose that this 6.6 number are all saved and all outside that number are not. You are using the same logic you are criticizing against and yet the Orthodox perspective isn't representative of that which you say she is.
So for me Yes it is about "the number of people saved" It is about the "Church of God" on earth doing the work of Christ, not sitting in some room pontificating about mysteries that no mere mortal can know for sure, while the disciples outside embrace alcohol, abortion and fornication (as is the case in Russia and Ukraine).
You keep characterizing Orthodox Christians as if they are idle and hypocritical. I don't understand why you would do this? There are nominal Christians no matter which sect/denomination we are talking about. To make the Orthodox out to be this cartoony version of a bunch of philosophers is narrow and wrong-headed. You also seem to judge Russians and Ukrainians quite harshly.
More than this, we are all sinners, no? I mean, what right do I have to criticize the lifestyle of even a protestant believer if I can see my own sins in him. Doing that will only serve to make my own judgment more strict. I will be judged by the same standards with the same weight of which I have put on others.
The fact that the Catholic Church is willing to compromise on the filioque does not mean that it does not care about dogma, it means that it cares MORE about restoring the body of Christ and it's thus willing to compromise.
Then let her drop her repent of her heresies and commune with the Orthodox. That's much easier and less dangerous than trying to mix things that don't belong together.
The Trinity does not change over time, but maybe the Orthodox can be a little more humble, like Christ advised His disciples to be, and admit that some things are just "mysteries".
You are saying that because the Orthodox don't want to call lies "truth" or just over-look things about Christ that are blatantly false, the Orthodox lack humility? I don't see how that charge sticks.
To refuse to restore the body of Christ because of a linguistic detail between "proceeds from" and "is sent", shows, IMHO, the perverse priorities of many Orthodox today and partly explains why the Orthodoxy is shrinking.
Dear friend, it's not just a linguistic detail. It's not like a "flavor". I think that if the Truth beyond the words matched up despite the wording, it would be fine. Honestly, do you believe that Papal Supremacy/Infallability, their teachings on Salvation and their understanding of Original Sin and doctrines like Immaculate Conception are true? Do you believe that these doctrines must be believed? The Roman Catholic position is that you must believe these things or you can be excommunicated. The RCC teaches that those things I just listed must be believed in order to obtain salvation "within" the Roman Church. Rome's position is not to judge those outside and in an attempt to court the protestants so that they can bring them back under the Rome's Pope (of which even the Church itself is subject to), they just now (post Vatican II) have agreed to say that non-RCC are "christians".
In other words, Rome is basically saying the same thing as she did prior to Vatican II but in an attempt to attract protestants they've changed a bit of the way they "do business".
This is why you hear a lot of complaints from Roman Catholics about the liturgy. You guys now have pretty much a protestant liturgy save the Eucharist services.
PS: I was always wondering where's an Orthodox Mother Teresa? Where are the Orthodox missions to Africa, trying to eradicate malaria?, or the Orthodox missions to Haiti? Where's the Orthodox Church helping "the least of these"?
They're there. I don't know why you think that they wouldn't be...
God bless
Do you really believe that the Orthodox Churches are not fractured? They can not even agree about the status of OCA. As per Wikipedia :"OCA, Orthodox Church in America (Archbishop of Washington and New York, Metropolitan of all America and Canada) [Autonomy not recognized by the Ecumenical Patriarchate and most churches of the Eastern communion]
They can not even agree about the seniority of the different autocephalous Churches. As per Wikipedia: " the Russian Church recognized a different order of seniority, in which the Georgian church comes after the Church of Russia and the Albanian Church – after the Church of Greece."
Plus, tons of Orthodox Churches are not in communion with tons of other Orthodox Churches (can't even agree on what Calendar to use) Here's a list from Wikipedia
Eastern Orthodox churches in communion
The Eastern Orthodox Church is a communion of 14 autocephalous (that is, administratively completely independent) local churches plus the Orthodox Church in America which is recognized as autocephalous only by the Russian, Bulgarian, Georgian, Polish, and Czech-Slovak Churches, (but NOT by the Greeks)
Below is a list of the 14 (15) autocephalous churches in their order of precedence (seniority) with constituent autonomous churches and exarchates. The Liturgical title of the Primate is listed in italics.
Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople [32] (Archbishop of Constantinople-New Rome and Ecumenical Patriarch)
Autonomous Orthodox Church of Finland [33] (Archbishop of Karelia and All Finland)
Autonomous Estonian Apostolic Orthodox Church [34] (Metropolitan of Tallinn and All Estonia) [Autonomy not recognized by the Church of Russia]
Self-governing Orthodox Church of Crete (Archbishop of Crete)
Self-governing Monastic Community of Mount Athos
Exarchate of Patmos (Patriarchal Exarch of Patmos)
Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of Thyateira and Great Britain [35] (Archbishop of Thyateira and Great Britain)
Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of Italy and Malta [36] (Orthodox Archbishop of Italy and Malta and Exarch of Southern Europe)
Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America [37] (Archbishop of America)
Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of Australia [38] (Archbishop of Australia)
Exarchate of the Philippines [39] (Exarch of Philippines)
Patriarchal Exarchate for Orthodox Parishes of Russian Tradition in Western Europe [40] (Archbishop of Komana)
Orthodox Church of Alexandria [41] (Pope and Patriarch of the great city of Alexandria, Libya, Pentapolis, Ethiopia, all Egypt, and all Africa)
Orthodox Church of Antioch [42] (Patriarch of Antioch and all the East)
Self-governing Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America [43] (Archbishop of New York and Metropolitan of All North America)
Orthodox Church of Jerusalem [44] (Patriarch of the Holy City of Jerusalem and all Palestine, and of Syria, Arabia, beyond the Jordan River, Cana of Galilee, and Sacred Zion)
Autonomous Church of Mount Sinai [45] (Archbishop of Choreb, Sinai, and Raitha)
Orthodox Church of Russia [46] (Patriarch of Moscow and all Russia)
Autonomous Orthodox Church of Japan [47] (Archbishop of Tokyo and Metropolitan of All Japan)
Autonomous Orthodox Church of China (defunct)
Autonomous Orthodox Church of Ukraine [48] (Metropolitan of Kiev and all Ukraine)
Self-governing Orthodox Church of Moldova [49] (Metropolitan of Chisinau and all Moldova)
Self-governing Orthodox Church of Latvia [50] (Metropolitan of Riga and all Latvia)
Self-governing Estonian Orthodox Church [51] (Metropolitan of Tallinn and all Estonia) [Autonomy not recognized by the Ecumenical Patriarchate]
Self-governing Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia [52] (Metropolitan of Eastern America and New York, First Hierarch of the Russian church abroad)
Exarchate of Belarus (Metropolitan of Minsk and Slutsk, Patriarchal Exarch of All Belarus)
Orthodox Church of Serbia [53] (Archbishop of Peć, Metropolitan of Belgrade and Karlovci, Patriarch of the Serbs)
Autonomous Archdiocese of Ohrid [54] (Archbishop of Ohrid and Metropolitan of Skopje)
Orthodox Church of Romania [55] (Archbishop of Bucharest, Metropolitan of Ungro-Valachia, and Patriarch of All Romania)
Self-governing Metropolis of Bessarabia [56] (autonomy not recognized by the Church of Russia)
Orthodox Church of Bulgaria [57] (Metropolitan of Sofia and Patriarch of All Bulgaria)
Orthodox Church of Georgia [58] (Archbishop of Tbilisi and Mshketi, Patriarch and Catholicos of all Georgia)
Orthodox Church of Cyprus [59] (Archbishop of New Justiniana and all Cyprus)
Orthodox Church of Greece [60] (Archbishop of Athens and all Greece)
Orthodox Church of Poland [61] (Metropolitan of Warsaw and all Poland)
Orthodox Church of Albania [62] (Archbishop of Tirana and all Albania)
Orthodox Church of the Czech lands and Slovakia [63] [64] (Archbishop of Prague, the Metropolitan of Czech lands and Slovakia or the Archbishop of Presov, the Metropolitan of Czech lands and Slovakia)
Eastern Orthodox Churches and communities NOT in communion with others
The following is list of some of the organizations that use the term "Orthodox" in their name but do not maintain communion with any of the 14 (15) autocephalous churches and thus are not typically considered part of the Eastern Orthodox Christian communion.
Old Calendarists are groups that do not maintain communion with the 14 (15) autocephalous churches as a result of the use of the Revised Julian Calendar.
Church of the Genuine Orthodox Christians of Greece, so-called "Matthewites"
Church of the Genuine Orthodox Christians of Greece, so-called "Florinites"
Orthodox Church of Greece (Holy Synod in Resistance) [66], so-called "Cyprianites"
Old Calendar Romanian Orthodox Church [67]
Old Calendar Bulgarian Orthodox Church [68]
Russian Orthodox Church in America [69]
Old Believers are groups that do not accept liturgical reforms carried out in the Russian Orthodox Church by Patriarch Nikon in the 17th century.
Russian Orthodox Old-Rite Church [70] (Belokrinitskaya Hierarchy)
Lipovan Orthodox Old-Rite Church (Belokrinitskaya Hierarchy)
Russian Old-Orthodox Church [71] (Novozybkovskaya Hierarchy)
Pomorian Old-Orthodox Church (Pomortsy)
Episcopi vagantes are entities that have carried out episcopal consecrations outside of the norms of canon law or whose bishops have been excommunicated by one of the 14 (15) autocephalous churches.
Belarusian Autocephalous Orthodox Church
Bulgarian Alternative Synod
Holy Orthodox Church in North America
Macedonian Orthodox Church [72]
Montenegrin Orthodox Church [73]
Orthodox Church in Italy [74]
Russian True Orthodox Church [75]
Turkish Orthodox Church
Ukrainian Orthodox Church (Kiev Patriarchate) [76]
Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church [77]
Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church Canonical [78]
Angelos,
You're characterization of the Orthodox Churches above is unfair. But let me say that yes, we do have our problems. They may be different than yours--but we have something important in common--our churches have people and people make mistakes.
Your long list of Orthodox Churches implies that they are not in communion with each other. This is not true. Most accept each other's communion. The major differences are geographical. Do we see churches united in belief but divided by geography in Scripture and church history? Of course we do. This is one reason doctrine (or dogma) is important throughout church history.
Now, let's move to the Old Calendarist issue. Yes, this is a problem that we have. It is also a problem of the early church. I wish we would resolve this one. Nevertheless, many Old Calendarist churches are in communion with New Calendarists.
Counting the number of different churches is not an accurate measurement; it is like counting the RCC in Canada and the United States as separate entities.
If you did a similar list of churches in communion with Rome you would get a list of about 16 non-Roman churches in communion with Rome. (Rome usually established these to compete with Orthodox churches in which Orthodoxy was the prevalent faith.) Then, there are offshoots of Roman Catholics that are not recognized by Rome, such as the Old Traditionalists (who opposed Vatican I) of which Mel Gibson is a member. Finally, there are countries were the RCC is registered as a non-state church (e.g., England, China). How many countries are there are in the world? A couple of hundred. Should we include those in the list of RCC churches?
I will admit that, overall, I admire the administrative unity of the Catholic Church, but that isn't everything.
Dear Trifecta and Ryan2010,
I hope my comments didn't come across as too negative. The reason I thought that list of these Churches was useful in showing how fragmented the Orthodox are is that each Church is autocephalous (that is, administratively completely independent). This, for me very unfortunate, event is in sharp contrast with local Catholic Churches who, at the end of the day, are in close union (administratively as well) with Rome.
Anyway, I hope I didn't come across as too negative. For the first 40+ years of my life I was Orthodox, born and raised in an Orthodox country. There are many things that pain me about the Orthodox Church(es) and many things I admire. I always longed to be part of a truly ecumenical (i.e., not ethnic) Church; of a Church that is truly united under one shepherd (as Jesus said, one flock, one shepherd); of a Church that, to this day, is actively spreading the Good news across the Globe; finally of a Church that in this country (USA) actively influences the public agenda, so our country's laws reflect to the extent possible our Christian values (The Catholic Church's successful efforts to include a pro-life clause in the Health-care bill comes to mind)
I also liked the fact that the Caholic Church, in its love for her brothers in the East, allowed me to participate in the Eucharist (and all the other Sacraments) as an Orthodox Christian. I found it very unfortunate that the Orthodox Church is the ONLY Church arrogant enough not to allow any other Christian to participate in its mysteries (so much for being brothers in Christ)
For these reasons and some of the other reasons listed in my posts (not for dogmatic reasons) I decided to come into full communion with Rome. I really wish that one day the two Churches unite. When I saw Benedict and Bartholomew in a common liturgy I was very happy, but exchanging views with you guys, things do not seem very hopeful for re-unification!!
God Bless
Angelos, please stay away from statements like this. They are red herrings:
: Angelos Tue Feb 09, 2010 - 13:25:22
Dear Trifecta,
You touched on the biggest philosophical difference between the shrinking Easter Churches and the thriving, growing Western Churches.
The truth is no churches are growing. The Orthodox Church is holding its own; the RCC is increasing slightly, most Protestant churches are indeed shrinking. Please don't act like it is an obvious fact that western churches are growing and eastern one are shrinking. It's not even the truth.
IMHO, The Orthodox Church is too preoccupied with purity of dogma
If you understood church history better, you would understand that you correct dogma has always been important. Then there are the scriptures that Ryan noted. Should those be ignored?
and has done a poor job helping Christ in His core mission (i.e.,make disciples of all nations).
Again, an inaccurate assumption. Where is this in Catholic doctrine? I don't think it is. I'm not saying evangelism isn't important, but as I remember Catholic doctrine, our purpose is to love and serve the Lord.
So for me Yes it is about "the number of people saved" It is about the "Church of God" on earth doing the work of Christ, not sitting in some room pontificating about mysteries that no mere mortal can know for sure,
In one thread you complain about the lack of Orthodox scholars (which is not true BTW) and in this thread we are sitting in a room pontificating. Damned if we do . . .
while the disciples outside embrace alcohol, abortion and fornication (as is the case in Russia and Ukraine).
And Italy doesn't have these very same problems, despite being the seat of Catholicism? As a person of Ukrainian descent, I find this charge a bit insulting. What about Americans who are doing the same thing--Who did not suffer the Stalin repression of at least a million of its citizens? Ukraine had a tough 20th century, what is the U.S.'s excuse? I don't want to debate this, just to say stay off of irrelevent generalizations of people.
The fact that the Catholic Church is willing to compromise on the filioque does not mean that it does not care about dogma, it means that it cares MORE about restoring the body of Christ and it's thus willing to compromise.
Look up the story of Maximus the Confessor sometime. The whole of church history shows this isn't true. What were the ecumenical councils for?
The Trinity does not change over time, but maybe the Orthodox can be a little more humble, like Christ advised His disciples to be,
Humility is extremely important in Orthodoxy. But let me make an analogy: there are many new-thinking people who deny the resurrection of Christ. Your reasoning would say they we (both RCC and Orthodox) aren't being humble enough.
and admit that some things are just "mysteries".
We like you believe in mystery. It is ironic that is it Augustine and Aquinas who tried to explain the unexplainable.
To refuse to restore the body of Christ because of a linguistic detail between "proceeds from" and "is sent", shows, IMHO, the perverse priorities of many Orthodox today
If is so unimportant, why doesn't Rome "be humble" and take is out of the creed, since it doesn't seem to matter anyway.
The truth is this is not what divides Rome and the east. It is the authority of the Bishop of Rome.
Thank you for reading.
Angelos,
Thanks for posting this.
: Angelos Tue Feb 09, 2010 - 18:12:13
Dear Trifecta and Ryan2010,
I hope my comments didn't come across as too negative. The reason I thought that list of these Churches was useful in showing how fragmented the Orthodox are is that each Church is autocephalous (that is, administratively completely independent). This, for me very unfortunate, event is in sharp contrast with local Catholic Churches who, at the end of the day, are in close union (administratively as well) with Rome.
Administrative unity is one thing. One of the things I admire about John Paul II was his crushing of the "liberation theology" movement in Latin America. But how did this happen in the first place. Because of Vatican II, these movements were allowed to develop.
Anyway, I hope I didn't come across as too negative. For the first 40+ years of my life I was Orthodox, born and raised in an Orthodox country. There are many things that pain me about the Orthodox Church(es) and many things I admire.
We have a lot in common. I grew up in the RCC and there are many things about it that I still admire too.
I also liked the fact that the Caholic Church, in its love for her brothers in the East, allowed me to participate in the Eucharist (and all the other Sacraments) as an Orthodox Christian.
Not with you on this one. I am not looking forward to my parents seeing this in the missalette and expecting me to take communion with them. Although I am pleased that it encourages one to follow the dictates of his own church. So, the RCC allows me to receive their communion but
my church doesn't. An analogy: Let's say. Iran allows me to visit their country but the U.S. does not. Whose authority do I follow? My country, of course. So, what is the point of Iran touting their invitation? To make the U.S. look bad.
I found it very unfortunate that the Orthodox Church is the ONLY Church arrogant enough not to allow any other Christian to participate in its mysteries (so much for being brothers in Christ)
Firstly, the RCC did this for most in its history and only recently allowed a very limited group of others to commune. Secondly, the original Catholic church (of which we were part of) did the same thing that we do. Gnostics, Nestorians etc. are welcome but not in communion.
Thirdly, do you allow brothers in Christ who don't believe in the real presence of communion to participate in your communion. The answer is no, then aren't you being "arrogant" too.
If you will, the truth is a limited thing. There is only one right answer to really any question (e.g., 2 plus 2 equals 4) but many wrong answers. So, anyone who possess any truth can be called "arrogant."
Dear Trifecta,
you posted "The truth is this is not what divides Rome and the east (filioque). It is the authority of the Bishop of Rome." Yes!! something we agree 100%. The division is primarily due to politics. Think about this though, in a united Church the "Bishop of Rome" is as likely to be from Ukraine or Russia or Greece, as it is to be from Italy
My sincere apologies about my comment regarding the low fertility rates in Orthodox European countries and Ukraine. I did not mean to offend. I come from an Orthodox European country and it pains me to see Orthodox Europe gradually becoming "older" and shrinking. I do believe the local Churches, as the "shepherds of the people", have some responsibility for that.
Regarding my statement about growth in Churches I had in mind the Globe, not just the US. Although the mainlike Protestant sects are shrinking in the US they are growing rapidly in Africa so they do enjoy overall growth (e.g., there are more Methodists now in Africa than the US). The Catholic Church is holding its own in the US, but again it enjoys strong growth in Africa and Asia.
I guess my point was a criticism for the lack of serious missionary work among the Orthodox Churches. If there are any African countries that an Orthodox Church is growing in significant numbers and I missed it, I apologise.
: Angelos Tue Feb 09, 2010 - 19:10:19
Dear Trifecta,
you posted "The truth is this is not what divides Rome and the east (filioque). It is the authority of the Bishop of Rome." Yes!! something we agree 100%. The division is primarily due to politics.
Politics (as I think you mean it) change with time. But Rome sees it as an authority issue (universality). The Bishop of Rome has control over the world. This is not how the early church saw it. An analogy: Presidents change with time, but the Presidency does not. Politics is temporary ; the presidency is about more than that.
Think about this though, in a united Church the "Bishop of Rome" is as likely to be from Ukraine or Russia or Greece, as it is to be from Italy
Yeah, but putting all authority into one man's hands can cause lots of problems, as it has in history. This is why there were 12 apostles, not one, these is why the whole church met in council in Acts 15 and later in 7 ecumenical councils, and this is why we have the Nicene Creed.
My sincere apologies about my comment regarding the low fertility rates in Orthodox European countries and Ukraine. I did not mean to offend. I come from an Orthodox European country and it pains me to see Orthodox Europe gradually becoming "older" and shrinking. I do believe the local Churches, as the "shepherds of the people", have some responsibility for that.
Apology accepted. Yeah, but the old people keep a check on the arrogance of youth.
Regarding my statement about growth in Churches I had in mind the Globe, not just the US. Although the mainlike Protestant sects are shrinking in the US they are growing rapidly in Africa so they do enjoy overall growth (e.g., there are more Methodists now in Africa than the US).
I don't really believe church statistics. Every church I have been in claims to be growing, yet
the sad truth is Christianity is shrinking around the globe. World church stats don't have an impartial Gallup Organization.
The Catholic Church is holding its own in the US, but again it enjoys strong growth in Africa and Asia.
I give you guys this: you take a census. I did it when I was a child with my father. I remember saying, "No, Mr. X isn't Catholic. I've never seen him in church." I was like the kid in those commercials when they stick a candy bar in his mouth to shut him up.
I guess my point was a criticism for the lack of serious missionary work among the Orthodox Churches.
Daniel Clendenin, a Protestant sympathic to Orthodoxy, had the best explanation of this I have seen. While the west enjoyed the riches of empire and victory; the east suffered oppression under the Islam and later Communism. Both are features are Jesus Christ himself and the west can learn from their suffering. I really liked this analogy, even though it is not really Orthodox.
Angelos, issues of who evangelizes the most changes with time. In history, the church has been both popular and unpopular. When choosing a church, one thing doesn't change with time and that is the truth. This is why the filioque (back to the thread) is more important than I originally thought. The church is "pillar and foundation of the truth" (1 Tim 3:15). Truth isn't relative and it doesn't change from one time to another or one place or another.
If there are any African countries that an Orthodox Church is growing in significant numbers and I missed it, I apologise.
Well, there is Egypt and Ethiopia. We aren't in communion with the Coptic Church (due to an unfortunate misunderstanding) but they have been there longer than the Muslims!
OK guys. I think there have been great points on either side of this debate. I do, however, fall on the Catholic side of the argument. I must say though, if there is an argument to be made about the "one true Church", there can only be 3 choices; Catholic, Orthodox, or Coptic. The answer is that at one time, we all were, we just let politics come between us. Everyone else is a Johnny come lately.
Here is my problem with the whole thing. The entire schism was political. End of story. There were problems long before the schism and I think that the Filioque was just the reason given for the split, not the real reason. The real reason was power and politics.
Look, we are sitting here in a message board debating an idea that we can't even comprehend, let alone actually form a valid opinion about based on fact. The entire thing is a matter of faith. The Eastern Churches had deferred to Rome for 1000 years before the split, so the Primacy of Rome is not an issue, it's whether or not to accept it. The Orthodox chose not to accept it any more.
The Pope has no more power than any other Bishop, except that he can call a council and be the deciding vote in a matter. It's not like he speaks ex cathedra out of his butt, he puts a lot of time, investigation, and vigorous debate with other bishops into it.
I, for one, would love to see the Orthodox give a little and the Catholics give a little, and let us come back together as the one true Church. I would imagine that there would be great rejoicing in Heaven on that day. Personally, I think that Catholic or Orthodox, if you are doing what you are supposed to, you are on the right track.
Dear Rob,
"I, for one, would love to see the Orthodox give a little and the Catholics give a little, and let us come back together as the one true Church."
Amen, manna to you
BTW-
I would like to add that Pope Leo was wrong in the way he acted leading up to the schism. I think that had he just chilled a little, and given the debate more time, that an acceptable solution would have come about for both sides of the issue. However, the schism was a long time in coming, and had more to do with power, politics, and cultural differences between the East and the West that it did with theology.
Anyhoo, could you imagine the amount of good we, as a Church, could do in the world if we would put aside our differences and reunite as one Church.
Greetings, Rob. If I haven't said it before, thank you for your contributions to the forum.
: Rob, PGK Thu Feb 25, 2010 - 18:03:59
OK guys. I think there have been great points on either side of this debate. I do, however, fall on the Catholic side of the argument.
That is probably because you are Catholic. IMHO, it's really hard to come down on the Catholic side here, especially since 1) the orginal creed didn't have the filioque 2) it was added for - as you say - a political reason 3) the RCC was willing - later in history - to establish their own churches in the east with the filioque removed.
I must say though, if there is an argument to be made about the "one true Church", there can only be 3 choices; Catholic, Orthodox, or Coptic. The answer is that at one time, we all were, we just let politics come between us. Everyone else is a Johnny come lately.
Agreed.
Here is my problem with the whole thing. The entire schism was political. End of story. There were problems long before the schism and I think that the Filioque was just the reason given for the split, not the real reason. The real reason was power and politics.
There are some problems with what you say here. Firstly, eastern theology is more mystical than Western theology. Politics had its role, but the origins are probably not political. The West was more into Augustine and Tertullian and the east more into Gregory, Basil, and later John Chrystostom.
Then again, the west did make political moves to unite the empire. This eventually failed and Byzantium lasted longer than Rome. (Then, there is the Frankish invasion thing.) The west hoped by uniting under the Bishop of Rome the empire would be preserved.
Look, we are sitting here in a message board debating an idea that we can't even comprehend, let alone actually form a valid opinion about based on fact. The entire thing is a matter of faith.
I'm not sure to what you are referring here, but if it is the Filioque, no, our argument is clearly better. I don't want to sound arrogant here, but your statement above sounds like that we can't really know the right answer. The Nicene Creed was made to bring clarity to these issues. But, yes, the Trinity is not something we can understand. We need the creed and theology to show what is NOT true about God. God is beyond our thinking process, as I am sure you will agree.
The Eastern Churches had deferred to Rome for 1000 years before the split, so the Primacy of Rome is not an issue, it's whether or not to accept it. The Orthodox chose not to accept it any more.
This is not really true. Take the Easter controversy in the early church. Rome wanted to impose its date for Easter for the whole church. The Syriac (?) church followed the tradition of Polycarp (I think) and celebrated it on a different date. Rome asked them to change to date. They didn't , until many years later.
As early as the 2nd century, St. Cyprian said that is no bishop of bishops. The east accepted the Bishop of Rome having the primacy of honor. A kind of leader of equals (as the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court is the leader of the Supreme Court). Rome later emphasized the "leader" in leader of equals and at time tried to impose its will. The east agreed only when they agreed with the Pope.
The Pope has no more power than any other Bishop, except that he can call a council and be the deciding vote in a matter.
And he now appoints all the cardinals and, I think, bishops. You don't really think the Pope is the equal of other bishops, do you?
It's not like he speaks ex cathedra out of his butt, he puts a lot of time, investigation, and vigorous debate with other bishops into it.
True, but he is not obligated to do this. The part that scares me is if a nutjob gets in. The Pope in church matters is the closest thing we have to an ecclesiastical king in modern times
I, for one, would love to see the Orthodox give a little and the Catholics give a little, and let us come back together as the one true Church. I would imagine that there would be great rejoicing in Heaven on that day.
I pray for that day. In reality, however, it is up to one person--the Bishop of Rome. With one sentence, he can renounce universal authority and the Catholics and Orthodox Churches would within a generation re-unite. So, in a sense, you are right Rob. The reason for the separation is political. You apply politics to the historical church but don't today.
Personally, I think that Catholic or Orthodox, if you are doing what you are supposed to, you are on the right track.
Yes, I would add many Protestants as well, but, on the other hand, what do I know? We are not the ones that judge.
: trifecta Sun Mar 21, 2010 - 12:09:22
: Rob, PGK Thu Feb 25, 2010 - 18:03:59
Here is my problem with the whole thing. The entire schism was political. End of story. There were problems long before the schism and I think that the Filioque was just the reason given for the split, not the real reason. The real reason was power and politics.
There are some problems with what you say here. Firstly, eastern theology is more mystical than Western theology. Politics had its role, but the origins are probably not political. The West was more into Augustine and Tertullian and the east more into Gregory, Basil, and later John Chrystostom.
I think the schism was one of the great tragedies for the Catholic Church, not just because it split the Church, or because we lost a lot of people, but we lost, to a great extent, that reservoir of theology and mysticism, and also the power balance between the Eastern Patriarchs and Rome.
: CDHealy Sat Dec 12, 2009 - 09:05:15
: winsome Sat Dec 12, 2009 - 06:21:42But if it's a quality the Holy Spirit doesn't have, but the Father and the Son do, then how do we distinguish between Father and Son?
We can distinguish between Father and Son because the Father and Son have other qualities of their personhood that distinguish them (namely begetting and being begotten). I can't see that them both processing the Holy Spirit together necessarily makes them some sort of Biunity.
But remember the principle: what is shared must be common to the essence, what is distinct is proper to the Persons. So if there is a quality that is shared, then it is an essential quality and common to all Persons. If we then say that causing to proceed is common to the Father and the Son, then it must also be common to the Spirit. If it is not common to the Spirit, then either the Spirit is not part of the Godhead, since it does not share in the common quality of causing to proceed; or, if it is common to both Father and Son, and yet not part of the essence of the Godhead, then the distinction between Father and Son begins to collapse because we have a common quality that is not essential. Thus, we have a Biunity--Father/Son and Holy Spirit, or the Holy Spirit is not God.
: winsome Sat Dec 12, 2009 - 06:21:42Take this analogy (and it may not be a good one but it's the only one I can think of at the moment), my wife and I have a daughter, Helen. We are both individually a parent to her, and she is a child to us individually. The being a parent is not part of my essence as it is a quality of my relationship with Helen and therefore of my personhood. And similarly with my wife. Us both being parents to Helen does not make us some sort of hybrid person. We are still distinct persons.
I recognize that metaphors have limited argumentative force, but let us take your analogy seriously enough to analyze it more carefully.
If you claim that "parenthood" is personal and not essential, and if it is a quality both you and your wife share, then we collapse the distinction between mother and father, making either interchangeable, and potentially one unnecessary (you can guess which our society says is unnecessary).
I think a way to take your analogy such that it maps on to an Orthodox viewpoint is to understand parenthood as an essential quality common to human nature. That is to say all humans have the potential to be parents; it's hardwired into us. And most humans do become parents in actuality. But parenthood is common to all humans. What is distinct to the persons who are parents is being a mother or a father. A father cannot be a mother, a mother cannot be a father, and both are necessary to children. A man exercises his parenthood (his essential quality he shares with his wife) as a father (his distinct quality differentiating himself from his wife); and vice versa.
Another way to take parenthood as an essential quality is to locate it not in human nature per se (though I think that's where it belongs) but to locate it in the marital union. That is to say, what is essential to the marital union is parenthood, but each person of the marital union exercises that essence in distinctly personal ways, one as father one as mother. This way of viewing it is as legitimate it seems to me as the other way I mention above. And maybe the full view is a combination of these both.
: winsome Sat Dec 12, 2009 - 06:21:42So too if the Father and the Son do something jointly I don't see that necessarily it stops them being distinct in their persons.
It's not the sharing of a quality per se that loses them the distinction, but their sharing a quality between themselves that the Holy Spirit doesn't also share. What is common to more than one Person is essence and therefore common to all; what is not common to all must distinct to one and only one Person.
CDHealy and winsome, I believe you are both on the right track. ::smile::
St John of Damascus used Genesis to relate the concept.
"Seth was begotten from Adam and Eve. This threefold relationship illustrates, to a certain extent, the Holy Trinity. Adam had no human father. He was begotten by no one. Thus, he was
unbegotten. Seth was
begotten from Adam. Eve was neither unbegotten nor begotten. Instead she
proceeded from Adam (Gen. 2:21)
Therefore, Eve and Seth were related to the unbegotten Adam, but each in a unique manner-Eve proceeded from Adam but Seth was begotten from him. Each person had his or her own distinct and unique properties-unbegotten, begotten, and proceeding-but all three possessed the same human nature.
Similarly, the manner in which these three existed images the Holy Trinity. God the Father is
Unbegotten, God the Son is
Begotten from the Father; and God the Holy Spirit
proceeds from the Father. These distinct and unique properties distinguish each of the individual Persons of the Holy Trinity from each other; yet, They are one in nature."
+St John of Damascus
My two cents on the "filoque" is, it was and is a matter of dialectics. The filoque only became a matter of controversy because it relates to dogma. Historically it came about when Greek was translated into Latin.
As St Basil the Great said in his work "On the Holy Spirit", "one word, such as a preposition can have great ramifications to the understanding of the faithful". History shows he was correct. The barbarian Franks (of whom I am a descendent) as they were being Christianized misunderstood the meaning and began to apply human logic to the matter. Both the eastern (Constantinople) and western (Rome) churches never corrected the problem, or were unable to.
The Franks, during Charlemagne's rule were insulted by both sides (east refusing unity with the western half-barbarians,
the empress refusing her previous agreement to marriage, and west seeking the glory of an emperor for themselves to emulate Constantinople,
Charlemagne never saw the Roman church with any power to do such), as they saw the churches using them (the Franks) for their own means.
: Macrina Fri Apr 23, 2010 - 13:58:23
CDHealy and winsome, I believe you are both on the right track. ::smile::
St John of Damascus used Genesis to relate the concept.
"Seth was begotten from Adam and Eve. This threefold relationship illustrates, to a certain extent, the Holy Trinity. Adam had no human father. He was begotten by no one. Thus, he was unbegotten. Seth was begotten from Adam. Eve was neither unbegotten nor begotten. Instead she proceeded from Adam (Gen. 2:21)
Therefore, Eve and Seth were related to the unbegotten Adam, but each in a unique manner-Eve proceeded from Adam but Seth was begotten from him. Each person had his or her own distinct and unique properties-unbegotten, begotten, and proceeding-but all three possessed the same human nature.
Similarly, the manner in which these three existed images the Holy Trinity. God the Father is Unbegotten, God the Son is Begotten from the Father; and God the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father. These distinct and unique properties distinguish each of the individual Persons of the Holy Trinity from each other; yet, They are one in nature."
+St John of Damascus
An interesting analogy, though it falles down in that Seth is also begotten from Eve. But you did say "to a certain extent". I'll file that away for future use. ::smile::
Thanks
Added:
Just had a thought. If I were to suggest that Eve was begotten by Adam, then Seth proceeded from both Adam and Eve. Rather like the Catholic position. ::pondering::
: winsome Fri Apr 23, 2010 - 14:07:52
An interesting analogy, though it falles down in that Seth is also begotten from Eve. But you did say "to a certain extent". I'll file that away for future use. ::smile::
The "certain extent" is in that this analogy is relating from Adam (Adam being an analogy of God the Father), not Eve.
Added:
Just had a thought. If I were to suggest that Eve was begotten by Adam, then Seth proceeded from both Adam and Eve. Rather like the Catholic position. ::pondering::
Ah, double procession. St Gregory of Nyssa clearly admits a "mediating" role of the Son in the procession of the Spirit from the Father. Should this role be expressed with the help of the preposition
"through" the Son. St Maximus as well as other patristics seem to suggest this.
: winsome Fri Apr 23, 2010 - 14:07:52An interesting analogy, though it falles down in that Seth is also begotten from Eve. But you did say "to a certain extent". I'll file that away for future use. ::smile::
Actually, it doesn't fall down. "Begotten/beget/begat" are the words used in Scripture exclusively of fathers--"brought forth/bear/give birth" is the verbiage for mothers, not "begotten/beget/begat". (Cf. for example Jeremiah 16:3).
Similarly, the words "beget/begotten/begat" is used only of the Father for the Son, never of the Father for the Spirit.
Are we allowed to talk about this subject on this board considering that it uses the filoque? ::doh::
: Macrina Thu May 06, 2010 - 08:58:55
Are we allowed to talk about this subject on this board considering that it uses the filoque? ::doh::
As long as you do it respectfully and don't let it turn into a shouting match, you'll get by.
I was allowed to have a thread questioning whether the Holy Spirit meets the criteria to be a "person," so a no-filioque position isn't all that radical.
Dear all,
The Nicene Creed states about Jesus "Light from Light, true God from true God, " Jesus is Light, all Light is source of Light, all Light proceeds from Light, even if it is not the original source of light. Think about the "anastasi". The priest has the original source of Light and gives it to the faithful next to him, who then proceeds to pass it on to the next and so on. Light proceeds from light. Jesus is Light and true God. So although the father is the Original Source, Jesus is a secondary source. You can't have it both ways, if you accept that Jesus is true God and Light, He is also the (secondary) source, otherwise nothing proceeds from Jesus (even His teachings and miracles have the Father as the original source) and we fall into Arianism.
When Jesus says in John16:15 Everything that the Father has is mine" He is not lying. When He says in John 16:8 If I go I will send him (the Holy Spirit) to you" He is not lying.
the Catechism of the Catholic Church acknowledges that the Father is the first origin, but also affirms that the Father gave to the Son everything that belongs to Him, to protect us from Arian tendencies:
"since the Father has through generation given to the only-begotten Son everything that belongs to the Father, except being Father, the Son has also eternally from the Father, from whom he is eternally born, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son...for the eternal order of the divine persons in their consubstantial communion implies that the Father, as "the principle without principle",is the first origin of the Spirit, but also that as Father of the only Son, he is, with the Son, the single principle from which the Holy Spirit proceeds.
I think the only legitimate dogmatic objection to the filioque is if someone (IMHO wrongly) interprets "proceeds from" to mean "originally proceeds from", otherwise I would like to ask my Orthodox brothers, does anything at all proceed from Jesus? If yes, what? and if nothing proceeds from Jesus aren't we back to the Eastern Churches' heretic tendencies with Arianism?
This Orthodox doesn't believe that anything "proceeds" from the Son. And yes, the Father is the cause, in a manner of speaking. The Son is "begotten", He doesn't "proceed" as the Spirit does from the Father.
What I put forth is that by using the word through after the "and" in the filoque would describe (by prepositional phrase) a mediating role of the Son. I could see where patristics could support such.
: AvrilNYC Sun May 16, 2010 - 13:29:29The Nicene Creed states about Jesus "Light from Light, true God from true God, " Jesus is Light, all Light is source of Light, all Light proceeds from Light, even if it is not the original source of light. Think about the "anastasi". The priest has the original source of Light and gives it to the faithful next to him, who then proceeds to pass it on to the next and so on. Light proceeds from light. Jesus is Light and true God. So although the father is the Original Source, Jesus is a secondary source. You can't have it both ways, if you accept that Jesus is true God and Light, He is also the (secondary) source, otherwise nothing proceeds from Jesus (even His teachings and miracles have the Father as the original source) and we fall into Arianism.
When Jesus says in John16:15 Everything that the Father has is mine" He is not lying. When He says in John 16:8 If I go I will send him (the Holy Spirit) to you" He is not lying.
the Catechism of the Catholic Church acknowledges that the Father is the first origin, but also affirms that the Father gave to the Son everything that belongs to Him, to protect us from Arian tendencies:
"since the Father has through generation given to the only-begotten Son everything that belongs to the Father, except being Father, the Son has also eternally from the Father, from whom he is eternally born, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son...for the eternal order of the divine persons in their consubstantial communion implies that the Father, as "the principle without principle",is the first origin of the Spirit, but also that as Father of the only Son, he is, with the Son, the single principle from which the Holy Spirit proceeds.
You illustrate here perfectly the problem with the
filioque: it ultimately becomes modalism, in which there is no distinction between the Persons of the Holy Trinity, that is to say there is only God's
essence, and the Persons become little more than "masks" designating a nominal distinction.
I know that you are not yourself espousing this ultimate conclusion, but this is where it leads. Confusing God's
essence or nature, and the Persons of the Trinity ultimately leads to modalism. As was noted in the posts above, the patristic teaching on the Trinity is that what is not common to the essence must be characteristic of the Person, and what is characteristic of the Person must be kept distinct from the nature. That is to say, it was not the Father who was crucified and resurrected, though the Person of the Trinity who *was* crucified and resurrected is God.
Therefore, if one must insist that Jesus must process the Spirit because the Father processes the Spirit--and if Jesus doesn't he somehow lacks Godhood--then who/what must the Spirit process so that he too is God?
Yes, you can quote Scriptues about
sending and the Spirit being the Spirit
of Jesus, and so on. But again, if you insist that this *must* entail the
fiioque then you end up on modalism. It is inescapable.
Rather if you read those Scriptures within the proper patristic framework--since all Scriptures must be interpreted, you have to choose what framework you use to interpret it, and the Orthodox consciously and conscientiously choose the patristic one--then you see that you cannot use those Scriptures to insist on double procession. Because the Scriptures cannot teach modalism, because we then cannot be saved.
: AvrilNYC Sun May 16, 2010 - 13:29:29I think the only legitimate dogmatic objection to the filioque is if someone (IMHO wrongly) interprets "proceeds from" to mean "originally proceeds from", otherwise I would like to ask my Orthodox brothers, does anything at all proceed from Jesus? If yes, what? and if nothing proceeds from Jesus aren't we back to the Eastern Churches' heretic tendencies with Arianism?
This is, perhaps unintended, little more than polemical mudslinging. In point of fact, the "Eastern Churches" were the ones who ultimately *defeated* Arianism. And if you want to discuss "heretic [sic] tendencies" perhaps we can discuss Pelagianism?
Relative to you overall question: whatever is unique to Jesus as the Son of God--crucifixion, resurrection, *being* eternally begotten--is that which distingquishes him *as* the Son of God. Double procession is not necessary to Jesus' Godhood, else it would also be necessary to the Spirit's Godhood, but I don't see any espousal of what/who the Spirit *must* process (triple procession) to be God.
Can anyone define the word translated "proceeds?"
Thanks.
It is usually described (definition is not the appropriate nomenclature) as the eternal spiration of the Holy Spirit from God the Father. This eternal spiration is distinguished from the eternal generation of the Son.
Of course all of these words are the best attempts we have--based on centuries of fighting off heresies so as to preserve the Gospel--to describe what is ultimately a Mystery to our reason. That said, the distinctions are important, again so as to preserve the Gospel. So this is not simply a matter of, well it's only human terminology, so limited, so we can ignore it or use other words to describe it, or . . .
These descriptions have been, as I indicated, "battle tested" in the arena of fighting off heresies. They have stood the test of time. Yes, it is possible to say the same thing in a different way--so long as we actually are saying the same thing. This is why we have to carefully weigh new terminology--test the spirits--so as to ensure we are transmitting the original Gospel without change or subtraction.
Okay, I admit it, I had to look up the word spiration (the act of breathing--as in respiration), but CD's point is valid. Language can be important. For example, it is important to your faith that Jesus was born of a virgin, not a young woman? Probably.
The whole filioque controversy shows the superiority of the Orthodox Church. We have our dear RCC friends trying to rewrite history saying that the filioque should have been in the Nicene Creed, and ignoring the fact that the filioque clause was added to combat a local heresy and was opposed by even some Popes. The same people who kicked out the Orthodox over this issue now allow it in the east--but not the west. Not to mention Jesus himself says
"But when the Helper comes, whom I shall send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify of Me. (John 15:26, emphasis mine).
Then we have our Protestant friends who buy into the filioque because it has nice things to say about Jesus, which is not an argument but a cultish aberration. More commonly, however, Protestants haven't really thought about this issue, because they don't find it relevant today.
Then we have the Orthodox who simply follow the thread of church history and assume that the Holy Spirit is guiding his church to truth, since Jesus promised he would.
Language can be important.
Indeed. ::smile::
St Basil in writing "On the Holy Spirit" was particularly attentive to even the smallest words and their usage. ie.
and, with, in
: CDHealy Wed May 19, 2010 - 16:49:47
It is usually described (definition is not the appropriate nomenclature) as the eternal spiration of the Holy Spirit from God the Father. This eternal spiration is distinguished from the eternal generation of the Son.
Of course all of these words are the best attempts we have--based on centuries of fighting off heresies so as to preserve the Gospel--to describe what is ultimately a Mystery to our reason. That said, the distinctions are important, again so as to preserve the Gospel. So this is not simply a matter of, well it's only human terminology, so limited, so we can ignore it or use other words to describe it, or . . .
These descriptions have been, as I indicated, "battle tested" in the arena of fighting off heresies. They have stood the test of time. Yes, it is possible to say the same thing in a different way--so long as we actually are saying the same thing. This is why we have to carefully weigh new terminology--test the spirits--so as to ensure we are transmitting the original Gospel without change or subtraction.
Thank you CD. That was very informative.
Do you know what the actual Greek word is, though? Anyone? (Finding the Greek is easy for the Bible. For the creeds, not as much.)
The Greek for procession is ekporeuomenein and for spiration is probolein.