Topic: Opposition of Relations

[Papist]

"In the case, therefore, o f the Godhead we confess that there is but one nature, but hold that there are three subsistences actually existing, and hold that all things that are of nature and essence are simple, and recognize that the difference of the subsitences only in the three properties of independence of cause and Fatherhood, of dpendence on cause and Sonship, of dependence on cause and procession."
                                                -St. John of Damascus
                                                  Expositon of the Orthodox Faith,
                                                  Book 3, chapter 5
It seems to mean that St. John of Damascus is supporting what the East usually considers nothing more than the scholastic position of the West, that while the three hypostasises are truly disctinct persons, their differences are not one of being but one of only of an oposition of relations. The logos is different from the Father only in that he is begotten and in nothing else. The Holy Spirit is different from the other persons only in his relationship of proceeding from the Father. It seems to me that any other positions creates some dangerous contradictions. If the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are different from one another in more than just relationship, it seems to me that we being to divide God into thirds, which is impossible given the infinity of the Divine nature. Thus, the Scholastic/Western position makes the most sense to me.
Can some one please explain the Eastern Position to me and explain why the Eastern rejection of the above makes more sense to you.
Please note, I am not trying to argue and if it appears that I am, please understand that I am simply trying to better understand your position. I am here to learn.
Many Blessings in Christ,
Chris

[Young Believer]

http://energeticprocession.wordpress.com/tag/trinity/

Too tired to explain, but perhaps this will give you something to chew on.

[AMM]

http://www.usccb.org/seia/filioque.shtml

[Papist]

Just to clarify the issue, I am not talking about the Filioque but rather about the Western osition that although the three pesons of the Blessed Trinity are distinct persons, their differences is only a difference of relations.
Many Blessings in Christ,
Chris

[username!]

Christ,
The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, the Trinity consubstantial (one in essence) and undivided.....
I would tend to think this is our position, it is right out of the Divine Liturgy...
Be careful with the notion that the Trinity is three seperate and distinct persons..........  Perhaps one of THE largest differences between Roman Catholicism of any rite and Orthodoxy is the view on the Holy Trinity.
It is dangerous ground to just attribute the notion that the Roman Catholic (of any rite) position is merely academic.  What is done academically also is what becomes held at the pew level.  While it may seem that the East doesn't attempt to expalin things as scholary as the West, this is just an passing observation.
Just peer through enough threads to see how deeply some of the scholary doctors of the Roman Catholic church are brought up on the various internet boards....  They aren't merely scholary, these positions are held by the whole church. 
While the attempt MAY have started out scholary, scholary things trickle down out of the academic world and influence thought and belief at all levels.
While we argue about the filioque, the papacy, immaculate conception, etc..
Think about the issue of the Trinity.  It is a major part of the definition of Christianity.  Having issues about how to view the trinity IS a major issue.

[Papist]

Christ,
The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, the Trinity consubstantial (one in essence) and undivided.....
I would tend to think this is our position, it is right out of the Divine Liturgy...
Be careful with the notion that the Trinity is three seperate and distinct persons..........  Perhaps one of THE largest differences between Roman Catholicism of any rite and Orthodoxy is the view on the Holy Trinity.

The Eastner Orthodox Archbishop Ware, in his book The Orthodox Church, actually states that Catholics tend to focus more on the undivided nature and substance of God, While Eastern Orthodox Christians focus more on the distinction between the three persons. Just a tid bit to chew on.
Many Blessings in Christ,
Chris
 

[username!]

The Eastner Orthodox Archbishop Ware, in his book The Orthodox Church, actually states that Catholics tend to focus more on the undivided nature and substance of God, While Eastern Orthodox Christians focus more on the distinction between the three persons. Just a tid bit to chew on.
Many Blessings in Christ,
Chris
 

I meant to write Chris!  I didn't realize that I added a t, dang my not- proof-reading my posts!

Ok where does Metropolitan Kallistos say this?
I was referring to your above posts.
So for me to "chew" on something I need to go read it myself (preferrably from the printed source, not the internet). 
The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, the Trinity one in ESSENCE and UNDIVIDED.
I can dig some books out too, I may do that later on today or tomorrow to help show what I mean.

[Papist]

I meant to write Chris!  I didn't realize that I added a t, dang my not- proof-reading my posts!

Ok where does Metropolitan Kallistos say this?
I was referring to your above posts.
So for me to "chew" on something I need to go read it myself (preferrably from the printed source, not the internet). 
The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, the Trinity one in ESSENCE and UNDIVIDED.
I can dig some books out too, I may do that later on today or tomorrow to help show what I mean.

I'll get you some quotes when I get home this evening.
Many Blessings in Chrsit,
Chris

[nonchal]

Thomas Aquinas, and the entire Latin tradition after him, teaches that the relations "are" the persons. (He writes this over and over again in the Summa.) Of course relations are abstractions rather than concrete entities. Aquinas admits this. He teaches that the Three Persons are NOT real entities despite the fact that he calls them "subsistences." Thus historians of dogma charge him with SemiSabellianism.

recognize that the difference of the subsitences only in the three properties of independence of cause and Fatherhood, of dpendence on cause and Sonship, of dependence on cause and procession.

What the Fathers mean is that each concrete entity is the exact same as the other concrete entities except for relation of origin. For example: three identical red marbles. This is entirely different from Thomism. Aquinas taught that there are no concrete entities in the Trinity.

The best book on the matter is "Trinity in Aquinas." A Dominican priest wrote it.