OrthodoxChristianity.net
November 27, 2014, 09:49:34 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 »  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: What is the deal?  (Read 7390 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Shlomlokh
主哀れめよ!
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Bulgarian
Posts: 1,299



« on: November 16, 2009, 10:16:13 PM »

I hope I'm not hitting a beehive (not too, hard at least) with this question, but it's been on my mind off and on. For those of you who may not know, I am a former Roman Catholic and was a Methodist before that. Last year I went to Ave Maria University, which boasts of being the next great Catholic institution. It's a lovely school, with great faculty and students, but this idea kept cropping up. It was perpetuated by a lot of the faculty and the students, too and was something I never heard before.

Quote
With all that He is and knows, He loves what He is and knows, and this loving, this willful act of the Father and the Son is a third Person, the Holy Spirit.
This version of it was posted by a friend from AMU on their facebook status, so I don't know where it came from.

To me, this idea seems outrageous and suggests that the Holy Spirit was a created a being. How do Roman Catholics view it? How do Orthodox view it? Is it heresy?

In Christ,
Andrew
Logged

"I will pour out my prayer unto the Lord, and to Him will I proclaim my grief; for with evils my soul is filled, and my life unto hades hath drawn nigh, and like Jonah I will pray: From corruption raise me up, O God." -Ode VI, Irmos of the Supplicatory Canon to the Theotokos
witega
Is it enough now, to tell you you matter?
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,614


« Reply #1 on: November 16, 2009, 10:32:02 PM »

I hope I'm not hitting a beehive (not too, hard at least) with this question, but it's been on my mind off and on. For those of you who may not know, I am a former Roman Catholic and was a Methodist before that. Last year I went to Ave Maria University, which boasts of being the next great Catholic institution. It's a lovely school, with great faculty and students, but this idea kept cropping up. It was perpetuated by a lot of the faculty and the students, too and was something I never heard before.

Quote
With all that He is and knows, He loves what He is and knows, and this loving, this willful act of the Father and the Son is a third Person, the Holy Spirit.
This version of it was posted by a friend from AMU on their facebook status, so I don't know where it came from.

To me, this idea seems outrageous and suggests that the Holy Spirit was a created a being. How do Roman Catholics view it? How do Orthodox view it? Is it heresy?

In Christ,
Andrew

Orthodoxy would definitely view it as pneumatomatachian heresy. It's like everything we find wrong with the Florence definition of the filioque made explicit and blunt.
Logged

Ariel Starling - New album

For it were better to suffer everything, rather than divide the Church of God. Even martyrdom for the sake of preventing division would not be less glorious than for refusing to worship idols. - St. Dionysius the Great
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #2 on: November 16, 2009, 11:45:06 PM »

I hope I'm not hitting a beehive (not too, hard at least) with this question, but it's been on my mind off and on. For those of you who may not know, I am a former Roman Catholic and was a Methodist before that. Last year I went to Ave Maria University, which boasts of being the next great Catholic institution. It's a lovely school, with great faculty and students, but this idea kept cropping up. It was perpetuated by a lot of the faculty and the students, too and was something I never heard before.

Quote
With all that He is and knows, He loves what He is and knows, and this loving, this willful act of the Father and the Son is a third Person, the Holy Spirit.
This version of it was posted by a friend from AMU on their facebook status, so I don't know where it came from.

To me, this idea seems outrageous

good, because it is.


Quote
and suggests that the Holy Spirit was a created a being.

not exactly, but it does subordinate the Spirit to Father and Son.

Quote
How do Roman Catholics view it?

Some will defend it to the death.  God guide them.

Quote
How do Orthodox view it? Is it heresy?

Yes, the consequences of the filioque heresy.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Schultz
Christian. Guitarist. Zymurgist. Librarian.
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,487


Scion of the McKeesport Becks.


WWW
« Reply #3 on: November 16, 2009, 11:59:31 PM »

Isn't this idea found somewhere in St Augustine's writings, either explicitly or implicitly?
Logged

"Hearing a nun's confession is like being stoned to death with popcorn." --Abp. Fulton Sheen
witega
Is it enough now, to tell you you matter?
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,614


« Reply #4 on: November 17, 2009, 12:53:26 AM »

I hope I'm not hitting a beehive (not too, hard at least) with this question, but it's been on my mind off and on. For those of you who may not know, I am a former Roman Catholic and was a Methodist before that. Last year I went to Ave Maria University, which boasts of being the next great Catholic institution. It's a lovely school, with great faculty and students, but this idea kept cropping up. It was perpetuated by a lot of the faculty and the students, too and was something I never heard before.

Quote
With all that He is and knows, He loves what He is and knows, and this loving, this willful act of the Father and the Son is a third Person, the Holy Spirit.
This version of it was posted by a friend from AMU on their facebook status, so I don't know where it came from.

To me, this idea seems outrageous


Quote
and suggests that the Holy Spirit was a created a being.

not exactly, but it does subordinate the Spirit to Father and Son.

Actually, in the form Shlomokh quoted, it does make the Holy Spirit a created being. One of the key distinctions between the Godhead and created being is that our existence is 'contingent'. We exist because God has chosen that we do so; creation was a 'willful act' on His part. The Godhead on the other hand is the 'I Am'. Divine existence is absolute and unconditional. By stating that the Holy Spirit is produced by a 'willful act' on the part of the Father and the Son, the above reduces the Holy Spirit to the level of a created being whom the Father and the Son willed into existence (i.e., by choice)--and thus they could will it out again.

As such, it's much stronger/worse than the actual Latin dogmatic/conciliar definitions of the filioque--though one can certainly see a line between the filioque and the above teaching.
Logged

Ariel Starling - New album

For it were better to suffer everything, rather than divide the Church of God. Even martyrdom for the sake of preventing division would not be less glorious than for refusing to worship idols. - St. Dionysius the Great
witega
Is it enough now, to tell you you matter?
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,614


« Reply #5 on: November 17, 2009, 12:58:17 AM »

Isn't this idea found somewhere in St Augustine's writings, either explicitly or implicitly?

The idea that the Holy Spirit's 'position' within the Trinity can be explained as Him being the personified Love between the Father and the Son shows up in St. Augustine, though I don't recall at the moment if St. Augustine was simply using the idea as an explanatory metaphor or meant it literally. From there, it's fairly common in Western literature (for example, C.S.Lewis includes it in his 'Mere Christianity')--sometimes understood to be only an explanatory image, sometimes understood literally.
Logged

Ariel Starling - New album

For it were better to suffer everything, rather than divide the Church of God. Even martyrdom for the sake of preventing division would not be less glorious than for refusing to worship idols. - St. Dionysius the Great
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,365


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #6 on: November 17, 2009, 11:03:13 AM »

No, it does not mean that he is created. The people who defend this view (which is not dogma btw) see God's love as God himself, so the love between the Father and the Son would not be a creature but God the Holy Spirit eternally proceeding from the Father through the Son.
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
Robb
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: RC
Jurisdiction: Italian Catholic
Posts: 1,537



« Reply #7 on: November 18, 2009, 08:41:06 PM »

I have heard some strange stuff about this school.  Namely, that its involved with charismatic, new age, type of Catholicism combined with a somewhat traditionalist bent (just like the Franciscan University of Steubenville, Ohio).  It was founded by Domino's Pizza owner Bob Monyhan, who also wanted to found a "Catholic town" of sorts around his school.  The whole thing sounds kind of creepy and cultish to me, but what does my opinion matter? 

If I were you and I wanted to go to a good school in Florida, then I'd go with the University of Miami or some other secular, state run, school.
Logged

Men may dislike truth, men may find truth offensive and inconvenient, men may persecute the truth, subvert it, try by law to suppress it. But to maintain that men have the final power over truth is blasphemy, and the last delusion. Truth lives forever, men do not.
-- Gustave Flaubert
Alveus Lacuna
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,951



« Reply #8 on: November 19, 2009, 12:08:58 AM »

If I were you and I wanted to go to a good school in Florida, then I'd go with the University of Miami or some other secular, state run, school.

Make sure to take their Religious Studies courses and destroy your faith!
Logged
BrotherAidan
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,568

OC.net


« Reply #9 on: November 19, 2009, 12:33:13 AM »

Isn't this idea found somewhere in St Augustine's writings, either explicitly or implicitly?
Yes it is an Augustinian view and more common than makes me confortable among Catholics that I know.

Oddly, I never heard this view proposed by the Evangelicals and Calvinists I received my early theological formation from. The understanding I got from them didn't need much or any revision when I became Orthodox. Everything Orthodoxy taught about the Holy Trinity immediately made sense to me.
Logged
Vlad
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Orthodox, Greek Orthodox Church of America
Posts: 405



« Reply #10 on: November 19, 2009, 01:55:19 AM »

I have heard some strange stuff about this school.  Namely, that its involved with charismatic, new age, type of Catholicism combined with a somewhat traditionalist bent (just like the Franciscan University of Steubenville, Ohio).  It was founded by Domino's Pizza owner Bob Monyhan, who also wanted to found a "Catholic town" of sorts around his school.  The whole thing sounds kind of creepy and cultish to me, but what does my opinion matter? 

If I were you and I wanted to go to a good school in Florida, then I'd go with the University of Miami or some other secular, state run, school.

I've heard some strange stuff too about that place. As to the OP this sounds weird, gotta be heretical.
« Last Edit: November 19, 2009, 01:55:57 AM by Vlad » Logged
Shlomlokh
主哀れめよ!
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Bulgarian
Posts: 1,299



« Reply #11 on: November 23, 2009, 11:44:22 PM »

I've heard some strange stuff too about that place. As to the OP this sounds weird, gotta be heretical.

The school is great and the people are, too (some are willing to do an Orthodox Reader's Vespers with me Smiley). I have just heard of two professors expressing this view, which I believe is troubling. I cannot see how it can be an orthodox teaching at all, however well-intentioned they may be in their worship of the Holy Trinity.

In Christ,
Andrew
Logged

"I will pour out my prayer unto the Lord, and to Him will I proclaim my grief; for with evils my soul is filled, and my life unto hades hath drawn nigh, and like Jonah I will pray: From corruption raise me up, O God." -Ode VI, Irmos of the Supplicatory Canon to the Theotokos
Altar Server
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian(as of 12/18/10)
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 978


Holy Father Seraphim, Pray to God for us!


« Reply #12 on: November 23, 2009, 11:49:40 PM »

I don't know why these professors where teaching this because it's not the teaching of the Church although my theology teacher has said the same thing before.
Logged

All my hope I place in you, O Mother of God, keep me under your protection!
Shlomlokh
主哀れめよ!
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Bulgarian
Posts: 1,299



« Reply #13 on: November 23, 2009, 11:51:48 PM »

No, it does not mean that he is created. The people who defend this view (which is not dogma btw) see God's love as God himself, so the love between the Father and the Son would not be a creature but God the Holy Spirit eternally proceeding from the Father through the Son.

But do you see how it can be misunderstood and misconstrued, even by well-intentioned laymen and theologians even? My Orthodox sensibilities tell me that it would be irreverent and possibly dangerous spiritually to pry any further than what has been revealed about the Holy Trinity.

In Christ,
Andrew
Logged

"I will pour out my prayer unto the Lord, and to Him will I proclaim my grief; for with evils my soul is filled, and my life unto hades hath drawn nigh, and like Jonah I will pray: From corruption raise me up, O God." -Ode VI, Irmos of the Supplicatory Canon to the Theotokos
Altar Server
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian(as of 12/18/10)
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 978


Holy Father Seraphim, Pray to God for us!


« Reply #14 on: November 23, 2009, 11:54:10 PM »

yes I would say as a Catholic that it is border line heretical and spiritually dangerous
Logged

All my hope I place in you, O Mother of God, keep me under your protection!
Shlomlokh
主哀れめよ!
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Bulgarian
Posts: 1,299



« Reply #15 on: November 26, 2009, 02:36:57 PM »

yes I would say as a Catholic that it is border line heretical and spiritually dangerous

I found this quote from a German theologian post-schism:

Quote
When the Father laughs at the Son and the Son laughs back at the Father, that laughter gives pleasure, that pleasure gives joy, that joy gives love, and that love is the Holy Spirit-Meister Eckhart


Does anyone know if this idea stemmed directly from St. Augustine? I had heard that before, but never checked his writings to see. Has Rome ever condemned this way of expressing the Trinity?

In Christ,
Andrew
Logged

"I will pour out my prayer unto the Lord, and to Him will I proclaim my grief; for with evils my soul is filled, and my life unto hades hath drawn nigh, and like Jonah I will pray: From corruption raise me up, O God." -Ode VI, Irmos of the Supplicatory Canon to the Theotokos
Athanasios
Latin Rite Catholic faithful to the Holy Father and the Magisterium
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Church Diocese of Youngstown
Posts: 1,800


The Divine Mercy


« Reply #16 on: January 04, 2010, 03:28:01 PM »

Actually, in the form Shlomokh quoted, it does make the Holy Spirit a created being. One of the key distinctions between the Godhead and created being is that our existence is 'contingent'. We exist because God has chosen that we do so; creation was a 'willful act' on His part. The Godhead on the other hand is the 'I Am'. Divine existence is absolute and unconditional. By stating that the Holy Spirit is produced by a 'willful act' on the part of the Father and the Son, the above reduces the Holy Spirit to the level of a created being whom the Father and the Son willed into existence (i.e., by choice)--and thus they could will it out again.

As such, it's much stronger/worse than the actual Latin dogmatic/conciliar definitions of the filioque--though one can certainly see a line between the filioque and the above teaching.

A "willful act"? So is the Son created because the Father wills to beget Him? The Father as source of the Trinity could have, perhaps, been stingy and not poured Himself out into the Son. And by way of love, love always involves the will. 
Logged

Through the intercession of Our Lady of Mount Carmel, may Jesus Christ bless you abundantly.

Pray that we may be one, as Christ and His Father are one. (John 17:20ff)

A.K.A. - JMJ_coder
witega
Is it enough now, to tell you you matter?
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,614


« Reply #17 on: January 04, 2010, 03:40:03 PM »

Actually, in the form Shlomokh quoted, it does make the Holy Spirit a created being. One of the key distinctions between the Godhead and created being is that our existence is 'contingent'. We exist because God has chosen that we do so; creation was a 'willful act' on His part. The Godhead on the other hand is the 'I Am'. Divine existence is absolute and unconditional. By stating that the Holy Spirit is produced by a 'willful act' on the part of the Father and the Son, the above reduces the Holy Spirit to the level of a created being whom the Father and the Son willed into existence (i.e., by choice)--and thus they could will it out again.

As such, it's much stronger/worse than the actual Latin dogmatic/conciliar definitions of the filioque--though one can certainly see a line between the filioque and the above teaching.

A "willful act"? So is the Son created because the Father wills to beget Him? The Father as source of the Trinity could have, perhaps, been stingy and not poured Himself out into the Son. And by way of love, love always involves the will. 

Uh, so, not content with the Spirit, you are arguing that the Son is also a contingent being? And how does the idea that the Father 'could have not poured Himself out into the Son', differ from the Arian position that at some point the Father willed the Son into existence? Because if the Father could have not, there must have been a point when He had not so that He could choose whether to do or not to do.

I agree that love always involves will. Which is why to reduce the interrelationships of the Trinity to willful acts of love is to deny the homoousia of the Son and the Spirit with the Father.
Logged

Ariel Starling - New album

For it were better to suffer everything, rather than divide the Church of God. Even martyrdom for the sake of preventing division would not be less glorious than for refusing to worship idols. - St. Dionysius the Great
Athanasios
Latin Rite Catholic faithful to the Holy Father and the Magisterium
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Church Diocese of Youngstown
Posts: 1,800


The Divine Mercy


« Reply #18 on: January 04, 2010, 03:43:07 PM »

Does anyone know if this idea stemmed directly from St. Augustine? I had heard that before, but never checked his writings to see. Has Rome ever condemned this way of expressing the Trinity?

In Christ,
Andrew

Well, what was quoted originally sounds really weird -- I don't quite know what it says.

But, as far as the Trinity being a communion of love, it indeed is to be found in the writings of Saint Augustine, particularly his great work on the Trinity. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states:
Quote
221 But St. John goes even further when he affirms that "God is love"Sad⇒ l Jn 4:8, 16) God's very being is love. By sending his only Son and the Spirit of Love in the fullness of time, God has revealed his innermost secret:(Cf. I Cor 2:7-16; ⇒ Eph 3:9-12.) God himself is an eternal exchange of love, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and he has destined us to share in that exchange.

And in the recent Clarification on the Filioque, the Catholic Church states:
Quote
What is this Trinitarian character that the person of the Holy Spirit brings to the very relationship between the Father and the Son? It is the original role of the Spirit in the economy with regard to the mission and work of the Son. The Father is love in is source (2 Cor 13:13; 1 Jn 4:8.16), the Son is "the Son that he loves" (Col 1:14). So a tradition dating back to St Augustine has seen in the Holy Spirit, through whom "God's love has been poured into our hearts" (Rom 5:5), love as the eternal Gift of the Father to his "beloved Son" (Mk 1:11, 9:7; Lk 20:13; Eph 1:6).*

* St. Thomas Aquinas, following St. Augustine, writes: "If we say of the Holy Spirit that he dwells in the Son, it is in the way that the love of one who loves reposes in the loved one" (Summa Theologica Ia, q.36, a.2, 4um). This doctrine of the Holy Spirit as love has been harmoniously assumed by St. Gregory Palamas into the Greek theology of the ekporeusis from the Father alone: "The Spirit of the most high Word is like an ineffable love of the Father for this Word ineffably generated. A love which this same Word and beloved Son of the Father entertains (chretai) towards the Father: but insofar as he has the Spirit coming with him (sunproelthonta) from the Father and reposing connaturally in him" (Capita physica XXXVI, PG 150, 1144, D-1145 A).

Logged

Through the intercession of Our Lady of Mount Carmel, may Jesus Christ bless you abundantly.

Pray that we may be one, as Christ and His Father are one. (John 17:20ff)

A.K.A. - JMJ_coder
Athanasios
Latin Rite Catholic faithful to the Holy Father and the Magisterium
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Church Diocese of Youngstown
Posts: 1,800


The Divine Mercy


« Reply #19 on: January 04, 2010, 03:49:26 PM »

Uh, so, not content with the Spirit, you are arguing that the Son is also a contingent being?
I don't hold any person of the Godhead to be contingent. I was merely pointing to the contradiction


And how does the idea that the Father 'could have not poured Himself out into the Son', differ from the Arian position that at some point the Father willed the Son into existence?
The Arians held that within time the Father created the Son. On the contrary, the begetting of the Son happens outside of time from all eternity.


Because if the Father could have not, there must have been a point when He had not so that He could choose whether to do or not to do.
Umm, no. I don't have the time in a post to fully address this (especially since several lines of though must be followed for quite a while. I suggest reading Saint Augustine's 'On the Trinity' for a full treatment of this.


I agree that love always involves will. Which is why to reduce the interrelationships of the Trinity to willful acts of love is to deny the homoousia of the Son and the Spirit with the Father.
So you think Saint John is a liar when he writes "God is love"?
Logged

Through the intercession of Our Lady of Mount Carmel, may Jesus Christ bless you abundantly.

Pray that we may be one, as Christ and His Father are one. (John 17:20ff)

A.K.A. - JMJ_coder
witega
Is it enough now, to tell you you matter?
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,614


« Reply #20 on: January 04, 2010, 05:13:05 PM »

So you think Saint John is a liar when he writes "God is love"?

Nope. Also don't think he's a liar when he says the only Person in a position to know said, "The Spirit proceeds from the Father."

(And btw, if you think the statement "God is Love" has anything to do with my criticism of the Arianism in your contention that the 2nd and 3rd persons of the Trinity are contingent on the choices of the Father, you need to work on your reading comprehension).
« Last Edit: January 04, 2010, 05:15:03 PM by witega » Logged

Ariel Starling - New album

For it were better to suffer everything, rather than divide the Church of God. Even martyrdom for the sake of preventing division would not be less glorious than for refusing to worship idols. - St. Dionysius the Great
Alonso_castillo
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Arquidiósesis de Guadalajara (México)
Posts: 360


Me when younger


« Reply #21 on: January 04, 2010, 06:51:08 PM »

I hope I'm not hitting a beehive (not too, hard at least) with this question, but it's been on my mind off and on. For those of you who may not know, I am a former Roman Catholic and was a Methodist before that. Last year I went to Ave Maria University, which boasts of being the next great Catholic institution. It's a lovely school, with great faculty and students, but this idea kept cropping up. It was perpetuated by a lot of the faculty and the students, too and was something I never heard before.

Quote
With all that He is and knows, He loves what He is and knows, and this loving, this willful act of the Father and the Son is a third Person, the Holy Spirit.
This version of it was posted by a friend from AMU on their facebook status, so I don't know where it came from.

To me, this idea seems outrageous and suggests that the Holy Spirit was a created a being. How do Roman Catholics view it? How do Orthodox view it? Is it heresy?

In Christ,
Andrew

¿Do you think this is a matter for salvation?
Logged

Nisi Dominus aedificaverit Domum
in vanum laboraverunt qui aedifcant eam
Nisi Dominus custodierit civitatem
frustra vigilant qui custodit Eam
Mardukm
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 423


« Reply #22 on: January 09, 2010, 10:40:17 AM »

Dear brother witega,

Actually, in the form Shlomokh quoted, it does make the Holy Spirit a created being. One of the key distinctions between the Godhead and created being is that our existence is 'contingent'. We exist because God has chosen that we do so; creation was a 'willful act' on His part. The Godhead on the other hand is the 'I Am'. Divine existence is absolute and unconditional. By stating that the Holy Spirit is produced by a 'willful act' on the part of the Father and the Son, the above reduces the Holy Spirit to the level of a created being whom the Father and the Son willed into existence (i.e., by choice)--and thus they could will it out again.

As such, it's much stronger/worse than the actual Latin dogmatic/conciliar definitions of the filioque--though one can certainly see a line between the filioque and the above teaching.
There is something you are forgetting in your criticism of the statement.  Latin Catholics do not distinguish between action and being within the Godhead - that's the idea of divine simplicity.  From your Byzantine perspective, you take a willful act of God (energy, if you will) as something that happens outside of the eternal moment.  But to Latins, who make no distinction between action and Being (energy and essence), the Father using His will to produce the Holy Spirit is something inherently natural to the very Being of the Godhead.  It occurs in the eternal moment.

Hope that helps.

Blessings,
Marduk
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #23 on: January 09, 2010, 11:55:38 AM »

Actually, in the form Shlomokh quoted, it does make the Holy Spirit a created being. One of the key distinctions between the Godhead and created being is that our existence is 'contingent'. We exist because God has chosen that we do so; creation was a 'willful act' on His part. The Godhead on the other hand is the 'I Am'. Divine existence is absolute and unconditional. By stating that the Holy Spirit is produced by a 'willful act' on the part of the Father and the Son, the above reduces the Holy Spirit to the level of a created being whom the Father and the Son willed into existence (i.e., by choice)--and thus they could will it out again.

As such, it's much stronger/worse than the actual Latin dogmatic/conciliar definitions of the filioque--though one can certainly see a line between the filioque and the above teaching.

A "willful act"? So is the Son created because the Father wills to beget Him? The Father as source of the Trinity could have, perhaps, been stingy and not poured Himself out into the Son. And by way of love, love always involves the will. 
No, the Father did not will to beget the Son, nor will for the Spirit to proceed.  Unlike Creation, where God had no obligation or compulsion to do it, the begetting and procession is a necessary and inherent part of His divinity.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #24 on: January 09, 2010, 11:56:20 AM »

I hope I'm not hitting a beehive (not too, hard at least) with this question, but it's been on my mind off and on. For those of you who may not know, I am a former Roman Catholic and was a Methodist before that. Last year I went to Ave Maria University, which boasts of being the next great Catholic institution. It's a lovely school, with great faculty and students, but this idea kept cropping up. It was perpetuated by a lot of the faculty and the students, too and was something I never heard before.

Quote
With all that He is and knows, He loves what He is and knows, and this loving, this willful act of the Father and the Son is a third Person, the Holy Spirit.
This version of it was posted by a friend from AMU on their facebook status, so I don't know where it came from.

To me, this idea seems outrageous and suggests that the Holy Spirit was a created a being. How do Roman Catholics view it? How do Orthodox view it? Is it heresy?

In Christ,
Andrew

¿Do you think this is a matter for salvation?
Denial of the Divinity of the Spirit?  Yes.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #25 on: January 09, 2010, 11:59:52 AM »

Dear brother witega,

Actually, in the form Shlomokh quoted, it does make the Holy Spirit a created being. One of the key distinctions between the Godhead and created being is that our existence is 'contingent'. We exist because God has chosen that we do so; creation was a 'willful act' on His part. The Godhead on the other hand is the 'I Am'. Divine existence is absolute and unconditional. By stating that the Holy Spirit is produced by a 'willful act' on the part of the Father and the Son, the above reduces the Holy Spirit to the level of a created being whom the Father and the Son willed into existence (i.e., by choice)--and thus they could will it out again.

As such, it's much stronger/worse than the actual Latin dogmatic/conciliar definitions of the filioque--though one can certainly see a line between the filioque and the above teaching.
There is something you are forgetting in your criticism of the statement.  Latin Catholics do not distinguish between action and being within the Godhead - that's the idea of divine simplicity.  From your Byzantine perspective, you take a willful act of God (energy, if you will) as something that happens outside of the eternal moment.  But to Latins, who make no distinction between action and Being (energy and essence), the Father using His will to produce the Holy Spirit is something inherently natural to the very Being of the Godhead.  It occurs in the eternal moment.

Hope that helps.

Blessings,
Marduk

There is only one will in the Godhead. Divine simplicity doesn't mean reducing Him to simplistic terms so we can comprehend Him.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Mardukm
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 423


« Reply #26 on: January 09, 2010, 12:46:16 PM »

Dear brother Isa,

Dear brother witega,

Actually, in the form Shlomokh quoted, it does make the Holy Spirit a created being. One of the key distinctions between the Godhead and created being is that our existence is 'contingent'. We exist because God has chosen that we do so; creation was a 'willful act' on His part. The Godhead on the other hand is the 'I Am'. Divine existence is absolute and unconditional. By stating that the Holy Spirit is produced by a 'willful act' on the part of the Father and the Son, the above reduces the Holy Spirit to the level of a created being whom the Father and the Son willed into existence (i.e., by choice)--and thus they could will it out again.

As such, it's much stronger/worse than the actual Latin dogmatic/conciliar definitions of the filioque--though one can certainly see a line between the filioque and the above teaching.
There is something you are forgetting in your criticism of the statement.  Latin Catholics do not distinguish between action and being within the Godhead - that's the idea of divine simplicity.  From your Byzantine perspective, you take a willful act of God (energy, if you will) as something that happens outside of the eternal moment.  But to Latins, who make no distinction between action and Being (energy and essence), the Father using His will to produce the Holy Spirit is something inherently natural to the very Being of the Godhead.  It occurs in the eternal moment.

Hope that helps.

Blessings,
Marduk

There is only one will in the Godhead. Divine simplicity doesn't mean reducing Him to simplistic terms so we can comprehend Him.
Your response does not address my comment at all.

Blessings
Logged
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #27 on: January 09, 2010, 06:19:13 PM »

I hope I'm not hitting a beehive (not too, hard at least) with this question, but it's been on my mind off and on. For those of you who may not know, I am a former Roman Catholic and was a Methodist before that. Last year I went to Ave Maria University, which boasts of being the next great Catholic institution. It's a lovely school, with great faculty and students, but this idea kept cropping up. It was perpetuated by a lot of the faculty and the students, too and was something I never heard before.

Quote
With all that He is and knows, He loves what He is and knows, and this loving, this willful act of the Father and the Son is a third Person, the Holy Spirit.
This version of it was posted by a friend from AMU on their facebook status, so I don't know where it came from.

To me, this idea seems outrageous


Quote
and suggests that the Holy Spirit was a created a being.

not exactly, but it does subordinate the Spirit to Father and Son.

Actually, in the form Shlomokh quoted, it does make the Holy Spirit a created being. One of the key distinctions between the Godhead and created being is that our existence is 'contingent'. We exist because God has chosen that we do so; creation was a 'willful act' on His part. The Godhead on the other hand is the 'I Am'. Divine existence is absolute and unconditional. By stating that the Holy Spirit is produced by a 'willful act' on the part of the Father and the Son, the above reduces the Holy Spirit to the level of a created being whom the Father and the Son willed into existence (i.e., by choice)--and thus they could will it out again.

As such, it's much stronger/worse than the actual Latin dogmatic/conciliar definitions of the filioque--though one can certainly see a line between the filioque and the above teaching.

I don't know about that. I've typically viewed the existence of both the Spirit and the Son as an eternal choice of the Father.
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
Mardukm
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 423


« Reply #28 on: January 09, 2010, 06:57:53 PM »

Dear brother deusveritasest,

I hope I'm not hitting a beehive (not too, hard at least) with this question, but it's been on my mind off and on. For those of you who may not know, I am a former Roman Catholic and was a Methodist before that. Last year I went to Ave Maria University, which boasts of being the next great Catholic institution. It's a lovely school, with great faculty and students, but this idea kept cropping up. It was perpetuated by a lot of the faculty and the students, too and was something I never heard before.

Quote
With all that He is and knows, He loves what He is and knows, and this loving, this willful act of the Father and the Son is a third Person, the Holy Spirit.
This version of it was posted by a friend from AMU on their facebook status, so I don't know where it came from.

To me, this idea seems outrageous


Quote
and suggests that the Holy Spirit was a created a being.

not exactly, but it does subordinate the Spirit to Father and Son.

Actually, in the form Shlomokh quoted, it does make the Holy Spirit a created being. One of the key distinctions between the Godhead and created being is that our existence is 'contingent'. We exist because God has chosen that we do so; creation was a 'willful act' on His part. The Godhead on the other hand is the 'I Am'. Divine existence is absolute and unconditional. By stating that the Holy Spirit is produced by a 'willful act' on the part of the Father and the Son, the above reduces the Holy Spirit to the level of a created being whom the Father and the Son willed into existence (i.e., by choice)--and thus they could will it out again.

As such, it's much stronger/worse than the actual Latin dogmatic/conciliar definitions of the filioque--though one can certainly see a line between the filioque and the above teaching.

I don't know about that. I've typically viewed the existence of both the Spirit and the Son as an eternal choice of the Father.
That has always been my understanding as an Oriental as well. I think this is because the Oriental Churches have a slightly different concept of the Essence/Energies distinction than the EO.  If you read my post to brother witega above, I think it might tune you in to why we as Orientals are not averse to the idea that the Generation of the Son and the Origination of the Holy Spirit are "eternal choices" of the Father.

Blessings,
Marduk
Logged
GregoryLA
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Moving toward Eastern Orthodoxy
Jurisdiction: Western Japan
Posts: 377



« Reply #29 on: January 09, 2010, 07:24:57 PM »

Dear brother deusveritasest,

I hope I'm not hitting a beehive (not too, hard at least) with this question, but it's been on my mind off and on. For those of you who may not know, I am a former Roman Catholic and was a Methodist before that. Last year I went to Ave Maria University, which boasts of being the next great Catholic institution. It's a lovely school, with great faculty and students, but this idea kept cropping up. It was perpetuated by a lot of the faculty and the students, too and was something I never heard before.

Quote
With all that He is and knows, He loves what He is and knows, and this loving, this willful act of the Father and the Son is a third Person, the Holy Spirit.
This version of it was posted by a friend from AMU on their facebook status, so I don't know where it came from.

To me, this idea seems outrageous


Quote
and suggests that the Holy Spirit was a created a being.

not exactly, but it does subordinate the Spirit to Father and Son.

Actually, in the form Shlomokh quoted, it does make the Holy Spirit a created being. One of the key distinctions between the Godhead and created being is that our existence is 'contingent'. We exist because God has chosen that we do so; creation was a 'willful act' on His part. The Godhead on the other hand is the 'I Am'. Divine existence is absolute and unconditional. By stating that the Holy Spirit is produced by a 'willful act' on the part of the Father and the Son, the above reduces the Holy Spirit to the level of a created being whom the Father and the Son willed into existence (i.e., by choice)--and thus they could will it out again.

As such, it's much stronger/worse than the actual Latin dogmatic/conciliar definitions of the filioque--though one can certainly see a line between the filioque and the above teaching.

I don't know about that. I've typically viewed the existence of both the Spirit and the Son as an eternal choice of the Father.
That has always been my understanding as an Oriental as well. I think this is because the Oriental Churches have a slightly different concept of the Essence/Energies distinction than the EO.  If you read my post to brother witega above, I think it might tune you in to why we as Orientals are not averse to the idea that the Generation of the Son and the Origination of the Holy Spirit are "eternal choices" of the Father.

Blessings,
Marduk


Can we split this off? I would be very interested in hearing other OO chime in on the energies/essence distinction without derailing the thread.
Logged
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #30 on: January 09, 2010, 08:04:26 PM »

Actually, in the form Shlomokh quoted, it does make the Holy Spirit a created being. One of the key distinctions between the Godhead and created being is that our existence is 'contingent'. We exist because God has chosen that we do so; creation was a 'willful act' on His part. The Godhead on the other hand is the 'I Am'. Divine existence is absolute and unconditional. By stating that the Holy Spirit is produced by a 'willful act' on the part of the Father and the Son, the above reduces the Holy Spirit to the level of a created being whom the Father and the Son willed into existence (i.e., by choice)--and thus they could will it out again.

As such, it's much stronger/worse than the actual Latin dogmatic/conciliar definitions of the filioque--though one can certainly see a line between the filioque and the above teaching.

A "willful act"? So is the Son created because the Father wills to beget Him? The Father as source of the Trinity could have, perhaps, been stingy and not poured Himself out into the Son. And by way of love, love always involves the will. 

Agreed. But also, the Father wouldn't really be who we know Him to be if He hadn't have begotten the Son.
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #31 on: January 09, 2010, 08:11:12 PM »


Uh, so, not content with the Spirit, you are arguing that the Son is also a contingent being?

Well, it really depends on what you mean by contingent. Because according to the some of the definitions of the word, the Son and the Spirit are not, but according to other definitions, they are. Look at how many different meanings Merriam Webster lists for the word:

1 : likely but not certain to happen : possible
2 : not logically necessary; especially : empirical
3 a : happening by chance or unforeseen causes b : subject to chance or unseen effects : unpredictable c : intended for use in circumstances not completely foreseen
4 : dependent on or conditioned by something else <payment is contingent on fulfillment of certain conditions>
5 : not necessitated : determined by free choice

So, I think you will need to specify exactly what you mean by that if anyone can rightly answer.


And how does the idea that the Father 'could have not poured Himself out into the Son', differ from the Arian position that at some point the Father willed the Son into existence?

It's really a different issue. In this view it still could be said that there was never a time when the Son was not, while the Arians assert that there was a time when the Son was not.


Because if the Father could have not, there must have been a point when He had not so that He could choose whether to do or not to do.

That's simply not true. There was never a time when the Father did not choose to beget the Son.
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #32 on: January 09, 2010, 08:13:00 PM »

I hope I'm not hitting a beehive (not too, hard at least) with this question, but it's been on my mind off and on. For those of you who may not know, I am a former Roman Catholic and was a Methodist before that. Last year I went to Ave Maria University, which boasts of being the next great Catholic institution. It's a lovely school, with great faculty and students, but this idea kept cropping up. It was perpetuated by a lot of the faculty and the students, too and was something I never heard before.

Quote
With all that He is and knows, He loves what He is and knows, and this loving, this willful act of the Father and the Son is a third Person, the Holy Spirit.
This version of it was posted by a friend from AMU on their facebook status, so I don't know where it came from.

To me, this idea seems outrageous and suggests that the Holy Spirit was a created a being. How do Roman Catholics view it? How do Orthodox view it? Is it heresy?

In Christ,
Andrew

¿Do you think this is a matter for salvation?

The procession of the Holy Spirit is a matter of salvation, yes.
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #33 on: January 09, 2010, 08:14:44 PM »


There is something you are forgetting in your criticism of the statement.  Latin Catholics do not distinguish between action and being within the Godhead - that's the idea of divine simplicity.  From your Byzantine perspective, you take a willful act of God (energy, if you will) as something that happens outside of the eternal moment.  But to Latins, who make no distinction between action and Being (energy and essence), the Father using His will to produce the Holy Spirit is something inherently natural to the very Being of the Godhead.  It occurs in the eternal moment.

No, you are misrepresenting EOy and Palamism. The Energies of God are explicitly stated to be eternal.
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #34 on: January 09, 2010, 08:17:15 PM »

Actually, in the form Shlomokh quoted, it does make the Holy Spirit a created being. One of the key distinctions between the Godhead and created being is that our existence is 'contingent'. We exist because God has chosen that we do so; creation was a 'willful act' on His part. The Godhead on the other hand is the 'I Am'. Divine existence is absolute and unconditional. By stating that the Holy Spirit is produced by a 'willful act' on the part of the Father and the Son, the above reduces the Holy Spirit to the level of a created being whom the Father and the Son willed into existence (i.e., by choice)--and thus they could will it out again.

As such, it's much stronger/worse than the actual Latin dogmatic/conciliar definitions of the filioque--though one can certainly see a line between the filioque and the above teaching.

A "willful act"? So is the Son created because the Father wills to beget Him? The Father as source of the Trinity could have, perhaps, been stingy and not poured Himself out into the Son. And by way of love, love always involves the will. 
No, the Father did not will to beget the Son, nor will for the Spirit to proceed.  Unlike Creation, where God had no obligation or compulsion to do it, the begetting and procession is a necessary and inherent part of His divinity.

No, it's not. The Father and His divinity is unoriginate, whereas the Son is originate and dependent upon the Father, as is the Spirit. To suggest that an unoriginate being is dependent upon the Son, an originate being, for His being is to dissolve the monarchy of the Father.
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
Mardukm
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 423


« Reply #35 on: January 09, 2010, 08:18:32 PM »

Dear brother deusveritasest,


There is something you are forgetting in your criticism of the statement.  Latin Catholics do not distinguish between action and being within the Godhead - that's the idea of divine simplicity.  From your Byzantine perspective, you take a willful act of God (energy, if you will) as something that happens outside of the eternal moment.  But to Latins, who make no distinction between action and Being (energy and essence), the Father using His will to produce the Holy Spirit is something inherently natural to the very Being of the Godhead.  It occurs in the eternal moment.

No, you are misrepresenting EOy and Palamism. The Energies of God are explicitly stated to be eternal.
No I am not.  The Essence and Energy of God is eternal, but, according to the EO, only the Energy can extend into the temporal, while the Essence is totally Other. Sorry if my post implied otherwise.

Blessings,
Marduk
« Last Edit: January 09, 2010, 08:22:20 PM by Mardukm » Logged
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #36 on: January 09, 2010, 08:19:56 PM »

Dear brother deusveritasest,

I hope I'm not hitting a beehive (not too, hard at least) with this question, but it's been on my mind off and on. For those of you who may not know, I am a former Roman Catholic and was a Methodist before that. Last year I went to Ave Maria University, which boasts of being the next great Catholic institution. It's a lovely school, with great faculty and students, but this idea kept cropping up. It was perpetuated by a lot of the faculty and the students, too and was something I never heard before.

Quote
With all that He is and knows, He loves what He is and knows, and this loving, this willful act of the Father and the Son is a third Person, the Holy Spirit.
This version of it was posted by a friend from AMU on their facebook status, so I don't know where it came from.

To me, this idea seems outrageous


Quote
and suggests that the Holy Spirit was a created a being.

not exactly, but it does subordinate the Spirit to Father and Son.

Actually, in the form Shlomokh quoted, it does make the Holy Spirit a created being. One of the key distinctions between the Godhead and created being is that our existence is 'contingent'. We exist because God has chosen that we do so; creation was a 'willful act' on His part. The Godhead on the other hand is the 'I Am'. Divine existence is absolute and unconditional. By stating that the Holy Spirit is produced by a 'willful act' on the part of the Father and the Son, the above reduces the Holy Spirit to the level of a created being whom the Father and the Son willed into existence (i.e., by choice)--and thus they could will it out again.

As such, it's much stronger/worse than the actual Latin dogmatic/conciliar definitions of the filioque--though one can certainly see a line between the filioque and the above teaching.

I don't know about that. I've typically viewed the existence of both the Spirit and the Son as an eternal choice of the Father.
That has always been my understanding as an Oriental as well. I think this is because the Oriental Churches have a slightly different concept of the Essence/Energies distinction than the EO.  If you read my post to brother witega above, I think it might tune you in to why we as Orientals are not averse to the idea that the Generation of the Son and the Origination of the Holy Spirit are "eternal choices" of the Father.

Blessings,
Marduk


I'm coming from the EO Tradition, though. Most of my theology is informed by the teachings of the EOC, with the only major way that I have come to divergently identify as OO being in Christology.
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #37 on: January 09, 2010, 08:21:33 PM »

Dear brother deusveritasest,


There is something you are forgetting in your criticism of the statement.  Latin Catholics do not distinguish between action and being within the Godhead - that's the idea of divine simplicity.  From your Byzantine perspective, you take a willful act of God (energy, if you will) as something that happens outside of the eternal moment.  But to Latins, who make no distinction between action and Being (energy and essence), the Father using His will to produce the Holy Spirit is something inherently natural to the very Being of the Godhead.  It occurs in the eternal moment.

No, you are misrepresenting EOy and Palamism. The Energies of God are explicitly stated to be eternal.
No I am not.  The Essence and Energy of God is eternal, but, according to the EO, only the Essence can extend into the temporal, while the Essence is totally Other.

Blessings,
Marduk

This is what you said:

"you take a willful act of God (energy, if you will) as something that happens outside of the eternal moment"

You claimed that Energy in EO Theology is something that happens outside the eternal moment. That would seem to imply that the Energies of God are not in eternality. And that is not true.
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
Mardukm
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 423


« Reply #38 on: January 09, 2010, 08:24:05 PM »

I made some necessary corrections to my earlier post.  Hope that clears it up.  I was simply expressing myself unclearly in the post you are criticizing. Sorry, once again.  I did not mean that the energy only occurs in the temporal.  I just meant that it can.

Blessings

Dear brother deusveritasest,


There is something you are forgetting in your criticism of the statement.  Latin Catholics do not distinguish between action and being within the Godhead - that's the idea of divine simplicity.  From your Byzantine perspective, you take a willful act of God (energy, if you will) as something that happens outside of the eternal moment.  But to Latins, who make no distinction between action and Being (energy and essence), the Father using His will to produce the Holy Spirit is something inherently natural to the very Being of the Godhead.  It occurs in the eternal moment.

No, you are misrepresenting EOy and Palamism. The Energies of God are explicitly stated to be eternal.
No I am not.  The Essence and Energy of God is eternal, but, according to the EO, only the Essence can extend into the temporal, while the Essence is totally Other.

Blessings,
Marduk

This is what you said:

"you take a willful act of God (energy, if you will) as something that happens outside of the eternal moment"

You claimed that Energy in EO Theology is something that happens outside the eternal moment. That would seem to imply that the Energies of God are not in eternality. And that is not true.
« Last Edit: January 09, 2010, 08:26:02 PM by Mardukm » Logged
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #39 on: January 09, 2010, 08:30:15 PM »

Given that you recognize that the Energies are eternal, I don't see what your point is. This appears to allow for the generation of the Son and the procession of the Holy Spirit to be Energies of the Father that result in a transmission of His Essence.
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
bogdan
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,615



« Reply #40 on: January 09, 2010, 08:35:08 PM »

Actually, in the form Shlomokh quoted, it does make the Holy Spirit a created being. One of the key distinctions between the Godhead and created being is that our existence is 'contingent'. We exist because God has chosen that we do so; creation was a 'willful act' on His part. The Godhead on the other hand is the 'I Am'. Divine existence is absolute and unconditional. By stating that the Holy Spirit is produced by a 'willful act' on the part of the Father and the Son, the above reduces the Holy Spirit to the level of a created being whom the Father and the Son willed into existence (i.e., by choice)--and thus they could will it out again.

As such, it's much stronger/worse than the actual Latin dogmatic/conciliar definitions of the filioque--though one can certainly see a line between the filioque and the above teaching.

A "willful act"? So is the Son created because the Father wills to beget Him? The Father as source of the Trinity could have, perhaps, been stingy and not poured Himself out into the Son. And by way of love, love always involves the will. 
No, the Father did not will to beget the Son, nor will for the Spirit to proceed.  Unlike Creation, where God had no obligation or compulsion to do it, the begetting and procession is a necessary and inherent part of His divinity.

No, it's not. The Father and His divinity is unoriginate, whereas the Son is originate and dependent upon the Father, as is the Spirit. To suggest that an unoriginate being is dependent upon the Son, an originate being, for His being is to dissolve the monarchy of the Father.

Not to mention that if the Son and Holy Spirit are also unoriginate, we have three separate deities. No, the Father is the fount of deity. That's how I have come to understand it, anyway (especially based on an article about the Filioque in the appendix of the Eastern/Greek Orthodox Bible).

Not that the Father ever existed alone (he didn't), but only the Father is self-existent deity/God by his own right (autotheos). The Son and Holy Spirit, while being equal to and co-eternal with the Father in every way, and having only one collective will, still derive their hypostases from the Father's hypostasis.
« Last Edit: January 09, 2010, 08:36:02 PM by bogdan » Logged
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #41 on: January 09, 2010, 08:37:27 PM »

Actually, in the form Shlomokh quoted, it does make the Holy Spirit a created being. One of the key distinctions between the Godhead and created being is that our existence is 'contingent'. We exist because God has chosen that we do so; creation was a 'willful act' on His part. The Godhead on the other hand is the 'I Am'. Divine existence is absolute and unconditional. By stating that the Holy Spirit is produced by a 'willful act' on the part of the Father and the Son, the above reduces the Holy Spirit to the level of a created being whom the Father and the Son willed into existence (i.e., by choice)--and thus they could will it out again.

As such, it's much stronger/worse than the actual Latin dogmatic/conciliar definitions of the filioque--though one can certainly see a line between the filioque and the above teaching.

A "willful act"? So is the Son created because the Father wills to beget Him? The Father as source of the Trinity could have, perhaps, been stingy and not poured Himself out into the Son. And by way of love, love always involves the will. 
No, the Father did not will to beget the Son, nor will for the Spirit to proceed.  Unlike Creation, where God had no obligation or compulsion to do it, the begetting and procession is a necessary and inherent part of His divinity.

No, it's not. The Father and His divinity is unoriginate, whereas the Son is originate and dependent upon the Father, as is the Spirit. To suggest that an unoriginate being is dependent upon the Son, an originate being, for His being is to dissolve the monarchy of the Father.

Not to mention that if the Son and Holy Spirit are also unoriginate, we have three separate deities. No, the Father is the fount of deity. That's how I have come to understand it, anyway (especially based on an article about the Filioque in the appendix of the Eastern/Greek Orthodox Bible).

Not that the Father ever existed alone (he didn't), but only the Father is self-existent deity/God by his own right (autotheos). The Son and Holy Spirit, while being equal to and co-eternal with the Father in every way, and having only one collective will, still derive their hypostases from the Father's hypostasis.

So then you recognize that the begetting of the Son and the proceeding of the Spirit is not a necessary and inherent part of the divinity of the Father?
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
Mardukm
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 423


« Reply #42 on: January 09, 2010, 08:40:06 PM »

Given that you recognize that the Energies are eternal, I don't see what your point is. This appears to allow for the generation of the Son and the procession of the Holy Spirit to be Energies of the Father that result in a transmission of His Essence.
Yes, brother. That is my understanding too.  But I could not understand brother Isa's (and other EO's) contention that God's act of willing somehow denudes the Son and the Spirit of their divinity.  The only way to explain that is if brother Isa took God's act of willing as a temporal expression of God's Energy.

Blessings
Logged
Euphrosinos
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: 17



« Reply #43 on: January 09, 2010, 08:46:24 PM »

Quote
Not to mention that if the Son and Holy Spirit are also unoriginate, we have three separate deities. No, the Father is the fount of deity. That's how I have come to understand it, anyway (especially based on an article about the Filioque in the appendix of the Eastern/Greek Orthodox Bible).

Not that the Father ever existed alone (he didn't), but only the Father is self-existent deity/God by his own right (autotheos). The Son and Holy Spirit, while being equal to and co-eternal with the Father in every way, and having only one collective will, still derive their hypostases from the Father's hypostasis.

Why then do the icons of the Son say "Ο ΩΝ" ?
« Last Edit: January 09, 2010, 08:51:25 PM by Fr. Anastasios » Logged
Cymbyz
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America
Posts: 496



« Reply #44 on: January 09, 2010, 09:26:56 PM »

"Ο ΩΝ," inscribed in the cross in Christ's halo, is a Greek translation of the immemorial Name of God YHWH, for, as He said, "He who hath seen Me hath seen the Father."
Logged

The end of the world
is as near as the day of your death;
watch and pray.
 
 Yahoo! & WLM ID: Owen
Tags:
Pages: 1 2 »  All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.181 seconds with 73 queries.