OrthodoxChristianity.net
December 19, 2014, 09:00:57 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 3 4 5 6 7 »   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Creed question  (Read 19434 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,174



« on: April 02, 2011, 05:38:36 PM »

As you probably all know, for most English-speaking Catholics the creed says that the Holy Spirit "proceeds from the Father and the Son".

What I'm wondering is, how would you Orthodox feel if this was changed to "proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son"?
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Father H
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian--God's One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: UOCofUSA-Ecumenical Patriarchate
Posts: 2,611



« Reply #1 on: April 02, 2011, 05:40:29 PM »

As you probably all know, for most English-speaking Catholics the creed says that the Holy Spirit "proceeds from the Father and the Son".

What I'm wondering is, how would you Orthodox feel if this was changed to "proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son"?

We wouldn't feel anything.  We would dispassionately reject it as outright heresy. 
Logged
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #2 on: April 02, 2011, 05:43:05 PM »

As you probably all know, for most English-speaking Catholics the creed says that the Holy Spirit "proceeds from the Father and the Son".

What I'm wondering is, how would you Orthodox feel if this was changed to "proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son"?

Are you sure that "feel" is what you want to be asking about here?
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
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,174



« Reply #3 on: April 02, 2011, 05:54:26 PM »

As you probably all know, for most English-speaking Catholics the creed says that the Holy Spirit "proceeds from the Father and the Son".

What I'm wondering is, how would you Orthodox feel if this was changed to "proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son"?

Are you sure that "feel" is what you want to be asking about here?

Well, I guess I'm not married to the word "feel".

Mainly I'm curious whether people will say "It would make no difference" or "That would be worse" or (fill in the blank).
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Father H
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian--God's One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: UOCofUSA-Ecumenical Patriarchate
Posts: 2,611



« Reply #4 on: April 02, 2011, 06:02:54 PM »

As you probably all know, for most English-speaking Catholics the creed says that the Holy Spirit "proceeds from the Father and the Son".
What I'm wondering is, how would you Orthodox feel if this was changed to "proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son"?
Are you sure that "feel" is what you want to be asking about here?
Well, I guess I'm not married to the word "feel".
Mainly I'm curious whether people will say "It would make no difference" or "That would be worse" or (fill in the blank).
It would be worse
Logged
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #5 on: April 02, 2011, 06:12:32 PM »

As you probably all know, for most English-speaking Catholics the creed says that the Holy Spirit "proceeds from the Father and the Son".

What I'm wondering is, how would you Orthodox feel if this was changed to "proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son"?

Are you sure that "feel" is what you want to be asking about here?

Well, I guess I'm not married to the word "feel".

Mainly I'm curious whether people will say "It would make no difference" or "That would be worse" or (fill in the blank).

It would definitely be worse. The idea of the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father and the Son with respect to His temporal mission (which could possibly be interpreted as the original meaning of the filioque) is much more agreeable to Orthodox Christianity than the idea of the Holy Spirit eternally proceeding from the Father and the Son.
« Last Edit: April 02, 2011, 06:13:56 PM by deusveritasest » 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
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #6 on: April 03, 2011, 12:37:38 PM »

I honestly do not understand the problem with the filioque. We know that all Persons of the Trinity are equal and eternal. We know that the Son possesses everything which the Father does, and that Father and Son are one. Taking all of this into account it does not seem farfetched to me at all to say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from Father and Son. It emphasizes the oneness of the Holy Trinity.
Logged
mike
Warned
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,536


« Reply #7 on: April 03, 2011, 01:14:47 PM »

Taking all of this into account it does not seem farfetched to me at all to say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
Logged
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 30,500



« Reply #8 on: April 03, 2011, 01:17:24 PM »

I honestly do not understand the problem with the filioque. We know that all Persons of the Trinity are equal and eternal. We know that the Son possesses everything which the Father does, and that Father and Son are one. Taking all of this into account it does not seem farfetched to me at all to say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from Father and Son. It emphasizes the oneness of the Holy Trinity.

Out of curiosity, have you ever read the (anti-filioque) work Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit by St. Photius (online version), and if so what did you think of his arguments?
Logged

"By the way he dies as a human being he shows us what it is to be God." - Fr. John Behr
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #9 on: April 03, 2011, 01:30:54 PM »

I honestly do not understand the problem with the filioque. We know that all Persons of the Trinity are equal and eternal. We know that the Son possesses everything which the Father does, and that Father and Son are one. Taking all of this into account it does not seem farfetched to me at all to say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from Father and Son. It emphasizes the oneness of the Holy Trinity.

Out of curiosity, have you ever read the (anti-filioque) work Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit by St. Photius (online version), and if so what did you think of his arguments?

http://bekkos.wordpress.com/

Peter Gilbert, PhD, Orthodox Christian

Has done a great deal of good and original research on John Bekkos who wrote in opposition to Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit.

The blog is sporadic and you will have to look through it pretty carefully.  I once spent several weeks of an hour or so per day going through the entire blog.  It was well worth the effort.
Logged

Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 30,500



« Reply #10 on: April 03, 2011, 01:38:01 PM »

I honestly do not understand the problem with the filioque. We know that all Persons of the Trinity are equal and eternal. We know that the Son possesses everything which the Father does, and that Father and Son are one. Taking all of this into account it does not seem farfetched to me at all to say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from Father and Son. It emphasizes the oneness of the Holy Trinity.

Out of curiosity, have you ever read the (anti-filioque) work Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit by St. Photius (online version), and if so what did you think of his arguments?

http://bekkos.wordpress.com/

Peter Gilbert, PhD, Orthodox Christian

Has done a great deal of good and original research on John Bekkos who wrote in opposition to Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit.

The blog is sporadic and you will have to look through it pretty carefully.  I once spent several weeks of an hour or so per day going through the entire blog.  It was well worth the effort.

Thanks, I will have to look through it at some point this week (or for several weeks, lol)...
Logged

"By the way he dies as a human being he shows us what it is to be God." - Fr. John Behr
Father H
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian--God's One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: UOCofUSA-Ecumenical Patriarchate
Posts: 2,611



« Reply #11 on: April 03, 2011, 03:09:06 PM »

Taking all of this into account it does not seem farfetched to me at all to say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

Right.  It seems that the meat of the issue is not being addressed.  The Father and Son share all things (in the essence, not in hypostasis).  But it is also true that the Spirit shares in all the things of the essence as well, which means that He woudl proceed from Himself if it is a matter of the "oneness" (essence) of the Trinity.   We cannot say that the Trinity is one in essence if we have to add "except for this one thing that the Father and Son don't share with the Spirit." 
Logged
Father H
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian--God's One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: UOCofUSA-Ecumenical Patriarchate
Posts: 2,611



« Reply #12 on: April 03, 2011, 03:12:14 PM »

Dogmatic Capitula of the 5th Ecumenical Council:  "I. If anyone shall not confess that the nature or essence of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit is one, as also the energy and power--a consubstantial Trinity, one Godhead to be worshipped in three subsistences or Persons: let him be anathema. For there is but one God even the Father of whom are all things, and one Lord Jesus Christ through whom are all things, and one Holy Spirit in whom are all things."
 

 
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,174



« Reply #13 on: April 03, 2011, 04:00:17 PM »

Taking all of this into account it does not seem farfetched to me at all to say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

Right.  It seems that the meat of the issue is not being addressed.  The Father and Son share all things (in the essence, not in hypostasis).  But it is also true that the Spirit shares in all the things of the essence as well, which means that He woudl proceed from Himself if it is a matter of the "oneness" (essence) of the Trinity.

Indeed. I'm bothered by Catholics making statements like this:

Actually, the fact that the Father and the Son are one in essence almost seems to make the filioque a logical necessity. If they are really one in their essence and the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, then he must also proceed from the Son as a result of the oneness between the Father and the Son.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #14 on: April 03, 2011, 04:04:28 PM »

Taking all of this into account it does not seem farfetched to me at all to say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

Right.  It seems that the meat of the issue is not being addressed.  The Father and Son share all things (in the essence, not in hypostasis).  But it is also true that the Spirit shares in all the things of the essence as well, which means that He woudl proceed from Himself if it is a matter of the "oneness" (essence) of the Trinity.   We cannot say that the Trinity is one in essence if we have to add "except for this one thing that the Father and Son don't share with the Spirit."  

One could postulate that if what you say here is correct then we are wrong to say that the Son is begotten and the Holy Spirit proceeds.

If there is NO essential difference then it would be appropriate to say that the Holy Spirit is begotten of the Father, one in essence...or that both the Son and the Spirit are begotten and proceed.

But to make the distinction between the Son and the Spirit in this way by saying that one proceeds and one is begotten, when they are all essentially the same, is to establish a clear hierarchy within the Trinity.
« Last Edit: April 03, 2011, 04:11:49 PM by elijahmaria » Logged

Father H
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian--God's One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: UOCofUSA-Ecumenical Patriarchate
Posts: 2,611



« Reply #15 on: April 03, 2011, 04:58:09 PM »

Taking all of this into account it does not seem farfetched to me at all to say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
Right.  It seems that the meat of the issue is not being addressed.  The Father and Son share all things (in the essence, not in hypostasis).  But it is also true that the Spirit shares in all the things of the essence as well, which means that He woudl proceed from Himself if it is a matter of the "oneness" (essence) of the Trinity.   We cannot say that the Trinity is one in essence if we have to add "except for this one thing that the Father and Son don't share with the Spirit."  
One could postulate that if what you say here is correct then we are wrong to say that the Son is begotten and the Holy Spirit proceeds.If there is NO essential difference then it would be appropriate to say that the Holy Spirit is begotten of the Father, one in essence...or that both the Son and the Spirit are begotten and proceed.But to make the distinction between the Son and the Spirit in this way by saying that one proceeds and one is begotten, when they are all essentially the same, is to establish a clear hierarchy within the Trinity.
No, one one could postulate that as the Orthodox position is that it is hypostatic, not essential, begotteness and spiration (procession).   The Son and Spirit are of one essence with the Father because the Father is the SOLE cause of them and shares his nature/essence with them.
Logged
Father H
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian--God's One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: UOCofUSA-Ecumenical Patriarchate
Posts: 2,611



« Reply #16 on: April 03, 2011, 05:00:43 PM »

Lord have mercy.  Thank you Peter (a good, solid name, by the way).  With your attitude some progress can be made.  I pray that it "catches on." 

Taking all of this into account it does not seem farfetched to me at all to say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

Right.  It seems that the meat of the issue is not being addressed.  The Father and Son share all things (in the essence, not in hypostasis).  But it is also true that the Spirit shares in all the things of the essence as well, which means that He woudl proceed from Himself if it is a matter of the "oneness" (essence) of the Trinity.

Indeed. I'm bothered by Catholics making statements like this:

Actually, the fact that the Father and the Son are one in essence almost seems to make the filioque a logical necessity. If they are really one in their essence and the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, then he must also proceed from the Son as a result of the oneness between the Father and the Son.

Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,174



« Reply #17 on: April 03, 2011, 05:12:25 PM »

Thanks!
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #18 on: April 03, 2011, 05:20:21 PM »

Taking all of this into account it does not seem farfetched to me at all to say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
Right.  It seems that the meat of the issue is not being addressed.  The Father and Son share all things (in the essence, not in hypostasis).  But it is also true that the Spirit shares in all the things of the essence as well, which means that He woudl proceed from Himself if it is a matter of the "oneness" (essence) of the Trinity.   We cannot say that the Trinity is one in essence if we have to add "except for this one thing that the Father and Son don't share with the Spirit."  
One could postulate that if what you say here is correct then we are wrong to say that the Son is begotten and the Holy Spirit proceeds.If there is NO essential difference then it would be appropriate to say that the Holy Spirit is begotten of the Father, one in essence...or that both the Son and the Spirit are begotten and proceed.But to make the distinction between the Son and the Spirit in this way by saying that one proceeds and one is begotten, when they are all essentially the same, is to establish a clear hierarchy within the Trinity.
No, one one could postulate that as the Orthodox position is that it is hypostatic, not essential, begotteness and spiration (procession).   The Son and Spirit are of one essence with the Father because the Father is the SOLE cause of them and shares his nature/essence with them.

Father Dumitru Staniloae does just that, Father in his book Theology and the Church.

In a Chapter called  The Holy Trinity: Structure of Supreme Love, Father Dumitru quotes St. Gregory Nyssa on page 89 at the bottom: "But he who sees the Son sees the Father, the Father has begotten another Self of his own not by going outside himself but by revealing himself wholly in this other."

And of course we know that he has revealed himself wholly in this other through all eternity, and that, even according to your own words is an absolute sharing of essence.

Also to draw too fine a line between essence and hypostasis makes it impossible for the God-head ever really to be one...If it is eventually ONE...then it becomes impossible to imagine the THREE.

In any event Father Dumitru continues on page 90:

"The meaning of the divine begetting goes beyond any human power of understanding. But although the begetting of the Son conforms to the will of the Father, [and there is only ONE essential and divine will], it is necessarily bound up with his divine existence, for it is only by communicating this existence to the other...that God the Father can possess the full joy of the plenitude of divine existence.  God cannot be happy except as Father and Son...The Son comes forth from the "being of the Father" [St. Basil the Great] and not, as in the case with creatures, from His will."

So it seems to me that the divine essence, if nothing more than in the shared single divine will, blooms in the being of the Father and the Son and the Spirit.   I do not see how one can escape that theologic whether we call ourselves Orthodox or call ourselves Catholic.
Logged

Father H
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian--God's One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: UOCofUSA-Ecumenical Patriarchate
Posts: 2,611



« Reply #19 on: April 03, 2011, 05:41:36 PM »

Thank you for the reference.  However, I think that the negation of personfication negates our own existence, that God loves us not just as a human "nature-essence" that He created, but as persons in His own image--as beloved persons who share a single nature-essence.   

Taking all of this into account it does not seem farfetched to me at all to say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
Right.  It seems that the meat of the issue is not being addressed.  The Father and Son share all things (in the essence, not in hypostasis).  But it is also true that the Spirit shares in all the things of the essence as well, which means that He woudl proceed from Himself if it is a matter of the "oneness" (essence) of the Trinity.   We cannot say that the Trinity is one in essence if we have to add "except for this one thing that the Father and Son don't share with the Spirit."  
One could postulate that if what you say here is correct then we are wrong to say that the Son is begotten and the Holy Spirit proceeds.If there is NO essential difference then it would be appropriate to say that the Holy Spirit is begotten of the Father, one in essence...or that both the Son and the Spirit are begotten and proceed.But to make the distinction between the Son and the Spirit in this way by saying that one proceeds and one is begotten, when they are all essentially the same, is to establish a clear hierarchy within the Trinity.
No, one one could postulate that as the Orthodox position is that it is hypostatic, not essential, begotteness and spiration (procession).   The Son and Spirit are of one essence with the Father because the Father is the SOLE cause of them and shares his nature/essence with them.

Father Dumitru Staniloae does just that, Father in his book Theology and the Church.

In a Chapter called  The Holy Trinity: Structure of Supreme Love, Father Dumitru quotes St. Gregory Nyssa on page 89 at the bottom: "But he who sees the Son sees the Father, the Father has begotten another Self of his own not by going outside himself but by revealing himself wholly in this other."

And of course we know that he has revealed himself wholly in this other through all eternity, and that, even according to your own words is an absolute sharing of essence.

Also to draw too fine a line between essence and hypostasis makes it impossible for the God-head ever really to be one...If it is eventually ONE...then it becomes impossible to imagine the THREE.

In any event Father Dumitru continues on page 90:

"The meaning of the divine begetting goes beyond any human power of understanding. But although the begetting of the Son conforms to the will of the Father, [and there is only ONE essential and divine will], it is necessarily bound up with his divine existence, for it is only by communicating this existence to the other...that God the Father can possess the full joy of the plenitude of divine existence.  God cannot be happy except as Father and Son...The Son comes forth from the "being of the Father" [St. Basil the Great] and not, as in the case with creatures, from His will."

So it seems to me that the divine essence, if nothing more than in the shared single divine will, blooms in the being of the Father and the Son and the Spirit.   I do not see how one can escape that theologic whether we call ourselves Orthodox or call ourselves Catholic.
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #20 on: April 03, 2011, 05:58:44 PM »

Thank you for the reference.  However, I think that the negation of personfication negates our own existence, that God loves us not just as a human "nature-essence" that He created, but as persons in His own image--as beloved persons who share a single nature-essence.    

I don't have much time to really respond now except to say that what I sent from Father Dumitru is only meant to indicate that the Father and the Son have a much different relationship from that of the Father and the Spirit, and the Son and the Spirit...and that the relationship is essential as well as hypostatic...in that the Son comes from the being of the Father as well as the Will.  But the focus, for the moment, I had hoped to be on the very unique relation between Father and Son.  Something that St. Gregory, Father Dumitru and St. Basil see as something interchangeable.  We don't see that interchangeable relationship between the Father and the Holy Spirit:  However and I will offer more on this from Father Dumitru later if you would like: We do see that kind of interdependence with the Son and the Holy Spirit.

And because these relationships occur within the Trinity and not without [St. Gregory Nyssa] then we must acknowledge that these relationships occur through all eternity...as if from one principle...

NOW:  IF you are a Latin...IF you are a Latin:  From one principle can mean EITHER from one source or from one one entity [in this case a set of relationships called Trinity].  IF you are Greek: From one principle can ONLY mean from one source.

That's where the real difficulty lies in understanding one another.
« Last Edit: April 03, 2011, 05:59:13 PM by elijahmaria » Logged

Father H
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian--God's One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: UOCofUSA-Ecumenical Patriarchate
Posts: 2,611



« Reply #21 on: April 03, 2011, 06:31:36 PM »

According to the Holy Fathers, both western and eastern, the relationship of the Son to the Spirit is that they are both caused from the sole Unbegotten God (the Father) who is their cause.  Their relationship to the Father is that He is their cause; their eternal relationship to each other that they are caused and have One prosopon/hypostasis (the Father) as their cause.     
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
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: 38,142



« Reply #22 on: April 03, 2011, 06:36:48 PM »

I honestly do not understand the problem with the filioque. We know that all Persons of the Trinity are equal and eternal. We know that the Son possesses everything which the Father does, and that Father and Son are one. Taking all of this into account it does not seem farfetched to me at all to say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from Father and Son. It emphasizes the oneness of the Holy Trinity.
So the Son must beget as wel, seeing as you claim "the Son possess everything which the Father does."

And no, the filioque de-emphasizes the oneness of the Spirt with the Father and Son, "Who together with the Father and the Son is worshipped and glorified."
« Last Edit: April 03, 2011, 06:38:40 PM by ialmisry » 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
Moderated
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: 38,142



« Reply #23 on: April 03, 2011, 06:40:53 PM »

Thank you for the reference.  However, I think that the negation of personfication negates our own existence, that God loves us not just as a human "nature-essence" that He created, but as persons in His own image--as beloved persons who share a single nature-essence.    

I don't have much time to really respond now except to say that what I sent from Father Dumitru is only meant to indicate that the Father and the Son have a much different relationship from that of the Father and the Spirit, and the Son and the Spirit...and that the relationship is essential as well as hypostatic...in that the Son comes from the being of the Father as well as the Will.  But the focus, for the moment, I had hoped to be on the very unique relation between Father and Son.  Something that St. Gregory, Father Dumitru and St. Basil see as something interchangeable.  We don't see that interchangeable relationship between the Father and the Holy Spirit:  However and I will offer more on this from Father Dumitru later if you would like: We do see that kind of interdependence with the Son and the Holy Spirit.

And because these relationships occur within the Trinity and not without [St. Gregory Nyssa] then we must acknowledge that these relationships occur through all eternity...as if from one principle...

NOW:  IF you are a Latin...IF you are a Latin:  From one principle can mean EITHER from one source or from one one entity [in this case a set of relationships called Trinity].  IF you are Greek: From one principle can ONLY mean from one source.

That's where the real difficulty lies in understanding one another.

The Father neither begets nor processes in Greek or Latin.  He does what He does. The Evangelist and the Fathers in Ecumenical Council, however, set it in Greek, and the Latin must conform to it.
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
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 30,500



« Reply #24 on: April 03, 2011, 06:42:55 PM »

I honestly do not understand the problem with the filioque. We know that all Persons of the Trinity are equal and eternal. We know that the Son possesses everything which the Father does, and that Father and Son are one. Taking all of this into account it does not seem farfetched to me at all to say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from Father and Son. It emphasizes the oneness of the Holy Trinity.
So the Son must beget as wel, seeing as you claim "the Son possess everything which the Father does."

And no, the filioque de-emphasizes the oneness of the Spirt with the Father and Son, "Who together with the Father and the Son is worshipped and glorified."

St. John of Damascus says that "the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are one in all respects" (Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, 1, 2). Then he goes on to make an exception. Catholics aren't doing something much different, if I'm understanding them...
Logged

"By the way he dies as a human being he shows us what it is to be God." - Fr. John Behr
Father H
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian--God's One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: UOCofUSA-Ecumenical Patriarchate
Posts: 2,611



« Reply #25 on: April 03, 2011, 07:54:47 PM »

I disagree.

The fuller context (De Fide Orthodoxa 1.2):
Quote
We, therefore, both know and confess that God is without beginning, without end, eternal and everlasting, uncreate, unchangeable, invariable, simple, uncompound, incorporeal, invisible, impalpable, uncircumscribed, infinite, incognisable, indefinable, incomprehensible, good, just, maker of all things created, almighty, all-ruling, all-surveying, of all overseer, sovereign, judge; and that God is One, that is to say, one essence [ousia]; and that He is known, and has His being in three subsistences [hypostases], in Father, I say, and Son and Holy Spirit; and that the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are one in all respects, except in that of not being begotten, that of being begotten, and that of procession; and that the Only-begotten Son and Word of God and God, in His bowels of mercy, for our salvation, by the good pleasure of God and the co-operation of the Holy Spirit, being conceived without seed, was born uncorruptedly of the Holy Virgin and Mother of God, Mary, by the Holy Spirit, and became of her perfect Man; and that the Same is at once perfect God and perfect Man, of two natures, Godhead and Manhood, and in two natures possessing intelligence, will and energy, and freedom, and, in a word, perfect according to the measure and proportion proper to each, at once to the divinity, I say, and to the humanity, yet to one composite person [hypostasis]; and that He suffered hunger and thirst and weariness, and was crucified, and for three days submitted to the experience of death and burial, and ascended to heaven, from which also He came to us, and shall come again. And the Holy Scripture is witness to this and the whole choir of the Saints.

I.e. they are one in all things (essence & energy/power), except the things that are particularly hypostatic (unoriginate, begotten, spirated).  This is exactly what dogmatic capitula 1 of the 5th Ecumenical Council says.   This reflects the position of the Orthodox Church, but not the Vatican's current position (unless JPII's words are to be believed, and upheld by Pope Benedict, but that remains to be seen). 

Logged
Father H
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian--God's One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: UOCofUSA-Ecumenical Patriarchate
Posts: 2,611



« Reply #26 on: April 03, 2011, 07:58:43 PM »

^To keep with forum protocol:
De Fide Orthodoxa=On the Orthodox Faith
Logged
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #27 on: April 03, 2011, 08:00:28 PM »

Okay, I have a question. What do words like "unoriginate," "begotten," and "spirated" mean when speaking of eternal Beings?
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
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: 38,142



« Reply #28 on: April 03, 2011, 08:17:53 PM »

Okay, I have a question. What do words like "unoriginate," "begotten," and "spirated" mean when speaking of eternal Beings?
=/=
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
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #29 on: April 03, 2011, 08:37:24 PM »

Okay, I have a question. What do words like "unoriginate," "begotten," and "spirated" mean when speaking of eternal Beings?
=/=
So those words only indicate that they are not the same, but not how they are not the same?
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
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: 38,142



« Reply #30 on: April 03, 2011, 08:59:38 PM »

Okay, I have a question. What do words like "unoriginate," "begotten," and "spirated" mean when speaking of eternal Beings?
=/=
So those words only indicate that they are not the same, but not how they are not the same?
Correct.
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
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #31 on: April 03, 2011, 09:14:33 PM »

Okay, I have a question. What do words like "unoriginate," "begotten," and "spirated" mean when speaking of eternal Beings?
=/=
So those words only indicate that they are not the same, but not how they are not the same?


9 St Gregory of Nyssa writes: "The Holy Spirit is said to be of the Father and it is attested that he is of the Son. St Paul says: 'Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him' (Rom 8:9). So the Spirit who is of God (the Father) is also the Spirit of Christ. However, the Son who is of God (the Father) is not said to be of the Spirit: the consecutive order of the relationship cannot be reversed" (Fragment In orationem dominicam, quoted by St John Damascene, PG 46. 1109 BC).
Logged

Father H
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian--God's One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: UOCofUSA-Ecumenical Patriarchate
Posts: 2,611



« Reply #32 on: April 03, 2011, 09:20:04 PM »

Okay, I have a question. What do words like "unoriginate," "begotten," and "spirated" mean when speaking of eternal Beings?
=/=
So those words only indicate that they are not the same, but not how they are not the same?
They indicate how they are distinct hypostases, and also how they have the divinity.  On the Father is the unoriginate God, the Son is begotten from all eternity, the Spirit is spirated from all eternity.  Although speaking about the creative economy, the Psalm speaks of the Trinity regarding the eternal relations:
"By the Word of the Lord were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the Breath [Spirit] of His mouth" (Ps. 33.6).  
A word cannot be begotten from a mouth without a breath being spirated (try to speak without giving breath--does not work--the begetting of a word and the spirating of breath, however, are distinct processes even though they happen synchronously).  Of course, in the case of the Trinity, this happened outside of time and before anything was created.    
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #33 on: April 03, 2011, 09:30:19 PM »

Okay, I have a question. What do words like "unoriginate," "begotten," and "spirated" mean when speaking of eternal Beings?
=/=
So those words only indicate that they are not the same, but not how they are not the same?
They indicate how they are distinct hypostases, and also how they have the divinity.  On the Father is the unoriginate God, the Son is begotten from all eternity, the Spirit is spirated from all eternity.  Although speaking about the creative economy, the Psalm speaks of the Trinity regarding the eternal relations:
"By the Word of the Lord were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the Breath [Spirit] of His mouth" (Ps. 33.6).  
A word cannot be begotten from a mouth without a breath being spirated (try to speak without giving breath--does not work--the begetting of a word and the spirating of breath, however, are distinct processes even though they happen synchronously).  Of course, in the case of the Trinity, this happened outside of time and before anything was created.    

Is not the Son the Word of the mouth of the Father? and is not the Breath of the Word the creative work of the Spirit?

Also we have not addressed the following:

9 St Gregory of Nyssa writes: "The Holy Spirit is said to be of the Father and it is attested that he is of the Son. St Paul says: 'Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him' (Rom 8:9). So the Spirit who is of God (the Father) is also the Spirit of Christ. However, the Son who is of God (the Father) is not said to be of the Spirit: the consecutive order of the relationship cannot be reversed" (Fragment In orationem dominicam, quoted by St John Damascene, PG 46. 1109 BC).
« Last Edit: April 03, 2011, 09:31:22 PM by elijahmaria » Logged

Father H
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian--God's One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: UOCofUSA-Ecumenical Patriarchate
Posts: 2,611



« Reply #34 on: April 03, 2011, 09:32:40 PM »

Hi Maria.  I feel like you did not just read what I wrote and consider it.   When you speak a word (voice), it is distinct from the breath that accompanies it.  Both have a single origin, the person who spoke and breath, and both proceed out of the mouth. 

Okay, I have a question. What do words like "unoriginate," "begotten," and "spirated" mean when speaking of eternal Beings?
=/=
So those words only indicate that they are not the same, but not how they are not the same?
They indicate how they are distinct hypostases, and also how they have the divinity.  On the Father is the unoriginate God, the Son is begotten from all eternity, the Spirit is spirated from all eternity.  Although speaking about the creative economy, the Psalm speaks of the Trinity regarding the eternal relations:
"By the Word of the Lord were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the Breath [Spirit] of His mouth" (Ps. 33.6).  
A word cannot be begotten from a mouth without a breath being spirated (try to speak without giving breath--does not work--the begetting of a word and the spirating of breath, however, are distinct processes even though they happen synchronously).  Of course, in the case of the Trinity, this happened outside of time and before anything was created.    

Is not the Son the Word of the mouth of the Father? and is not the Breath of the Word the creative work of the Spirit?

Also we have not addressed the following:

9 St Gregory of Nyssa writes: "The Holy Spirit is said to be of the Father and it is attested that he is of the Son. St Paul says: 'Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him' (Rom 8:9). So the Spirit who is of God (the Father) is also the Spirit of Christ. However, the Son who is of God (the Father) is not said to be of the Spirit: the consecutive order of the relationship cannot be reversed" (Fragment In orationem dominicam, quoted by St John Damascene, PG 46. 1109 BC).
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #35 on: April 03, 2011, 09:40:20 PM »

If we accept that reading then the Son of God did not make the heavens and the host of the heavens but the Holy Spirit did.  I have never heard that teaching.

"By the Word of the Lord were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the Breath [Spirit] of His mouth" (Ps. 33.6)

In my reading, actually the reading of my Church, the Word creates by the Spirit of His mouth [being the mouth of the Son] which would fit with the following which we keep ignoring:

9 St Gregory of Nyssa writes: "The Holy Spirit is said to be of the Father and it is attested that he is of the Son. St Paul says: 'Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him' (Rom 8:9). So the Spirit who is of God (the Father) is also the Spirit of Christ. However, the Son who is of God (the Father) is not said to be of the Spirit: the consecutive order of the relationship cannot be reversed" (Fragment In orationem dominicam, quoted by St John Damascene, PG 46. 1109 BC).

Hi Maria.  I feel like you did not just read what I wrote and consider it.   When you speak a word (voice), it is distinct from the breath that accompanies it.  Both have a single origin, the person who spoke and breath, and both proceed out of the mouth. 

Okay, I have a question. What do words like "unoriginate," "begotten," and "spirated" mean when speaking of eternal Beings?
=/=
So those words only indicate that they are not the same, but not how they are not the same?
They indicate how they are distinct hypostases, and also how they have the divinity.  On the Father is the unoriginate God, the Son is begotten from all eternity, the Spirit is spirated from all eternity.  Although speaking about the creative economy, the Psalm speaks of the Trinity regarding the eternal relations:
"By the Word of the Lord were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the Breath [Spirit] of His mouth" (Ps. 33.6).  
A word cannot be begotten from a mouth without a breath being spirated (try to speak without giving breath--does not work--the begetting of a word and the spirating of breath, however, are distinct processes even though they happen synchronously).  Of course, in the case of the Trinity, this happened outside of time and before anything was created.    

Is not the Son the Word of the mouth of the Father? and is not the Breath of the Word the creative work of the Spirit?

Also we have not addressed the following:

9 St Gregory of Nyssa writes: "The Holy Spirit is said to be of the Father and it is attested that he is of the Son. St Paul says: 'Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him' (Rom 8:9). So the Spirit who is of God (the Father) is also the Spirit of Christ. However, the Son who is of God (the Father) is not said to be of the Spirit: the consecutive order of the relationship cannot be reversed" (Fragment In orationem dominicam, quoted by St John Damascene, PG 46. 1109 BC).
Logged

Father H
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian--God's One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: UOCofUSA-Ecumenical Patriarchate
Posts: 2,611



« Reply #36 on: April 03, 2011, 10:06:09 PM »

Hi Maria.  I feel like I am now entering the twilight zone.  I don't understand how from "by the Word" (that's the Son) the heavens were made that you derive that the heavens were not made by the Word (the Son).   If they were made by the Son, then they weren't not made by the Son.  Again, at this point, the discussion is getting a little weird. 

If we accept that reading then the Son of God did not make the heavens and the host of the heavens but the Holy Spirit did.  I have never heard that teaching.

"By the Word of the Lord were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the Breath [Spirit] of His mouth" (Ps. 33.6)

In my reading, actually the reading of my Church, the Word creates by the Spirit of His mouth [being the mouth of the Son] which would fit with the following which we keep ignoring:

9 St Gregory of Nyssa writes: "The Holy Spirit is said to be of the Father and it is attested that he is of the Son. St Paul says: 'Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him' (Rom 8:9). So the Spirit who is of God (the Father) is also the Spirit of Christ. However, the Son who is of God (the Father) is not said to be of the Spirit: the consecutive order of the relationship cannot be reversed" (Fragment In orationem dominicam, quoted by St John Damascene, PG 46. 1109 BC).

Hi Maria.  I feel like you did not just read what I wrote and consider it.   When you speak a word (voice), it is distinct from the breath that accompanies it.  Both have a single origin, the person who spoke and breath, and both proceed out of the mouth. 

Okay, I have a question. What do words like "unoriginate," "begotten," and "spirated" mean when speaking of eternal Beings?
=/=
So those words only indicate that they are not the same, but not how they are not the same?
They indicate how they are distinct hypostases, and also how they have the divinity.  On the Father is the unoriginate God, the Son is begotten from all eternity, the Spirit is spirated from all eternity.  Although speaking about the creative economy, the Psalm speaks of the Trinity regarding the eternal relations:
"By the Word of the Lord were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the Breath [Spirit] of His mouth" (Ps. 33.6).  
A word cannot be begotten from a mouth without a breath being spirated (try to speak without giving breath--does not work--the begetting of a word and the spirating of breath, however, are distinct processes even though they happen synchronously).  Of course, in the case of the Trinity, this happened outside of time and before anything was created.    

Is not the Son the Word of the mouth of the Father? and is not the Breath of the Word the creative work of the Spirit?

Also we have not addressed the following:

9 St Gregory of Nyssa writes: "The Holy Spirit is said to be of the Father and it is attested that he is of the Son. St Paul says: 'Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him' (Rom 8:9). So the Spirit who is of God (the Father) is also the Spirit of Christ. However, the Son who is of God (the Father) is not said to be of the Spirit: the consecutive order of the relationship cannot be reversed" (Fragment In orationem dominicam, quoted by St John Damascene, PG 46. 1109 BC).
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #37 on: April 03, 2011, 10:10:59 PM »

Let's try it this way:


"By the Word of the Lord were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the Breath [Spirit] of His mouth" (Ps. 33.6)

In my reading, actually the reading of my Church, the Word creates by the Spirit of His mouth [the Spirit emanating from the mouth of the Son] which would fit with the following which we keep ignoring:

9 St Gregory of Nyssa writes: "The Holy Spirit is said to be of the Father and it is attested that he is of the Son. St Paul says: 'Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him' (Rom 8:9). So the Spirit who is of God (the Father) is also the Spirit of Christ. However, the Son who is of God (the Father) is not said to be of the Spirit: the consecutive order of the relationship cannot be reversed" (Fragment In orationem dominicam, quoted by St John Damascene, PG 46. 1109 BC).
[/size]
« Last Edit: April 03, 2011, 10:29:29 PM by elijahmaria » Logged

Father H
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian--God's One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: UOCofUSA-Ecumenical Patriarchate
Posts: 2,611



« Reply #38 on: April 03, 2011, 10:29:54 PM »

St. John of Damascus: "We do not speak of three Gods...but rather of one God, the Holy Trinity, the Son and Spirit being referred to the One Cause...God the Father, Who is the Principle and Cause of all" (Orth.Faith 8  ).  
« Last Edit: April 03, 2011, 10:30:22 PM by FatherHLL » Logged
Father H
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian--God's One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: UOCofUSA-Ecumenical Patriarchate
Posts: 2,611



« Reply #39 on: April 03, 2011, 10:31:36 PM »

^Sorry, on the last reference had to space because otherwise made a glasses emoticon
Logged
Father H
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian--God's One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: UOCofUSA-Ecumenical Patriarchate
Posts: 2,611



« Reply #40 on: April 03, 2011, 10:32:24 PM »

"There is one God because the Father is the Begetter of the unique Son and the Fount of the Holy Spirit"  (St. Maximus the Confessor, 7th c.:  1st C. Various Texts, 4)
Logged
Father H
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian--God's One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: UOCofUSA-Ecumenical Patriarchate
Posts: 2,611



« Reply #41 on: April 03, 2011, 10:33:29 PM »

"Everything that the Father has belongs to the Son, with the exception of causality" (St. Gregory the Theologian, Oration 34.10).
Logged
Father H
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian--God's One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: UOCofUSA-Ecumenical Patriarchate
Posts: 2,611



« Reply #42 on: April 03, 2011, 10:36:09 PM »

No one denies the Spirit is the third person in the Trinity.  But that He is the third person does not necessitate a causality from any other, as indeed, St. Gregory the Theologion stated, only the Father has such causality. 

Let's try it this way:


"By the Word of the Lord were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the Breath [Spirit] of His mouth" (Ps. 33.6)

In my reading, actually the reading of my Church, the Word creates by the Spirit of His mouth [the Spirit emanating from the mouth of the Son] which would fit with the following which we keep ignoring:

9 St Gregory of Nyssa writes: "The Holy Spirit is said to be of the Father and it is attested that he is of the Son. St Paul says: 'Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him' (Rom 8:9). So the Spirit who is of God (the Father) is also the Spirit of Christ. However, the Son who is of God (the Father) is not said to be of the Spirit: the consecutive order of the relationship cannot be reversed" (Fragment In orationem dominicam, quoted by St John Damascene, PG 46. 1109 BC).
[/size]
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
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: 38,142



« Reply #43 on: April 04, 2011, 02:51:13 AM »

If we accept that reading then the Son of God did not make the heavens and the host of the heavens but the Holy Spirit did.  I have never heard that teaching.
and you haven't heard it here.

"By the Word of the Lord were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the Breath [Spirit] of His mouth" (Ps. 33.6)

In my reading, actually the reading of my Church, the Word creates by the Spirit of His mouth [being the mouth of the Son] which would fit with the following which we keep ignoring:

9 St Gregory of Nyssa writes: "The Holy Spirit is said to be of the Father and it is attested that he is of the Son. St Paul says: 'Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him' (Rom 8:9). So the Spirit who is of God (the Father) is also the Spirit of Christ. However, the Son who is of God (the Father) is not said to be of the Spirit: the consecutive order of the relationship cannot be reversed" (Fragment In orationem dominicam, quoted by St John Damascene, PG 46. 1109 BC).
My, rather fixed on St. Gregory are we.  Rather odd that it doesn't survive in his works, but only in a attribution in St. John of Damascus.
The Greek is
Quote
Ο τε γαρ Υισος εκ του Πατρος εξηλθεν, καθως φησιν η Γραφη, και το Πνευμα εκ του Θεου και παρα Πατρος εκπορευεται. Αλλ' ωσπερ το ανευ αιτιας ειναι, μονου του Πατρος ον, τω Υιω και τω Πνευματι εναρμοσθηναι ου δυναται, ουτω το εμπαλιν το εξ αιτιας ειναι, οπερ ιδιον εστι του Υιου και του Πνευματος, τω πατρι επιθεωρηθηναι φυσιν ουκ εχει, Κοινου δε οντος τω Υιω και τω Πνευματι του μη αγεννητος ειναι, ως εν μη τις συγχυσις περι το υποκειμενον θεωρηθειη, παλιν εστιν αμικτον την εν τοις ιδιωμασιν αυτων διαφοραν εξευρειν, ως αν και το κοινον φυλαχθειη, και το ιδιου μη συγχυειη. Ο γαρ μονογενης Υιος εκ του πατρος παρα της αγιας Γραφης ονομαζεται, και μεχρι τουτου ο λογος ιστησιν αυτω το ιδιωμα. Το δε αγιον Πνευμα και εκ του Πατρος λεγεται, και εκ του Υιου ειναι προσμαρτυρειαι. Ει γαρ τις Πνευμα Χριστου ουκ εχει, φησιν, ουτος ουκ εστιν αυτου. Ουκουν το μεν Πνευμα εκ του Θεου, και Θεου Πνευμα εστιν. Ο δε Υιος εκ Θεου ων, ουκιτι και Πνευματος, ουτε εστιν, ουτε λεγεται ουδε ανασταριφει η σχετικη ακολουθια αυτη
and the Latin of Migne, which no doubt is that upon which the Vatican depends (though neither St. Gregory nor St. John spoke Latin):
Quote
Nam et Filius exivit a Patre, ut ait Scriptura, et Spiritus ex Deo et Patre procedit. Sed quemadmodum sine principio esse, cum sit Patris solius, Filio et Spiritui sancto convenire non potest: sic contra a principio esse, quod est proporium Filii et Spiritus, in Patre considerari natura non patitur.  Jam cum Filio et Spiritui sancto commune sit, ut non ingenito modo exsistant, ne qua in subjecto confusio spectetur: rursus incommunicabilem ia eorum proprietatibus differentiam invenire possumus, ut et quod commune est servetur, et quod proprium est non confundatur.  Exenim unigenitus Filius ex Patre in Scriptura sacra dicitur, et hactenus ejus proprietatem illius dotrina definit.  At Spiritus sanctus et ex Patre dicitur, et ex Filio esse perhibetur.  Si quis enim, ait, Spiritum Christi non habet, hic non est ipsius.  Igitur Spiritus qui ex Deo est, etiam Dei Spiritus est. At Filius cum ex Deo sit, non jam tamen Filius Spiritus aut est, aut dicitur: neque haec relativa consecutio convertitur.

"Now since the Son comes forth from the Father, as Scripture declares, and the Spirit proceeds from God and from the side of [the] Father. But just as He is without cause, which is of the Father alone, which cannot be conjoined to the Son and the Spirit, so that is contrary to that [which comes] out of the cause, the very thing which is the very own of the Son and of the Spirit, it does not have the property considered for the Father. But being common to the Son and the Spirit is of not unbegotten, as viewed not in confusion around the underlying, again it is unmingled to find the difference in their own property, as if also to divide the common, and not to confuse what is proper.  Since the only begotten Son of the Father is named by holy Scripture, as far as this word set the specific feature for Him. But the Holy Spirit is also called of the Father, and He is of the Son is further attested, "Since he who does not have the Spirit of Christ," he declares, "he is none of His."  Certainly therefore the Spirit is of the Father, and the Spiirt of God. But the Son being of God, Who is not of the Spirit, which is not said, but not overturn its relevant sequence."

It is odd, given so much that St. Gregory of Nyssa wrote on the Holy Trinity, that your footnote bypasses all that to get this forgotten citation, so yank out the last line.
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
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #44 on: April 04, 2011, 10:21:55 AM »


"Now since the Son comes forth from the Father, as Scripture declares, and the Spirit proceeds from God and from the side of [the] Father. But just as He is without cause, which is of the Father alone, which cannot be conjoined to the Son and the Spirit, so that is contrary to that [which comes] out of the cause, the very thing which is the very own of the Son and of the Spirit, it does not have the property considered for the Father. But being common to the Son and the Spirit is of not unbegotten, as viewed not in confusion around the underlying, again it is unmingled to find the difference in their own property, as if also to divide the common, and not to confuse what is proper.  Since the only begotten Son of the Father is named by holy Scripture, as far as this word set the specific feature for Him. But the Holy Spirit is also called of the Father, and He is of the Son is further attested, "Since he who does not have the Spirit of Christ," he declares, "he is none of His."  Certainly therefore the Spirit is of the Father, and the Spiirt of God. But the Son being of God, Who is not of the Spirit, which is not said, but not overturn its relevant sequence."

I was getting there, but it takes time to outline things clearly when being drawn off by un-friendly fire [meaning only rejection, nothing more]. 

Do you see the word "property" in the full quote? 

The filioque does not deny the property of causality to the Father.  What the filioque does is highlight the last TWO lines of the quote.  So when the Spirit is of the Son, the Spirit is not bearing the property of causality from the Son, which is only proper to the Father.  When the Spirit comes from the Son, the Spirit bears the property of causality from the Father alone.

What the filioque does is clearly establish the relationships and the order of relationships in the Trinity as noted in this long quote from St. Gregory.  And it is that clarity which the Arian heresy demands.

It has been said, and I believe it to be true, that the filioque risks the heresy of modalism, BUT the insistent denial by the east of filioque then runs the clear risk of subordinationism.   Note that I say "risks" and not ensures.

To use filioque in the Latin west was to acknowledge explicitly BOTH the monarchy of the Father AND the particular relationship between the Father and the Son, and the Son and the Holy Spirit.

You can howl and disavow all you want about it's accuracy, but in theological reality...it is sheer pettiness to do so.  There is no inherent heresy in filioque.


Logged

Tags: Creed filioque The Creed 
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 »   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 0.17 seconds with 73 queries.