OrthodoxChristianity.net
July 23, 2014, 08:21:03 AM *
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 »  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Worshiping a different Christ/different Trinity (EO vs. RC)?  (Read 7488 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #90 on: June 01, 2011, 09:13:13 AM »

Catholics believe that Sanctifying Grace is created.
This part I doubt because of the way I heard Grace explained by my priest. A friend of mine recently joined the Catholic Church, and during his journey into the Catholic faith I attended quite a few RCIA classes, and I remember my priest defining Grace as "the life of Jesus Christ" within us. The life of Jesus Christ cannot be created because we know Christ (God the Son) is eternal, so I would say that we do not accept the idea of created Grace.

Unfortunately, my Orthodox Priest asked me to donate my Roman Catholic theology book where it was mentioned that the Catholic Church teaches that Sanctified Grace is created. This college text predated the CCC and was written while Vatican II was still in session. So, yes it is outdated. Perhaps now this teaching has been changed under the influence of the Melkites who had a large part to play in writing the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Note that the Melkite Eastern Catholics hold to Orthodoxy in this area and believe what St. Palamas taught.

The real teaching Maria comes from St. Thomas Aquinas.  He predates the Second Vatican Council by a few years.  There is no grace that is "created"...Either you were very badly taught or did not quite grasp what you had been taught, but you have now locked in a very bad habit and inaccurate way of understanding...or not...the Catholic teaching on what is called by some "created" grace.

« Last Edit: June 01, 2011, 09:13:59 AM by elijahmaria » Logged

elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #91 on: June 01, 2011, 09:15:44 AM »

I think you are right about the imagery of the love between the Father and the Son:  Maybe.  But it is a venerable imagery and tells a powerful truth.  So maybe we don't need the imagery, but we surely need to look for the truth that rests beneath the specific image or impress of the act of divine caritas called Trinity, on our intellects.
If the image that the Spirit is the love between the Father and the Son "tells a powerful truth" for Catholics, then this is completely irreconcilable with Orthodox Christianity. If God is Love, then Love is Uncreated, so if you say that the Spirit is the mutual Love between the Father and the Son, then you are saying that the Spirit eternally proceeds from both the Father and the Son.
Does the notion that the Spirit either is the love between Father and Son or transmits love between the Father and Son necessarily have to be synonymous with the Spirit proceeding from Father and Son? I'm honestly asking because I don't know.

I think the imagery of the Holy Spirit being the love between Father and Son is beautiful because, the way I heard it explained, it is the Spirit's descent upon the Church at Pentecost that allowed us to receive the love of God and quite literally become connected to the love of God as it exists amongst the Three Persons of the Trinity.
God is Love, so God's Love is an Uncreated Energy. If you want to believe that the Spirit "transmits Uncreated Energy between the Father and the Son", your belief again is irreconcilable with Orthodox Christianity. In this "beautiful image" as you call it of the Spirit being God's Love descending at Pentecost you have been taught, you are equating the Uncreated Energies with the Spirit (which is exactly what St. Gregory Palamas said was an error). This is completely irreconcilable to Orthodox Christianity. Your understanding of who the Person's of the the Trinity are and how they relate to one another and to us are completely different to Orthodox Christianity.

This is not the teaching of filioque BTW.  It isn't even a close approximation.
Logged

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

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,018



« Reply #92 on: June 01, 2011, 09:56:41 AM »

Catholics believe that Sanctifying Grace is created.
This part I doubt because of the way I heard Grace explained by my priest. A friend of mine recently joined the Catholic Church, and during his journey into the Catholic faith I attended quite a few RCIA classes, and I remember my priest defining Grace as "the life of Jesus Christ" within us. The life of Jesus Christ cannot be created because we know Christ (God the Son) is eternal, so I would say that we do not accept the idea of created Grace.

Several years ago there was a meeting of Catholics, Orthodox, Anglicans, and Protestants, titled “Christian Unity and the Divisions We Must Sustain”. The issue of "created grace" was addressed by Addison H. Hart (Catholic) in Turning Our Hearts to the Cross, A Response to Metropolitan Maximos (Orthodox).


Quote
The Understanding of Grace

My first disagreement has to do with the persistent Eastern Orthodox misunderstanding of what the Western Church means by “Created Grace.” Admittedly, this is an ambiguous term, open to misunderstanding, so I cannot fault Metropolitan Maximos for unintentionally misrepresenting the concept when he stated the following:

Quote
    Unfortunately, there is a great difference in the understanding of this mystery of grace between the Eastern and Western Churches. In the Eastern Church, in following the Fathers, theologians understand “grace” as “relation”. . . .

    In contrast, the West speaks of grace in “essentialistic” terms, that is, a “created reality,” when it speaks of “created grace” (gratia creata), a reality allegedly created by God to connect human and divine reality. The Christian East finds it impossible to understand grace in any way other than relational; it is a “relational entity” which enables humans to participate in the life of God. The image used by the Greek Fathers (such as St. Basil) is that of iron in the fire: in the same way in which iron gains the properties of the fire while in it, man, in the life of grace, acquires the spiritual qualities of God’s Holy Spirit in whom he lives.

Now, the irony is that what Metropolitan Maximos here contends to be the uniquely Eastern understanding of grace, “greatly different” from and “in contrast” to the Western teaching, is exactly the meaning of the Western doctrine of “Created Grace” (gratia creata). There is no great difference or contrast on this point, only a difference of language (Latin) and theological terminology (what we would call “Thomistic” or “Scholastic”). When it comes to the understanding of grace itself, Western theologians are in virtual agreement with their Eastern counterparts—employing, in fact, the same analogies from the Fathers (e.g., that of the iron in the fire). In addition, no Western theologian worth his salt would ever regard Created Grace as anything other than essentially “relational.”

The term, though, requires some explaining. “Created Grace” is also called “Habitual Grace” (from habitus—an endowment) and “Sanctifying Grace.” The central theological issue is one with which we are all familiar: How do we, who are creatures, become (as 2 Pet. 1:4 puts it) “partakers of the divine nature”? When King Charles I proclaimed from the scaffold that “a subject and a sovereign are clean different things,” he was tragically mistaken. But when we finite mortals speak of God—infinite, immortal, invisible, incomprehensible, uncreated—we are speaking of One clean different from us. Yet, we are told, it is his intention that we human creatures, through Christ, are meant to participate in the inner life of the Holy Trinity. How can such a deification of human nature be accomplished? In what terms can our human minds even grasp it? Obviously, this is a mystery to human thought. Still, some definitions and distinctions must be made, precisely to protect the mystery and revelation from real error.

The Western Church has used the phrase “Beatific Vision” to express the ultimate joy of heaven and deification, based on the apostolic witness of 1 John 3:2—“Beloved, we are God’s children now; it does not yet appear what we shall be, but we know that when he appears we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is.” In this foundational testimony, we should note three important truths.

First, by grace we creatures are made “God’s children”—in other words, this grace is unquestionably relational.

Second, this relational grace is “the seed of glory”: “We shall see [God] as he is,” and thus discover in that Beatific Vision that we have been transformed, glorified, deified, made “like him.” As the great Sulpician theologian Fr. Adolphe Tanquerey (1854–1932) put it: “Habitual [created] grace and the Beatific Vision are . . . one in kind and one in nature.”1 If these are indeed “one in nature,” then it should go without saying that grace cannot be a created substance—cannot be (in Metropolitan Maximos’s phrase) “essentialistic.”

Third, put in the vitally important terms of dogmatic theology, ours is not a “hypostatic union,” as is the uniting of human nature to the Divine Person of the Son. Our creaturely partaking of the divine nature can only, ever be a relation of likeness, and thus it must be acknowledged that infinite grace can only be operative in us as befits finite creatures. Unlike Christ, we have no substantial union with the divine nature—we are human persons, not divine persons. We need to be made capable of the Beatific Vision—we cannot possess it by nature. On the other hand, deification is not assimilation into the Godhead (a creature can never become uncreated in substance!). “God-likeness” is the most we can hope for—but that’s quite a hope! Our union with God is therefore what is called, in Latin theology, accidental.

St. Thomas Aquinas gets to the heart of what this means when he quotes the words of an unknown ancient Christian writer (he ascribes the words—wrongly—to Boethius): “Accidentis esse est inesse”—“The being of an accident is to be-in.”2 To be-in what, exactly? To be in a substance, obviously. And the substance in which grace ultimately is is the uncreated essence of God himself.

The Eastern Church, whether speaking of the original creation or the work of regeneration and deification in Christ, uses the time-honored language of “essence” and “energies” to make the necessary distinction between God in himself and God in his operations in the created order. Western, Latin-language theology has used the term gratia creata in its own attempt to make the same necessary distinction. The word “created” refers not to the substance of grace (which is God himself), but to that same grace as it is infused and at work in our created natures accidentally. The Thomist scholar, Timothy McDermott, is therefore surely correct in rendering, if a bit loosely, the words of the Angelic Doctor on this matter in the following way: “Strictly speaking, a supervening quality is not so much in existence itself, as a way in which something else exists; and so grace is not created, but men are created in it, established in a new existence out of nothing, without earning it.”3

Far from this constituting some great divergence of West from East, I think it is safe to say that here we have—potentially, at least—a real point of doctrinal convergence, despite our differing terminologies.

http://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/issue.php?id=58

(Come to think of it, I might try to re-read all of those articles one of these days.)
Logged

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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #93 on: June 01, 2011, 10:22:01 AM »

Thank you, Peter!!  This is quite good and perhaps has more gravitas than if you, or I or Alcuin, for example, were to wade into these waters one more time.  In fact Alcuin and I just addressed this issue in the thread on deification in the west.

We participate in a creature's share of the divine life.  "Created" in this case is a translation of Habitas...a direct reference to the Indwelling Trinity.

Well...at any rate...thank you!

M.

Catholics believe that Sanctifying Grace is created.
This part I doubt because of the way I heard Grace explained by my priest. A friend of mine recently joined the Catholic Church, and during his journey into the Catholic faith I attended quite a few RCIA classes, and I remember my priest defining Grace as "the life of Jesus Christ" within us. The life of Jesus Christ cannot be created because we know Christ (God the Son) is eternal, so I would say that we do not accept the idea of created Grace.

Several years ago there was a meeting of Catholics, Orthodox, Anglicans, and Protestants, titled “Christian Unity and the Divisions We Must Sustain”. The issue of "created grace" was addressed by Addison H. Hart (Catholic) in Turning Our Hearts to the Cross, A Response to Metropolitan Maximos (Orthodox).


Quote
The Understanding of Grace

My first disagreement has to do with the persistent Eastern Orthodox misunderstanding of what the Western Church means by “Created Grace.” Admittedly, this is an ambiguous term, open to misunderstanding, so I cannot fault Metropolitan Maximos for unintentionally misrepresenting the concept when he stated the following:

Quote
    Unfortunately, there is a great difference in the understanding of this mystery of grace between the Eastern and Western Churches. In the Eastern Church, in following the Fathers, theologians understand “grace” as “relation”. . . .

    In contrast, the West speaks of grace in “essentialistic” terms, that is, a “created reality,” when it speaks of “created grace” (gratia creata), a reality allegedly created by God to connect human and divine reality. The Christian East finds it impossible to understand grace in any way other than relational; it is a “relational entity” which enables humans to participate in the life of God. The image used by the Greek Fathers (such as St. Basil) is that of iron in the fire: in the same way in which iron gains the properties of the fire while in it, man, in the life of grace, acquires the spiritual qualities of God’s Holy Spirit in whom he lives.

Now, the irony is that what Metropolitan Maximos here contends to be the uniquely Eastern understanding of grace, “greatly different” from and “in contrast” to the Western teaching, is exactly the meaning of the Western doctrine of “Created Grace” (gratia creata). There is no great difference or contrast on this point, only a difference of language (Latin) and theological terminology (what we would call “Thomistic” or “Scholastic”). When it comes to the understanding of grace itself, Western theologians are in virtual agreement with their Eastern counterparts—employing, in fact, the same analogies from the Fathers (e.g., that of the iron in the fire). In addition, no Western theologian worth his salt would ever regard Created Grace as anything other than essentially “relational.”

The term, though, requires some explaining. “Created Grace” is also called “Habitual Grace” (from habitus—an endowment) and “Sanctifying Grace.” The central theological issue is one with which we are all familiar: How do we, who are creatures, become (as 2 Pet. 1:4 puts it) “partakers of the divine nature”? When King Charles I proclaimed from the scaffold that “a subject and a sovereign are clean different things,” he was tragically mistaken. But when we finite mortals speak of God—infinite, immortal, invisible, incomprehensible, uncreated—we are speaking of One clean different from us. Yet, we are told, it is his intention that we human creatures, through Christ, are meant to participate in the inner life of the Holy Trinity. How can such a deification of human nature be accomplished? In what terms can our human minds even grasp it? Obviously, this is a mystery to human thought. Still, some definitions and distinctions must be made, precisely to protect the mystery and revelation from real error.

The Western Church has used the phrase “Beatific Vision” to express the ultimate joy of heaven and deification, based on the apostolic witness of 1 John 3:2—“Beloved, we are God’s children now; it does not yet appear what we shall be, but we know that when he appears we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is.” In this foundational testimony, we should note three important truths.

First, by grace we creatures are made “God’s children”—in other words, this grace is unquestionably relational.

Second, this relational grace is “the seed of glory”: “We shall see [God] as he is,” and thus discover in that Beatific Vision that we have been transformed, glorified, deified, made “like him.” As the great Sulpician theologian Fr. Adolphe Tanquerey (1854–1932) put it: “Habitual [created] grace and the Beatific Vision are . . . one in kind and one in nature.”1 If these are indeed “one in nature,” then it should go without saying that grace cannot be a created substance—cannot be (in Metropolitan Maximos’s phrase) “essentialistic.”

Third, put in the vitally important terms of dogmatic theology, ours is not a “hypostatic union,” as is the uniting of human nature to the Divine Person of the Son. Our creaturely partaking of the divine nature can only, ever be a relation of likeness, and thus it must be acknowledged that infinite grace can only be operative in us as befits finite creatures. Unlike Christ, we have no substantial union with the divine nature—we are human persons, not divine persons. We need to be made capable of the Beatific Vision—we cannot possess it by nature. On the other hand, deification is not assimilation into the Godhead (a creature can never become uncreated in substance!). “God-likeness” is the most we can hope for—but that’s quite a hope! Our union with God is therefore what is called, in Latin theology, accidental.

St. Thomas Aquinas gets to the heart of what this means when he quotes the words of an unknown ancient Christian writer (he ascribes the words—wrongly—to Boethius): “Accidentis esse est inesse”—“The being of an accident is to be-in.”2 To be-in what, exactly? To be in a substance, obviously. And the substance in which grace ultimately is is the uncreated essence of God himself.

The Eastern Church, whether speaking of the original creation or the work of regeneration and deification in Christ, uses the time-honored language of “essence” and “energies” to make the necessary distinction between God in himself and God in his operations in the created order. Western, Latin-language theology has used the term gratia creata in its own attempt to make the same necessary distinction. The word “created” refers not to the substance of grace (which is God himself), but to that same grace as it is infused and at work in our created natures accidentally. The Thomist scholar, Timothy McDermott, is therefore surely correct in rendering, if a bit loosely, the words of the Angelic Doctor on this matter in the following way: “Strictly speaking, a supervening quality is not so much in existence itself, as a way in which something else exists; and so grace is not created, but men are created in it, established in a new existence out of nothing, without earning it.”3

Far from this constituting some great divergence of West from East, I think it is safe to say that here we have—potentially, at least—a real point of doctrinal convergence, despite our differing terminologies.

http://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/issue.php?id=58

(Come to think of it, I might try to re-read all of those articles one of these days.)
Logged

Alcuin
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 122


« Reply #94 on: June 01, 2011, 10:52:24 AM »

Catholics don't believe grace is created, as in grace is a creature. This is a distortion that Barlaam communicated to the Orthodox through his own poor understanding of theology, and which they rightly rejected, but it isn't the authentic Catholic teaching. 'Created grace' merely signifies that grace exists in humans as accident rather than as essence; i.e that it has to be freely given.

The Holy Spirit is not the love between the Father and the Son, it is God's love for Himself simply, since He is one essence. The Son and the Spirit are simply modes of relation, and the Spirit can be said to be proceed from both Father and Son because it can only be distinguished by opposite relation from Father and Son collectively (One must have knowledge of a thing in order to love it), and the only way to distinguish within a single Essence is by opposite relation. It can also be said to proceed from the Father through the Son (It is through knowledge that the knower desires what is known), or to proceed from the Father simply (knowledge and desire are both rooted in inaccessible being). None of the three formulations are incorrect. Or at least that's Aquinas' position, and I share it.
« Last Edit: June 01, 2011, 10:57:10 AM by Alcuin » Logged
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #95 on: June 01, 2011, 10:59:35 AM »

I think you are right about the imagery of the love between the Father and the Son:  Maybe.  But it is a venerable imagery and tells a powerful truth.  So maybe we don't need the imagery, but we surely need to look for the truth that rests beneath the specific image or impress of the act of divine caritas called Trinity, on our intellects.
If the image that the Spirit is the love between the Father and the Son "tells a powerful truth" for Catholics, then this is completely irreconcilable with Orthodox Christianity. If God is Love, then Love is Uncreated, so if you say that the Spirit is the mutual Love between the Father and the Son, then you are saying that the Spirit eternally proceeds from both the Father and the Son.
Does the notion that the Spirit either is the love between Father and Son or transmits love between the Father and Son necessarily have to be synonymous with the Spirit proceeding from Father and Son? I'm honestly asking because I don't know.

I think the imagery of the Holy Spirit being the love between Father and Son is beautiful because, the way I heard it explained, it is the Spirit's descent upon the Church at Pentecost that allowed us to receive the love of God and quite literally become connected to the love of God as it exists amongst the Three Persons of the Trinity.
God is Love, so God's Love is an Uncreated Energy. If you want to believe that the Spirit "transmits Uncreated Energy between the Father and the Son", your belief again is irreconcilable with Orthodox Christianity. In this "beautiful image" as you call it of the Spirit being God's Love descending at Pentecost you have been taught, you are equating the Uncreated Energies with the Spirit (which is exactly what St. Gregory Palamas said was an error). This is completely irreconcilable to Orthodox Christianity. Your understanding of who the Person's of the the Trinity are and how they relate to one another and to us are completely different to Orthodox Christianity.

This is not the teaching of filioque BTW.  It isn't even a close approximation.
No one said it was, however the belief that the Holy Spirit is the "love between the Father and the Son" is a heresy which Catholicism has adopted as doctrine as a result of the heresy of the filioque. It is only recently that they realized the error and are dropping it from Catechisms, however, no one has told the RC Bishop William E. Lori- Supreme Chaplain of the Knights of Columbus who has this to say:
Quote
"Reflecting on this, the Church definitively teaches that the Father eternally generates the Son and that the Son is eternally generated by the Father. The living, eternal bond of love between the Father and Son is the Person of the Holy Spirit (Compendium, 48)." [emphasis mine]
Source: http://stage.kofc.org/un/eb/en/publications/columbia/detail/547594.html
Oh, and I took a screenshot of the webpage because it undoubtedly will be removed soon. Smiley
« Last Edit: June 01, 2011, 11:12:18 AM by ozgeorge » Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
Alcuin
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 122


« Reply #96 on: June 01, 2011, 11:18:55 AM »

I disagree with His Excellency Bishop Lori that the Church definitively teaches that. I think Aquinas would parse it a bit more carefully, and I'll take Aquinas over His Excellency Bishop Lori as an expositor of the theology of the Trinity.
Logged
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #97 on: June 01, 2011, 11:46:04 AM »

I disagree with His Excellency Bishop Lori that the Church definitively teaches that. I think Aquinas would parse it a bit more carefully, and I'll take Aquinas over His Excellency Bishop Lori as an expositor of the theology of the Trinity.

Then you disagree with the generally accepted teaching of Catholicism:

http://www.saintaquinas.com/catholic_beliefs.html
"The Holy Spirit is the third member of the divine Godhead (Trinity) and is the essence of divine love between the Father and the Son."

http://www.cuf.org/faithfacts/details_view.asp?ffID=136
"Finally, the fundamental identity of the Third Person of the Trinity consists in His eternally being the Spirit of Love between the Father and the Son, a Love so real He is Himself a Person."

http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/a/unique2.html
"The love between the Father and the Son is so perfect that it too is another person: the Holy Spirit"

Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #98 on: June 01, 2011, 11:49:17 AM »


No one said it was, however the belief that the Holy Spirit is the "love between the Father and the Son" is a heresy which Catholicism has adopted as doctrine as a result of the heresy of the filioque.

Dear George,

The KofC is hardly the source for formal Catholic teaching.  Again you mistake the anthropology of the theology for the theology itself.  

The fact of the matter is that there is a special relationship between the Father and the Son that is so prevalent in Scripture and Tradition that the Holy Spirit, very early on, ran the extreme risk of not being recognized at all.  But that relationship between the Father and the Son is real and it is unique for it is not shared between or among the Persons of the Trinity in anything approaching the same magnitude.

So...in our small words for ordinary minds that relationship is called "Love".

In the words of GOARCH's Metropolitan Maximos:

http://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=16-06-038-f

"The Holy Trinity is a “relational Entity.” It is a society of three hypostases who live in one another, and relate to each other in love, being a communion and community of love. The Church of God is the reflection of this communion of love that is the Holy Trinity."

So it is not strange at all to speak of the relations of the persons, nor is it strange to speak of those relationships as "Love"...

You are grasping at straws here...and not fresh clean ones either but old dirty rotted ones that do not have a place in either Orthodoxy or the Catholic Church.

In brief you are talking non-sense.  But I don't expect you to take my word for it.  Smiley


Logged

Alcuin
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 122


« Reply #99 on: June 01, 2011, 12:02:37 PM »

I disagree with His Excellency Bishop Lori that the Church definitively teaches that. I think Aquinas would parse it a bit more carefully, and I'll take Aquinas over His Excellency Bishop Lori as an expositor of the theology of the Trinity.

Then you disagree with the generally accepted teaching of Catholicism:

http://www.saintaquinas.com/catholic_beliefs.html
"The Holy Spirit is the third member of the divine Godhead (Trinity) and is the essence of divine love between the Father and the Son."

http://www.cuf.org/faithfacts/details_view.asp?ffID=136
"Finally, the fundamental identity of the Third Person of the Trinity consists in His eternally being the Spirit of Love between the Father and the Son, a Love so real He is Himself a Person."

http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/a/unique2.html
"The love between the Father and the Son is so perfect that it too is another person: the Holy Spirit"

Well no, since what I suggested doesn't deny the truth of the claim, it just parses it out more carefully than the text there does by focusing on the fact that the persons are modes of relation. My issue was with the use of the word 'definitively', since it suggests that what the Bishop was offering was the definitive teaching in itself, whereas in reality the definitive teaching is more detailed and subtle than that.
« Last Edit: June 01, 2011, 12:05:36 PM by Alcuin » Logged
Schultz
Christian. Guitarist. Zymurgist. Librarian.
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,461


Scion of the McKeesport Becks.


WWW
« Reply #100 on: June 01, 2011, 12:07:45 PM »


No one said it was, however the belief that the Holy Spirit is the "love between the Father and the Son" is a heresy which Catholicism has adopted as doctrine as a result of the heresy of the filioque.

So it is not strange at all to speak of the relations of the persons, nor is it strange to speak of those relationships as "Love"...


Dear Mary,

The problem, as I see it, is that the relationship is often taught as being a person.  Cf. the quotes George provided.  And these are not isolated.  I've heard this trope my entire Catholic life.  The Trinity was explained as such by Sr. Katherine in my first grade Religion class, by the two pastors I grew up around, by each of the parochial vicars that were in residence at the same (eight by my count), by a number of priests at the Basilica of the Immaculate Conception in DC where I used to serve Mass, by the two traditionalist priests at the "indult" parish in Baltimore, by the pastor of my parents' parish (who is now a bishop), from the pastor of the parish I was married in (my in-law's parish) and in countless...COUNTLESS...expositions of the Trinity written by Catholic authors.

You simply cannot bury your head in the sand and say, "This is not what the Roman Catholic Church teaches because I say so."  Both on the ground and at the highest levels, it has been taught that the personhood of the Holy Spirit is the relationship between the Father and Son.  You can say that it's not the case, but I have heard it with my own ears and read it with my own eyes in so many places and from so many disparate people within the RCC that it cannot be ignored.
« Last Edit: June 01, 2011, 12:08:24 PM by Schultz » Logged

"Hearing a nun's confession is like being stoned to death with popcorn." --Abp. Fulton Sheen
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #101 on: June 01, 2011, 12:08:55 PM »


No one said it was, however the belief that the Holy Spirit is the "love between the Father and the Son" is a heresy which Catholicism has adopted as doctrine as a result of the heresy of the filioque.

Dear George,

The KofC is hardly the source for formal Catholic teaching.  Again you mistake the anthropology of the theology for the theology itself.
Again you seem to miss things you don't want to see. It's not just the Knights of Columbus who hold this heresy in Catholicism:
http://www.saintaquinas.com/catholic_beliefs.html
"The Holy Spirit is the third member of the divine Godhead (Trinity) and is the essence of divine love between the Father and the Son."

http://www.cuf.org/faithfacts/details_view.asp?ffID=136
"Finally, the fundamental identity of the Third Person of the Trinity consists in His eternally being the Spirit of Love between the Father and the Son, a Love so real He is Himself a Person."

http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/a/unique2.html
"The love between the Father and the Son is so perfect that it too is another person: the Holy Spirit"
It is the teaching of Catholicism, and you cannot deny it.

The fact of the matter is that there is a special relationship between the Father and the Son that is so prevalent in Scripture and Tradition that the Holy Spirit, very early on, ran the extreme risk of not being recognized at all.  But that relationship between the Father and the Son is real and it is unique for it is not shared between or among the Persons of the Trinity in anything approaching the same magnitude.
So...in our small words for ordinary minds that relationship is called "Love".
All the relationships in the Trinity are unique, and I can't see how you can claim that the relationship between the Father and the Son is somehow of greater "magnitude" than say, the Son and the Spirit or the Father and the Spirit. What on Earth (or in Heaven) do you mean by this? Orthodox Christianity teaches that all Three Hypostases of the Trinity are Co-equal, Consubstantial and Undivided. How can the relationship between the Father and the Son is of greater magnitude than the Father and the Spirit? I'll tell you how you can say it- because whether you recite the filioque or not, it's heresy has infiltrated your doctrines about the Trinity.


In the words of GOARCH's Metropolitan Maximos:

http://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=16-06-038-f

"The Holy Trinity is a “relational Entity.” It is a society of three hypostases who live in one another, and relate to each other in love, being a communion and community of love. The Church of God is the reflection of this communion of love that is the Holy Trinity."
I see nothing in this which personifies the Love of the Persons of the Trinity, and I see nothing which, like you claim, says that the relationship between the Father and the Son is somehow of greater "magnitude" than the Father and the Spirit, or the Son and the Spirit. It seems from this that the Orthodox Christian view is that all Three Persons mutually love Each Other.

So it is not strange at all to speak of the relations of the persons, nor is it strange to speak of those relationships as "Love"...
No one said it was strange to speak of the relationships and love of the Trinity. What I said was that you have distorted them by personifying the Love between the Father and the Son and considering this relationship to be of "greater magnitude".

You are grasping at straws here...
No. You keep handing them to me. Smiley
« Last Edit: June 01, 2011, 12:25:08 PM by ozgeorge » Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
Alcuin
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 122


« Reply #102 on: June 01, 2011, 12:27:22 PM »


No one said it was, however the belief that the Holy Spirit is the "love between the Father and the Son" is a heresy which Catholicism has adopted as doctrine as a result of the heresy of the filioque.

So it is not strange at all to speak of the relations of the persons, nor is it strange to speak of those relationships as "Love"...


Dear Mary,

The problem, as I see it, is that the relationship is often taught as being a person.  Cf. the quotes George provided.  And these are not isolated.  I've heard this trope my entire Catholic life.  The Trinity was explained as such by Sr. Katherine in my first grade Religion class, by the two pastors I grew up around, by each of the parochial vicars that were in residence at the same (eight by my count), by a number of priests at the Basilica of the Immaculate Conception in DC where I used to serve Mass, by the two traditionalist priests at the "indult" parish in Baltimore, by the pastor of my parents' parish (who is now a bishop), from the pastor of the parish I was married in (my in-law's parish) and in countless...COUNTLESS...expositions of the Trinity written by Catholic authors.

You simply cannot bury your head in the sand and say, "This is not what the Roman Catholic Church teaches because I say so."  Both on the ground and at the highest levels, it has been taught that the personhood of the Holy Spirit is the relationship between the Father and Son.  You can say that it's not the case, but I have heard it with my own ears and read it with my own eyes in so many places and from so many disparate people within the RCC that it cannot be ignored.

Since God is one Divine Essence, what could the persons be, other than modes relations within the one Essence? In saying that the Son is the Logos, or reason, of God, one is certainly elevating a mode of relation to Personhood.
« Last Edit: June 01, 2011, 12:27:52 PM by Alcuin » Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #103 on: June 01, 2011, 12:34:37 PM »


No one said it was, however the belief that the Holy Spirit is the "love between the Father and the Son" is a heresy which Catholicism has adopted as doctrine as a result of the heresy of the filioque.

So it is not strange at all to speak of the relations of the persons, nor is it strange to speak of those relationships as "Love"...


Dear Mary,

The problem, as I see it, is that the relationship is often taught as being a person.  Cf. the quotes George provided.  And these are not isolated.  I've heard this trope my entire Catholic life.  The Trinity was explained as such by Sr. Katherine in my first grade Religion class, by the two pastors I grew up around, by each of the parochial vicars that were in residence at the same (eight by my count), by a number of priests at the Basilica of the Immaculate Conception in DC where I used to serve Mass, by the two traditionalist priests at the "indult" parish in Baltimore, by the pastor of my parents' parish (who is now a bishop), from the pastor of the parish I was married in (my in-law's parish) and in countless...COUNTLESS...expositions of the Trinity written by Catholic authors.

You simply cannot bury your head in the sand and say, "This is not what the Roman Catholic Church teaches because I say so."  Both on the ground and at the highest levels, it has been taught that the personhood of the Holy Spirit is the relationship between the Father and Son.  You can say that it's not the case, but I have heard it with my own ears and read it with my own eyes in so many places and from so many disparate people within the RCC that it cannot be ignored.

Without prejudice, Schultz, it should have been ignored because it is a pedestrian manner of speaking that does not convey the actual truth of the teaching. 

It has not gone unnoticed by the teachers of the Church [bishops and our current and past pope] and there are good efforts being made to clarify and explain for everyone.

But I will say this...If a knucklehead like me can come to understand the teaching as it ought to be in spite of running into a few of my own bad teachers, then all could not be wrong with the Catholic world.  But I had to go and probe and ask and look and go again through the same process several times till I found the teachers who could unlock the texts.  I did that because I wanted to understand what it was that my Church teaches.

With respect, I do not expect that from everyone.  But I don't expect either to be put in my place because I did go and do the work.  If my head were truly buried I would not have bothered.
« Last Edit: June 01, 2011, 12:35:13 PM by elijahmaria » Logged

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

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,018



« Reply #104 on: June 01, 2011, 12:37:09 PM »


No one said it was, however the belief that the Holy Spirit is the "love between the Father and the Son" is a heresy which Catholicism has adopted as doctrine as a result of the heresy of the filioque.

So it is not strange at all to speak of the relations of the persons, nor is it strange to speak of those relationships as "Love"...


Dear Mary,

The problem, as I see it, is that the relationship is often taught as being a person.  Cf. the quotes George provided.  And these are not isolated.  I've heard this trope my entire Catholic life.  The Trinity was explained as such by Sr. Katherine in my first grade Religion class, by the two pastors I grew up around, by each of the parochial vicars that were in residence at the same (eight by my count), by a number of priests at the Basilica of the Immaculate Conception in DC where I used to serve Mass, by the two traditionalist priests at the "indult" parish in Baltimore, by the pastor of my parents' parish (who is now a bishop), from the pastor of the parish I was married in (my in-law's parish) and in countless...COUNTLESS...expositions of the Trinity written by Catholic authors.

You simply cannot bury your head in the sand and say, "This is not what the Roman Catholic Church teaches because I say so."  Both on the ground and at the highest levels, it has been taught that the personhood of the Holy Spirit is the relationship between the Father and Son.  You can say that it's not the case, but I have heard it with my own ears and read it with my own eyes in so many places and from so many disparate people within the RCC that it cannot be ignored.

Since God is one Divine Essence, what could the persons be, other than modes relations within the one Essence? In saying that the Son is the Logos, or reason, of God, one is certainly elevating a mode of relation to Personhood.

Alcuin, could you provide a link or quotation regarding what you're saying about modes? I'd like to read up on this.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Schultz
Christian. Guitarist. Zymurgist. Librarian.
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,461


Scion of the McKeesport Becks.


WWW
« Reply #105 on: June 01, 2011, 12:37:41 PM »


No one said it was, however the belief that the Holy Spirit is the "love between the Father and the Son" is a heresy which Catholicism has adopted as doctrine as a result of the heresy of the filioque.

So it is not strange at all to speak of the relations of the persons, nor is it strange to speak of those relationships as "Love"...


Dear Mary,

The problem, as I see it, is that the relationship is often taught as being a person.  Cf. the quotes George provided.  And these are not isolated.  I've heard this trope my entire Catholic life.  The Trinity was explained as such by Sr. Katherine in my first grade Religion class, by the two pastors I grew up around, by each of the parochial vicars that were in residence at the same (eight by my count), by a number of priests at the Basilica of the Immaculate Conception in DC where I used to serve Mass, by the two traditionalist priests at the "indult" parish in Baltimore, by the pastor of my parents' parish (who is now a bishop), from the pastor of the parish I was married in (my in-law's parish) and in countless...COUNTLESS...expositions of the Trinity written by Catholic authors.

You simply cannot bury your head in the sand and say, "This is not what the Roman Catholic Church teaches because I say so."  Both on the ground and at the highest levels, it has been taught that the personhood of the Holy Spirit is the relationship between the Father and Son.  You can say that it's not the case, but I have heard it with my own ears and read it with my own eyes in so many places and from so many disparate people within the RCC that it cannot be ignored.

Without prejudice, Schultz, it should have been ignored because it is a pedestrian manner of speaking that does not convey the actual truth of the teaching. 

It has not gone unnoticed by the teachers of the Church [bishops and our current and past pope] and there are good efforts being made to clarify and explain for everyone.

But I will say this...If a knucklehead like me can come to understand the teaching as it ought to be in spite of running into a few of my own bad teachers, then all could not be wrong with the Catholic world.  But I had to go and probe and ask and look and go again through the same process several times till I found the teachers who could unlock the texts.  I did that because I wanted to understand what it was that my Church teaches.

With respect, I do not expect that from everyone.  But I don't expect either to be put in my place because I did go and do the work.  If my head were truly buried I would not have bothered.

With the same respect, this is what people like Elaine Pagels say, as well.

Logged

"Hearing a nun's confession is like being stoned to death with popcorn." --Abp. Fulton Sheen
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,018



« Reply #106 on: June 01, 2011, 12:38:27 PM »

Thank you, Peter!!

You're welcome.
Logged

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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #107 on: June 01, 2011, 12:39:05 PM »


No one said it was, however the belief that the Holy Spirit is the "love between the Father and the Son" is a heresy which Catholicism has adopted as doctrine as a result of the heresy of the filioque.

So it is not strange at all to speak of the relations of the persons, nor is it strange to speak of those relationships as "Love"...


Dear Mary,

The problem, as I see it, is that the relationship is often taught as being a person.  Cf. the quotes George provided.  And these are not isolated.  I've heard this trope my entire Catholic life.  The Trinity was explained as such by Sr. Katherine in my first grade Religion class, by the two pastors I grew up around, by each of the parochial vicars that were in residence at the same (eight by my count), by a number of priests at the Basilica of the Immaculate Conception in DC where I used to serve Mass, by the two traditionalist priests at the "indult" parish in Baltimore, by the pastor of my parents' parish (who is now a bishop), from the pastor of the parish I was married in (my in-law's parish) and in countless...COUNTLESS...expositions of the Trinity written by Catholic authors.

You simply cannot bury your head in the sand and say, "This is not what the Roman Catholic Church teaches because I say so."  Both on the ground and at the highest levels, it has been taught that the personhood of the Holy Spirit is the relationship between the Father and Son.  You can say that it's not the case, but I have heard it with my own ears and read it with my own eyes in so many places and from so many disparate people within the RCC that it cannot be ignored.

Since God is one Divine Essence, what could the persons be, other than modes relations within the one Essence? In saying that the Son is the Logos, or reason, of God, one is certainly elevating a mode of relation to Personhood.

This is true.  This is also the analogous equivalent of saying The Son of God is The Son of God.

That would not be quite the same thing as saying The Holy Spirit is Love of Son and Father.
Logged

ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #108 on: June 01, 2011, 12:39:30 PM »

is the Logos, or reason, of God, one is certainly elevating a mode of relation to Personhood.
How is The Logos "a mode of relation"?
Logos does not mean "reason of God". And even if it did, wouldn't it be an attribute rather than a personified "mode of relation"?
The well known Theologian who introduced us to the Logos wrote:
"In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God and the Logos was God....." (John 1:1)
How is he describing "a mode of relation"? He is actually describing the relationship between the Logos and God (which he certainly does not personify).
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #109 on: June 01, 2011, 12:40:21 PM »


No one said it was, however the belief that the Holy Spirit is the "love between the Father and the Son" is a heresy which Catholicism has adopted as doctrine as a result of the heresy of the filioque.

So it is not strange at all to speak of the relations of the persons, nor is it strange to speak of those relationships as "Love"...


Dear Mary,

The problem, as I see it, is that the relationship is often taught as being a person.  Cf. the quotes George provided.  And these are not isolated.  I've heard this trope my entire Catholic life.  The Trinity was explained as such by Sr. Katherine in my first grade Religion class, by the two pastors I grew up around, by each of the parochial vicars that were in residence at the same (eight by my count), by a number of priests at the Basilica of the Immaculate Conception in DC where I used to serve Mass, by the two traditionalist priests at the "indult" parish in Baltimore, by the pastor of my parents' parish (who is now a bishop), from the pastor of the parish I was married in (my in-law's parish) and in countless...COUNTLESS...expositions of the Trinity written by Catholic authors.

You simply cannot bury your head in the sand and say, "This is not what the Roman Catholic Church teaches because I say so."  Both on the ground and at the highest levels, it has been taught that the personhood of the Holy Spirit is the relationship between the Father and Son.  You can say that it's not the case, but I have heard it with my own ears and read it with my own eyes in so many places and from so many disparate people within the RCC that it cannot be ignored.

Without prejudice, Schultz, it should have been ignored because it is a pedestrian manner of speaking that does not convey the actual truth of the teaching. 

It has not gone unnoticed by the teachers of the Church [bishops and our current and past pope] and there are good efforts being made to clarify and explain for everyone.

But I will say this...If a knucklehead like me can come to understand the teaching as it ought to be in spite of running into a few of my own bad teachers, then all could not be wrong with the Catholic world.  But I had to go and probe and ask and look and go again through the same process several times till I found the teachers who could unlock the texts.  I did that because I wanted to understand what it was that my Church teaches.

With respect, I do not expect that from everyone.  But I don't expect either to be put in my place because I did go and do the work.  If my head were truly buried I would not have bothered.

With the same respect, this is what people like Elaine Pagels say, as well.



Well Elaine Pagels cannot go back to the formal teachings and find herself in line with them.

I can.
Logged

Shlomlokh
主哀れめよ!
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Bulgarian
Posts: 1,215



« Reply #110 on: June 01, 2011, 12:43:26 PM »


No one said it was, however the belief that the Holy Spirit is the "love between the Father and the Son" is a heresy which Catholicism has adopted as doctrine as a result of the heresy of the filioque.

So it is not strange at all to speak of the relations of the persons, nor is it strange to speak of those relationships as "Love"...


Dear Mary,

The problem, as I see it, is that the relationship is often taught as being a person.  Cf. the quotes George provided.  And these are not isolated.  I've heard this trope my entire Catholic life.  The Trinity was explained as such by Sr. Katherine in my first grade Religion class, by the two pastors I grew up around, by each of the parochial vicars that were in residence at the same (eight by my count), by a number of priests at the Basilica of the Immaculate Conception in DC where I used to serve Mass, by the two traditionalist priests at the "indult" parish in Baltimore, by the pastor of my parents' parish (who is now a bishop), from the pastor of the parish I was married in (my in-law's parish) and in countless...COUNTLESS...expositions of the Trinity written by Catholic authors.

You simply cannot bury your head in the sand and say, "This is not what the Roman Catholic Church teaches because I say so."  Both on the ground and at the highest levels, it has been taught that the personhood of the Holy Spirit is the relationship between the Father and Son.  You can say that it's not the case, but I have heard it with my own ears and read it with my own eyes in so many places and from so many disparate people within the RCC that it cannot be ignored.
I had the same experience at the University level 2 years ago. Three RC professors, one was a benedictine nun, with doctorates in the theology taught this as did a visiting Ukrainian Catholic priest (with Masters in theology). I also heard it in homilies from priests of the Hogar de la Madre order. This was all at Ave Maria University.

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
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #111 on: June 01, 2011, 12:47:50 PM »


No one said it was, however the belief that the Holy Spirit is the "love between the Father and the Son" is a heresy which Catholicism has adopted as doctrine as a result of the heresy of the filioque.

So it is not strange at all to speak of the relations of the persons, nor is it strange to speak of those relationships as "Love"...


Dear Mary,

The problem, as I see it, is that the relationship is often taught as being a person.  Cf. the quotes George provided.  And these are not isolated.  I've heard this trope my entire Catholic life.  The Trinity was explained as such by Sr. Katherine in my first grade Religion class, by the two pastors I grew up around, by each of the parochial vicars that were in residence at the same (eight by my count), by a number of priests at the Basilica of the Immaculate Conception in DC where I used to serve Mass, by the two traditionalist priests at the "indult" parish in Baltimore, by the pastor of my parents' parish (who is now a bishop), from the pastor of the parish I was married in (my in-law's parish) and in countless...COUNTLESS...expositions of the Trinity written by Catholic authors.

You simply cannot bury your head in the sand and say, "This is not what the Roman Catholic Church teaches because I say so."  Both on the ground and at the highest levels, it has been taught that the personhood of the Holy Spirit is the relationship between the Father and Son.  You can say that it's not the case, but I have heard it with my own ears and read it with my own eyes in so many places and from so many disparate people within the RCC that it cannot be ignored.
I had the same experience at the University level 2 years ago. Three RC professors, one was a benedictine nun, with doctorates in the theology taught this as did a visiting Ukrainian Catholic priest (with Masters in theology). I also heard it in homilies from priests of the Hogar de la Madre order. This was all at Ave Maria University.

In Christ,
Andrew

You hear it because it is a simple way of expressing a more clear theological truth that does not lend itself to one sentence explanations. 

There is a way that it can be seen to be true but not without further discussion, and for that, I fear, there are many who are not prepared to do so clearly.  I don't care how many degrees they have.
Logged

elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #112 on: June 01, 2011, 02:05:25 PM »

Another angle on analog and allegory.  My question posted below:

http://ethiopiantewahedo.com/13.html
Quote

Mystery of the Holy Trinity

"In this section the mystery of Unity and Trinity of the Triune God is described.
The Holy Trinity is three in name, in person (Akal), in deed and one in essence, in divinity, in existence, in will.
Three in name: - Father, Son, Holy Spirit

Three in deed:-
a) the Father is the begetter
b) the Son is begotten
c) the Holy Spirit is the one who proceeds

Three in person:-
a) the Father has a perfect person
b) the Son has a perfect person
c) the Holy Spirit has a perfect person

The Father is the heart, the Son is the word, the Holy Spirit is the life (breath)

The Father is the heart for himself, and He is the heart for the Son and for the Holy Spirit.

The Son is the word for Himself, and He is the word for the Father, and for the Holy Spirit.

And the Holy Spirit is the life (breath) for Himself, and He is the life (breath) for the Father and the Son.

Should we Catholics, not of the tradition, understand the highlighted text above to mean that without the Holy Spirit there would be no life in the Trinity?  That the Father has no life of his own.  That the Son has no life of his own?
Logged

Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #113 on: June 01, 2011, 02:56:44 PM »

Another angle on analog and allegory.  My question posted below:

http://ethiopiantewahedo.com/13.html
Quote

Mystery of the Holy Trinity

"In this section the mystery of Unity and Trinity of the Triune God is described.
The Holy Trinity is three in name, in person (Akal), in deed and one in essence, in divinity, in existence, in will.
Three in name: - Father, Son, Holy Spirit

Three in deed:-
a) the Father is the begetter
b) the Son is begotten
c) the Holy Spirit is the one who proceeds

Three in person:-
a) the Father has a perfect person
b) the Son has a perfect person
c) the Holy Spirit has a perfect person

The Father is the heart, the Son is the word, the Holy Spirit is the life (breath)

The Father is the heart for himself, and He is the heart for the Son and for the Holy Spirit.

The Son is the word for Himself, and He is the word for the Father, and for the Holy Spirit.

And the Holy Spirit is the life (breath) for Himself, and He is the life (breath) for the Father and the Son.

Should we Catholics, not of the tradition, understand the highlighted text above to mean that without the Holy Spirit there would be no life in the Trinity?  That the Father has no life of his own.  That the Son has no life of his own?
You raise a very important point. People who are not a part of a faith tradition need to stop arrogantly thinking they can interpret the teachings of a given faith from the outside. This is hard for many of the Eastern Orthodox because they seem to be so bent on the notion that they understand Catholic teachings better than Catholics do, but we know that they do not. Of course, they can keep crying 'heretic' if they want to feel more secure in their own beliefs. I'm just thankful that my beliefs can stand on their own and I don't have to put down everyone else to know the path I'm on is the truth.
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #114 on: June 01, 2011, 03:10:10 PM »

You raise a very important point. People who are not a part of a faith tradition need to stop arrogantly thinking they can interpret the teachings of a given faith from the outside. This is hard for many of the Eastern Orthodox because they seem to be so bent on the notion that they understand Catholic teachings better than Catholics do, but we know that they do not. Of course, they can keep crying 'heretic' if they want to feel more secure in their own beliefs. I'm just thankful that my beliefs can stand on their own and I don't have to put down everyone else to know the path I'm on is the truth.

If you read back through the thread Wyatt, you'll see that I am not talking to people from outside the Catholic tradition exclusively.  In fact, I am speaking to all those who are either Orthodox by birth, from the protestant confessions, and from the Catholic Church.  I was actually addressing the questions and comments raised by Schultz and Maria and ozgeorge and one other regarding a habit of speech that names the Holy Spirit as the Love of the Father and the Son.

My question in the note above is how is it different if the Holy Spirit is called the Love of the Father and the Son, or the Life of the Father and the Son, or the Breath of the Father and the Son.

They are all analogous metaphors for describing relationships....relationships that have been called heresy by ozgeorge at least, with Maria and Schultz providing Catholic support to the assertions.

So why is it heresy when Catholics use this kind of ordinary analogous language, but orthodox if it happens on the eastern side of the fence.
 
That was my real point.
« Last Edit: June 01, 2011, 03:10:44 PM by elijahmaria » Logged

Shlomlokh
主哀れめよ!
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Bulgarian
Posts: 1,215



« Reply #115 on: June 01, 2011, 03:20:47 PM »

Another angle on analog and allegory.  My question posted below:

http://ethiopiantewahedo.com/13.html
Quote

Mystery of the Holy Trinity

"In this section the mystery of Unity and Trinity of the Triune God is described.
The Holy Trinity is three in name, in person (Akal), in deed and one in essence, in divinity, in existence, in will.
Three in name: - Father, Son, Holy Spirit

Three in deed:-
a) the Father is the begetter
b) the Son is begotten
c) the Holy Spirit is the one who proceeds

Three in person:-
a) the Father has a perfect person
b) the Son has a perfect person
c) the Holy Spirit has a perfect person

The Father is the heart, the Son is the word, the Holy Spirit is the life (breath)

The Father is the heart for himself, and He is the heart for the Son and for the Holy Spirit.

The Son is the word for Himself, and He is the word for the Father, and for the Holy Spirit.

And the Holy Spirit is the life (breath) for Himself, and He is the life (breath) for the Father and the Son.

Should we Catholics, not of the tradition, understand the highlighted text above to mean that without the Holy Spirit there would be no life in the Trinity?  That the Father has no life of his own.  That the Son has no life of his own?
You raise a very important point. People who are not a part of a faith tradition need to stop arrogantly thinking they can interpret the teachings of a given faith from the outside. This is hard for many of the Eastern Orthodox because they seem to be so bent on the notion that they understand Catholic teachings better than Catholics do, but we know that they do not. Of course, they can keep crying 'heretic' if they want to feel more secure in their own beliefs. I'm just thankful that my beliefs can stand on their own and I don't have to put down everyone else to know the path I'm on is the truth.
Could we make the same charge to RCs as well? Let's be honest, no one likes being told what they believe. Wink As for my testimonial above, that was from my experience just 2 years ago at an accredited RC university. I realize, it might not be official magisterial teaching, but it is being taught and not accurately explained.

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
David Garner
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 292



WWW
« Reply #116 on: June 01, 2011, 03:24:11 PM »

You raise a very important point. People who are not a part of a faith tradition need to stop arrogantly thinking they can interpret the teachings of a given faith from the outside. This is hard for many of the Eastern Orthodox because they seem to be so bent on the notion that they understand Catholic teachings better than Catholics do, but we know that they do not. Of course, they can keep crying 'heretic' if they want to feel more secure in their own beliefs. I'm just thankful that my beliefs can stand on their own and I don't have to put down everyone else to know the path I'm on is the truth.

1)  It is quite an interesting skill to put down people in another faith tradition ("...if they want to feel more secure in their own beliefs....") while claiming that people shouldn't put down people in other faith traditions; and

2)  That train runs both directions.  On our side, we get a bit tired of being told our differences with Catholics are just a matter of us being childish and nit-picky and not wanting to let go of our petty differences that aren't really doctrinal at all but are really us just having our feelings hurt and we should probably just get over it and submit to Rome.

Apart from those two criticisms, I generally agree with the point you are making.
Logged

Schultz
Christian. Guitarist. Zymurgist. Librarian.
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,461


Scion of the McKeesport Becks.


WWW
« Reply #117 on: June 01, 2011, 03:27:58 PM »

You raise a very important point. People who are not a part of a faith tradition need to stop arrogantly thinking they can interpret the teachings of a given faith from the outside. This is hard for many of the Eastern Orthodox because they seem to be so bent on the notion that they understand Catholic teachings better than Catholics do, but we know that they do not. Of course, they can keep crying 'heretic' if they want to feel more secure in their own beliefs. I'm just thankful that my beliefs can stand on their own and I don't have to put down everyone else to know the path I'm on is the truth.

If you read back through the thread Wyatt, you'll see that I am not talking to people from outside the Catholic tradition exclusively.  In fact, I am speaking to all those who are either Orthodox by birth, from the protestant confessions, and from the Catholic Church.  I was actually addressing the questions and comments raised by Schultz and Maria and ozgeorge and one other regarding a habit of speech that names the Holy Spirit as the Love of the Father and the Son.

My question in the note above is how is it different if the Holy Spirit is called the Love of the Father and the Son, or the Life of the Father and the Son, or the Breath of the Father and the Son.

They are all analogous metaphors for describing relationships....relationships that have been called heresy by ozgeorge at least, with Maria and Schultz providing Catholic support to the assertions.

So why is it heresy when Catholics use this kind of ordinary analogous language, but orthodox if it happens on the eastern side of the fence.
 
That was my real point.

Because, once again, the language used by Catholic theologians time and time again, in my experience and the experience of countless Roman Catholics worldwide who are not on the internet and do not have the time, energy, nor the gumption to "find teachers who unlock the real teaching," explicitly states that the personhood of the Holy Spirit is derived from being a relationship.  

Quote
http://www.cuf.org/faithfacts/details_view.asp?ffID=136
"Finally, the fundamental identity of the Third Person of the Trinity consists in His eternally being the Spirit of Love between the Father and the Son, a Love so real He is Himself a Person."

http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/a/unique2.html
"The love between the Father and the Son is so perfect that it too is another person: the Holy Spirit"

The quotes you provided from from GOARCH and the EOTC do not teach such a thing explicitly and, were one to ask those quoted, they would no doubt explicitly deny such a thing.  

And Wyatt, I've spent more of my life as a Roman Catholic than you have been alive.  I know what the RCC has taught me, my father, my mother, my siblings, my schoolmates, my friends, and my co-workers.  There is nothing arrogant about me telling you what I was explicitly taught for 33 years by scores of nuns, priests, and theologians.  You, Mary, and the other armchair internet theologians can wax poetic on how this was wrong and how I shouldn't take it into account, but, honestly, they have more authority than all of you combined.  I know what I was taught and what is continuing to be taught in RC schools, colleges and parishes. 
Logged

"Hearing a nun's confession is like being stoned to death with popcorn." --Abp. Fulton Sheen
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #118 on: June 01, 2011, 03:41:04 PM »


And Wyatt, I've spent more of my life as a Roman Catholic than you have been alive.  I know what the RCC has taught me, my father, my mother, my siblings, my schoolmates, my friends, and my co-workers.  There is nothing arrogant about me telling you what I was explicitly taught for 33 years by scores of nuns, priests, and theologians.  You, Mary, and the other armchair internet theologians can wax poetic on how this was wrong and how I shouldn't take it into account, but, honestly, they have more authority than all of you combined.  I know what I was taught and what is continuing to be taught in RC schools, colleges and parishes. 

Apparently it is also being taught here but it is not called heresy and I am curious about that...Also I fail to see how the language below is NOT relational.   That it is not fully fleshed out here is clear.   Just as it was not for you and countless others.  All I said to you was that was not enough for me so I looked more deeply.  That is not something for which I should be criticized...do you think?

http://ethiopiantewahedo.com/13.html

Mystery of the Holy Trinity

"In this section the mystery of Unity and Trinity of the Triune God is described.
The Holy Trinity is three in name, in person (Akal), in deed and one in essence, in divinity, in existence, in will.
Three in name: - Father, Son, Holy Spirit

Three in deed:-
a) the Father is the begetter
b) the Son is begotten
c) the Holy Spirit is the one who proceeds

Three in person:-
a) the Father has a perfect person
b) the Son has a perfect person
c) the Holy Spirit has a perfect person

The Father is the heart, the Son is the word, the Holy Spirit is the life (breath)

The Father is the heart for himself, and He is the heart for the Son and for the Holy Spirit.

The Son is the word for Himself, and He is the word for the Father, and for the Holy Spirit.

And the Holy Spirit is the life (breath) for Himself, and He is the life (breath) for the Father and the Son.
Logged

Schultz
Christian. Guitarist. Zymurgist. Librarian.
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,461


Scion of the McKeesport Becks.


WWW
« Reply #119 on: June 01, 2011, 03:46:30 PM »

Nowhere in this exposition of the EOTC is the idea that the relationship (eg "the life") is the cause of the personhood.

I cannot understand how that has not been made clear.
Logged

"Hearing a nun's confession is like being stoned to death with popcorn." --Abp. Fulton Sheen
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,018



« Reply #120 on: June 01, 2011, 03:47:22 PM »

Another angle on analog and allegory.  My question posted below:

http://ethiopiantewahedo.com/13.html
Quote

Mystery of the Holy Trinity

"In this section the mystery of Unity and Trinity of the Triune God is described.
The Holy Trinity is three in name, in person (Akal), in deed and one in essence, in divinity, in existence, in will.
Three in name: - Father, Son, Holy Spirit

Three in deed:-
a) the Father is the begetter
b) the Son is begotten
c) the Holy Spirit is the one who proceeds

Three in person:-
a) the Father has a perfect person
b) the Son has a perfect person
c) the Holy Spirit has a perfect person

The Father is the heart, the Son is the word, the Holy Spirit is the life (breath)

The Father is the heart for himself, and He is the heart for the Son and for the Holy Spirit.

The Son is the word for Himself, and He is the word for the Father, and for the Holy Spirit.

And the Holy Spirit is the life (breath) for Himself, and He is the life (breath) for the Father and the Son.

Should we Catholics, not of the tradition, understand the highlighted text above to mean that without the Holy Spirit there would be no life in the Trinity?  That the Father has no life of his own.  That the Son has no life of his own?
You raise a very important point. People who are not a part of a faith tradition need to stop arrogantly thinking they can interpret the teachings of a given faith from the outside. This is hard for many of the Eastern Orthodox because they seem to be so bent on the notion that they understand Catholic teachings better than Catholics do, but we know that they do not. Of course, they can keep crying 'heretic' if they want to feel more secure in their own beliefs. I'm just thankful that my beliefs can stand on their own and I don't have to put down everyone else to know the path I'm on is the truth.
Could we make the same charge to RCs as well? Let's be honest, no one likes being told what they believe. Wink

I agree.
Logged

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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #121 on: June 01, 2011, 03:52:10 PM »

Nowhere in this exposition of the EOTC is the idea that the relationship (eg "the life") is the cause of the personhood.

I cannot understand how that has not been made clear.

Best I can tell you is that anyone who says verbatim that the Love of the Father and the Son CAUSES the Holy Spirit is wrong.  Simply, plainly and irrevocably wrong.

I would have to see direct quotes to assess them beyond this but the statement as you've presented it, if that is precisely how it has been presented to you, is wrong and not at all the formal teaching of the Catholic Church.

The Catholic Church explicitly teaches that the Father is the only CAUSE of the divinity.

You will see reference to "source" with the Father and the Son...but that does not include the meaning or implication of "cause"...

So just as the Holy Spirit is the source of life for the Father and the Son, so too the Father and the Son are the source of that reciprocity with the Father as anarch or causal source and the Son as mediate source.

M.
Logged

orthonorm
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,343



« Reply #122 on: June 01, 2011, 03:53:06 PM »

I am not sure which iteration of this thread I have responded in, but here is my "pedestrian" take:

I have no reason to doubt EM's position and that it probably is closer to the teaching of the RCC than the slings and arrows of posts here saying otherwise. Why?

Cause I've asked a few RC Priests who are "smart" and one once seminarian who now is an Orthodox inquirer. They agree with EM's characterization as I understand it. It really doesn't seem like that big of a deal to get your head around within the all the ink spilled over attempting to understand the Trinity.

I agree with everyone who says much the RCC, teachers, priests, laity, do not hold EM's position. Why? Because those same people I asked agreed. They hate the fact it is misunderstood. The former RC seminarian said in light of his studies of EO understanding of the Trinity and the RC understanding, there is really not much disagreement and had nothing to do with his decision to begin his inquiry. He gave the whole linguistic ambiguity in Latin apology and thought it was unfortunate that that ambiguity did over time distort the understanding of the Trinity within the RCC, but that it needn't necessarily have done so.

But pretty much de facto the RCs have it wrong, with exceptions, like EM (and maybe others here, sorry I can't keep track).

Then again I wonder how sophisticated "on the ground" Orthodox over the world are in the EO understanding of the Trinity? When the Parish size tripled for Pascha and then two thirds split before the DL that night / morning / whatever, I wonder how many would stand up to such a thorough discussion on the points of Trinitarian theology?
« Last Edit: June 01, 2011, 03:54:52 PM by orthonorm » Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
orthonorm
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,343



« Reply #123 on: June 01, 2011, 03:55:48 PM »

Nowhere in this exposition of the EOTC is the idea that the relationship (eg "the life") is the cause of the personhood.

I cannot understand how that has not been made clear.

Best I can tell you is that anyone who says verbatim that the Love of the Father and the Son CAUSES the Holy Spirit is wrong.  Simply, plainly and irrevocably wrong.

M.

My sampling of "educated" RCs says exactly the same per my post above.
« Last Edit: June 01, 2011, 03:56:16 PM by orthonorm » Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
Schultz
Christian. Guitarist. Zymurgist. Librarian.
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,461


Scion of the McKeesport Becks.


WWW
« Reply #124 on: June 01, 2011, 04:01:35 PM »

But pretty much de facto the RCs have it wrong, with exceptions, like EM (and maybe others here, sorry I can't keep track).


This is exactly what I have been trying to say. 

I apologize for being obtuse about it.
Logged

"Hearing a nun's confession is like being stoned to death with popcorn." --Abp. Fulton Sheen
orthonorm
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,343



« Reply #125 on: June 01, 2011, 04:17:09 PM »

But pretty much de facto the RCs have it wrong, with exceptions, like EM (and maybe others here, sorry I can't keep track).


This is exactly what I have been trying to say. 

I apologize for being obtuse about it.

I don't think you have been obtuse at all. I didn't mean to characterize anyone for being so. In fact, I think you especially have been emphatic about this point.

I was just giving a summary to see if I was following along correctly (actually I know that I have been), but what I wonder what is the upshot? If everyone can agree more or less (I know some EOs think flioque is absolutely wrong) with this summary what is there left to discuss?

How EM can reach the rest of the world? I dunno.
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #126 on: June 01, 2011, 04:24:33 PM »

How EM can reach the rest of the world? I dunno.

That is way above my pay-grade.   laugh

First thing is to find bishops and priests in dioceses who can get over the idea that the average Catholic can't cope or ain't interested. 

I nearly strangled a priest, to whose vocation and ministry I was pretty deeply devoted at the time since he was responsible for shepherding me back to Church, when a woman asked him a question after mass about grace and with a dismissive wave of his hand he said "Oh!  Don't worry about that!!  We don't teach about that any more!"...verbatim from memory....Changed my whole approach to being Catholic that day.  I got down to business after that.

There's the rub.
Logged

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

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,018



« Reply #127 on: June 01, 2011, 04:29:48 PM »

But pretty much de facto the RCs have it wrong, with exceptions, like EM (and maybe others here, sorry I can't keep track).


This is exactly what I have been trying to say. 

I apologize for being obtuse about it.

I think we could say pretty much the same about you guys: i.e. that de facto the Orthodox have it wrong, excepting the occasional EO who accept the filioque, the Immaculate Conception, papal primacy, etc.
Logged

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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #128 on: June 01, 2011, 04:44:37 PM »

But pretty much de facto the RCs have it wrong, with exceptions, like EM (and maybe others here, sorry I can't keep track).


This is exactly what I have been trying to say. 

I apologize for being obtuse about it.

I think we could say pretty much the same about you guys: i.e. that de facto the Orthodox have it wrong, excepting the occasional EO who accept the filioque, the Immaculate Conception, papal primacy, etc.

No...Peter...no...That's not what they meant...Not wholesale but that catechesis in the Catholic Church has failed for many...That was the point.  I think...

Anyway...doesn't everybody get tired of being confrontational.  I thought I had more starch than most but I am plumb washed out...
Logged

ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #129 on: June 01, 2011, 11:53:56 PM »

No...Peter...no...That's not what they meant...Not wholesale but that catechesis in the Catholic Church has failed for many...That was the point.  I think...
I don't think its a failure of catechesis in Catholicism. I think it is the successful catechesis of erroneous doctrine.
So successful in fact, that even you, an Eastern Catholic, attempts to justify this error by stating that there is a difference in magnitude between the relationship of the First and Second Persons of the Trinity as compared to the other relationships:
But that relationship between the Father and the Son is real and it is unique for it is not shared between or among the Persons of the Trinity in anything approaching the same magnitude.
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
orthonorm
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,343



« Reply #130 on: June 01, 2011, 11:57:46 PM »

But pretty much de facto the RCs have it wrong, with exceptions, like EM (and maybe others here, sorry I can't keep track).


This is exactly what I have been trying to say. 

I apologize for being obtuse about it.

I think we could say pretty much the same about you guys: i.e. that de facto the Orthodox have it wrong, excepting the occasional EO who accept the filioque, the Immaculate Conception, papal primacy, etc.

No...Peter...no...That's not what they meant...Not wholesale but that catechesis in the Catholic Church has failed for many...That was the point.  I think...

Anyway...doesn't everybody get tired of being confrontational.  I thought I had more starch than most but I am plumb washed out...

I'm just saying let's all get drink together or something. Maybe a laugh or two. Then get EM an hour daily on EWTN to lecture on the filioque.

We can do it.

Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
Alcuin
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 122


« Reply #131 on: June 02, 2011, 12:04:39 AM »

is the Logos, or reason, of God, one is certainly elevating a mode of relation to Personhood.
How is The Logos "a mode of relation"?
Logos does not mean "reason of God". And even if it did, wouldn't it be an attribute rather than a personified "mode of relation"?
The well known Theologian who introduced us to the Logos wrote:
"In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God and the Logos was God....." (John 1:1)
How is he describing "a mode of relation"? He is actually describing the relationship between the Logos and God (which he certainly does not personify).

The word 'logos' means 'Principle of order and knowledge' in the Greek of the day.

Since God is one simple divine essence, distinguishing marks within Him are only by opposite modes of relation. For example, the Father has a relation to the Son, and He has a relation to the Spirit. However, He does not have opposite relations to these. If He did, the Father would be two persons, whereas He is one person. He has the same mode of relation to the Son as He has to the Spirit: That both the Son and the Spirit are related to Him as being produced by Him.

Three distinguishing marks characterize any act of production: Efficient cause (that which produces), material cause (the matter out of which the product is produced), and formal term (the form it takes upon production).

The Son and the Spirit are not distinguished from one another by material cause, because they have no matter. Nor are they distinguished from one another by formal term, because they have the same form: The Divine Essence. Therefore, they are distinguished by efficient cause. Both are produced by the Father, so in order to be distinguished by efficient cause one of them must be produced by both the Father and another person of the Trinity.

There are three modes of relation within a living being: The sensible principle, by which matter act upon it, The appetitive principle, by which it is drawn towards its natural good, and the rational principle, by which it produces a similitude in the mind of being (this similitude being knowledge).

God has no sensible principle, because matter cannot act on Him.

The opposite mode of relation which distinguishes Father from Son is that of the rational principle: Paternity-Filiation.

This leaves the appetitive principle as the remaining opposite mode of relation to distinguish Spirit from Father and Son. The opposite relations here are Spiration-Procession.

Both knowledge and appetite are rooted in being, and it is therefore correct to say that the Spirit proceeds From the Father.

It is through knowledge that the knower desires what is known, and it is therefore also correct to say that the Spirit proceeds From the Father through the Son.

One must have knowledge of a thing in order to desire it (Bill cannot spirate a desire for Hamburgers, and a desire for Hamburgers cannot proceed from him, if Bill has no conception of what a Hamburger is). For this reason the Spirit cannot be distinguished from the Father and the Son simply, but only from the Father and the Son collectively, and it is therefore also correct to say that the Spirit proceeds From the Father and the Son.

Re Peter J: Aquinas' 'Treatise on the Most Holy Trinity' in the Summa Theologiae: http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/aquinas/summa/index.htm
« Last Edit: June 02, 2011, 12:11:17 AM by Alcuin » Logged
orthonorm
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,343



« Reply #132 on: June 02, 2011, 12:09:55 AM »

is the Logos, or reason, of God, one is certainly elevating a mode of relation to Personhood.
How is The Logos "a mode of relation"?
Logos does not mean "reason of God". And even if it did, wouldn't it be an attribute rather than a personified "mode of relation"?
The well known Theologian who introduced us to the Logos wrote:
"In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God and the Logos was God....." (John 1:1)
How is he describing "a mode of relation"? He is actually describing the relationship between the Logos and God (which he certainly does not personify).

Since God is one simple divine essence, distinguishing marks within Him are only by opposite modes of relation. For example, the Father has a relation to the Son, and He has a relation to the Spirit. However, He does not have opposite relations to these. If He did, the Father would be two persons, whereas He is one person. He has the same mode of relation to the Son as He has to the Spirit: That both the Son and the Spirit are related to Him as being produced by Him.

Three distinguishing marks characterize any act of production: Efficient cause (that which produces), material cause (the matter out of which the product is produced), and formal term (the form it takes upon production).

The Son and the Spirit are not distinguished from one another by material cause, because they have no matter. Nor are they distinguished from one another by formal term, because they have the same form: The Divine Essence. Therefore, they are distinguished by efficient cause. Both are produced by the Father, so in order to be distinguished by efficient cause one of them must be produced by both the Father and another person of the Trinity.

There are three modes of relation within a living being: The sensible principle, by which things act upon it, The appetitive principle, by which it is drawn towards its natural good, and the rational principle, by which it produces a similitude in the mind of being (this similitude being knowledge).

God has no sensible principle, because nothing can act on Him.

The opposite mode of relation which distinguishes Father from Son is that of the rational principle: Paternity-Filiation.

This leaves the appetitive principle as the remaining opposite mode of relation to distinguish Spirit from Father and Son. The opposite relations here are Spiration-Procession.

Both knowledge and appetite are rooted in being, and it is therefore correct to say that the Spirit proceeds From the Father.

It is through knowledge that the knower desires what is known, and it is therefore also correct to say that the Spirit proceeds From the Father through the Son.

One must have knowledge of a thing in order to desire it (Bill cannot spirate a desire for Hamburgers, and a desire for Hamburgers cannot proceed from him, if Bill has no conception of what a Margarita is). For this reason the Spirit cannot be distinguished from the Father and the Son simply, but only from the Father and the Son collectively, and it is therefore also correct to say that the Spirit proceeds From the Father and the Son.

Re Peter J: Aquinas' 'Treatise on the Most Holy Trinity' in the Summa Theologiae: http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/aquinas/summa/index.htm

lulz. Sounds just like the Gospel.

For this alone, St. Thomas Aquinas is a Saint for the miracle of writing this with a straight face.

You do know this is the second time you've quoted this here?
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
Alcuin
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 122


« Reply #133 on: June 02, 2011, 12:30:05 AM »

I wrote that, I didn't quote it. It is, doubtlessly, a woefully inadequate summary of Aquinas' argument.

And the Gospels were written by divine inspiration, so obviously neither what I wrote nor what Aquinas wrote is on par with the gospels. But I'll take the calm and level headed reason of Aquinas as a better tool for understanding them than Catholics and Orthodox needlessly shouting 'heretic!' at one another. There is no necessary contradiction between the two creeds, and Aquinas' parsing of the Trinity demonstrates that beautifully.
« Last Edit: June 02, 2011, 12:31:45 AM by Alcuin » Logged
orthonorm
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,343



« Reply #134 on: June 02, 2011, 01:20:29 AM »

I wrote that, I didn't quote it. It is, doubtlessly, a woefully inadequate summary of Aquinas' argument.

And the Gospels were written by divine inspiration, so obviously neither what I wrote nor what Aquinas wrote is on par with the gospels. But I'll take the calm and level headed reason of Aquinas as a better tool for understanding them than Catholics and Orthodox needlessly shouting 'heretic!' at one another. There is no necessary contradiction between the two creeds, and Aquinas' parsing of the Trinity demonstrates that beautifully.

Bolded: ppl rly do run low on irony around here.
Italicized: Don't worry, it was already woefully inadequate in its original.
Underline: Agreed.
Magenta?: Doesn't demonstrate anything really and if that is your idea of beauty, then the dating world is your oyster.



Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
Tags: filioque 
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 »  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 0.226 seconds with 72 queries.