Topic: The Holy Spirit - the love between the Father and the Son?

[Raouf]

Friends,

I was recently listening to a series of talks by the RC Apologist and writer, Dr. Scott Hahn (who is excellent IMO).  In these talks, he repeatedly and forcefully conveyed the cocept of the Holy Trinity in this way (my paraphrase):

"The Father eternally begets and fathers the Son.  He pours our His life and love on the Son. The Son eternally returns that love back to the Father. This love between the Father and the Son IS the Holy Spirit."

While I have heard of this concept before within RCism, I am curious if this idea is in any way Patristic? Have any of the early universal Fathers described the Trinity in this way? Or is this perhaps the development of later (medeival) writers/fathers of the West?

Thanks!

In Christ,
Raouf

[GiC]

I believe the idea was first advanced by St. Augustine; though I would say it is heretical on two accounts, first it relegates the Holy Spirit from a Divine Person to an impersonal force, Second it establishes both the Father and the Son as causes of existance, which is essentially ditheism (the problem with the filioque).

[Silouan]

I do remember reading this in something that St. Augustine wrote, most likely De Civitate Dei or perhaps the last part of the Confessions.  I think this clearly illustrates the problem with approaching patristics that many RCs have taken.  Since St. Augustine said it, it must be the Truth.  Whereas the Orthodox can still regard St. Augustine as a father but look past it when he writes something that is outside of the conssensus of the fathers. 

[orth_christian2000]

greekischristian,

Kudos buddy.  Excellently put.  I absolutely agree.

[Kosmas]

http://home.earthlink.net/~zoemark/icon.htm

[Michael]

What greekischristian said so well.

It reduces the Third Person of the Holy Trinity from that position top a mere unifying force, and is born out of the skewed view of the hypostases of the Persons that is the result of the Filioque.

Incidentally, isn't Augustine Blessed Augustine?  My parish priestr tells me that it is the Latin church that recognises him as a Saint, and not the Orthodox.  Is that right?

[minasoliman]

Fr. Seraphim Rose believes otherwise.  You should read his book on St. Augustine.

God bless.

[Αριστοκλής]

Incidentally, isn't Augustine Blessed Augustine?  My parish priestr tells me that it is the Latin church that recognises him as a Saint, and not the Orthodox.  Is that right?

No.
Blessed Augustine, bishop of Hippo, IS a saint in the Orthodox Church.

[EkhristosAnesti]

first it relegates the Holy Spirit from a Divine Person to an impersonal force

I believe that in following St Augustine, Thomas Aquinas in fact sought to prove the personhood of the Holy Spirit through his identifying Him with Love using an argument similar to that employed to prove the personhood of The Son through his identifying Him with The Word.

Peace.

[JoeS]

What greekischristian said so well.

It reduces the Third Person of the Holy Trinity from that position top a mere unifying force, and is born out of the skewed view of the hypostases of the Persons that is the result of the Filioque.

Incidentally, isn't Augustine Blessed Augustine?ÂÂ  My parish priestr tells me that it is the Latin church that recognises him as a Saint, and not the Orthodox.ÂÂ  Is that right?

To me it relegates the Holy Spirity as a "non person" but the result of the love between the Father and Son. Its almost as if the Spirit only exists in the love between the Father and Son and nowhere else.  I dont subscrige to St. Augustines theology here. Each person of the Blessed Trinity is a distinct  & unique person of themselves in one Godhead as I understand it.

JoeS 

[Kosmas]

You should read what St Photius says about not accepting St Augustan as a Saint. Although his writings contain a few deviations from the truth. St Photius says these could have been introduced by the Franks, but nevertheless, under the circumstances he was in we should overlook these as even Saints are prone to make some mistakes. We belive in the concensus of the fathers not the opinion of just one of them. You are Anathema if you don't accept St Augustan as a Saint. The Catholics use beatitude and blessed, we only use "Saint". A Saint is a Saint no matter what we think they should be called. St Justin Martyr, one of our greatest Saints in the Early Church seems to subordinated the Son. Do we call him something else because he was not correct in his Trinitarian theology? All the Early Saints of our Church tried to understand Christ our God and to explain Him in their limited understanding, this does not mean they are no longer Saints because they made some mistakes. Only if they were corrected by the Church and they then refused could we ever be justified in calling them heretics or not Saints.

[jmbejdl]

The Catholics use beatitude and blessed, we only use "Saint". A Saint is a Saint no matter what we think they should be called.

This isn't strictly true, though you probably mean what I'm about to write. Blessed Augustine is certainly an Orthodox saint, but he is also known, usually, as Bl. rather than St. Augustine. The difference between us and the RCs is that the title 'Blessed' for us is just another title for a saint and doesn't imply that he is in any way lesser. For RCs it implies that the person referred to has been beatified and not canonised. We make no such distinction. A saint is a saint regardless of the title used.

James