Topic: Roman Catholic & OO Differences

[Mercurius1]

What are the doctrines in Roman Catholicism that are incompatible with OO theology?


I'm aware of the minute differences between EO & OO, but, are the same differences between EO/RCC the same as OO/RCC.


The OO seem to have close relations with the RCC, does this imply they are willing to go into communion with them? 

[WPM]

I think RC is more clerical and diocese oriented than grassroots Orthodoxy.

[Father Peter]

There are differences, more significant than between the EO and OO, but not insurmountable if the RC returns to its own Orthodox heritage. The main issues from my perspective are the papal claims and the official support for the Charismatic movement.

But also with varying degrees of problematic-ness, and often symptoms of just one or two root issues...

Immaculate Conception
Original Sin
Communion in one kind
Wafers
Baptism by Affusion
Augustinianism generally
Filioque
Clerical celibacy
Late Chrismation
Fasting
Purgatory
Indulgences

[Mercurius1]

There are differences, more significant than between the EO and OO, but not insurmountable if the RC returns to its own Orthodox heritage. The main issues from my perspective are the papal claims and the official support for the Charismatic movement.

But also with varying degrees of problematic-ness, and often symptoms of just one or two root issues...

Immaculate Conception
Original Sin
Communion in one kind
Wafers
Baptism by Affusion
Augustinianism generally
Filioque
Clerical celibacy
Late Chrismation
Fasting
Purgatory
Indulgences

As a former RC myself, what do you think the odds are that the RCC would back off from the claims? Also, do the OO’s commune Catholics?

[Father Peter]

Syrians and Armenians tend to commune Roman Catholics more easily than others.

I think that it is possible to just ignore the Papal claims. I think this is what the Church did in the past. I think they tend to make every bishop a suffragan of the Pope. This was a development seen for a while recently in the Syrian and Coptic Orthodox Churches with the introduction of large numbers of Papal Vicars and General Bishops.

Many of the theological issues are being revisited in a positive way. But the central support for the Charismatic Movement is problematic. It is essentially Protestant, not traditional at all, and subverts the Church. Dealing with such a movement is one thing, but supporting it is another.

I don't feel the need to have a hugely negative view towards the Roman Catholic Church. I have known lots of really good Bishops and Archbishops. But I can be a critical friend. Eastern Catholicism has tended to preserve those aspects of Orthodoxy which have become rather hidden in Roman Catholicism. And many of the problems are late and so do not reflect older Western Orthodox-Catholicism.

For instance, until the Protestant Revolution in the British Isles almost every infant would have been baptised by a triple immersion.

[Iconodule]

Wafers

But Armenians use wafers...

[Father Peter]

No they don't. They use a flat bread, not a paste dried into a wafer.

[Iconodule]

No they don't. They use a flat bread, not a paste dried into a wafer.

"Dried paste" is not what define a wafer. A wafer is a flat piece of unleavened bread.

What is your objection to Catholic wafers as opposed to Armenian nshkar?

[Mercurius1]

No they don't. They use a flat bread, not a paste dried into a wafer.

Do Armenians take communion by intinction or is the body and blood separate?

[Father Peter]

In my experience the Body is placed in the chalice with the Blood.

[Father Peter]

A wafer is a hard biscuit, the Armenian bread for communion is not hard and biscuit like in my experience. Your definition is not one I have to accept and I don't. If someone gave me a pitta bread type loaf I would not call it a wafer, but all of the wafers in my cupboard for cheese etc have the common feature of being hard biscuits.

What is wrong with a Western wafer, though not absolutely, is that it has lost the connection to bread.

[Iconodule]

A wafer is a hard biscuit, the Armenian bread for communion is not hard and biscuit like in my experience. Your definition is not one I have to accept and I don't. If someone gave me a pitta bread type loaf I would not call it a wafer, but all of the wafers in my cupboard for cheese etc have the common feature of being hard biscuits.

What is wrong with a Western wafer, though not absolutely, is that it has lost the connection to bread.

So, to be clear, your objection to (some?) Western wafers is that... they aren't soft enough?

[PorphyriosK]

Augustinianism generally

A thread on the topic of Augustinianism would be very interesting if anyone has the inclination and some background knowledge.

[Father Peter]

If you don't want to discuss then that is fine, but this is an interesting topic that deserves not to be sidelined.

[Xavier]

For just the first two: Immaculate Conception and Original Sin. I don't think the difference is that great.

Father, what is your opinion on the Panachranta Icon? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panachranta_(icon) I've read there was a feast of the Conception of the"All Holy and Most Pure Mother of God" in Syria perhaps from the 5th century onward. Of course, it is said this does not refer to the holiness of Her Conception, but only Her holiness.
 
From https://wikivisually.com/wiki/Panachranta_%28icon%29 "A feast of the Conception of the Most Holy and All Pure Mother of God was celebrated in Syria on 8 December perhaps as early as the 5th century, note that the title of achrantos refers to the holiness of Mary, not specifically to the holiness of her conception." Do you know more about that, Father?

Original sin, for the Catholic Church, was defined in the council of Carthage in 418. "For no otherwise can be understood what the Apostle says, “By one man sin is come into the world, and death through sin, and so death passed upon all men in that all have sinned,” than the Catholic Church everywhere diffused has always understood it. For on account of this rule of faith even infants, who could have committed as yet no sin themselves, therefore are truly baptized for the remission of sins, in order that what in them is the result of generation may be cleansed by regeneration." https://earlychurchtexts.com/public/carthage_canons_on_sin_and_grace.htm And unless I'm recalling incorrectly, I think the Council of Ephesus in 431 approved of the canons of this regional council in Africa.

Your thoughts, Father Peter?

[Father Peter]

I don't think that really describes the doctrine of Original Sin at all as developed by Augustine and as it became prevalent everywhere in the West, leading to the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception.

Original Sin states that all are born sinful, and therefore liable to punishments, so that an unbaptised infant MUST go to Hell. The East has never accepted this and teaches that we are born mortal and corruptible but not sinful. It was necessary to introduce the Immaculate Conception to provide a means for Christ to be human and not sinful, but this was always a problem which the East never needed to deal with since the basic premise is considered false.

[dzheremi]

Can I write personally on something that I think is connected to Augustinianism (depending on what exactly that means; I'm not sure), and hence several of the things that Fr. Peter has brought up that are problematic to us?

I am a former Roman Catholic who is now Orthodox, and one thing that I have noticed that I think is connected to several of these things is that the RCC among all historic churches seems to have run with St. Augustine's personal speculation that the Holy Spirit is "the bond of love between the Father and the Son" (see here for the common understanding of that, and some problems with it as expressed by a man in some kind of ecumenical missionary organization). I'm certainly no expert, but my experience from having lived within that communion for years is that this kind of thinking, where the Spirit is thus more identified with emotion or feelings in relation to the other Persons of the Holy Trinity, results in a kind of depersonalization of the Holy Spirit -- not a denial of Him, as such, but certainly something that in the popular understanding is far from affirming that He is the Lord, the Giver of Life. God, not a feeling in the context of a relational 'bond'.

I believe that this kind of inadvertent demotion is behind the RC acceptance and promotion of the Charismatic movement, as we all know that Charismatics go to the other end of the spectrum entirely, not discerning the supposed 'gifts' they are given so as to see whether or not they are actually from the Spirit and in line with the historic norms of the Church. It seems as though the RCC recognizes that its Latin spirituality is very dry in some ways, doesn't really know why and/or isn't willing to reevaluate its own theological inventions in this area with regard to its reading of St. Augustine, and hence feels obliged at some level within the leadership to accept heterodox, un-Catholic innovations like the Charismatic movement as a means to get people engaged in the faith again.

I have never seen any Catholic at any level in their Church make this connection, so maybe it's off-target, or maybe it would be worthy of exploration but is simply not considered in any fashion, due to the great change it would cause to what the RCC itself takes to be Catholicism itself if it were found to be erroneous and hence worthy of change or removal. From what I remember it was an established way of talking about the Holy Spirit at least by the time of Thomas Aquinas (if I recall correctly, something very similar to it is found in his Summa Theologica), and to many in the RCC, that means it is Catholicism, period, end of story. It just seems weird to me that RCs should want to defend a later tradition based on speculation that is not accepted literally anywhere else (i.e., not by any Christian tradition not formed within the Western Catholic fold) rather than critically reevaluate the route they have taken, theologically, that has put them out of step with the rest of the Christian world.

Anyway, sorry if this is off topic (I don't think it is, but it depends on what falls under the banner of "Augustinianism"), it's just something that has always bothered me in RC theology that I've never seen anyone else talk about (within the RCC, I mean; obviously the man at the link given earlier talks about it, so I'm not the only one who see this), and I couldn't really get anyone to address it while I was slowly fading away from the RCC 10-11 years ago, either. I think it is a substantial difference that makes a big impact in the comparison of OO to RC, since it affects a lot of other things. Unless of course I am wrong and it doesn't. (I have no way of knowing when I can't get feedback.) I just know what we affirm in the Creed concerning the Holy Spirit, and hence what we believe, and "the Holy Spirit is the bond of love between the Father and the Son" isn't in there.

[WPM]

No they don't. They use a flat bread, not a paste dried into a wafer.

Do Armenians take communion by intinction or is the body and blood separate?

If you properly prepared for co  mm Union by fasting and prayer

[WPM]

Augustinianism generally

A thread on the topic of Augustinianism would be very interesting if anyone has the inclination and some background knowledge.

Augustine wrote a lot of doctrine appondering upon scriptural background.

[Justin Kolodziej]

A wafer is a hard biscuit, the Armenian bread for communion is not hard and biscuit like in my experience. Your definition is not one I have to accept and I don't. If someone gave me a pitta bread type loaf I would not call it a wafer, but all of the wafers in my cupboard for cheese etc have the common feature of being hard biscuits.

What is wrong with a Western wafer, though not absolutely, is that it has lost the connection to bread.

Of course, change it to something still unleavened, but homemade and bread-like (the Diocese of Gary has a recommended recipe in fact) and Roman Catholic traditionalists will complain. There's no pleasing everyone! 

[PorphyriosK]

Can I write personally on something that I think is connected to Augustinianism (depending on what exactly that means; I'm not sure), and hence several of the things that Fr. Peter has brought up that are problematic to us?

I am a former Roman Catholic who is now Orthodox, and one thing that I have noticed that I think is connected to several of these things is that the RCC among all historic churches seems to have run with St. Augustine's personal speculation that the Holy Spirit is "the bond of love between the Father and the Son" (see here for the common understanding of that, and some problems with it as expressed by a man in some kind of ecumenical missionary organization). I'm certainly no expert, but my experience from having lived within that communion for years is that this kind of thinking, where the Spirit is thus more identified with emotion or feelings in relation to the other Persons of the Holy Trinity, results in a kind of depersonalization of the Holy Spirit -- not a denial of Him, as such, but certainly something that in the popular understanding is far from affirming that He is the Lord, the Giver of Life. God, not a feeling in the context of a relational 'bond'.

I believe that this kind of inadvertent demotion is behind the RC acceptance and promotion of the Charismatic movement, as we all know that Charismatics go to the other end of the spectrum entirely, not discerning the supposed 'gifts' they are given so as to see whether or not they are actually from the Spirit and in line with the historic norms of the Church. It seems as though the RCC recognizes that its Latin spirituality is very dry in some ways, doesn't really know why and/or isn't willing to reevaluate its own theological inventions in this area with regard to its reading of St. Augustine, and hence feels obliged at some level within the leadership to accept heterodox, un-Catholic innovations like the Charismatic movement as a means to get people engaged in the faith again.

I have never seen any Catholic at any level in their Church make this connection, so maybe it's off-target, or maybe it would be worthy of exploration but is simply not considered in any fashion, due to the great change it would cause to what the RCC itself takes to be Catholicism itself if it were found to be erroneous and hence worthy of change or removal. From what I remember it was an established way of talking about the Holy Spirit at least by the time of Thomas Aquinas (if I recall correctly, something very similar to it is found in his Summa Theologica), and to many in the RCC, that means it is Catholicism, period, end of story. It just seems weird to me that RCs should want to defend a later tradition based on speculation that is not accepted literally anywhere else (i.e., not by any Christian tradition not formed within the Western Catholic fold) rather than critically reevaluate the route they have taken, theologically, that has put them out of step with the rest of the Christian world.

Anyway, sorry if this is off topic (I don't think it is, but it depends on what falls under the banner of "Augustinianism"), it's just something that has always bothered me in RC theology that I've never seen anyone else talk about (within the RCC, I mean; obviously the man at the link given earlier talks about it, so I'm not the only one who see this), and I couldn't really get anyone to address it while I was slowly fading away from the RCC 10-11 years ago, either. I think it is a substantial difference that makes a big impact in the comparison of OO to RC, since it affects a lot of other things. Unless of course I am wrong and it doesn't. (I have no way of knowing when I can't get feedback.) I just know what we affirm in the Creed concerning the Holy Spirit, and hence what we believe, and "the Holy Spirit is the bond of love between the Father and the Son" isn't in there.

I've heard others make this connection with the Charismatic movement and I believe there could be something to it. 

This is just me rehashing what I've read from Orthodox authors on this, but the idea of the Spirit as the "bond" or Love in the Holy Trinity would seem to undermine His Personhood, and basically mistake the Holy Spirit for the "Essence" of God.  The bond of love between the Persons in the Trinity would be closer to something like God's Essence (?).  In other words, reducing a Divine Person of the Trinity into an impersonal attribute of God (Love) would cause confusion and imbalance within the Trinity.  I believe that's what I got from my reading.  Someone correct me if I'm off base.

Edit: I forgot to add the other thing I read (I believe from Fr. Dimutru Staniloae), is that the West's tendency to want to philosophize about the Trinity lead to two false paths: scholasticism on the one hand, and on the other sentimentalism, which is a big part of Charismatic spirituality.

[PorphyriosK]

I feel like parts of what I wrote above could be mistaken, and if so please disregard.  I told myself before that this topic (the Trinity) is out of my league and I wasn't going to comment any more, so I shouldn't have said anything.  I just thought dzheremi made a good and interesting post.  If I did say anything heretical in my response forgive me.

[Sethrak]

Very good Father ```

[Xavier]

I don't think that really describes the doctrine of Original Sin at all as developed by Augustine and as it became prevalent everywhere in the West, leading to the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception.

Thanks, Father, for your response. What in your opinion is the definition of original sin? The CCC and the 1911 CE defines it as the privation of sanctifying grace:"CCC 405 Although it is proper to each individual,295 original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam's descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it, subject to ignorance, suffering and the dominion of death, and inclined to sin - an inclination to evil that is called concupiscence". Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ's grace, erases original sin and turns a man back towards God, but the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man and summon him to spiritual battle." and CE:"Original sin is the privation of sanctifying grace in consequence of the sin of Adam." Catholics understand that canon thus: in natural birth, we are born deprived of original grace (which our first parents Adam and Eve enjoyed before the fall, and which they were granted as a gratuitous gift both for themselves and their descendants).

In the supernatural rebirth of Baptismal regeneration, all infants have their soul filled with grace again and restored to this original state of Adam and Eve. Does not Scripture tell us both Jesus and Mary were "full of grace" (Luke 1:28, Jn 1:14)? Otherwise, what change happens to infants when they are Baptized? Scripture suggests they are filled with the Holy Spirit and His Grace when they are baptized - and before Baptism, they were not infilled with the Holy Spirit. Would you disagree, Father? Thus, by natural generation they do not have the Holy Spirit, but by supernatural regeneration they receive Him.

1. Mother Mary, as New Eve, we hold was born in the baptized state, indwelt by the Holy Spirit, as the first fruits of the New Creation (as many Eastern Fathers say), and as the holiness of the First Eve made anew. Thus, among several other Eastern authorities, we have Bishop St. Amphilocius of Iconium, who points out the Mary-Eve comparison, ""He who formed the first Virgin without deformity, also made the second one without spot or sin." http://catholicpatristics.blogspot.com/2009/03/immaculate-conception.html

The Canon of Carthage, which likely has Ecumenical weight because of its acceptance at Ephesus, appeals to two authorities (1) Sacred Scripture, "no otherwise can be understood what the Apostle says, “By one man sin is come into the world, and death through sin, and so death passed upon all men in that all have sinned,” (Rom 5:12) than the Catholic Church everywhere diffused has always understood it" and the Church's constant understanding of it even up till then. Later on, the Council of Orange explains further that this refers not only to the death of the body, but also the loss of the life of grace in the soul, which is what is called original sin - loss of sanctifying grace; and (2) Sacred Tradition, i.e. the Creed itself that says "Baptism for the remission of sins". But what sin can be remitted in infants, since they have no personal sin and are yet Baptized? Only original sin, which is called "sin" in so far as it is the absence of grace in every newborn child before Baptism. Original sin is not a personal fault, St. Thomas says; it is a collective inheritance of nature.

2. As there is Baptism of Desire and of Blood, many Catholic Theologians are of the opinion that a child can be baptized in Spirit by the desire and contrition of their parents. When it is said of St. John the Baptist, "he will be filled with the Holy Spirit even before he is born" (Luke 1:15), the Angel indicates firstly that children usually don't have the Holy Spirit at birth; secondly, that God can, by extraordinary means, internally sanctify the child by His Spirit before the action of the Church; thirdly, when we see how this was fulfilled some 26 verses later, we find it written, "41 When Elizabeth heard Mary’s greeting, the baby leaped in her womb, and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit". If it wasn't St. Elizabeth's act of faith in Jesus and love for the Blessed Mother that played some role in sanctifying her own child, then it was the Blessing of Mary and the Presence of Jesus that did it; at any rate, God and His Mother can give the Baptismal grace to children through some extraordinary means, as They here did to St. John the Baptist.

Thus, the Church hastens to Baptize every child; but if She is prevented from doing so, then with loving confidence, She entrusts them in prayer to the Mercy of God, believing and hoping that "In the same way your Father in heaven is not willing that any of these little ones should perish." (Mat 18:14). Hope that answers the objections.

CCC 404 says " ... we do know by Revelation that Adam had received original holiness and justice not for himself alone, but for all human nature. By yielding to the tempter, Adam and Eve committed a personal sin, but this sin affected the human nature that they would then transmit in a fallen state.294 It is a sin which will be transmitted by propagation to all mankind, that is, by the transmission of a human nature deprived of original holiness and justice. And that is why original sin is called "sin" only in an analogical sense: it is a sin "contracted" and not "committed" - a state and not an act." Original sin in the Catholic understanding refers to the state of human nature deprived of original grace. Is that compatible with an Orthodox understanding, Father?

[Xavier]

Can I write personally on something that I think is connected to Augustinianism (depending on what exactly that means; I'm not sure), and hence several of the things that Fr. Peter has brought up that are problematic to us?

I am a former Roman Catholic who is now Orthodox, and one thing that I have noticed that I think is connected to several of these things is that the RCC among all historic churches seems to have run with St. Augustine's personal speculation that the Holy Spirit is "the bond of love between the Father and the Son" (see here for the common understanding of that, and some problems with it as expressed by a man in some kind of ecumenical missionary organization). I'm certainly no expert, but my experience from having lived within that communion for years is that this kind of thinking, where the Spirit is thus more identified with emotion or feelings in relation to the other Persons of the Holy Trinity, results in a kind of depersonalization of the Holy Spirit -- not a denial of Him, as such, but certainly something that in the popular understanding is far from affirming that He is the Lord, the Giver of Life. God, not a feeling in the context of a relational 'bond'.

I believe that this kind of inadvertent demotion is behind the RC acceptance and promotion of the Charismatic movement, as we all know that Charismatics go to the other end of the spectrum entirely, not discerning the supposed 'gifts' they are given so as to see whether or not they are actually from the Spirit and in line with the historic norms of the Church. It seems as though the RCC recognizes that its Latin spirituality is very dry in some ways, doesn't really know why and/or isn't willing to reevaluate its own theological inventions in this area with regard to its reading of St. Augustine, and hence feels obliged at some level within the leadership to accept heterodox, un-Catholic innovations like the Charismatic movement as a means to get people engaged in the faith again.

I have never seen any Catholic at any level in their Church make this connection, so maybe it's off-target, or maybe it would be worthy of exploration but is simply not considered in any fashion, due to the great change it would cause to what the RCC itself takes to be Catholicism itself if it were found to be erroneous and hence worthy of change or removal. From what I remember it was an established way of talking about the Holy Spirit at least by the time of Thomas Aquinas (if I recall correctly, something very similar to it is found in his Summa Theologica), and to many in the RCC, that means it is Catholicism, period, end of story. It just seems weird to me that RCs should want to defend a later tradition based on speculation that is not accepted literally anywhere else (i.e., not by any Christian tradition not formed within the Western Catholic fold) rather than critically reevaluate the route they have taken, theologically, that has put them out of step with the rest of the Christian world.

Anyway, sorry if this is off topic (I don't think it is, but it depends on what falls under the banner of "Augustinianism"), it's just something that has always bothered me in RC theology that I've never seen anyone else talk about (within the RCC, I mean; obviously the man at the link given earlier talks about it, so I'm not the only one who see this), and I couldn't really get anyone to address it while I was slowly fading away from the RCC 10-11 years ago, either. I think it is a substantial difference that makes a big impact in the comparison of OO to RC, since it affects a lot of other things. Unless of course I am wrong and it doesn't. (I have no way of knowing when I can't get feedback.) I just know what we affirm in the Creed concerning the Holy Spirit, and hence what we believe, and "the Holy Spirit is the bond of love between the Father and the Son" isn't in there.

Well, St. Gregory Palamas is one Eastern authority who repeats the same idea. St. John also says, "God is Love".

"This doctrine of the Holy Spirit as love has been harmoniously assumed by St Gregory Palamas into the Greek theology of the ekporeusiV from the Father alone: "The Spirit of the most high Word is like an ineffable Love of the Father for this Word ineffably generated. A love which this same Word and beloved Son of the Father entertains (crhtai) towards the Father: but insofar as he has the Spirit coming with him (sunproelqonta) from the Father and reposing connaturally in him" (Capita physica XXXVI, PG 150, 1144 D-1145 A)." https://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/PCCUFILQ.HTM

Scripture similarly calls Jesus as the Word, or Logos, of the Father. In Jn 17:24-26, Jesus suggests the Holy Spirit is eternally in the Love of the Father and the Son as the Third Person of the Trinity, Abp. Palamas explains it nicely, the Holy Spirit is "like an ineffable Love of the Father for this Word [i.e. Jesus] ineffably generated".

[Father Peter]

The CCC helps us understand where the Roman Catholic official position is at present - and I mean that as a good thing, but it is not intended to show what the Roman Catholic view has been, and still is in a popular sense.

Augustine, and plenty of Roman Catholic theologians taught that Original Sin was such that an unbaptised infant MUST go to Hell because guilty of the sin of Adam. That was never the Eastern Orthodox view. If I have time I'll find some references outside of the CCC.

[Gebre Menfes Kidus]

***subscribed***

[dzheremi]

Well, St. Gregory Palamas is one Eastern authority who repeats the same idea.

Okay. I'm Oriental Orthodox, and Gregory Palamas is an Eastern Orthodox saint from the 14th century, so I'm not sure why his writings are supposed to be taken as an authority. They could say anything. I haven't read them.

St. John also says, "God is Love".

If St. Augustine's idea was what was what was meant, e.g., in 1 John 4, then what would that say about the other two Persons of the Holy Trinity? Are they unlike the Third, i.e., 'not-love'? Because St. Augustine singles out specifically the Third Person as being this bond of love between the other two; he does not say they all bear this relation to each other equally (i.e., the Son is not the "bond of love" between the Holy Spirit and the Father), even though I'm pretty sure the verse applies to God period, not just this or that Person of the Godhead.

"This doctrine of the Holy Spirit as love has been harmoniously assumed by St Gregory Palamas into the Greek theology of the ekporeusiV from the Father alone: "The Spirit of the most high Word is like an ineffable Love of the Father for this Word ineffably generated. A love which this same Word and beloved Son of the Father entertains (crhtai) towards the Father: but insofar as he has the Spirit coming with him (sunproelqonta) from the Father and reposing connaturally in him" (Capita physica XXXVI, PG 150, 1144 D-1145 A)." https://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/PCCUFILQ.HTM

Again, this doesn't really mean anything to me. Another church's saints are its to interpret as they see fit.

Scripture similarly calls Jesus as the Word, or Logos, of the Father. In Jn 17:24-26, Jesus suggests the Holy Spirit is eternally in the Love of the Father and the Son as the Third Person of the Trinity, Abp. Palamas explains it nicely, the Holy Spirit is "like an ineffable Love of the Father for this Word [i.e. Jesus] ineffably generated".

John 17 says that if you are predisposed to view any time when Jesus talks about the love that His Father has for Him in the light of St. Augustine's idea, which you already affirm. But that's not me, and I must again point out that if this is meant to be understood with St. Augustine's peculiar idea in mind, then we have a problem, because in 17:26, Jesus prays "And I have declared to them Your name, and will declare it, that the love with which You loved Me may be in them, and I in them.” If the Holy Spirit, as a Person of the Holy Trinity, is the bond of love between the Father and the Son (i.e., if that is His essence), then is Jesus saying here that we are to make up the third Person of the Holy Trinity, as we are to share in the love manifested between the Father and Son? Not to get too far afield, but I would think this a perversion of Theosis, which has been explained to me in Orthodox sources as union with God, but not fusion with Him, crucially by participation with His energies (the way He acts in the world), not His essence (Who He is, in Himself). If St. Augustine's idea is to be applied here, it would seem to confuse the two.

(Also I would note that the quote you've given from Palamas says that it is "like an ineffable love...", whereas the quote I've most often read from St. Augustine on this idea says that it is this, not just that it's like this. That's a pretty big difference in this context.)

But anyway...I mainly wanted to draw out one area of Augustinian thinking that I believe is connected to the RC sponsorship of Charismatic spirituality, not start a whole argument on St. Augustine, since he is after all also a saint for us. We just didn't take this particular idea as far as you guys seem to have taken it.

[Father Peter]

As far as I can see Augustine of Hippo was never an OO saint, and he persecuted St John Cassian who took the Desert Spirituality to the West.

It seems to me that he has just been added to the Synaxarium in the last few years. I can't recall any of the OO Fathers who cite him as an authority.

[WPM]

I also like the theology of the Desert Fathers.

[dzheremi]

As far as I can see Augustine of Hippo was never an OO saint, and he persecuted St John Cassian who took the Desert Spirituality to the West.

It seems to me that he has just been added to the Synaxarium in the last few years. I can't recall any of the OO Fathers who cite him as an authority.

Are you sure about that, Father? I had assumed he was because he is specifically mentioned by HG Bishop Youssef as a saint we recognize who is not in the Synaxarium on the Southern United States Diocese's Q&A page here.

[Father Peter]

There are quite a lot of things that are "open to discussion" on that website I guess.

I am pretty much certain that Augustine of Hippo was never considered a saint in the Coptic Orthodox Church and his writings were not relied upon until very modern times when he has been known through his Autobiography rather than through his problematic theology, although that has also been adopted by some in the past decades.

[Father Peter]

The writings of St Isaac the Syrian, for instance, were copied in the monasteries. But I have not seen any evidence that the writings of Augustine ever were.

And even those supportive of Augustine of Hippo in the EO seem to have to rely on a very few references to him over the course of 1000 years, just 2 or 3 really and not from OO fathers at all.

[dzheremi]

I see. Thank you, Father Peter, for this information. I'm not entirely sure what to do with it, but I will at least stop referring to Augustine of Hippo as St. Augustine online until I can get further clarification on what I should do.

[Father Peter]

I'm not an absolutist but so many of the things he taught were problematic

[Xavier]

St. Paul says, "and the hope shall not be ashamed, because the love of God is poured out in our hearts by the Holy Spirit which is given unto us." (Rom 5:5)

And here is the passage in St. Augustine you are talking about, which itself should clear up some of the questions: "I know not why both the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit should not be called Love, and all together one love, just as both the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit is called Wisdom, and all together not three, but one wisdom. For so also both the Father is God, and the Son God, and the Holy Ghost God, and all three together one God. 29. And yet it is not to no purpose that in this Trinity the Son and none other is called the Word of God, and the Holy Spirit and none other the Gift of God, and God the Father alone is He from whom the Word is born, and from whom the Holy Spirit principally proceeds. And therefore I have added the word principally, because we find that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son also. But the Father gave Him this too, not as to one already existing, and not yet having it; but whatever He gave to the only-begotten Word, He gave by begetting Him. Therefore He so begot Him as that the common Gift should proceed from Him also, and the Holy Spirit should be the Spirit of both. This distinction, then, of the inseparable Trinity is not to be merely accepted in passing, but to be carefully considered; for hence it was that the Word of God was specially called also the Wisdom of God, although both Father and Holy Spirit are wisdom. If, then, any one of the three is to be specially called Love, what more fitting than that it should be the Holy Spirit?— namely, that in that simple and highest nature, substance should not be one thing and love another, but that substance itself should be love, and love itself should be substance, whether in the Father, or in the Son, or in the Holy Spirit; and yet that the Holy Spirit should be specially called Love." (On the Trinity, Book 15, Chapter 17,— How the Holy Spirit is Called Love, and Whether He Alone is So Called. That the Holy Spirit is in the Scriptures Properly Called by the Name of Love. http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/130115.htm)

John 17 says that if you are predisposed to view any time when Jesus talks about the love that His Father has for Him in the light of St. Augustine's idea, which you already affirm. But that's not me, and I must again point out that if this is meant to be understood with St. Augustine's peculiar idea in mind, then we have a problem, because in 17:26, Jesus prays "And I have declared to them Your name, and will declare it, that the love with which You loved Me may be in them, and I in them.”

Who in your understanding is "the Love with which you loved Me"? Jesus speaks of Love as a Person and says this Person will be in the Apostles along with Him. Thus, it is quite consistent exegesis to understand this of the Holy Spirit (in a special way, just as the Son is called Word and Wisdom in a special way in the Scriptures, though both Father and Holy Spirit are also Wisdom) especially in light of "the love of God is poured out in our hearts by the Holy Spirit which is given unto us" (Rom 5:5, cited above). Jesus asked that the Holy Spirit would be granted to us His disciples and the Father heard His prayer and gave us the Spirit of adoption, "Because you are his sons, God sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, the Spirit who calls out, "Abba, Father." (Gal 4:6)

If the Holy Spirit, as a Person of the Holy Trinity, is the bond of love between the Father and the Son (i.e., if that is His essence), then is Jesus saying here that we are to make up the third Person of the Holy Trinity, as we are to share in the love manifested between the Father and Son

Not at all. As Jesus was the eternally beloved Son of the Father by nature, we become in time the sons of God through the grace of the Spirit given to us. The One Who unites the Father and the Son in eternal Love now unites God with each individual son or daughter through grace. We distinguish how God is in Himself, and how He communicates Himself to us. The word "energies" in the East is usually translated as "operations" in the West, or sometimes simply grace. God acts on us by His operations and divinizes us by His grace. Kindly see this dictionary as evidence the same concept, in slightly different terminology, is present in the West: https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/dictionary/index.cfm?id=33161

But we don't need to go to St. Augustine, we can discuss the teaching of two great authorities, one Latin and one Alexandrian.

Bishop St. Ambrose of Milan: "The Holy Spirit also, when He proceeds from the Father and the Son, is not separated from the Father nor separated from the Son. For how could He be separated from the Father Who is the Spirit of His mouth? Which is certainly both a proof of His eternity, and expresses the Unity of this Godhead." See http://catholicpatristics.blogspot.com/2009/08/filioque.html

Patriarch St. Cyril of Alexandria: "For, in that the Son is God, and from God according to nature (for He has had His birth from God the Father), the Spirit is both proper to Him and in Him and from Him, just as, to be sure, the same thing is understood to hold true in the case of God the Father Himself." (Commentary on the Prophet Joel 35 [PG 71:377D]). Please read the link for more details. Even in the first 500 years of unity between the Catholic Church and Oriental Churches, there are other testimonies - for e.g. that of Bishop St. Leontius of Caesarea at Nicaea I. The Liturgy of St. Mark, first Patriarch of Alexandria, also confirms that Unity in the Holy Trinity is attributed in a special way to the Holy Spirit: "One Father holy, one Son holy, one Spirit holy, in the unity of the Holy Spirit. Amen." http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0718.htm

[dzheremi]

And here is the passage in St. Augustine you are talking about, which itself should clear up some of the questions: "I know not why both the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit should not be called Love, and all together one love, just as both the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit is called Wisdom, and all together not three, but one wisdom. For so also both the Father is God, and the Son God, and the Holy Ghost God, and all three together one God. 29. And yet it is not to no purpose that in this Trinity the Son and none other is called the Word of God, and the Holy Spirit and none other the Gift of God, and God the Father alone is He from whom the Word is born, and from whom the Holy Spirit principally proceeds. And therefore I have added the word principally, because we find that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son also. But the Father gave Him this too, not as to one already existing, and not yet having it; but whatever He gave to the only-begotten Word, He gave by begetting Him. Therefore He so begot Him as that the common Gift should proceed from Him also, and the Holy Spirit should be the Spirit of both. This distinction, then, of the inseparable Trinity is not to be merely accepted in passing, but to be carefully considered; for hence it was that the Word of God was specially called also the Wisdom of God, although both Father and Holy Spirit are wisdom. If, then, any one of the three is to be specially called Love, what more fitting than that it should be the Holy Spirit?— namely, that in that simple and highest nature, substance should not be one thing and love another, but that substance itself should be love, and love itself should be substance, whether in the Father, or in the Son, or in the Holy Spirit; and yet that the Holy Spirit should be specially called Love." (On the Trinity, Book 15, Chapter 17,— How the Holy Spirit is Called Love, and Whether He Alone is So Called. That the Holy Spirit is in the Scriptures Properly Called by the Name of Love. http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/130115.htm)

That actually wasn't the one that I had in mind, but I can't find the exact quote right now, so okay.

Who in your understanding is "the Love with which you loved Me"? Jesus speaks of Love as a Person and says this Person will be in the Apostles along with Him. Thus, it is quite consistent exegesis to understand this of the Holy Spirit (in a special way, just as the Son is called Word and Wisdom in a special way in the Scriptures, though both Father and Holy Spirit are also Wisdom) especially in light of "the love of God is poured out in our hearts by the Holy Spirit which is given unto us" (Rom 5:5, cited above). Jesus asked that the Holy Spirit would be granted to us His disciples and the Father heard His prayer and gave us the Spirit of adoption, "Because you are his sons, God sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, the Spirit who calls out, "Abba, Father." (Gal 4:6)

The issue is not with this stuff you have quoted here, but with Augustine's identification of the Holy Spirit as the bond of love between Father and Son. If this Love, whether it is 'personified' or not, in effect generates the Holy Spirit (which I know Augustine does not explicitly claim, but can be claimed if we realize that it is effectively saying that it is the mutual relation of the two Persons), then the Holy Spirit is dependent upon both Father and Son for His existence, rather than (just) His temporal 'sending'. I have not heard any Orthodox complain about the idea that the Father sends the Holy Spirit through the Son (so it doesn't preclude the interpretation you have here, if I'm understanding you properly), but that's not what the filioque says, and anyway that's not about existence. The problem, as has been explained to me by the Greeks, is that the Greek verb used επόρευσις cannot be used in the 'sending' sense, as it concerns the Father as a single source of the Holy Spirit; the word they would use for the Holy Spirit's relation to the Son by virtue of their common ousia is apparently προείναι.  (I'm no Greek scholar, but an explanation of these distinctions is found here, from Met. John of Pergamon.)

Not at all. As Jesus was the eternally beloved Son of the Father by nature, we become in time the sons of God through the grace of the Spirit given to us.

Not by nature, so it's still not the same.

The One Who unites the Father and the Son in eternal Love

All Persons of the Holy Trinity are united in their common ousia.

now unites God with each individual son or daughter through grace.

Sure.

We distinguish how God is in Himself, and how He communicates Himself to us. The word "energies" in the East is usually translated as "operations" in the West, or sometimes simply grace. God acts on us by His operations and divinizes us by His grace. Kindly see this dictionary as evidence the same concept, in slightly different terminology, is present in the West: https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/dictionary/index.cfm?id=33161

I don't doubt that it is, so I don't think I need to read that. (Sorry, I don't mean to be dismissive; I just have to go soon.)

But we don't need to go to St. Augustine, we can discuss the teaching of two great authorities, one Latin and one Alexandrian.

Bishop St. Ambrose of Milan: "The Holy Spirit also, when He proceeds from the Father and the Son, is not separated from the Father nor separated from the Son. For how could He be separated from the Father Who is the Spirit of His mouth? Which is certainly both a proof of His eternity, and expresses the Unity of this Godhead." See http://catholicpatristics.blogspot.com/2009/08/filioque.html

Amen.

Patriarch St. Cyril of Alexandria: "For, in that the Son is God, and from God according to nature (for He has had His birth from God the Father), the Spirit is both proper to Him and in Him and from Him, just as, to be sure, the same thing is understood to hold true in the case of God the Father Himself." (Commentary on the Prophet Joel 35 [PG 71:377D]).

And again Amen.

Please read the link for more details. Even in the first 500 years of unity between the Catholic Church and Oriental Churches, there are other testimonies - for e.g. that of Bishop St. Leontius of Caesarea at Nicaea I. The Liturgy of St. Mark, first Patriarch of Alexandria, also confirms that Unity in the Holy Trinity is attributed in a special way to the Holy Spirit: "One Father holy, one Son holy, one Spirit holy, in the unity of the Holy Spirit. Amen." http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0718.htm
[/quote]

I don't know about the Liturgy of St. Mark, because that's the Greek liturgy as celebrated by the Greeks at Alexandria, but the Liturgy of St. Cyril, the recension of the Liturgy of St. Mark made by St. Cyril for the Egyptians which we use in the Coptic Orthodox Church does not have that phrase. The prayer in the liturgy of St. Cyril (which as far as I know is the same in the others) is "One is the Holy Father, One is the Holy Son, One is the Holy Spirit. Amen." (I'm not meaning to argue about it being different in a liturgy we don't use, just pointing that out so that you don't think this is something that concerns the Coptic Orthodox Church when it doesn't.)