www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Filioque clarification

Alex,

I think that St Vlad's would be proud to have you on their Faculty!!!!

Andrew Rubris stated:

When discussing Andrei Rublev's icon of the "Trinity" we should remember that it is not widely accepted as such in the Eastern Churches. The original title used and still used for this scriptural event is "the Hospitality of Abraham." The traditional icons depicted Sarah and Abraham behind the three visitors. The most traditional interpretations of this icon are of Abraham and Sarah hosting a visit from the Lord and two of his angels. If we read forward in the Genesis account, we see that "the two men" then proceeded toward Sodom and Gomorah' which God subsequently torched.

*******

I am sorry to disagree with you, but the Church does recognize this icon officially as the Trinity. This was actually decided at the Council of the Hundred Chapters (aka the Stoglav) held in Moscow in 1551.

John

Do they need a religious sociologist at St Vlad's? I think I would have a thing or two to contribute . . .

Alex

Although you mention this tongue-in-cheek, this would make an excellent discussion as a new thread, i.e. could seminarians benefit from exposure to the human sciences...

John

And finally for today, a reflection from the great Father, Athanasius:

When the Spirit is in us, the Word from whom we receive him is also in us, and in this Word there is also the Father, so thus is realized what has been said: 'We will come to him and make our home with him.' Where there is light, in fact, there is also its splendor; and where there is splendor, there is likewise its efficaciousness, and its splendid grace.

"Just as grace comes to us from the Father through the Son, so we actively share in this gift only through the Holy Spirit. Thus, having become participants, we enjoy the love of the Father, the grace of the Son, and the communion of the Holy Spirit."

John

The seed of essences vs. energies emerged in the Cappadocians, but was only fully realized by the Council of Blachernae in 1285 and St. Gregory Palamas and the Hesychast Synods of the 1340's.

In Christ,

anastasios

Thanks Anastasios. So this is something of a post-schism doctrinal development of the Cappadocian seed. But what of the West?
What do your studies say of the division of the Trinity into immanent and economic modes in the West?

djs

Dear Brian and Petrus,

I would LOVE to teach at a seminary!

And this truly would make an interesting thread - how seminarians, theologians (and others leading a somewhat sheltered existence) could benefit from the human sciences!

I think Anastasios would say that it is because I didn't get to the seminary that I say these things about seminarians.

And that would be making a profound social psychological statement . . .

Alex

Dear Alex,

Thank you for your post. Please keep your disagreement with my statements and not with what I may say a professor taught many moons ago. (After all, it could even be that I am wrong about what he or she taught and you are libeling them needlessly).

The problem isn't with the depiction so much as it is with the title, although one wonders with what authority Mr. Rublev decided that he could exclude our father Abraham and his dear wife. You mentioned a Trebnyk and a special blessing for icons of the Trinity, but from which late date? Someone else mentioned a local council in Moscow, but at what late date. When I said traditional, I'm talking about the first 1,600 years of Christian interpretations vs. the most recent 400 years! Or perhaps, more succinctly, the Greco-Byzantine tradition vs. the Slavo-Byzantine tradition. (This fault line needed to surface eventually).

What about the universal canon prohibiting depiction of God the Father! (I'll look it up and cite it in the next post.)

Where did you find in the scripture that Abraham could not distinguish between the three? Or is that idea coming from iconographic depictions which show them to be identical and the kontakion?

The reality is that no one here, not even Anastasios, seems to want to deal with the two "anthropoi/men" and the "angels" (they are called both) who depart from the Lord and go on to Sodom and Gomorah. We are forced to conclude, if one accepts the title "Holy Trinity" for the icon, that these two are actually two persons of the Trinity masquerading as men and angels! Amazing if this "holds water" for you!

Patiently awaiting responses.

With love in Christ,

Dear Andrew,

First of all, I libel no one. If someone, whoever it is, says something that is not in keeping with the faith and tradition of the Church, especially those appointed to uphold it, then they are wrong.

That isn't libel, that is simply error. And what you related clearly is not keeping with the faith and tradition of the Church.

Neither is your (and no libel intended) notion that since something has been "added on" later in the Church's life (Trebnyk blessing and Rubleev's Icon), then is is not "as valid" as what occurred in earlier centuries.

That is an interesting understanding that SEEMS to suggest that the Spirit isn't as active in the life of the later Church as He was in the life of the earlier Church. Sorry, that should not wash with any Orthodox or Catholic Christian.

Abraham bowed to the three Men and did not distinguish between them. That is in the Scriptural quotation I already provided AND in the Akathist and other liturgical examples of the Orthodox Church.

But if one makes a distinction between "lex orandi" over the last 900 years etc., then of course that is a different matter.

I submit that such an understanding of the Church's liturgical tradition is a modern(ist) one that is outside her Tradition.

No one is saying that the OCA or St Vladimir's Seminary is modernist. No one is saying that any and all who teach or graduate from there is infallible or an authoritative spokesman for Orthodoxy either.

And I really don't see why the issue of the two Men who went with Abraham later somehow disqualifies a Trinitarian interpretation of the Three Guests.

I've always seen them as the Word and the Spirit who are "sent" into the world by the Father and this is symbolized in this event as well - this is why there are two of them who went with Abraham.

As for depictions of God the Father, please review your iconography 101 course. The depiction that was forbidden was that of portraying God as an "old man with a beard" and other anthropomorphic representations. The Orthodox Church has always accepted the icon of the Old Testament Trinity as a legitimate representation of all Three Persons of the Trinity.

But I wonder what other Orthodox Christians here on this Forum think of this event.

Is what is being said here to literally "debunk" the Trinitarian theme of the Old Testament revelation of the Trinity somehow the view of Orthodoxy in general?

If "lex orandi" can be so easily challenged by whomever, does this not pose a danger to Orthodoxy itself?

Please forgive me for any perceived nastiness on my part here. If one cannot question the views of others, including yourself, without being called "libellous," then, for the sake of peace, I wish to withdraw from this discussion altogether and do so now.

Alex

Is this the case when it comes to stained glass windows (which are not all that relevant to Orthodoxy, but specifically to Western Catholicism)? Before the EWTN Mass, the Prayer of St. Ambrose is recited during which a stained glass depicting the Holy Trinity is shown. Much of the stained glass is aquamarine and inside there is a triangle with the three Persons of the Holy Trinity...and God the Father is an old man with a white beard I believe. Is this a no-no?

ChristTeen287

Let's consider also this one:
http://www.xxc.ru/english/foto/inside/s01/f003.htm
Any comments on the Orthodoxy, here?

If I'm not mistaken, that is from the Cathedral of Christ the Saviour in Moscow (the original of which was blown up on the orders of Stalin in the early 30's)

It is fairly typical of the "Italianate" influences in Russian Orthodox Church decoration that began in the 18th Century. Yes, it is really NOT Orthodox and forbidden by the Canons for God the Father to be depicted in the Western way but this was not followed strictly to say the least . The only reason I can see for this to be included in the Cathedral now is that they were looking for a complete restoration of the original Church which was completed I believe in the reign of Alexander III.

Dear Brian:
You are correct about the location of this fresco.
This depiction of the Trinity is highlighted in numerous pictures of the interior of the Cathedral at its website. Those moskaly!

Dear Alex,

No offense taken at all. Please forgive me if you've received any from my posting. Please do not break off this discussion, as perhaps we will not fully convince the other of his error, we may finish the discussion much closer than previous to it.

Libel is the public printing (slander is the public speaking) of falsifications meant to diminish another's reputation. I'll agree that without being caught naming a particular person, one probably can't be held accountable for libel/slander, but you came close enough (for my discomfort) by implying that what I (and supposedly my professors) proposed is heresy.

To be guilty of heresy, traditionally, one has had to meet three criteria:

(A) teach an incorrect doctrine,
(B) be warned by competent authority in the Church that such is incorrect; and
(c) lead a schism based upon that same incorrect doctrine. (please remember that there are many schismatics who are not heretics).

At least in the Eastern Orthodox Church, this discussion over the interpretation of the scriptural passage and icon is not a doctrinal matter. It entered this forum as an indicator in the filioque discussion, which is a doctrinal matter. Were I using the interpretation that I propose as an anti-Trinitarian attack, I agree that it would be a most serious doctrinal matter, but I'm not. I believe in a Trinitarian God, as defined in our Creed, just in case anyone was wondering.

Now when did I say that the Trinitarian interpretation of Rublev's icon was not valid or less valid? I said that it is not the "traditional" one and that amongst some professors it was "highly suspect." If we are using it in the filioque discussion, then it helps to know that when they were discussing the filioque, this Trinitarian interpretation was not the norm. (Correct me if I'm wrong. I've read all the posts and don't recall a contemporary of the historical filioquean debates submiting the iconographic depiction in question (with or without Abraham and Sarah) as support.)

So it seems that you would admit that the Trinitarian interpretation is a later one. Does that necessarily invalidate the earlier one? Or would you be willing to leave room for both? I would (in other words agree that both are within the realm of credible interpretations).

If there is change in the Church's interpretations and liturgical practices should it be attributed to the action of the Holy Spirit? Sometimes yes sometimes no.

So in an Antiochian parish where they had two epitafii on Holy Friday (one carried by males and one carried by females - still lacking only a priestess to walk under it!) we should attribute this to the Holy Spirit? We are unforgiven if we deny the Spirit's true action in the church, but the councils of bishops meet to discern this for us. The universal Church has not spoken on this interpretation of Rublev's icon. It may well be that at the next ecumenical council the Trinitarian interpretation of the icon will be stated or that my bishop will correct me even sooner (at which point I'd better shut up).

Now finally, to the heart of the matter. All three visitors/men plus Abraham went toward Sodom and Gomorah. Then two went on toward the cities while Abraham stayed before the Lord and questioned him regarding his propensity to spare the city if faithful were found within. As we see, the faithful, Lot's family, were removed by the two angels/men and all others were destroyed.

However, you raised the excellent point that full prostration/worship by humans before angels is always rejected by the angels. You said that, scriptuarally, they never accept this worship. I believe that you are correct. But when Lot met these two angels/men, didn't he also bow down to them? This seems to support the point that they are two persons of the Holy Trinity? This would be consistent with the Trinitarian interpretation of the icon.

In the case of the visit to Abraham, the Lord came to him first while his eyes were cast down "in the heat of the day" (he understood the Lord's arrival while his eyes were down) but when he looked up there were three men before him amongst which he understood the Lord to be. "...when he saw them, he ran to meet them from the tent door, and bowed himself toward the ground." Could he distinguish which was the Lord or not? In 18:22 he seems to distinguish rather well. He remains speaking with the Lord while the two others depart.

But did Abraham and Lot bow down in worship? Abraham yes, because he was forewarned of the Lord's arrival. But Lot? He called them "lord's" (lower case) and "bowed himself with his face toward the ground." From an Old Testament perspective, how could Lot recognize them both as "the Lord?" And from a New Testament perspective, if they were two person of the Trinity, how could he fail to recognize them as "the Lord"?

In Genesis 42:6 and 43:26 and 43:28 people bow down in full prostration before Joseph as Governor. He does not deny them, because he knows that it is not worship. In these cases, it is a form of veneration not worship. And so either explanation can be applied in the case of Lot and the two angels.

Traditional scriptural interpretation has required a consistency of any interpretation with the rest of the scripture. The departure of the two men/angels is not "a rather vague discussion" but fully linked to the whole action: a promise to Abraham because of his faithfulness is implemented and a destruction of those in the two cities who deny even the natural laws that God has made apparant to everyone. Even in destroying the immoral, he saves the faithful.

Thus if three persons of the Trinity appeared before Abraham, then one must accept that Lot also fell down before two of them. If God speaks in the plural at one point, then why does he speak in the singular elsewhere. It must be explained consistently.

I characterize modernistic interpretations as those which are inconsistent.

With love in Christ,

Dear Andrew,

Certainly, there is no question of heresy here - I don't understand what I said that would make you think there was?

It is a matter of the Church's own interpretation of the event and certainly we are free to apply our own reasoning etc.

By "modernist" I mean when we place our own rational explanations and expectation of consistencies defined by modern science etc. ahead of Church tradition.

Again, I accept the Church's explanation of this event - don't you?

Applying reason to such an event that occurred long ago - how can we but rely on the tradition of the Church in this matter? There are many scholars who would say the entire event is a fabrication, based on fanciful imagination!

Ultimately, you and I weren't there .

Ultimately, it involves no heresy regarding the Trinity etc. of course! And I don't believe I even used that word once - nor would I, since I'm Eastern Catholic and already regarded as heterodox by some . . .

So my point is not to argue Scripture with you or to try and "convince" you of anything other than what the Church herself believes in her liturgical tradition.

I don't question it.

I'll leave the questioning to theologians thinking with the Church and the authorities of the Church.

Modernism has more to do with adapting Christian Tradition to contemporary secular analytical categories. It is placing rationalism first and trimming away everything and anything in Christianity that conflicts with rationalist a prioris.

If you are, in fact, convinced of the interpretation of this event as you say, that is fine.

I'm not the one who needs convincing.

The Church is. The bishops are. Theologians are wonderful people, really. But they are under the Church and cannot tell the Church what to believe or act. Their deliberations and views are only "valid" insofar as they receive a blessing from the Church etc.

So, if you can provide evidence that the authority of the Church, and here I do mean the Orthodox Church, today approves of anything other than the view that who Abraham saw at the Oaks of Mamre was the Holy Trinity, I will accept your argument.

If not, I am forbidden to do so.

Alex