|
1 members (1 invisible),
323
guests, and
20
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums26
Topics35,219
Posts415,295
Members5,881
| |
Most Online3,380
Dec 29th, 2019
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,838 Likes: 2
Member
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,838 Likes: 2 |
The following text written by Metropolitan John of Pergamon has been cited as a support for the Western theory that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as from one principle: b) In the light of this observation it would be important to evaluate the use of the idea of cause (αιτία) in Trinitarian theology. It was not without reason that the Cappadocian Fathers introduced this term next to the words πηγή and αρχή (source and principle) which were common since St. Athanasius at least both in the West and in the East.
The term "cause", when applied to the Father, indicates a free, willing and personal agent, whereas the language of "source" or "principle" can convey a more "natural" and thus impersonal imagery (the homoousios was interpreted in this impersonal way by several people in the fourth century). This point acquires crucial significance in the case of the Filioque issue.
In the Byzantine period the Orthodox side accused the Latin speaking Christians, who supported the Filioque, of introducing two Gods, precisely because they believed that the Filioque implied two causes--not simply two sources or principles--in the Holy Trinity. The Greek Patristic tradition, at least since the Cappadocian Fathers, identified the one God with the person of the Father, whereas, St. Augustine seems to identify Him with the one divine substance (the deitas or divinitas). Now, based upon the quotation given above some members of this forum have asserted the false idea that Metropolitan John is in some way accepting the Latin theory that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as from a single source or a single principle, but this interpretation of the text is untenable, at least when one looks at what Metropolitan John actually says in the text, for as he puts it, "the language of source or principle can convey a more natural and thus impersonal imagery," and then he admits that, "the [term] homoousios was interpreted in this impersonal way by several people in the fourth century," but the whole point of his argument is that the Cappadocian Fathers added the word cause (αιτία) to the Triadological language of the Church in order to exclude the possible impersonal imagery that could be associated with the words source (πηγή) and principle (αρχή) when seen in the light of the Nicene decree, which affirmed that the Son is homoousios with the Father. That is why he begins by saying that, "It was not without reason that the Cappadocian Fathers introduced this term [i.e., cause (αιτία)] next to the words πηγή and αρχή ( source and principle) which were common since St. Athanasius at least both in the West and in the East." In other words, the whole force of his argument is that the terms cause (αιτία), source (πηγή), and principle (αρχή) apply to the Father alone in the immanent life of the Trinity, and that the term cause (αιτία) was added specifically in order to safeguard the monarchy of the Father. Thus, the Father alone causes the other two persons of the Trinity (the Son by generation, and the Spirit by procession), and since He alone is their cause (αιτία) it follows that He is also their sole source (πηγή) and principle (αρχή) of existence. It is clear that within the Cappadocian theological framework the terms cause (αιτία), source (πηγή), and principle (αρχή) are not to be divided up or parceled out among the persons of the Trinity; instead, they must always be used together in connection with the Father as the sole cause (αιτία), source (πηγή), and principle (αρχή) of divinity. God bless, Todd
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,555
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,555 |
Dear Todd, It may not be entirely apparent to all, but what you present here are very often extreme positions that are not held by universal Orthodoxy at all, but only by some Orthodox hierarchs, clergy and faithful who prefer to take the Photian position and "arrange" the rest of their patristic evidence to suit. What you have offered here on the filioque, in its most rigid form, comes directly from Photius and not from the Cappadocian Fathers. The Cappadocian Fathers were never so rigid as Photius as you can see from the following texts....Mary St. Basil the Great :
"Through the Son, Who is one, He (i.e., the Holy Spirit) is joined to the Father, Who is one, and by Himself completes the Blessed Trinity." (The Holy Spirit 18:45 [A.D. 375]).
"�the goodness of [the Divine] nature, the holiness of [that] nature, and the royal dignity reach from the Father through the only-begotten [Son] to the Holy Spirit. Since we confess the Persons in this manner, there is no infringing upon the holy dogma of the Monarchy." (ibid., 18:47).
St. Gregory Nazianzus :
"�the Spirit is a middle term (meson) between the Unbegotten and the Begotten." (Discourse 31, 8).
St. Gregory of Nyssa:
"The Holy Spirit is said to be of the Father and it is [further] attested that He is of the Son. St Paul says: 'Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to Him' (Romans 8:9). So the Spirit Who is of God (the Father) is also the Spirit of Christ. However, the Son Who is of God (the Father) is not said to be of the Spirit: the consecutive order of the relationship cannot be reversed." (Fragment in Orationem Dominicam, quoted by St John Damascene, PG 46. 1109 BC).
St. Gregory of Nyssa also writes �
"While we confess the invariableness of the [Divine] nature we do not deny the distinction of Cause and of Caused, by which alone we perceive that one Person is distinguished from Another, in our belief that it is one thing to be the Cause and another to be From The Cause; and in That which is From The Cause, we recognize yet another distinction. It is one thing to be directly from the First Cause (i.e., the Father), and another to be through Him (i.e., the Son) Who is directly from the First, so the distinction of being Only-begotten abides undoubtedly in the Son, nor is it doubted that the Spirit is from the Father; for the middle position of the Son is protective of His distinction as Only-begotten, but does not exclude the Spirit from His natural relation to the Father." (Ep. ad. Ablabius).
St. Epiphanius of Salamis:
"For the Only-Begotten Himself calls Him [the Spirit] �the Spirit of the Father,� and says of Him that �He proceeds from the Father,� and �will receive of mine,� so that He is reckoned as not being foreign to the Father nor to the Son, but is of their same substance, of the same Godhead; He is Spirit Divine � of God, and He is God. For He is Spirit of God, Spirit of the Father and Spirit of the Son, not by some kind of synthesis, like soul and body in us, but in the midst of Father and Son, of the Father and of the Son, a Third by appellation. ... The Father always existed and the Son always existed, and the Spirit breathes from the Father and the Son; and neither is the Son created nor is the Spirit created." (Ankyrotos or The Man Well Anchored, A.D. 374).
"The Spirit is always with the Father and the Son, ... proceeding from the Father and receiving of the Son, not foreign to the Father and the Son, but of the same substance, of the same Godhead, of the Father and the Son, He is with the Father and the Son, Holy Spirit ever subsisting, Spirit Divine, Spirit of glory, Spirit of Christ, Spirit of the Father. ... He is Third in appellation, equal in Divinity, not different as compared to Father and Son, connecting Bond of the Trinity, Ratifying Seal of the Creed. (Panarion)
"No one knows the Spirit, besides the Father, except the Son, from Whom He proceeds (proienai) and of Whom He receives." (OP.. cit., xi, in P.G., XLIII, 35)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,315 Likes: 21
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,315 Likes: 21 |
Dear Mary,
There is nothing in the quotes you give above that would suggest anything other than what Todd has affirmed, following the Capadocian Fathers - namely that the Father is the sole Cause and Principle of the Spirit as He is of the Son.
The idea that St Photios (whom the Byzantine Catholic Church has included in their own calendar, FYI) presented a Trinitarian theology that is "extreme" in any way - is simply nonsense.
If anything, St Photios was more akin to St Maximos the Confessor in the way he expressed Triadology (emphasizing the "Through the Son" as Todd has also explained).
The notion that somehow St Gregory Palamas or St Photios introduced a theology that was foreign to what the Cappadocian Fathers and the Eastern Church that adhered to them - is simply, once again, nonsense.
It is also highly offensive to the Orthodox Christians here - including not a few Orthodox in communion with Rome.
You are likewise being offensive to Todd.
We can disagree, but I have yet to see one proponent of Thomism or of the Filioque here speak to the central impulses of Byzantine theology when discussing the Filioque.
If anything, the Thomists and their supporters here have only shown they are locked within the Thomistic tradition as if it were the only valid one in Catholicism today - and the measure of Catholicism to which the Orthodox Church better own up to or else . . .
That is sheer nonsense, sets the ecumenical clock back to the time of Florence (where nothing was accomplished).
Instead, we would do better to engage in some serious study of the wealth of insight and the Byzantine resources that Todd/Apotheoun brings to this forum.
Whenever I don't understand something Todd has said, I ask him for further information and references for my own further study.
And he is only too willing to provide me and others here with both.
The fact that he even bothers with this forum, with its unchecked rudeness et alia, is a great credit to Todd.
I, for one, intend to continue to learn from him about the vast beauty and depth of Byzantine theology, as well as his own immense learning and the insights that he teaches us about it.
He is an immeasureable help to me and others here in what should be an ongoing work.
And I don't need to hear from anyone about "Well, I'm EC too . . ."
If we talk the talk, we should learn to walk the walk.
Alex
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 564
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 564 |
This discussion, I think, still lacks, as long as we don't get a good understanding of what the Latin theology actually is, not what the Byzantines say it is. What we need around here is some genuine ressourcement, not proof texting. I, for one, would like to read some Photius. When he condemned the filioque, what sources did he have? What had he read? I know he was a marvelously educated man, but did his education extend to Latin? The simple fact is that it is clear the Latin theologians don't think they are ditheists or Sabellians. They should be given the chance to explain why they aren't. Ah, if only we had the time! What a wonderful journey it would be, to lay out all the texts (preferably in Latin and Greek) and have an online seminar. Alas.  As it is, I need to prepare for the Great Canon.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,133
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,133 |
The simple fact is that it is clear the Latin theologians don't think they are ditheists or Sabellians. They should be given the chance to explain why they aren't. Even if they are not, why add the Filioque, if the only thing it brings to the Creed is questionable at best.
Last edited by Borislav; 03/22/07 12:48 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,555
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,555 |
Dear Mary,
There is nothing in the quotes you give above that would suggest anything other than what Todd has affirmed, following the Capadocian Fathers - namely that the Father is the sole Cause and Principle of the Spirit as He is of the Son.
The idea that St Photios (whom the Byzantine Catholic Church has included in their own calendar, FYI) presented a Trinitarian theology that is "extreme" in any way - is simply nonsense.
Alex Dear Alex, The idea that Photius has taken and extreme position is not mine alone. In fact it comes from Orthodox monks, and clergy and others with whom I have corresponded closely over the years, and who also know the Fathers and understands that the Latin Church affirms that the Father is sole Cause of the Holy Spirit, and has done so in council several times. They are fully away that there is a strict position on the matter and it belongs to Photius and not the Cappadocians, nor the Alexandrians. You don't really understand or know me very well Alex but I offer nothing here that I have not discussed over and over again from an Orthodox perspective with learned and prayerful Orthodox faithful. I don't come here with Latinate arguments at all...ever. It is a policy of mine, and for good reason. There are always people like you trying to shut me up. Not even Todd does that. What is rigid in the Photian perspective, that I am speaking of, is the fact that there are two ways to understand Principle and what the Photian position is not allowing are those two perspectives. The quotes from the Fathers that I have offered, do allow an understanding of Principle that can have two meanings in all eternity, one being a causal meaning, and the other being a relational meaning that allows for the possibility of positing procession of the Spirit that is of the Son and of the Father through eternity. What I am suggesting is that this latter possibility not be shut off. The Alexandrians at the time of Cyril and beyond also speak in terms that would allow for a dual understanding of Principle and with that dual understanding east and west can come to agreement and perhaps even be open to further insight as time goes on. I am being nasty to no one in this or any other thread and I don't expect to be silenced by you, because I take a contrary position to Tood Kaster's. The position that I offer is not at all heterodox. Mary
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,133
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,133 |
Again, my question for you is. All aside, WHAT IS THE BENEFIT of adding the Filioque to the Creed? ( in which every word should be of tremendous importance ) I just don't get it. If it adds nothing to the formula, but raise questions of about its Orthodoxy, shouldn't it be discarded? Rome opnely opposed the Filioque until what?.... the 11th century? I guess common sense is not that common.... 
Last edited by Borislav; 03/22/07 01:09 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,315 Likes: 21
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,315 Likes: 21 |
Dear Mary,
At no time did I say I wanted to "shut you up."
That is the job of the Administrator/Moderator . . .
I apologise for anything and everything that I said to offend you.
Alex
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,555
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,555 |
Again, my question for you is. All aside, WHAT IS THE BENEFIT of adding the Filioque to the Creed? ( in which every word should be of tremendous importance ) I just don't get it. If it adds nothing to the formula, but raise questions of about its Orthodoxy, shouldn't it be discarded? Rome opnely opposed the Filioque until what?.... the 11th century? I guess common sense is not that common.... Dear Boislav, It is clear that there were efforts made to appease and perhaps the very fact that they did not succeed suggests that there is something yet to be done in very substantive terms with respect to our comprehension of what is revealed to us about the Trinity. The very fact that there are such wonderful texts from the Fathers that are very open to seeking meaing in what we are told about the closeness of the Father and the Son, should encourage us to stop pointing fingers at one another and accusing heterodoxy and gettting on with the prayerful business of listening to the promptings of the very Holy Spirit over whom we fight. We should be doing that together, I think. That seems sensible to me, and common, in cause and in principle  Blessings....Mary
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,133
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,133 |
Efforts to appease?
I don't understand what you are referring to.
The Franks put pressure on Rome to accept the Filioque, so I don't know who's efforts we are speaking about.
Point is, the Filioque is completely unnecessary, it is vague and needs further explanation. The Creed was formulated as a SIMPLE, UNDERSTANDABLE, INCORUPTABLE statement of Faith that needed no further explanation to make clear what it says.
Rome rejected it just as all other Patriarchates did. Rome agreed to it because of their POLITICAL dependence on the Franks.
How hard is this to understand?
We need to put away our swords and use our heads for just a few minutes. Equation without Filiouqe works, equeation with Filioque works only if it acompanied by supporting evidence. Filioque adds nothing to the Equation. Result does not change with it. WHY BOTHER?
Franks are not pressuring Rome into this Filioque deal, it should be dumped (Along with Papal supremacy, infallibility, Purgatory, Immaculate Conception of Mary, Forced Clerical Celibacy)
Than we can have this Union that everybody supposedly wants, but is not willing to do anything for.
I live in Boston, so it kind of reminds me of going to Cambridge and seeing all these bumper stickers saying FREE TIBET... I wonder, if our President decided to FREE TIBET tomorrow, how many of those Limousine Liberals with those stickers would actually support troops on the ground or better yet, go to Tibet and fight themselves.
Freedom, ain't free ladies and gentleman, and neither is Union of the East and West.
People scream UNITY UNITY UNITY, yet while the Orthodox Church is perfectly willing to give Rome back the status of Ecumenical Patriarchate and Primacy of HONOR, Rome is completely unwilling to change anything about its teachings on any of the subjects above.
I guess we're going to have to learn to agree to disagree until better times...
Last edited by Borislav; 03/22/07 05:17 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 2,440
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 2,440 |
The very fact that there are such wonderful texts from the Fathers that are very open to seeking meaing in what we are told about the closeness of the Father and the Son, should encourage us to stop pointing fingers at one another and accusing heterodoxy and gettting on with the prayerful business of listening to the promptings of the very Holy Spirit over whom we fight. We should be doing that together, I think.
Beautifully stated!
God Bless,
Zenovia
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 5,264
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 5,264 |
Beautifully stated!
God Bless,
Zenovia
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,315 Likes: 21
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,315 Likes: 21 |
Dear Friends, It is very important to maintain the connection between faith and praxis as one influences the other. The Orthodox Church's theology of the Holy Spirit has absolutely led to a profound devotion to the Spirit in her liturgical and mystical life, uncreated energies, Theosis and all. The Orthodox Church is truly the "Church of the Holy Spirit" and her cult of the Paraclete in its internal life is truly inspiring. I think that is why others want to join it (or truly Eastern Catholic Churches) these days - and in the time of St Vladimir/Volodymyr of Kyiv. For me, the theology of Uncreated Energies, the Eastern miraculous icons and great ascetic Saints etc. is something that is simply not to be found in the spiritual emphases of the West. In the West, things like the Neo-Pentecostal/charismatic movement have developed as a way, they say, of bringing a greater focus on the work of the Spirit etc. I've studied that movement up close, even belonged to a group at one time - and no thank you!  Before East and West can make peace, they must come to an understanding on some fundamental theological issues. Perhaps the West can even come to understand a link between theology and praxis re: the Holy Spirit. Perhaps the West can even see that it would itself benefit from the Eastern perspective. Perhaps. I grew up with the Latin Church and within heavily Latinized EC parishes. Now that I've come to taste the Eastern Churches and continue to learn about the theology and praxis - there's no going back. All the Latinizations in our EC Churches should be shown the door - and that includes the Filioque, Thomism and the like. If there are those who resist that, and there are, why don't they attend a Latin Church which would bring their own theology into line with their praxis? Respectfully submitted, Alex
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,555
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,555 |
Dear Zenovia and Gordo, Thanks so much for your encouragements. The following is from Bishop Hilarian Alfeyev and I think it is precisely the point of departure we need to expand the east-west dialogue. It expresses, in very plain pastoral language, the exact kind of relationship that is intended by the addition of the filioque to the Latin Creed. Rather than forcing a false refutation of the addition, I think it would be far more truthful and charitable to actually extend the discussion in pastoral rather than in doctrinal terms. I think much more progress could be gained at that level. The western tradition has her own beauty and she should not be urged to slink away in shame for having a beauty that is not precisely the same as the east. I think I have heard Orthodox faithful beg the same of the west. I happen to agree with both....Mary UNITY OF LOVE
God the Trinity is not a frozen entity, not something static or lifeless. On the contrary, within the Trinity there is the plenitude of life and love. �God is love�, says St John the Theologian (1 John 4:8; 4:16). Yet there can be no love without the beloved. A lonely, isolated monad can love only itself: self-love is not love. An egocentric unit is not a personality. As the human person cannot experience his personhood save through communion with other persons, so in God there can be no personal being save through love for another personal being. God the Trinity is the plenitude of love, each hypostatic Person exists in a relationship of love for the other Persons.
The Trinity is therefore a relational entity. The relations between the three Persons are relations between �I� and �Thou�, or �I� and �He�. �Thou, Father, art in Me, and I in Thee�, says Christ (John 17:21). Concerning the Holy Spirit, our Lord says, �All that the Father has is Mine; therefore I said that he will take what is Mine and declare it to you� (John 16:15). We read in St John�s Gospel: �In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God� (John 1:1). The Greek text actually says �and the Word was towards God� (pros ton Theon). This underscores the personal nature of the relationship between God the Word and God the Father: the Son is not only born from the Father, He not only exists with the Father, He is turned towards the Father. Thus each Hypostasis in the Trinity is turned towards the other Hypostases.
The icon of the Holy Trinity by St Andrei Rublev portrays three angels sitting at a table upon which is a Cup, the symbol of Christ�s redemptive sacrifice; the three Persons of the Trinity turn simultaneously to each other and to the Cup. The icon has captured the divine love which reigns within the Trinity. The greatest manifestation of this love was the incarnation of the Son of God for the redemption of humanity. Orthodox Tradition regards Christ�s saving sacrifice as a common act of love and self-emptying of all three Persons of the Trinity. It is in this sacrifice that the love which exists within the Trinity was given and became known to humans. As St Philaret of Moscow said, it is the �crucifying love of the Father, the crucified love of the Son, and the love of the Holy Spirit triumphing through the power of the Cross�.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,315 Likes: 21
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,315 Likes: 21 |
In no way does the above quote from the Orthodox Hierarch suggest a lessening of the role of doctrine to pastoral issues!
In no way does it represent an abandoning of the ancient, original perspective on the Procession of the Holy Spirit or that, as is suggested, the East is somehow ready to agree to the Filioque in the Creed!
That is simply false - and offensive to Orthodox. It is like suggesting Roman Catholics are ready to abandon the Papacy for the sake of "unity in love" or some other warm sounding thing.
If anything, the above quote actually refutes the Western notion that the "Spirit is the Love between the Father and the Son."
As Bishop Hilarion clearly shows, love is something that is characteristic of all Three Divine Persons - not the Spirit alone.
There is also a marked tendency here to equate the Filioque with a more "pastoral" spirituality.
If anything, and by the words of Aquinas himself, the Filioque was and is intimately tied in with the Papacy - including the medieval form of it which is hardly a pastoral model.
I will fight the inclination to stand up and sway with my arms in the air singing, with my poor voice, "Kumbaya my Lord, we are one!"
Unity must be based not only on pastoral love. It must be based on orthodoxy of faith.
Orthodoxy won't give that principle up. Rome won't either.
Excuse me for interrupting the ecumenical love-in!
Kumbaya, my Lord, Kumbaya . . .
Alex
|
|
|
|
|
