Posted on 04/05/2005 9:11:13 PM PDT by annalex
You mean in the Filioque phrase? Or in the Summa article? Or in the Catechism?
I take it, you mean the Filioque is what mixes the internal and the external, causing your objection. If so, why do you not object to the rest of the Creed, which does the same mixing repeatedly?
And, can I deduce from you absence of comment on the Catechism that you do not have an objection to its portions I quoted?
The Creed does not mix internal and external -- it deals what we know of God, which is external, and what we know of God, that is of His energies or Hypostases, is that the Wisdom is the source and cause of the Word and the Spirit in one-way separate manners. We know that not through reason but through the Scripture and apophatic thinking.
What the Creed does is state the external economy of the Trinity, and then simply states that all three Hypostases are glorified equally. It does not go into why or how, trying to "explain" the Mystery of Triune God Who is One.
Anyway, I think we have beaten this horse enough. You may have the last word.
I posted the relevant parts of the current Catechism in #2 and #3 of this thread.
If the Creed is only supposed to state the external economy, then the Filioque is necessary because in the external, temporal economy of salvation the Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son to all of us. The only issue I thought we had was with the procession in the eternal realm.
1. There is very little in the Creed that is not directly linked to the economy of our salvation and to the interaction of the Persons of the Trinity with us here on earth. The "ordo theologiae" of Orthodoxy has always been to begin with the Persons, as they are revealed to us, then to consider their operations (or energia) in which we participate, and only then to consider the essence and nature of God, to the extent that anything about this is revealed to us. One would be hard-pressed to find anything in the creed that is there because of speculation about the nature and essence of God, as opposed to being there because it is necessary for our salvation.
By contrast, the "ordo theologiae" of post Schism Catholicism is to start with the impersonal "essence" and "nature" of "God-in-general" (to use Vladimir Lossky's term), then move to divine attributes, and only then to the persons of the Trinity. Viewed through this lens, one could, I suppose, read all sorts of metaphysics into the Creed. An Orthodox Christian, on the other hand, sees Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and the revealed ways in which they work out our salvation and in which they are to be "worshipped and glorified."
2. I checked, and the modern Catholic cathechism directly quotes from the documents of the (false) Council of Florence, where they state explicitly that the Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son equally. So I'm not sure what your point about the Catholic catechism is, where you seem to imply that it takes a different view from classical Thomistic thought. It doesn't, and so the implication that the modern Catechism's formulations should be ones that Orthodox Christians should be able to embrace is simply nonsensical. I really am at a loss as to where you would get that idea, if I'm understanding you correctly.
If you had read my quotations from the older catechisms and Vatican I (which declared papal infallibility and the immaculate conception), you would have seen that even if the modern catechism says something different (which it does not, if it is quoting those bits of the Council of Florence), all this would prove would be that official Roman Catholic teaching has either changed in recent years, or that it is involved in an intentional prevarication.
3. I really don't know what question you are asking or what point you are trying to make at this point in the thread, although I really have tried. If you are sincerely trying to understand the Orthodox teachings on the Trinity, then I, at least, am not doing a very good job, and will need to give it a rest, having convinced myself that my initial response to the (lack of) value of this thread was correct.
246 The Latin tradition of the Creed confesses that the Spirit "proceeds from the Father and the Son (filioque)". The Council of Florence in 1438 explains: "The Holy Spirit is eternally from Father and Son; He has his nature and subsistence at once (simul) from the Father and the Son. He proceeds eternally from both as from one principle and through one spiration. . . . And, since the Father has through generation given to the only-begotten Son everything that belongs to the Father, except being Father, the Son has also eternally from the Father, from whom he is eternally born, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son."
The Father and the Son revealed by the Spirit243 Before his Passover, Jesus announced the sending of "another Paraclete" (Advocate), the Holy Spirit. At work since creation, having previously "spoken through the prophets", the Spirit will now be with and in the disciples, to teach them and guide them "into all the truth".68 The Holy Spirit is thus revealed as another divine person with Jesus and the Father.
244 The eternal origin of the Holy Spirit is revealed in his mission in time. The Spirit is sent to the apostles and to the Church both by the Father in the name of the Son, and by the Son in person, once he had returned to the Father.69 The sending of the person of the Spirit after Jesus' glorification70 reveals in its fullness the mystery of the Holy Trinity.
245 The apostolic faith concerning the Spirit was confessed by the second ecumenical council at Constantinople (381): "We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and giver of life, who proceeds from the Father."71 By this confession, the Church recognizes the Father as "the source and origin of the whole divinity".72 But the eternal origin of the Spirit is not unconnected with the Son's origin: "The Holy Spirit, the third person of the Trinity, is God, one and equal with the Father and the Son, of the same substance and also of the same nature. . . Yet he is not called the Spirit of the Father alone,. . . but the Spirit of both the Father and the Son."73 The Creed of the Church from the Council of Constantinople confesses: "With the Father and the Son, he is worshipped and glorified."74
246 The Latin tradition of the Creed confesses that the Spirit "proceeds from the Father and the Son (filioque)". The Council of Florence in 1438 explains: "The Holy Spirit is eternally from Father and Son; He has his nature and subsistence at once (simul) from the Father and the Son. He proceeds eternally from both as from one principle and through one spiration. . . . And, since the Father has through generation given to the only-begotten Son everything that belongs to the Father, except being Father, the Son has also eternally from the Father, from whom he is eternally born, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son."75
247 The affirmation of the filioque does not appear in the Creed confessed in 381 at Constantinople. But Pope St. Leo I, following an ancient Latin and Alexandrian tradition, had already confessed it dogmatically in 447,76 even before Rome, in 451 at the Council of Chalcedon, came to recognize and receive the Symbol of 381. The use of this formula in the Creed was gradually admitted into the Latin liturgy (between the eighth and eleventh centuries). The introduction of the filioque into the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed by the Latin liturgy constitutes moreover, even today, a point of disagreement with the Orthodox Churches.
248 At the outset the Eastern tradition expresses the Father's character as first origin of the Spirit. By confessing the Spirit as he "who proceeds from the Father", it affirms that he comes from the Father through the Son.77 The Western tradition expresses first the consubstantial communion between Father and Son, by saying that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son (filioque). It says this, "legitimately and with good reason",78 for the eternal order of the divine persons in their consubstantial communion implies that the Father, as "the principle without principle",79 is the first origin of the Spirit, but also that as Father of the only Son, he is, with the Son, the single principle from which the Holy Spirit proceeds.80 This legitimate complementarity, provided it does not become rigid, does not affect the identity of faith in the reality of the same mystery confessed.
My purpose is to understand the nature of the Filioque controversy theologically, and, of course, to deepen my own understanding of the Holy Trinity. I find the dialog with you and to a lesser degree with Kosta, quite productive. I didn't mean to cross you in any way.
We are just plain old Orthodox laymen, who happen to have more than an average interest in being able to articulate Orthodox theology, each for reasons of our own. Our understanding of Orthodox theology and doctrine is grounded on our Orthodox baptisms, chrismations, and living and praying in the life of the Church, and not on reading books.
There really isn't a lot of importance placed in the Orthodox Church on being able to articulate the teachings of the Church, although obviously someone has to do it when we come face to face with non-Christians and non-Orthodox.
The emphasis is on living them and developing a gut-level "phronema." I have known priests and laymen who have that phronema to a level that approaches sainthood, but who wouldn't survive 5 minutes of a discussion with you about the filioque.
If you get less out of your interactions with kosta, it is probably because you are concentrating on finding holes in what he has to say, rather than listening to what he *does* say, or because he's been Orthodox far longer than I have and therefore is "speaking Orthodox," where I am still often "speaking Western." That I am still "speaking Western" isn't necessarily a good thing at all, and won't necessarily deepen your understanding of Orthodox teaching.
And now, like Kosta, I am going to let you have the last public word. We can communicate privately from this point.
[1. Distinction between Procession and Sending] Let us hearken, I entreat you, to what will be said with good will and in the fear of God. The procession of the Holy Spirit is one thing, while the sending is another. For on the one hand, the procession is the natural existence of the Holy Spirit, directly alone from the Father, who is the cause. On the other hand, the sending is a sending forth on a mission in time in which the Son also sends the Spirit, as is the case here, and the Spirit also sends the Son, as it is said, "the Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because the Lord hath anointed me; he has sent me to preach glad tidings to the poor" [Is 61:1; cf. Lk 4:181. How then and why do you innovate and say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and from the son? If the Spirit did not proceed from the Father alone, then the Lord would have said concerning the Paraclete, whom I and the Father sent forth just as He frequently said "whom I shall send" [Jn 15:26]. To begin with, then, the undeceiving mouth of Christ declares that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father [cf. Jn 15:26]. Second, even Paul himself in the Epistle to Titus reiterates: "Not because of deeds done by us in righteousness, but in virtue of his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit, which he poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior" [3:5-6]. What is more explicit than this? The Lord has said, "Behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you" [Lk 24:49; cf. Acts 2:14; Jn 14:26; 20:21-23]. Paul subsequently asserts: "which he poured out upon us richly" [Tit 3:6]...[4. Difference between ‘Ek’ and ‘Dia’] ... Moreover, we have previously mentioned that here is a very great difference between the sending to the created world and the procession which is timeless and eternal, in which He alone directly proceeds from the Father, as we said, and as we will more fully explain with the help of God in the course of our exposition. Consequently, the great Athanasios, whom you presented as your advocate, does not help you. Instead, he argues against you for he allies himself with the Lord and with all the God-filled and wise theologians of the Church. Therefore, he ridicules those of contrary opinion, that is, against these pneumatomachs [adverseries of the Spirit], by directing this jest at them: "If the Holy Spirit is not a creature, then He is a son; thus, there will be found to be two sons and brothers, or rather, the Logos will be a son, the Spirit will be a grandson, and the Father will be a grandfather." These are their nonsensical prattlings, and that is why he ridicules them.
[5. The Interpretation by the Theologians of 'Ek' and 'Dia' Is Incorrect] In spite of these things, our humble self is greatly astonished at your sagacity. When you write in your second reply, and we quote: "If there is one who believes that the Holy Spirit alone is from the Father, and through the Son, but does not proceed from the Son, let him know that he believes the impossible; for these are contradictory to each other, and cancel one the other." However, those things which we profess are not impossible, nor do they contradict each other, nor do they cancel one the other, as you say. For the truth never conflicts with the truth. And although not fully treated, this much is sufficient for the present concerning these matters. However, I diligently researched the matter and found but two main differences between us on the subject. First, that you understand the sending and the procession to be one and the same things. And for this reason you say incorrectly: "If the Spirit is sent by the Son, then it follows that He also proceeds from him." ...
As the great ArmEnian calvinist scholar R. J. Rushdoony pointed out, the Eastern church's subtle subordinationism kept the church (the realm of redemption) under the thumb of the state (the realm of creation) for most of Orthodoxy's history. Under the muslims, patriarchs were selected/ordained/recognized by the caliph, after paying the customary bribes. Under the Soviets, the Russian Orthodox hierarchy worked closely with the KGB. The West owes political liberty to the filoque.
I don't see how it follows. Separation from Rome, not aspects of trinitarian doctrine, is the fastest path to state dominance.
Is the Liturgy for the Consecration of a bishop available online in English? I would like to read the whole of it now that you have given this tremendous insight into the manner of consecrating an Orthodox bishop.
I'm pretty sure that it is not. If you think that it would be of interest to anyone, I could try to scan it in and post it some time.
The Filioque:Truth or Trivia?
The Filioque: the Vital Orthodox Understanding of the Procession of the Holy Spirit
AUG. If it be asked here whether the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Son also, we may answer thus: The Son is the Son of the Father alone, and the Father is the Father of the Son only; but the Holy Spirit is not the Spirit of one, but of both; since Christ Himself said, The Spirit of your Father which speaks in you (Mat 10:20). And the Apostle says, God has sent the Spirit of His Son into your hearts (Gal 4:6). This indeed, I think, is the reason why He is called peculiarly the Spirit. For both of the Father and the Son separately we may pronounce, that each is a Spirit. But what each is separately in a general sense, He who is not either one separately, but the union of both, is spiritually. But if the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of the Son, why should we not believe that He proceeds from the Son? Indeed if He did not proceed from the Son, Christ would not after the resurrection have breathed on His disciples, and said, Receive you the Holy Ghost. This too is what is meant by the virtue which went out of Him, and healed all. If the Holy Ghost then proceeds both from the Father and the Son, why does Christ say, Who proceeds from the Father? He says it in accordance with His general way of referring all that He has to Him from whom He is; as where He says, My doctrine is not Mine, but His that sent Me. If the doctrine was His, which He says was not His own, but the Father's, much more does the Holy Spirit proceed from Him, consistently with His proceeding from the Father. From whom the Son has His Godhead, from Him He has it that the Holy Ghost proceeds from Him. And this explains why the Holy Ghost is not said to be born, but to proceed. For if He were born, He would be the Son of both Father and Son, an absurd supposition; for if two together have a Son, those two must be father and mother. But to imagine any such relation as this between God the Father, and God the Son, is monstrous. Even the human offspring does not proceed from father or mother at the same time; when it proceeds from the father, it does not proceed from the mother. Whereas the Holy Spirit does not proceed from the Father into the Son, and from the Son into the creature to be sanctified; but proceeds from Father and Son at once. And if the Father is life, and the Son is life, so the Holy Ghost is life also. Just then as the Father when He had life in Himself, gave also to the Son to have life in Himself; so He gave to the Son also that life should proceed from Him, even as it proceeded from Himself.
Catena Aurea John 15
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.