/christian/ - christian

>>23586 (OP) 
>This article is a paper read at the informal Conference between Orthodox Catholic and Roman Catholic theologians in Paris in 1950. It was written in French and appeared in "Russie et Chretiente», which published all the papers and minutes of the conference.
>It was translated from the French text by Seminarian Alexander Romanoff, a student at St. Vladimir's Seminary.


>To present the Orthodox triadology, two diagrams are proposed that seem to me equally insufficient. The first is proposed by some photians: it is an angle whose summit represents the Father and the two points where the sides end, the Son and the Holy Ghost. This diagram exposes pretty well the equality of the Son and the Holy Ghost, proceeding from the same Father, but it does not tell us anything about the relation of the Son with the Holy Ghost.

>The other diagram pretends to formulate the patristic doctrine: it is a straight line, the starting point is the Father, the final the Holy Ghost and the one that divides it in two is the Son. This diagram is excellent for representing the economic Trinity; the Father acts in the world, through the Son, in the Holy Ghost. But it is totally insufficient for Trinity itself, since each person is in direct relation with the other two, and that this relation passes into the Perichoresos through the second Person into the third.

>The complete diagram of Orthodox Theology should be a triangle placed within a circle. The summit of this triangle is God the Father; the perichorese movement goes forth from the Father in two directions and returns to Him passing through the two other hypostases. The Son and the Holy Ghost are just as active as the Father in this movement, but only the Father is the existential Cause, the Son being the Principle of Revelation of the divine Truth, the Holy Ghost the Principle of dynamic manifestation of the Absolute Being of God, the fulness of existence of this Absolute Being realizing itself in the Father who possesses His Son and His Spirit.

https://azbyka.ru/otechnik/Sergej_Verhovskoj/procession-of-the-holy-spirit-according-to-orthodox-doctrine-of-the-trinity/

>>23587
From the article linked
>As yet Orthodox theology does not possess a trinitarian doctrine definitely elaborated and recognized by the magisterium of the Church or by the majority of theologians as a doctrine incontestably representative of Orthodoxy.

Man. How the heck is anyone supposed to dialog with the Orthodox when they can't even say what the Orthodox position is!? No matter how you square the circle, you'll have an Orthodox representative in communion with the others disputing that it's not a triangle.

>>23588
"we don't know" is the orthodox position :^)

Orthodox_Trinity_diagram_draft.png
[Hide] (15.8KB, 758x559)

>>23587
Where did I go wrong?

>>23590 
It looks about right in diagramming the specifics between the economic procession of the Spirit through the Son in the plan of salvation and the hypostatic procession of the Spirit from the Father alone (and placing neither in a substantially subordinate position) from what I'm aware, and giving a complete illustration of the relationships of the persons in the Trinity. 

Even if the positions are reconcilable, sectarians would refuse the solution on principle.

>>23586 (OP) 
Also in your previous thread https://archive.is/ZEtZy I cited the doctrine of consubstantiality and did not realize I was indirectly quoting St. Athanasius on the subject, from Against the Arians:

>But it is not so, as they think; for not understanding that He is genuine Son from the Father, they belie Him who is such, whom alone it befits to say, 'I in the Father and the Father in Me.' For the Son is in the Father, as it is allowed us to know, because the whole Being of the Son is proper to the Father's essence , as radiance from light, and stream from fountain; so that whoever sees the Son, sees what is proper to the Father, and knows that the Son's Being, because from the Father, is therefore in the Father. For the Father is in the Son, since the Son is what is from the Father and proper to Him, as in the radiance the sun, and in the word the thought, and in the stream the fountain: for whoever thus contemplates the Son, contemplates what is proper to the Father's Essence, and knows that the Father is in the Son. For whereas the Form and Godhead of the Father is the Being of the Son, it follows that the Son is in the Father and the Father in the Son.

>On this account and reasonably, having said before, 'I and the Father are One,' He added, 'I in the Father and the Father in Me, John 10:30 ' by way of showing the identity of Godhead and the unity of Essence. For they are one, not as one thing divided into two parts, and these nothing but one, nor as one thing twice named, so that the Same becomes at one time Father, at another His own Son, for this Sabellius holding was judged an heretic. But They are two, because the Father is Father and is not also Son, and the Son is Son and not also Father ; but the nature is one; (for the offspring is not unlike its parent, for it is his image), and all that is the Father's, is the Son's. Wherefore neither is the Son another God, for He was not procured from without, else were there many, if a godhead be procured foreign from the Father's ; for if the Son be other, as an Offspring, still He is the Same as God; and He and the Father are one in propriety and peculiarity of nature, and in the identity of the one Godhead, as has been said. For the radiance also is light, not second to the sun, nor a different light, nor from participation of it, but a whole and proper offspring of it. And such an offspring is necessarily one light; and no one would say that they are two lights , but sun and radiance two, yet one the light from the sun enlightening in its radiance all things. So also the Godhead of the Son is the Father's; whence also it is indivisible; and thus there is one God and none other but He. 'And so, since they are one, and the Godhead itself one, the same things are said of the Son, which are said of the Father, except His being said to be Father' :— for instance , that He is God, 'And the Word was God John 1:1;' Almighty, 'Thus says He which was and is and is to come, the Almighty Revelation 1:8;' Lord, 'One Lord Jesus Christ 1 Corinthians 8:6;' that He is Light, 'I am the Light John 8:12;' that He wipes out sins, 'that you may know,' He says, 'that the Son of man has power upon earth to forgive sins Luke 5:24;' and so with other attributes. For 'all things,' says the Son Himself, 'whatsoever the Father has, are Mine ;' and again, 'And Mine are Yours.'

>And on hearing the attributes of the Father spoken of a Son, we shall thereby see the Father in the Son; and we shall contemplate the Son in the Father, when what is said of the Son is said of the Father also. And why are the attributes of the Father ascribed to the Son, except that the Son is an Offspring from Him? And why are the Son's attributes proper to the Father, except again because the Son is the proper Offspring of His Essence? And the Son, being the proper Offspring of the Father's Essence, reasonably says that the Father's attributes are His own also; whence suitably and consistently with saying, 'I and the Father are One,' He adds, 'that you may know that I am in the Father and the Father in Me.' Moreover, He has added this again, 'He that has seen Me, has seen the Father ;' and there is one and the same sense in these three passages. For he who in this sense understands that the Son and the Father are one, knows that He is in the Father and the Father in the Son; for the Godhead of the Son is the Father's, and it is in the Son; and whoever enters into this, is convinced that 'He that has seen the Son, has seen the Father.' for in the Son is contemplated the Father's Godhead. 

https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/28163.htm

>>23590
I'm very hesitant to speak of causation within the being of God

>>23593
>Even if the positions are reconcilable, sectarians would refuse the solution on principle.
Heh. I agree. Like I said elsewhere in the thread, even if you could square the circle, someone is going to complain it's not a triangle. 

>>23596
>Also in your previous thread
Heh, thanks for coming back. 

> St. Athanasius
See isn't that the rub? It seems to me when you put the Western theology in its own context on its own terms, the filoque is internally consistent and is not heresy. But when you put the Eastern theology in its own context on its own terms, the filioque is not internally consistent and is heretical. 
So it seems to me the reality on the ground is there are two incompatible, yet internally consistent theologies about God's internal life. So how could a dummy like me be confident that I've made the correct choice? 
It's very regrettable that the Filioque was added without an ecumenical council. What's more, its regrettable that it was dogmatized at Florence. Otherwise, I think we'd be able to say both interpretations are permissible theological opinions and we'll never know the truth about God's inner life. 

But where does that leave me on Sunday? Where should I take communion? (I mean that rhetorically, as in, how do I discern between East and West). 

Have the Orientals weighed in on the issue? I suspect they lean towards the EO side.

1470388740897.jpg
[Hide] (17.4KB, 320x320)

>>23599
>Have the Orientals weighed in on the issue? I suspect they lean towards the EO side.
I was right:
From an Joint statement with the Anglicans
https://www.anglicancommunion.org/media/312561/the-procession-and-work-of-the-holy-spirit-dublin-agreed-statement.pdf

>The Oriental Orthodox Churches consider the addition of Filioque as an error since it breaks the order within the Trinity and puts into question the Father’s role as source, cause, and principle of both the Son and the Spirit. 
>We distinguish between the two levels: Theologia (θεολογία) which refers to the essence (οὐσία) of God and the intra-trinitarian relationships, and Economia (οἰκονομία), which refers to the activities (ἐνέργεια) of God and his relation to the world. Consequently, we distinguish the eternal procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father alone, and the sending of the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost, from the Father, through the Son.
>We agree that while the Holy Fathers speak of a relationship of the Holy Spirit to the Father through the Son,4 they never hold that the Spirit proceeds from or through the Son: ‘The Spirit was and is the Son’s as He was and is the Father’s; for though He proceeds from the Father, yet He is not alien from the Son; for the Son has all things in common with the Father, as the Lord has himself taught us.’ 5 When the Holy Fathers proclaim that the Spirit is ‘from the Father and the Son’,6 or that He progresses (πρόεισι) or flows forth (προκεῖται) from both, 7 they mean the temporal mission of the Holy Spirit. In Economia, the Holy Spirit is sent from the Father and receives manifestation from the Son. ‘He will glorify me, because he will take what is mine and declare it to you.’ 8 ‘He shines forth (ἐκλάμπει) and is sent and given by the Word’; The Holy Spirit from whom all the abundance of good things gushes up to creation, depends (ἤρτηται) on the Son, with whom he is indivisibly apprehended.’
>In the relationship between the Holy Trinity and Creation, ‘The Father does (κτίζει) all things through the Word in the Holy Spirit.’ 11 ‘Every operation (ἐνέργεια) which extends from God to the Creation, and is named according to our variable conceptions of it, has its origin (ἀφορμάται) from the Father, and proceeds (πρόεισι) through the Son and is perfected (τελειοῡται) in the Holy Spirit.’1

>>23586 (OP) 
Not to be negative, but I'd like to remind everyone this schism is more than 100 years old. In fact, its nearing 1000 years I think.
You're not solving it.

>>23586 (OP) 
catholics believe same thing as easterners when they say 'through' the son. 'and the son' has a heretical meaning when translated to greek because it implies double origin or something along those lines. But easterners will always be suspicious because they will never come to binding and authoritative agreement among themselves no matter how many concessions and placations catholics make

>>23600
this is what catechism of catholic church says

>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." By this confession, the Church recognizes the Father as "the source and origin of the whole divinity".

>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."

 >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. 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", 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.

>>23602
no one here thinks they're going to solve it, since that is on the hierarchy and laity to follow them. but that doesnt mean that there is nothing to be gained by an intellectual inquiry into the matter as if there is no truth to it and is just a battle of wills.

>>23604
>This legitimate complementarity, provided it does not become rigid, does not affect the identity of faith in the reality of the same mystery confessed.
I posted this quote before but this statement could be seen as backpeddling from the more exclusive stance put forward at Florence.

>>23606
and that is? besides it is the magisterium that interprets the canons of  councils.

It simply cannot be resolved. 
The Catholics believe the father and the Son are both the equal causes of the Spirit's hypostasis. In other words, there are two causes. 
The Eastern and Oriental Orthodox believe the Father alone is the cause of the Spirit's hypostasis. In other words, there is one cause. 

Not even God could make 2=1. 

If there were a solution, you'd see it all over the internet. Instead, all you get is people on both sides throwing their theology at each other. Which is exactly what happened at Florence. 
Florence closed the door to reunion by making the Westerm theology dogma. Dogmacannot change and therefore the Eastern theology cannot be accepted as a permissible difference of theological opinion.

>>23608
>In 1995, the PCPCU pointed out an important difference in meaning between the Greek verb ἐκπορεύεσθαι and the Latin verb procedere, both of which are commonly translated as "proceed". It stated that the Greek verb ἐκπορεύεσθαι indicates that the Spirit "takes his origin from the Father ... in a principal, proper and immediate manner", while the Latin verb, which corresponds rather to the verb προϊέναι in Greek, can be applied to proceeding even from a mediate channel. Therefore, ἐκπορευόμενον ("who proceeds"), used in the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed to signify the proceeding of the Holy Spirit, cannot be appropriately used in the Greek language with regard to the Son, but only with regard to the Father, a difficulty that does not exist in Latin and other languages.[61]

>>23610
That is not as important or insightful as it initially seems. You have to read the text of Florence. 
>In the name of the holy Trinity, Father, Son and holy Spirit, we define, with the approval of this holy universal council of Florence, that the following truth of faith shall be believed and accepted by all Christians and thus shall all profess it: that the holy Spirit is eternally from the Father and the Son, and has 'his essence and his subsistent being from the Father together with the Son, and proceeds from both eternally as from one principle and a single spiration.' We declare that when holy doctors and fathers say that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son, this bears the sense that thereby also =the Son should be signified, according to the Greeks indeed as cause,= and according to the Latins as principle of the subsistence of the holy Spirit, just like the Father.

All Orthodoxy absolutely rejects calling the Son "a cause" as was dogmatized in Florence. St. Gregory of Nyssa, St. Gregory Palamas, St. John of Damascus, and even the Council of Blachernae all categorically state: 'the Father' is the foundation and the source of the Son and the Spirit, 'the only source of divinity, and the only cause.'

You can't have it both ways. The Father cannot be the only cause if the Father and the Son are together are the cause.
1=/=2

>>23610
To continue, at Florence the Eastern delegates presented a letter from St. Maximus the Confessor three times as the solution. 

>Those of the Queen of cities have attacked the synodal letter of the present very holy Pope (Martin I), not in the case of all the chapters that he has written in it, but only in the case of two of them. One relates to theology, because it says he says that ‘the Holy Spirit proceeds (ἐκπορεύεσθαι) also from the Son.’…With regard to the first matter, they (the Romans) have produced the unanimous documentary evidence of the Latin fathers, and also of Cyril of Alexandria, from the sacred commentary he composed on the gospel of St. John. On the basis of these texts, 'they have shown that they have not made the Son the cause of the Spirit — they know in fact that the Father is the only cause of the Son and the Spirit, the one by begetting and the other by procession;' but [they use this expression] in order to manifest 'the Spirit’s coming-forth (προϊέναι) through Him [the Son] ' and, in this way, to make clear the unity and identity of the essence (Letter to Marinus).

All three times the Western delegation rejected it.

>>23612
it was rejected because it could be interpreted in a photian sense since the sons role isnt made clear if it means temporal procession as in pentecost or eternally.


>>23611
proceeds from both eternally as from one principle and a single spiration.
one principle = father
one spiration = sharing of common divine nature between father and son since there is only one divinty
we should understand the 'proceed' in latin has a dual meaning of both first cause and mediate cause and in the greek fathers 'through' and is meant in the original nicene creed as 'proceed' as first cause

>>23611
>Council of Blachernae 
the photian doctrine of proceeding from the father [alone] is just as much if not more of an innovation if it is meant that the son has no role in spiration which would be akin to polytheism

>>23614
>the sons role isnt made clear if it means temporal procession as in pentecost or eternally.
That's the great tragedy of Florence. The Emperor specifically forbid them to discuss Palamas' essence/energy distinction.  So the Latins, operating on theology Augustine and Aquinas didn't know enough about Eastern theology to find the way forward to synthesis, but they knew enough to write themselves into a corner. 
There was also some question about the letter's authenticity. Which looking back today, seems strange to me. Who cares who wrote it if that's the way to create union?
 It's a real shame they couldn't engage with Maximus on his own terms. 

>proceeds from both eternally as from one principle and a single spiration. One principle = father
>one spiration = sharing of common divine nature between
>father and son since there is only one divinty
Grab a pen and paper and draw it. The way Florence is written forbids a reconciliation. Unless the Catholics are going to rewrite dogma and admit they were wrong. 

>>23615
>the son has no role is spiration
Spiration is a Latin theological term coming from their idea of defining the Trinity's relations by/in opposition. Such is foreign to the Orthodox.

>>23615
It also lends itself to the possibility of subordinationism and Arianism that the filioque is designed to exclude.

>>23616
>Grab a pen and paper and draw it.
It's just a matter of perspective. The Father begets the Son and the Spirit proceeds from the two as if a single principle. So if you didn't draw the relations as a triangle, but rather were looking at the situation head on, the Son being the very image of the Father, it would appear that the Spirit is proceeding from a single source. Our God is three-dimensional.

>>23618
>from the two as if a single principle.
And we know from Florence, Latin principle = Greek cause.
Therefore
>from the two as a single cause
>From the [Father and the Son] as a cause. 
Therefore, the son IS a cause of the Holy Spirit. 

Which s EXACTLY what the Orthodox reject. They believe the father is the only cause. 
There is no way around it now. 2=/=1. 
Catholics would have to backtrack the declarative statement of a council ratified by the Pope 600 years ago. Which they cannot and will not do. 
If it were so simple as saying "from the Father through the son" we would've reunited it by now.

>>23618
>looking at the situation head on, the Son being the very image of the Father, it would appear that the Spirit is proceeding from a single source.
Rev 22:1
Then he showed me the river of the water of life, bright as crystal, flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb

>>23619
>They believe the father is the only cause. 
But do they actually, since they seem to believe in a variety of things so long as they disagree with what the scummy Latins believe.