There is absolutely no salvation outside the Church, this we can be sure is the teaching of the Scriptures and the fathers. So, why not rag on the schismatic Protestants?
The obvious truth is that God wants the salvation of the sinner more than the sinner wants his own. This is unequivocal and universal.
One of my favorite recent saints, because he speaks the language of western theology in strikingly modern terms, is Saint Philaret of Moscow. On the question, he points out the obvious:
It is self evident, however, that sincere Christians who are Roman Catholics, or Lutherans, or members, of other non-Orthodox confessions, cannot be termed renegades or heretics—i.e. those who knowingly pervert the truth…They have been born and raised and are living according to the creed which they have inherited, just as do the majority of you who are Orthodox; in their lives there has not been a moment of personal and conscious renunciation of Orthodoxy.
To buttress his point, he quotes Saint Theodore the Recluse:
You ask, will the heterodox be saved… Why do you worry about them? They have a Saviour Who desires the salvation of every human being. He will take care of them. You and I should not be burdened with such a concern. Study yourself and your own sins…I will tell you one thing, however: should you, being Orthodox and possessing the Truth in its fullness, betray Orthodoxy, and enter a different faith, you will lose your soul forever.
The first time I heard the above saint’s words on the subject, I’ll admit, I did not like them. This was for several reasons. They contradicted my chief reason for becoming (and still my main reason for staying) Orthodox–schism will damn you. I also did not like a “modern” saint, with their fluffier and friendlier answers, contradicting the straight-forward treatment of the same topic by martyrs and saints of old. It seemed to be an attempt to have one’s cake and eat it too–to have a pro-modernist position all the meanwhile threatening the rank and file not to leave Orthodoxy.
In response to this, as I reflect on this, I believe my earlier sentiment comes from ignorance and pride. Ignorance of simply not knowing enough yet, nor ever having the Eucharist. Pride from doubting the saints, who speak from the vantage point of knowing God more intimately.
Our Savior and God teaches, “For everyone to whom much is given, from him much will be required; and to whom much has been committed, of him they will ask the more” (Luke 12:48).
In our modern day and age, we take the preceding as license. If God may save schismatics, then He will save schismatics. This is untrue. Normatively, schismatics are unsaved. Period.
We must affirm an essential Christian truth, however. Those who have been given little will not be judged like those who have been given much.
My wife and I once attended a Greek Orthodox service. It was the most nominal and impious service one may imagine. They cut the liturgy in half to make time for a prayer service for a family afterwards, kept “left-over Eucharist” for those who were about one hour late, and laughed all about it afterwards. This was absolutely the worse possible face one could have put on for Orthodoxy, the very epitome of nominalism. It would be no surprise that the next time I visited this parish, the priest was far more impassioned than usual and in fact taught two sermons–inspired by his cousin being baptized into a Protestant communion.
My wife and I then went to our old Reformed Baptist church after the liturgy that day to say hi to old friends. The teaching was long, engaging, and Biblical. Everyone was friendly (other than the Pastor himself, who was less guarded with his view of me an an apostate.) We, my wife and I, immediately felt a sense of sorrow.
Not for ourselves and our poor excuse for worship earlier that morning–no, it was for the Protestants. Our Reformed Baptist church, as solid, level-headed, and Biblical as one may find–nothing zany or crazy about it, did not worship God.
This stabbed us like a knife. We were once the people in the pews. Engaged, quiet, sitting down while reflecting upon every word of the Scriptures exegeted. We used to love every second of it. To us, this was worship. We did not know any better, because this is all we knew.
We never fasted. We never did long, prepratory prayers before worship. Most importantly, we never had the Eucharist.
I refuse to rag on a Protestant. “Lord, forgive them, they do not know what they do.” They do not know, for they do not have the Eucharist.
Just as those in Plato’s cave think the shadows are reality and the one who has left the dungeon, after seeing the light, cannot convince them of the outside reality–those without the Eucharist are no different. They will not believe, because they cannot believe. All they know is their world of shadows. The cross is foolishness to those perishing. God has laid low the wisdom of the wise with the cross, with the Eucharist! But those who do not know what it is like to have the Eucharist desire wisdom or even signs. But, the cross requires spiritual discernment.
This is why Paul went to the Corinthians knowing nothing but Christ and Him crucified. This was not merely the spoken word. For those baptized, which apparently were most of the Corinthians, it was the epitome of the cross–the Eucharist!
It is the Eucharist in which the sacrifice done once and for all is made available to us. We experience Jesus Christ in His flesh and blood and He becomes increasingly one with us.
How can I rag on a Protestant that has known none of this? He has never experienced it. He has never seen miracles, like I have seen–people who get sick from bread and wine stay well. Others getting sick. The Protestants have Eucharistic pageantry, but they do not have the Eucharist.
To me, this does not make them without blame. However, it gives us ever more the reason to have pity.
Who is with blame? Us Orthodox Christians. I am beginning to understand what Saint Theodore the Recluse wrote about when he said we who are in Orthodoxy cannot be saved if we leave the Church. How can one, who has had the Eucharist, turn his back on Christ being physically present in His flesh and blood? Such a faithless person is without excuse.
Let’s study our own sins and concern ourselves with not losing our own souls. May how we love one another, and our God, draw all men to Jesus Christ in the Eucharist–not in word, but in deed as well.

When I was in ignorance and totally unworthy of this knowledge, God revealed His Word (Gospel) to me in John 15:26 through Father Peter E. Gillquist, “Becoming Orthodox: A Journey to the Ancient Christian Faith”. 1st edition. Brentwood, Tennessee: Wolgemuth & Hyatt, 1989; “The Addition to the Creed”, and so God, the Holy Spirit, saved my soul from Filioque. In this, my understanding was no longer Lutheran. It bothered me in Lutheran congregations when they continued to say “and the Son”. I had always wanted to be Biblical, though Orthodoxy is in no way an ideology based upon a text, in no way based on the Bible, the Bible is an aspect of Orthodoxy and the Church; it is part of Tradition, and only the Church can say what Tradition (apostolic deposit of faith) is. So, in the Lutheran congregation, I was saying the Creed without the Filioque, and I felt out of place. I could no longer feel right attending Lutheran meetings. I also came to be told I did not have the Eucharist. As it is, as I come to Orthodox, I need to confess my sins. I still have sins to overcome. I need to overcome a problem with fasting more. I have sins of how I eat, and food, that keep me in a spiritually immature state. I need to come to the Eucharist. I need repentance so I can receive the Eucharist more often. I need God’s grace. So I do not say anything about the non-Orthodox now. As an Orthodox, I struggle at being Orthodox and living up to Orthodoxy, and doing what I need to do. I have to do better. I need to think what I am doing, and do better actions based on repentant thought. God save us all who have become Orthodox, we need to be and become Orthodox all the more. God save us.
Very interesting article. All men are called to the unity of God’s church.
Following are some extracts from the Catechism of the Catholic church on church unity as well as the relations between Christians.
THE CHURCH IS ONE
“The sacred mystery of the Church’s unity” (UR 2)
813 The Church is one because of her source: “the highest exemplar and source of this mystery is the unity, in the Trinity of Persons, of one God, the Father and the Son in the Holy Spirit.”259 The Church is one because of her founder: for “the Word made flesh, the prince of peace, reconciled all men to God by the cross, . . . restoring the unity of all in one people and one body.”260 The Church is one because of her “soul”: “It is the Holy Spirit, dwelling in those who believe and pervading and ruling over the entire Church, who brings about that wonderful communion of the faithful and joins them together so intimately in Christ that he is the principle of the Church’s unity.”261 Unity is of the essence of the Church:
What an astonishing mystery! There is one Father of the universe, one Logos of the universe, and also one Holy Spirit, everywhere one and the same; there is also one virgin become mother, and I should like to call her “Church.”262
814 From the beginning, this one Church has been marked by a great diversity which comes from both the variety of God’s gifts and the diversity of those who receive them. Within the unity of the People of God, a multiplicity of peoples and cultures is gathered together. Among the Church’s members, there are different gifts, offices, conditions, and ways of life. “Holding a rightful place in the communion of the Church there are also particular Churches that retain their own traditions.”263 The great richness of such diversity is not opposed to the Church’s unity. Yet sin and the burden of its consequences constantly threaten the gift of unity. and so the Apostle has to exhort Christians to “maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.”264
815 What are these bonds of unity? Above all, charity “binds everything together in perfect harmony.”265 But the unity of the pilgrim Church is also assured by visible bonds of communion:
– profession of one faith received from the Apostles;
-common celebration of divine worship, especially of the sacraments;
– apostolic succession through the sacrament of Holy Orders, maintaining the fraternal concord of God’s family.
266
Who belongs to the Catholic Church?
836 “All men are called to this catholic unity of the People of God…. and to it, in different ways, belong or are ordered: the Catholic faithful, others who believe in Christ, and finally all mankind, called by God’s grace to
salvation.”320
837 “Fully incorporated into the society of the Church are those who, possessing the Spirit of Christ, accept all the means of salvation given to the Church together with her entire organization, and who – by the bonds constituted by the profession of faith, the sacraments, ecclesiastical government, and communion – are joined in the visible structure of the Church of Christ, who rules her through the Supreme Pontiff and the bishops. Even though incorporated into the Church, one who does not however persevere in charity is not saved. He remains indeed in the bosom of the Church, but ‘in body’ not ‘in heart.'”321
838 “The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter.”322 Those “who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church.”323 With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound “that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord’s Eucharist.”324
Craig–
This is you NOT ragging on Protestants? My goodness, what on earth would real ragging look like? We’re damned as schismatics–well, normatively–but might have an out if we keep ourselves ignorant enough.
I absolutely detest your vision of unity. All physical, not at all spiritual, not at all compassionate. God wants us to be one with the hollow shell of an institution, as long as it’s the correct hollow shell. Vibrant love and adoration and worship and ministry and preaching and evangelism and prayer and study of the Word is as nothing compared with physical membership in the “right” company. Yecccchh!!! Count me out.
You have the Eucharist now, and IT has made all the difference. How do you know? You only have your own experience. Sure, things can look bigger and brighter within the tent of Orthodoxy. But possibly all that means is that you failed to experience the bigness and brightness of magisterial Protestantism. You were never really INSIDE inside of Reformational thought and practice, but merely on the periphery, missing the essence of it.
If you’re wrong about what constitutes unity, you might be the one who is CAUSING an increase in division! Conservative Protestants meld together almost seemlessly in worship. They keep their distinctives but do not major on them when it comes to fellowshiping with the faithful.
You, on the other hand, are off to the side in a corner doing your own thing. Wow, what unity!
Ouch.
You a while back that no one becomes Orthodox or Roman Catholic by experience, but by reading. I agree. I cannot make any other appeal to you but by reading, because my experience is relevant only to me. I am not too holy where I cannot be deceived, I easily concede you this. However, due to you not having the Eucharist, you must defend your own expeience, as Orthodoxy or RCism would in some way forfeit it. So, I understand where you are coming from. But, I hope you can even contemplate if the Eucharist IS what we say it is and I do find it weird why we sometimes call His flesh and blood an “it” but I do not pretend to understand the theology of this, then perhaps you may find our experience compelling to ourselves.
Craig–
I was actually referring (obliquely) to G. K. Chesterton’s observation that (to a convert) the Catholic Church appears much larger from the inside than it did previously when viewed from the outside.
Other than experience, what possible rationale do you have for declaring Protestant Eucharistic celebrations invalid? Or for declaring Orthodox celebrations somehow transcendent by comparison?
I prefer not to get specific, but the miraculous element. Never seen it in Protestantism, nor do Protestants think it exists anyway. I know this is not compelling so I do not hold it against you.
Craig–
The miraculous element?
The Real Presence–the sacramental / miraculous change in the elements–is there in Anglicanism and Lutheranism and Presbyterianism. Explanations differ but the true body and blood of our Lord is eaten and drunk.
I am not sure that it is, nor does anyone in those communions believe the Eucharist is the crucified and resurrected Lord.
I would say reading itself is an experience, so one does not come to Orthodoxy by reading alone, but by the truth content in Orthodoxy which one reads. Reading alone does not save, but believing what one reads. Reading John 15:26 alone does not save, but believing the words “who proceeds from the Father” (NKJV) which Christ says eternally. The Eternal WORD, Jesus Christ, is the only Authority in the Church, and the Bible through Him. Apart from Him, the Bible does nothing. It is not the Word of Man; it is Christ the Son of Man’s words. OT Anagiskomena and NT. Unless one also experiences the life-giving mysteries of the Church, the Orthodox Church, one has no life, no Christ, in oneself.
Water–
You declare that charity is your number one priority, but then you base unity not on love and common spirituality…but membership in a common institution.
Environmentalists are split into thousands of organizations, but their enthusiasm for protecting the earth gives them a great unifying point. And no, they wouldn’t be more unified if you got them all to sign up for the Sierra Club.
Hans,
Here again we have the ugly “either/or” dichotomy raising its head. It seems to be part of your make up! Its not charity “or” the institution, but both. Both the church Jesus founded and the charity he requires of his followers.
Craig / W & S–
Both Orthodoxy and Catholicism have this odd notion of not being able to reject EO/RC once having accepted it. But wouldn’t leaving the Church almost always involve being convinced of another truth? How often would anyone say, “I can clearly see that X is the Church that Christ founded, but I’m leaving it anyway.” Wouldn’t you all more naturally see them as deceived by those detestable Protestants? And if deceived, how could they possibly be more accountable than, say, an educated Protestant, who has tirelessly researched all of the relevant data but come to a negative conclusion regarding Rome and/or Constantinople?
Hans,
Read John 6. Jesus’ disciples leave him in droves, because they cannot accept his teaching – on the Eucharist of all things, convinced that they have “another truth”, Deuteronomy. They fail to recognise Jesus for who he is, God. Peter, on the other hand has faith, and he believes, though he does not understand how this can come about. The Jews, intellectually, come to a negative conclusion about Jesus, just as you, intellectually, come to a negative conclusion about the church. They do not recognise who Jesus is, and you do not recognise who Jesus’ church is, that he is the head of the church, and that there is no other. That Jesus is in a covenant relationship with the church, like a marriage – see Paul on this in Ephesians – where Jesus is the bridegroom and the church his bride. A divorce is not possible. Cut away from the vine you wither.
Water–
God is EITHER trinitarian OR he’s unitarian. Christ is EITHER divine OR he’s not. Rome’s church was EITHER founded by Christ OR it was not. Either/or “rears its ugly head” a lot for one good reason: the law of non-contradiction is a bedrock tenet of basic logic.
Hans,
How is charity in opposition to one true church? The law of non-contradiction is in no way involved here.
Luther’s church, Calvin’s church, Knox’s church, were either founded by Christ, or they were not. The Frankish papacy (Nicholas I, 867 AD), was either founded by Christ, or it was not. It becomes a case where the name of God, Jesus Christ, becomes turned from a blessing into a curse, “the development of doctrine”, then it becomes a burden on the whole world, “Jesus BLANK @#!@#!”, With a Satanic shibboleth, “Filioque”, “Sola fide”, “sola Scriptura”, “double predestination”, “TULIP”, and what not. The vain imaginations of false men. (God rescue me: I have sinned).
Water–
Charity and unity are not opposed…if you actually practice them. The Roman Church is so completely uncharitable in its evaluation of other churches that it arrogantly works against any real unity in the body of Christ as a whole. Protestant churches are far less likely to judge their fellow Christians as being outside the true faith and banning them from the Eucharist (which is the mark of unity).
You don’t encourage unity by withholding the most significant sign of unity.
Hans,
Speak to Jesus. Jesus calls for that unity. He leads the church. That unity cannot be traded for fellowship’s sake. Jesus’ demands upon the Christian are high. He makes no compromises. He lets the rich man go. He lets his disciples leave in John 6. In fact in John 6 he raises the bar. He repeats his teaching on the Eucharist 7 times. ( See article on my blog on this. ) Paul warns us about division. He is serious about it, he is not just joking. John says in 1 John 2:19 “19 They have gone from among us, but they never really belonged to us; if they had belonged to us, they would have stayed with us. But this was to prove that not one of them belonged to us.”
Water–
You’re begging the question: I don’t agree that Rome’s church was founded by Christ. It’s not convincingly “Jesus’ church” unless you can prove it (which you can’t).
Even by Rome’s standards, we Protestant’s are in “certain though imperfect” communion with Rome. In other words, Rome has declared that we are still attached to the vine. No withering necessary!
Hans,
In A.D. 107 St Ignatius of Antioch writes to the Smyrneans, on his way to martyrdom in Rome:
“See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.”
Read the church fathers if you have any doubt that the Catholic church is not the church that Jesus founded.
The idea that Jesus did not found the Catholic church dates from the reformation, got any clues why?
Water–
So then, why does the RC church not act according to the words of Ignatius? Do you have the bishop there at Mass in your parish every Sunday? Why not? Go and find him next time and insist that he be there! Or go worship where he worships. (Do you have a cathedral nearby?)
Obviously, Ignatius’ idea of a bishop and your idea of one are not one and the same. The church was quite small back then. Bishops were local leaders. Baptism and Confirmation took place at the same time rather than years apart.
Ignatius was writing about St. Polycarp, the bishop of the Smyrnaeans. He was a pretty cool dude. I’d obey him, too.
Ignatius, by the way, never once mentions the bishop of Rome, though he’s headed there for martyrdom and though he pens a letter to the Roman congregations themselves. Interesting….
Hans,
Read the letter: “or by one to whom he has entrusted it. ”
Hans, not so fast.
Ignatius of Antioch, c 110 A.D. “Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to the Church which has obtained mercy, through the majesty of the Most High Father, and Jesus Christ, His only-begotten Son…. You have never envied any one; you have taught others. ” Letter to the Romans. 3,1)
St Iraneus, ca. 190 A.D. “2. ….. [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority [potiorem principalitatem].
3. The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. This man, as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their traditions before his eyes. Nor was he alone [in this], for there were many still remaining who had received instructions from the apostles.” ( Against Heresies, 3,3,2-3.)
St Cyprian of Carthage, A.D 252. “After such things as these, moreover, they still dare — a false bishop having been appointed for them by, heretics— to set sail and to bear letters from schismatic and profane persons to the throne of Peter, and to the chief church whence priestly unity takes its source; and not to consider that these were the Romans whose faith was praised in the preaching of the apostle, to whom faithlessness could have no access.” (Letter to Cornelius of Rome)
Not to forget Paul, in Romans 1 “8 First I give thanks to my God through Jesus Christ for all of you because your faith is talked of all over the world.”
Tertullian, 213 A.D. “Peter alone, do I find married, …. for the church, built upon him …” (Monogamy).
Tertullian, 213 A.D. Do you presume, because the Lord said to Peter: ” on this rock I will build my church” or ” whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven; whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.’ that the power of binding and loosing has thereby been handed to you, that is, to every church akin to Peter? What kind of man are you, subverting and changing what was the manifest intent of the Lord when he conferred this personally upon Peter?”(Monogamy).
St Clement of Alexandria circa 200 A.D. “”On hearing these words, the blessed Peter, the chosen, the pre-eminent, the first among the disciples, for whom alone the Lord paid tribute, …” (Who is the rich man that is saved).
Origen 232 A.D. ” Peter, upon whom is built the church of Christ, against which the gates of hell shall not prevail, …” (Commentaries on John).
St Cyprian of Carthage, 251 A.D. “There is one God and one Christ, and one church, and one chair founded on Peter by the word of the Lord. It is not possible to set up another altar or for there to be another priesthood besides that one altar and that one priesthood. Whoever has gathered elsewhere is scattering.” (Letter of Cyprian to all his people.)
St Cyprian of Carthage, 254 A.D. “For the church, which is one and Catholic, is not split or divided, but is indeed united and joined by the cement of priests who adhere to one another.” ( Letter to Florentius Papianus)
Etc, etc, etc.
Hans,
See my reply to this.
Water–
Do you honestly believe that every Patristics scholar who has ever lived cannot help themselves (after all the requisite in-depth reading of early texts) and eventually converts to Rome?
All kinds of academics don’t buy your reading of the church fathers. I don’t buy your reading of the church fathers. (Have you actually read the church fathers? Or are you accepting someone else’s word for what they have to say?)
Believe it or not, every denomination believes that it’s teachings are universally true (and thus “catholic”) and that thereby, IT was founded by Christ.
The Reformation was not starting from scratch. It viewed itself as the valid continuation of the Apostolic Church, which had become utterly corrupt. (Read about the Medieval church. You’ll think so, too!)
Calvin, in his “Institutes” calls the church that he is part of the Holy Catholic Church. Luther hated having his name attached to the Reformational churches in Germany. To this day, in fact, they’re called “Evangelical” and not “Lutheran” in Europe.
Hans,
The Patristics do not “convert” to Rome! There is one church, and they are all part of it!
I don’t care about “all the academics”. Think for yourself. Read what I gave you and respond to that. I’m not interested in what others have to say in general.
Water–
“Patristics” is the study of the fathers. I was talking about Patristics scholars, academics who study the fathers. They don’t agree with you. And if you don’t even care what the experts say in these matters, why should I consider what YOU have to say? Argue with them if you like, but don’t tell me your view on things is straightforward or self-evident. That’s not at all true.
Who gets to decide who is an expert on the Fathers and Patristics? Is a Patristic scholar of more value than an ecumenicla council of the whole Church? There may be some good in all Patristics scholars, but in the Church, all souls before God are of equal value before God, and no one should feel either inferior or superior to anyone else: we are all one in the Spirit and the LORD Christ Jesus. Sadly, we all have personal shortcomings and faults, and have to daily battle the lust of the eyes and the lust of the flesh and the pride of life, which are not of the Father, God. LORD have mercy on every one of us. God bless you.
Hans,
Tks for that info, but deal with the evidence I put to you and do not answer in generalities.
Scott–
Seriously?
All things being equal, it’s not advisable to get your theology from an ESPN fantasy-league sportscaster or a gluten-free bakery chef, no matter how equal their value may be in the eyes of God.
Seriously, Mr. Strawman (“We Protestants”) Hans, You have got to be joking! ‘Taint so, McGee, it never occurred to me getting theology from your spurious straw man analogies. Luther stole from Augustine and baked his theology to Sinatra’s “I Did It My Way” a la “the (false) gospel according to Martin Luther”, and cannibalized James 2:24 with his non-Pauline addition “alone” to Romans 3:28 in his ancient extinct “Germanic” Frankish language a la Charlemagne’s neither holy, nor Roman, nor an empire “and swallowed the whole ghoulish Filioque Frankish Charlemagne unclean spirit of a dead holy ghost, feathers and all”, in his jaded despairing view of man as a “dung heap” of “no free will” Augustinian original sin: “Be a sinner. Sin boldly”. Result: Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Japan, 1945.
Scott–
Straw man? You directly said there was no worth that needs to be afforded to expertise.
As for the rest of your reply….
You need to be on serious medication.
Hans, As for your non-reply, you need to take a lesson in charity and quit swallowing the ad hominem of the day venom you seem to have lost your sense of balance over this. Happiness comes from Jesus with or without any medication. God bless.
Scott–
My non-reply was in response to your non-comment.
Luther is responsible for Hiroshima?
To say that you are not in touch with reality is just a common-sense observation, not an ad hominem. I feel sorry for you, not angry.
Again, you fail to understand reality. Because you have probably not read: Schaeffer, Frank.. (1994). Dancing Alone: The Quest For Orthodox Faith in the Age of False Religions. Salisbury, MA: Regina Orthodox Press. Luther stands for self-authority. The papacy stands for self-authority. The atomic bomb comes from fear based on self-authority. Your sorrow is misplaced. If you follow Luther, your sorrow should be for yourself. The Enlightenment and secular humanist atheist worldview is behind the atomic bomb, a product of the Reformation, which is a product of Charlemagne, Filioque, and Pope Nicholas I. If you had any wisdom or common sense you would know this. It’s reality. To say you are not in touch with reality, Hans, is just common sense. You fail to understand Charlemagne, Filioque, and Luther.
scott,
You say “The papacy stands for self-authority. ”
Jesus is the author of that authority.
Matt 16:17-19. “17 Jesus replied, ‘Simon son of Jonah, you are a blessed man! Because it was no human agency that revealed this to you but my Father in heaven.
18 So I now say to you: You are Peter and on this rock I will build my community. And the gates of the underworld can never overpower it.
19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of Heaven: whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven; whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.’
Jesus addresses Peter by name 12 times in the gospels, on six different occasions, Jesus himself initiating the exchange. The first time Jesus addresses a disciple by name is in John 1:42 “42 and he took Simon to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, ‘You are Simon son of John; you are to be called Cephas’ — which means Rock.”
In biblical terms, when God changes someone’s name it is to give them a mission, e.g Abraham.
The last time Jesus addresses a disciple by name is John 21:15-17 “15 When they had eaten, Jesus said to Simon Peter, ‘Simon son of John, do you love me more than these others do?’ He answered, ‘Yes, Lord, you know I love you.’ Jesus said to him, ‘Feed my lambs.’
16 A second time he said to him, ‘Simon son of John, do you love me?’ He replied, ‘Yes, Lord, you know I love you.’ Jesus said to him, ‘Look after my sheep.’
17 Then he said to him a third time, ‘Simon son of John, do you love me?’ Peter was hurt that he asked him a third time, ‘Do you love me?’ and said, ‘Lord, you know everything; you know I love you.’ Jesus said to him, ‘Feed my sheep.”
Here Jesus gives Peter the mission he had for Peter, to feed the sheep, to look after the flock, the whole flock, Christ’s flock.
The pope is not self appointed, but appointed by Christ himself who is the head of the church.
Good and bad leaders of the church come and go, but Christ is always the head. He is the bridegroom, the church is the bride (Eph 5). A divorce is not possible. Jesus is tied by covenant with the church, he does not break his covenant.
Hans, Your reply is psychotic and illogical.
Please do not reply like that
While I am done commenting any opinion from me on anything for a while, or responding to any of your replies, I want to leave this with one single question. Whether you consider yourselves Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant, or generic Christian, what do you consider to be the main doctrine or doctrines which make Catholics, Orthodox or Protestants different from each other? (while there really is indeed, I think, more in common between Christians than there is different).
I think we a much closer than we think, other than ecclesiology, sacraments, and the saints…the former two are very important.
1, The devil can quote scripture for his purpose.\
2, Pope Pius XI said of himself: “You know that I am the Holy Father, the representative of God on earth, the Vicar of Christ, which means that I am God on earth”.
3. St. Peter never said such words on himself, St. Peter.
4. Therefore Pope Pius XI was not the successor of St. Peter.
To deny this is to be out of touch with the eternal truth, which does not change.
5. Rome stepped away from the Catholic Church in 1054 AD, and entered the Frankish heresy of King Henry II of the Franks. It is the Frankish heretical Filioque schism of Charlemagne, and is now neither Roman nor Catholic nor the Church founded by Jesus Christ.
scott,
These supposed statements by popes claiming to be God have been around for ever, they are used by anti Catholics to discredit the Catholic faith. The Catholic church does not and has never taught this.
The issue of the Filioque is indeed a stumbling block to unity, but the North American Orthodox-Catholic Consultation for example is working to resolve this issue. See http://www.usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/ecumenical-and-interreligious/ecumenical/orthodox/filioque-church-dividing-issue-english.cfm
Your grandstanding does not help matters.
And if you had the slightest grip on reality, you’d know that Francis’ little boy Frankie is a complete nutcase who has left Orthodoxy and now describes himself as an atheist.
And if you had the slightest grip on reality, you would drop the phony condescending ad hominem attack on Mr. Schaeffer which lacks the reality of a need for compassion and charity toward Mr. Schaeffer, and consider dispassionately the claims of Orthodoxy in Frank’s previous book “Dancing Alone”, and you would face reality that Luther added the word “alone” to Romans 3:28 by his own self-authority. Luther said, “It is so. And I will have it so. And my own will is reason enough. When they ask (why it is so), tell them it is because I, Herr Doctor Martin Luther, say that it is so”. Your irrelevant comment on Mr. Schaeffer’s current emotional state proves nothing about anything, and proves the thesis that any atheism in his part has its genesis and origin in the Calvinism and Protestantism of his self-anointed father, Francis A. Schaeffer. Mr. Schaeffer does not have blood on his hands, but M. Luther is responsible for slaughter of German horde of peasants and his bloody Lutheran Reformation (deformation).
It’s a sad story
You need to understand there are multiple connotations and meanings of the word “atheist”. Christians are atheists in the sense they don’t believe the god Allah exists. Schaeffer is an atheist in that he does not believe the evil god of Calvin and Luther exists, a “mighty fortress” Germanic-French Frankish warrior god whose evil wrath and anger needs to be satisfied and propitiated, a god of war and vengeance, not of love and mercy. A god of predestination, not of freedom, joy, happiness and love. A god of Augustine’s false view of moralistic legalistic philosophy.
Well, if you liked Schaeffer, here’s some other literature you should try:
“Industrial Society and Its Future” by Ted Kaczynski.
“For I will consider my cat Jeoffrey” (from Jubilate Agno) by Christopher Smart.
“Helter Skelter” by Charles Manson.
“We are Almost There!” by Harold Camping. (Or read: “1994?”)
“Battlefield Earth” by L. Ron Hubbard.
Sorry.
It is totally unfair and inappropriate to compare Frank Schaeffer’s book “Dancing Alone” with any work by L. Ron Hubbard. Hubbard was a charlatan. Mr. Schaeffer is a basically honest person. We have some legitimate reasons here for all of our opinions, yours, mine, and Hans’s. We’re all normal people here. Even a few normal people have some abnormal and psychotic episodes. Life is difficult at best. God bless all of us, everyone.
My replies have not been anti-Catholic, since Rome is not Catholic today. It follows Filioque. Orthodoxy is Catholic. My perspective is based on the mind of the Orthodox Church, though I am far from perfect in my Orthodoxy. I am new to Orthodoxy, so please forgive me if I sometimes feel wounded by unkind comments directed at me personally; I am only human. I neither desire to offend anyone, nor to be offended by anyone. I sincerely believe the Filioque doctrine is a big heresy that needs to be shunned by every truly Catholic Christian. I believe Rome has gone Frankish since Charlemagne, though Pope Leo III forbad the Filioque. There is a problem and contradiction between Leo III forbidding the Filioque, and Thomas Aquinas in “Contra Errores Graecorum” saying believing in Filioque is necessary for salvation. And Pope Leo XIII endorsed Thomismin his encyclical, so we have a contradiction of infallible popes between Leo III and Leo XIII, don’t you agree? God save us. Forgive me my mistakes if I have any way harmed anyone’s feelings. God bless you all.
scott,
What a pope says is not infallible. What a pope says about the faith is not infallible. Infallibility relates to statements by popes and councils of the church that are meant to teach something infallibly. i.e dogmas and similar pronouncements by councils or popes.
My perspective is informed by: Romanides, John Samuel. (1982). Franks, Romans, Feudalism & Doctrine: An Interplay of Theology and Society. Brookline, MA: Holy Cross Orthodox Press.
I am going to take a break from this dialogue for a while as it has, it seems to me, we have all of us failed to make other words other than a series of solilioquies; we seem to have stumbled upon some sort of offense at each other, and I know I feel like others seem to act as if they need to feel sorry for me, if not angry. I confess sometimes this dialogue has aroused my passions, and it is hard not to become angry when opinions differ. I feel we all have a right to freedom of inquiry, faith, and opinion. I wish we were not sorting things out in neat little boxes of Catholic, Protestant, or Orthodox. I feel the fullness of God’s truth is uniquely in Orthodoxy, but I feel as for myself, whether or not God Himself would consider me Orthodox (He is the one fair judge of the human heart), by my wandering thoughts and sometimes emotional dreams and bad thought, I myself am very far from the Orthodoxy of the heart I feel I should be having, experiencing. God forgive me for my faults. God bless all of us. It will take much time for any one of us to reach the fullness of closeness to the Holy Spirit that Christ our merciful Saviour and LORD wants to give to all of us: We (AT LEAST I know that I, am unworthy of all the grace Christ has shown me, always). God bless you all.
scott,
I am not angry, like you, I feel that the truth is on my side, my aim is to dialogue and seek truth, to be open while presenting evidence to support what I believe. To spread light and to discuss dispassionately.
God bless.
scott,
Here is a quote from Eastern Orthodox Kallistos Ware on the filoque issue.
Today many Eastern Orthodox bishops are putting aside old prejudices and again acknowledging that there need be no separation between the two communions on this issue. Eastern Orthodox Bishop Kallistos Ware (formerly Timothy Ware), who once adamantly opposed the filioque doctrine, states: “The filioque controversy which has separated us for so many centuries is more than a mere technicality, but it is not insoluble. Qualifying the firm position taken when I wrote [my book] The Orthodox Church twenty years ago, I now believe, after further study, that the problem is more in the area of semantics and different emphases than in any basic doctrinal differences” (Diakonia, quoted from Elias Zoghby’s A Voice from the Byzantine East, 43).
See original article at: https://www.catholic.com/qa
Eastern Orthodox *Bishop* Kallistos Ware
Scott–
So sorry. For what it’s worth, I was just playing with you. That’s the trouble with the internet. You can’t tell when one side is being lighthearted at the same the other side is taking everything grimly serious.
Frank Schaeffer is a bright fellow and a good writer. But he is also a PK (a pastor’s kid), and like many a PK before him, he has a rebellious streak a mile wide. He has in the past completely trashed his parents…in print. And those close to the situation with one voice proclaimed his depiction of them as total crap. Quite honestly, I don’t like the man and have little respect for him. It wouldn’t surprise me at all to learn that he converted to Orthodoxy just to spite his dad.
Yes, L. Ron Hubbard is a fruitcake. And so is Harold Camping. Manson, obviously, is a psychopath. Kaczynski is the “unabomber.” Smart wrote his stuff from inside an insane asylum. (“For I will consider my cat Jeoffrey” is worth reading, by the way!)
My point was merely that many of your points are rationally indefensible. No way to put a good spin on it. I’m not going to waste my time debating them, no matter how compelling you believe them to be.
You don’t like your heroes being trashed but show no compunction trashing other people’s heroes. Now, I don’t mind the tussle. You didn’t offend me. But you either need to develop a thicker skin or quit hurling verbal spears at others.
Dear Hans! No problem, my dude Brother! I was just a bit irritated by what I have kept hearing people be, I feel, overly critical of Mr. Schaeffer. I agree he is a volatile person, and somewhat controversial. I think he is reacting to Calvinism, and I don’t experience that as much as Lutheranism, as I was raised Lutheran, not Calvinist. And as a Lutheran, we former Lutherans have a sort of anti-Calvinist streak! Anyway, no matter. Just know, my normal stance is to be quite serious about doctrines and against Filioque. I owe much of my mental health to psychiatric medications, prayer, some receipt of the grace and mercy in God: What I may become is all in hope from Christ and the OC: Orthodox Church. I am far from there in what I should be, far from being completely filled with joy: But by the grace of God, God has shown His love to me, and I am grateful for what He has done for me. In the Church. I can’t put all I have experienced into words. God bless you Hans. And Mr. Water, too. God be patient with all of us: Dear LORD, have mercy on all. Amen.
Dear Hans. Points noted. It is true, I have mental issues. That is a fact. But as for the idea of “rational”, what Orthodoxy gives to me is that Orthodoxy considers the exact weakness of Western Christendom (both Catholic and Protestant) is its rationalism. It is not what can be defended by mere human reason (rationalism), but by what the Word of God means (Revelation in Tradition), and what the Tradition of the Church speaks to all of the Faithful (Jude 1:3), “always, everywhere, and for everyone” (St. Vincent of Lerins, “Commonitories”), and “Filioque” defies the 8th Ecumenical Council of both East (Constantinople, Photios) and West (Good Pope John VIII, Rome). (Pope John VIII rejected FIlioque).
scott,
I don’t know if you read the article I referenced to you, here is an extract from it – I did not know that. Let me have your comments.
“The expression “from the Father through the Son” is accepted by many Eastern Orthodox. This, in fact, led to a reunion of the Eastern Orthodox with the Catholic Church in 1439 at the Council of Florence: “The Greek prelates believed that every saint, precisely as a saint, was inspired by the Holy Spirit and therefore could not err in faith. If they expressed themselves differently, their meanings must substantially agree. . . . Once the Greeks accepted that the Latin Fathers had really written Filioque (they could not understand Latin), the issue was settled (May 29). The Greek Fathers necessarily meant the same; the faiths of the two churches were identical; union was not only possible but obligatory (June 3); and on June 8 the Latin cedula [statements of belief] on the procession [of the Spirit] was accepted by the Greek synod” (New Catholic Encyclopedia, 5:972–3).
Unfortunately, the union did not last. In the 1450s (just decades before the Protestant Reformation), the Eastern Orthodox left the Church again under pressure from the Muslims, who had just conquered them and who insisted they renounce their union with the Western Church (lest Western Christians come to their aid militarily). “
My feelings seldom rise to what is actual anger. It is my normal state to be anxious, not angry. That is my diagnosis. I am unipolar, not bipolar. So my normal reaction is more of (fear of unknown): anxiety, not anger. I get agitated, which is to say, irritated, when I feel people are unfairly critical. I feel all of us have crossed over the lines of civility a time or two! Oh well, we’re all human! God bless all of us! In Christ all is forgiven. Let us live and learn. All of our love should go to God: and we can greet each other as brothers! But for sake of truth, we must agree to disagree wherever our doctrines do not agree. And it is not fair to say Catholics and Orthodox are yet on the same page. A lot has happened to Catholicism since 1870. A lot has happened between 1453 and 1869 in the State of the modern world. There is more to come, but the future is unknown to all, or most, I feel. As for Kallistos Ware, my view is tempered by a book from CTOS, I believe by Archbishop Chrysostomos of Etna, CA, or someone there at CTOS: Center For Traditionalist Orthodox Studies, Etna, CA: The “Orthodox Church” and the “Orthodox Way” (by Kallistos Ware) Reviewed. See that book before assuming Bishop Ware’s view represents any kind of “final” word for Orthodoxy; I believe the blessed Bishop is not fully mistaken, just trying to be irenic between Catholics and Orthodox on Filioque. All that matters is the Holy Spirit should be listened too. So far, we have not reached the point where there is a universal Ecumenical Council to resolve this Filioque schism (and heresy) to be accepted mutually by all (Catholics, Orthodox, and maybe by a good number of the Protestants (Who can say?)”. God bless you Water, and Hans. God bless us all and give us whatever He wills to give in His grace. Amen.
scott,
Thanks for sharing with us brother, it is so much easier to understand someone when you know them! May God bless you abundantly, and may God bring us all together, may we be open to his will for us.
Scott–
For me, it is extraordinarily difficult to determine whether someone is being civil (or uncivil) in a printed exchange. It is difficult enough in person where you can ponder their tone of voice and observe their facial expressions.
I have read blogs that are quite winsome on the surface but the content itself is condescending and dismissive of other viewpoints.
*************
I do think the East’s reliance on mystery is highly exaggerated. Look at your passion concerning the “filioque.” Nobody who wasn’t hyper-rational would care two figs whether the procession of the Holy Spirit was single or dual.
Luther himself railed against the rationalism of scholasticism in the West, calling “reason” the Devil’s whore (and by reason he meant rationalism). Recently, Finnish academics have analyzed Luther’s soteriology as in line with Orthodox notions of theosis. Perhaps you should read more Luther!
Hans, The problem with this is that the East’s reliance on mystery is precisely the fideistic way the average, non hyper-rational Christian needs to approach the great Mystery Who is God. God is known only in His Three Persons experientially and personally (through the sacraments and the Scriptures), so this is not what the Orthodox are in any way doing when they criticize Filioque; they are simply as newborn children of God in Christ taking Christ as LORD GOD and Authority, Saviour, at His Word (John 15:26), corroborated by St. Luke (Acts 2:33). It is ironic to suggest that the East and West teach the same thing on this, when the West itself is divided on this issue: The earlier Popes, Leo III, 808 AD, and John VIII, 879-880 AD forbad the Filioque, whereas the Apologist for Rome and for Roman Catholicism, Thomas Aquinas, “Contra Errores Graecorum”, suggested and taught that to believe Filioque is “necessary for salvation”. So an earlier Pope, Leo III, forbad it to be added to the Creed of the Church, whereas the main thinker for Catholic theology, Aquinas, insisted that Filioque must be added to the Creed it is “necessary” for salvation, or, arguably, a soul could not be saved unless he believed Filioque (Aquinas), whereas Pope Leo III insisted (No Filiqoue!).
Become orthodox then!
Scott–
By the way, I worked for quite a few years in the field of mental health. My own view is that mental health problems are as common as the common cold. Just about everyone has (or ought to have) a diagnosis of sorts.
When I say that a writer is a nutcase, all I mean is that they are somewhat irrational or unreliable. I don’t particularly like their arguments. I don’t particularly like the way they think. I’m not commenting on the state of their mental health (though I don’t think Frank Schaeffer is a very good person).
I think an arguably pertinent question is the nature of why Frank Schaeffer is considered at all to be a nutcase, when the nature of Calvinism as a nutcase belief is seldom questioned by traditionalist dogmatic rationalistic Calvinists. They seldom question their own metaphysical presuppositions or the issue of epistemology and the nature of orthodox theology, and the issues of soteriology and ecclesiology, let alone the broader issues of church history, early Christianity & patristics. And biblical hermeneutics as well. Not to get further off track here, but why is it arguably so that so many former Calvinists (and ongoing Calvinists) have such a hostility and anger issue with each other, and why does Calvinism as a belief arguably breed more atheism and questioning of God than other non-Calvinist forms of Christianity? Is this demonstrably the case? My experience in reading and “church” attending leads me to suggest a tentative hypothesis (and I may be purposefully understating this here) that there is a greater correlation, if not causation, between Calvinism and atheism than other non-predestinarian, non-determinist or non-antinomian forms of Christianity. Maybe Frank is behaving in a perfectly normal way, given the abnormal and abhorrent (morally) nature of the Calvinist god.
See, Scott, this is what I’m talking about. You get all bent out of shape when I denigrate an obscure Orthodox writer (who is no longer Orthodox). And yet you give yourself license to call Calvin and Calvinism–the very core of my belief system–abhorrent and abnormal. It’s like the Parable of the Unforgiving Servant. You’re like a merciless, taunting bully who can’t stand being teased himself.
Some of the nastiest, angriest bloggers I have come across have been Wesleyan and Catholic and Pentecostal and what have you. Calvinists, in general, are neither angry nor arrogant, and you should repent your silly, misinformed bigotry and judgmentalism.
Wow Hans, “nor arrogant”!
There was no statement anywhere from me calling Calvin abhorrent and abnormal. I stated that Calvinism, as a false doctrine, is abhorrent and abnormal. And that is the truth. As for any lack of forgiveness on my part against Calvin, I make no judgment on whether Calvin himself was forgiven or not. It is for the Sovereign LORD to decide such matters. I only reject the things which happened in Calvin’s Geneva. I do not believe they are example to me on the way I should desire to be. I am very far from complete and I make many abnormal and abhorrent mistakes myself. This does not mean I am in any obligated to accept Calvinist doctrine. There is such a thing as true and false, right and wrong. And the way Calvin treated Servetus was wrong, even while Servetus’ anti-Trinitarian heresy was also wrong. You do not save a heretic by killing, and God wants all of us, all men, to be saved. 2 Peter 3:9, 1 Tim. 2:4; but as a heretical belief system, Calvinism questions or rejects these verses of the New Testament. Take care what you believe. If your doctrine is wrong, your conduct may become wrong too. God forgive us all for our many sins. Lord have mercy on me, a sinner. God bless all of you.
I make no judgments or personal statements on others. I make no statement or attempt to assess whether Frank Schaeffer is Orthodox or non-Orthodox. I leave such analysis to God alone. I make no bigoted statements against Calvinists. This is not personal. I reject Calvinism as a false doctrine. I make no personal comments against the Calvinists themselves. I have no personal anger against Calvin or Calvinists. My rejection is of the anger Calvinists display against me when I reject Calvinist dogmas. Some Calvinists do not make objective statements on what is true or false doctrine, but attempt to make personal statements about people with whom they disagree on doctrine, and call them names. This has not happened from my analysis of matters, and I have attempted to remain calm. Sometimes I do feel bad when the attacks get personal, but I am only human. I am attempting to live by peace and get along with all persons, including Calvinists, and Catholics too. God bless all of us. Everyone. There is such things as false doctrines, and then orthodox traditions and Orthodoxy. Perhaps some people still fail to understand the differences between correct and incorrect doctrines and teachings. God save all people who look for Him.
Water–
I can double down on it if you’d like. I’ve known hundreds if not thousands of Calvinists. They’re pretty much normal folks.
If that hasn’t been your experience, I suggest you get out more.
Hans,
I’ve met plenty of them, a pretty severe bunch.
You’re a liar. And a bad one at that.
Hans,
I suppose between themselves it may be different.
It’s not in my nature to tell lies.
Water–
Perhaps it is not in your nature to lie PURPOSEFULLY. But you are definitely self-deceived. Maybe you perceive anyone who disagrees with you as arrogant. Maybe you provoke people and then act surprised when they get testy. Maybe you think that anyone who is confident in their faith is self-centered and presumptuous.
I don’t know. But I have known enough Reformed folks to know that you are wrong.
Hans,
I may be wrong (in your view), but I do not lie, certainly not purposely.
All I can say is that you must live in Hogswallow, Nebraska, where an enclave of virulently arrogant Calvinists decided to hole up together and terrorize the pig farmers!
I myself can count the “harsh” Calvinists I have met on one hand and have fingers left over.
There is absolutely no salvation outside of the Church, but since God alone is the Only Absolute One, it is for God alone to judge & decide who is, and who is not, outside of the Church.
Since the Church is the Body of Christ, and obtains from the uncreated energies of God the Spirit, the grace of God in the mind of Christ, obtaining access to the mind of Christ in the Holy Spirit, the Orthodox Church as the Holy Spirit-bearing community of God, can define what the Orthodox and true doctrines of the faith (St. Jude 1:3) are, what are the destructive heresies outside of the “faith once delivered unto the Saints”, and the Church has, in her Eight Councils and bishops (325-880 AD), defined what false doctrines are, and these include Papism and Protestantism, Catholicism (falsely so-called) and Calvinism (with Protestantism, Lutheranism, Anglicanism, Pentecostalism, etc.). God save us. God bless you all and lead you into the saving Truth of Christ John 14:26, John 15:26, John 16:13. God bless you. God bless us all and save us all. Amen.
scott,
Of course we have a slight disagreement there, about who the true church is.
Water–
Sorry if I got angry. Very few things tick me off. But perpetuating false stereotypes is about as low as you can get.
How would you respond if I told I had met plenty of Catholic priests, and they were all drunks, all homosexuals, all pedophiles?
Are there any arrogant Calvinists? Sure. Just as there are arrogant Catholics and Lutherans and Orthodox and Methodists and Baptists and Pentecostals. C. S. Lewis said something along the lines that the most conceited people are those who claim they are not conceited. All of us are self-centered. It’s part of our fallen nature.
What’s ironic about the stupid stereotype concerning Calvinistic solipsism is that the CENTRAL FOCUS of Reformed thought is humility.
Every time you sing “Amazing Grace,” you’re promoting Reformed thought: that God condescended to save a “wretch” like me.
Then there are these lyrics from “Rock of Ages”:
Nothing in my hand I bring,
Simply to thy cross I cling;
Naked, come to thee for dress,
Helpless, look to thee for grace;
Foul, I to the Fountain fly;
Wash me, Saviour, or I die.
Boy, does that ever sound arrogant!!!!
scott,
I never said all Calvinists were arrogant, but I have found them “severe”.
Water and Spirit. I never characterized Calvinists as being anything than Calvinists. I never called anyone arrogant, nor am I even capable of judging or fully understanding myself. By the grace of God, I am what I am. I pray that Christ knows me, and shall save me, and that all will be freedom and grace and mercy from Him, and that He will save me, and He lets me know I cannot save myself, by works, and He rescues me just because of His love, and His cross, which I receive in baptism and repentance. God bless you. As for Filioque, it’s a mistake, but Catholics won’t acknowledge or understand that yet. God bless them.
And on more than one occasion I have seen you be ‘severe.’
Stop spreading stereotypes! It only makes you look petty.
I consider the question of justification, its nature and scope, to be a less significant question than the question of the correct and orthodox doctrine, doctrines, of Triadology, of God Himself, the Holy Trinity, which is theology proper. All Christians agree we are saved by God and are saved by faith (justified) by faith. Where the difference is is whether this is by faith alone, or by faith working through love. Protestants say faith “alone”; Catholics and Orthodox say by “faith working through love”, and “not by faith alone” (James 2:24). Protestants reduce this to quoting some things from Paul, but not all things that Paul says; Orthodox and Catholics agree by quoting all of Paul and all of James, together with John and Peter and Jude, and all the rest of the New Testament.
A more significant division on Christians is the doctrine of the Holy Spirit, and the meaning of Filioque, and the question of the nature of the procession of the Holy Spirit (single; or double).
2/3 of Christians follow Augustine of Hippo and his tradition in interpreting the New Testament on the procession of the Holy Spirit; 1/3 of Christians (with another percentage of this 1/3 in the minority Oriental camp (miaphysite of monophysite?), Armenian, Coptic, Ethiopian, Syrian, Indian) agreeing on single procession and Monopatrism following the words of Christ alone (John 15:26 and Luke alone, Acts 2:33), together with Holy Photius the Great, Gregory Palamas, and Mark of Ephesus share common tradition as the three great pillars of Orthodoxy in holding faithfully to Christ and His apostles in John 15:26 and and 2:33, and not following Augustine of Hippo or his “De Trinitate”, nor (Anselm of Canterbury, Peter Lombard, Peter Damian, Thomas Aquinas, Giles of Viterbo, Ratramnus of Corbie, and Charlemagne, and Alcuin of York, etc.) Also Martin Luther, John Calvin, Westminster Confession of Faith, Lutheran Smalcald Articles, Pseudo-Athanasian creed, and Karl Barth for FIlioque. All of Orthodoxy (Eastern and Oriental) rejects Filioque. This is a sad division and I am sorry it exists, still. I believe Christ should have the final word in this: John 15:26, together with St. Luke (Acts 2:33), and I do not need to believe Augustine of Hippo (De Trinitate), but following John 15:26 and Acts 2:33, I do need to follow Photios, “On the Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit”. God save us all.
I think all of us can learn lessons from each other.
I think it would help if the rhetoric went beyond, “You this”, “I/me that”. While we need to seek God personally, we should refrain from personal comments about, let alone against, each other.
Why does anyone believe the doctrines they believe?
How does a person become a true Christian, and what is true Christian doctrine?
How does one learn what true Christian doctrines?
Who are the historic Christian writers which can be trusted?
And why can such individuals as Nicholas I, Innocent III, Eugene IV, Benedict VIII, Boniface VIII, Leo XIII, Pius IX, Charlemagne, Martin Luther, John Calvin, Miguel Servetus, not be trusted, and why are there problems with ideas from Augustine of Hippo, Tertullian, Montanus, and Origen?
Can we not hope the Armenians, Copts, Ethiopians, and Syrians be reunited in Chalcedon with the Church??
The Scriptures remind us all to “remove not the old landmark” which the fathers have set. The oldest fathers and the oldest landmark, before the death of Saint Augustine (354-430) were the fathers, holy fathers, of Nicaea and Constantinople (325 AD, 381 AD). At that time papal Rome accepted the Creed of 381 AD without Filioque, and Rome fully endorsed these holy councils as her own, 325-787 AD. In 808 AD, pope Leo III of Rome forbad Filioque. Later, Pope Eugene IV of Rome insisted on Filioque at the Council of Florence. So you have a doctrinal dispute between popes of Rome her. Some later Christians insisted on Luther, Martin Luther, and John Calvin, as their fathers, with Luther’s “Bondage of the Will” and Calvin’s “Institutes of the Christian Religion” as their doctrinal standards. Not all Christians receive Luther or Calvin as fathers, nor do they consider these works of Luther and Calvin as old landmarks of Christian faith which cannot be removed.
Scott–
If you honestly want to go back to the oldest landmarks we have in terms of Christ’s ministry on Earth and the church he founded, then you need look no further than the Scriptures. This is what Protestantism does and what the EO/RC churches refuse to do.
Hans The problem is that Protestantism does not follow Scripture does (no one does or can: see 2 Thessalonians 2:15, 3:6) but Scripture through the hermeneutic tradition of Augustine of Hippo alone (as interpreted through some of the Reformers alone (Luther or Calvin, alternatively, but not Zwingli alone (few Protestants follow Zwinglianism anymore), and for Scots, John Knox and the rest of the body of Scottish Calvinists, and their Puritan successors (the great Calvinist Reformed and Presbyterian traditions in Great Britain and in New England, America), Augustine is singled out by Protestantism as the paradigm by which to do Pauline theology, and few Protestants give as much serious attention to other Christian Fathers, such as Basil, Chrysostom, John of Damascus, Maximus the Confessor, Athanasius, Cyril of Alexandria; much of Protestantism is seen through the “Augustine as greatest of Church Fathers”, with most Protestant theology in Latin language form, and few from Greek Fathers, though Athanasius does have a lot to contribute to Protestantism, as a common father both East and West share. The East has never made as much of Augustine as Aquinas and Luther did, and the West has never made as much of John Chrysostom, John of Damascus, and Cyril of Alexandria, and Basil the Great, as the East makes of these Fathers. God bless you Hans. Take care.
Hans, What Protestantism refuses to do is to look at the Scriptures and see whether or not the Scriptures teach that Christians are to look no further than the Scriptures alone. If the Scriptures do not teach “by Scriptures alone”, “sola Scriptura”, then neither should mere Christians teach the Protestant “sola Scriptura”.
Some general observations.
1. No Christian is perfect or without sin.
2. All Christians are loved by God, and because of Christ, forgiven, and can remain forgiven if they repent of each sin.
3. Salvation is by faith, not works, we cannot earn of merit anything, let alone salvation, though salvation is by faith which works by love, and not by by faith alone.
4. All of us need to receive humility by knowing Christ and being known by Christ in true repentance. All who truly repent can be saved and, upon whom Christ will have mercy, He will have mercy, and all can, potentially, be saved 2 Pet. 3:9.
5. It is not a wise or humble practice to say to any person: “You are a liar”.
6. The Bible says all have sinned. We all need God’s mercy in Christ.
I mean to say Protestantism does not follow Scripture alone, as it loudly professes to do, against what the Scriptures say against Scripture alone (2 Thess. 2:15, 3:6), but Protestantism is based on Scripture AND Augustine of Hippo. Scripture and Augustine of Hippo, AND Luther OR Calvin; with Protestants divided into two main camps: Augustine AND Luther OR Augustine AND Calvin; with Calvinists divided into Calvin ALONE, or Arminius AGAINST Calvin, AND Wesley with Arminius.
scott,
You did not reply to my comment below: I wouldn’t mind your comments.
“scott,
I don’t know if you read the article I referenced to you, here is an extract from it – I did not know that. Let me have your comments.
“The expression “from the Father through the Son” is accepted by many Eastern Orthodox. This, in fact, led to a reunion of the Eastern Orthodox with the Catholic Church in 1439 at the Council of Florence: “The Greek prelates believed that every saint, precisely as a saint, was inspired by the Holy Spirit and therefore could not err in faith. If they expressed themselves differently, their meanings must substantially agree. . . . Once the Greeks accepted that the Latin Fathers had really written Filioque (they could not understand Latin), the issue was settled (May 29). The Greek Fathers necessarily meant the same; the faiths of the two churches were identical; union was not only possible but obligatory (June 3); and on June 8 the Latin cedula [statements of belief] on the procession [of the Spirit] was accepted by the Greek synod” (New Catholic Encyclopedia, 5:972–3).
Unfortunately, the union did not last. In the 1450s (just decades before the Protestant Reformation), the Eastern Orthodox left the Church again under pressure from the Muslims, who had just conquered them and who insisted they renounce their union with the Western Church (lest Western Christians come to their aid militarily). “”
Water and Spirit: No ecumenical council has taught “from the Father and the Son”, nor do the Eastern Orthodox believe that “from the Father through the Son” means exactly the same thing as from “the Father and the Son”. It doesn’t. Speaking for Christ, and the mind of the Church, blessed Saint Mark of Ephesus explained this fully in his replies to the West at the Council of Florence. See: Ostromoff, Ivan. The History of the Council of Florence. Translated from the Russian by Basil Popoff. Brookline, MASS: Holy Transiguration Monastery, 1971. The 2nd ecumenical council taught “from the Father” and the 3rd and 4th ecumenical councils forbad any words at all to be added to, or taken away from, the exact words of the 2nd ecumenical council, and the 5, 6, and 7th ecumenical councils ratified the decisions of the 3rd and 4th councils; and the popes of Rome, including pope Gregory I the Great of Rome, and also pope Leo III, endorsed these 7 councils, 325-787 AD; and pope John VIII the good endorsed these 7 ecumenical councils at the 8th ecumenical council, 879-880 AD.
scott,
Plenty of church fathers, east and west, support the notion of the Holy Spirit issuing from the father and the son, or from the father through the son:
Tertullian
“I believe that the Spirit proceeds not otherwise than from the Father through the Son” (Against Praxeas 4:1 [A.D. 216]).
Origen
“We believe, however, that there are three persons: the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit; and we believe none to be unbegotten except the Father. We admit, as more pious and true, that all things were produced through the Word, and that the Holy Spirit is the most excellent and the first in order of all that was produced by the Father through Christ” (Commentaries on John 2:6 [A.D. 229]).
Maximus the Confessor
“By nature the Holy Spirit in his being takes substantially his origin from the Father through the Son who is begotten (Questions to Thalassium 63 [A.D. 254]).
Gregory the Wonderworker
“[There is] one Holy Spirit, having substance from God, and who is manifested through the Son; image of the Son, perfect of the perfect; life, the cause of living; holy fountain; sanctity, the dispenser of sanctification; in whom is manifested God the Father who is above all and in all, and God the Son who is through all. Perfect Trinity, in glory and eternity and sovereignty neither divided nor estranged” (Confession of Faith [A.D. 265]).
Hilary of Poitiers
“Concerning the Holy Spirit . . . it is not necessary to speak of him who must be acknowledged, who is from the Father and the Son, his sources” (The Trinity 2:29 [A.D. 357]).
“In the fact that before times eternal your [the Father’s] only-begotten [Son] was born of you, when we put an end to every ambiguity of words and difficulty of understanding, there remains only this: he was born. So too, even if I do not grasp it in my understanding, I hold fast in my consciousness to the fact that your Holy Spirit is from you through him” (ibid., 12:56).
Didymus the Blind
“As we have understood discussions . . . about the incorporeal natures, so too it is now to be recognized that the Holy Spirit receives from the Son that which he was of his own nature. . . . So too the Son is said to receive from the Father the very things by which he subsists. For neither has the Son anything else except those things given him by the Father, nor has the Holy Spirit any other substance than that given him by the Son” (The Holy Spirit 37 [A.D. 362]).
Epiphanius of Salamis
“The Father always existed and the Son always existed, and the Spirit breathes from the Father and the Son” (The Man Well-Anchored 75 [A.D. 374]).
Basil The Great
“Through the Son, who is one, he [the Holy Spirit] is joined to the Father, one who is one, and by himself completes the Blessed Trinity” (The Holy Spirit 18:45 [A.D. 375]).
“[T]he 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).
Ambrose of Milan
“Just as the Father is the fount of life, so too, there are many who have stated that the Son is designated as the fount of life. It is said, for example that with you, Almighty God, your Son is the fount of life, that is, the fount of the Holy Spirit. For the Spirit is life, just as the Lord says: ‘The words which I have spoken to you are Spirit and life’ [John 6:63]” (The Holy Spirit 1:15:152 [A.D. 381]).
“The Holy Spirit, when he proceeds from the Father and the Son, does not separate himself from the Father and does not separate himself from the Son” (ibid., 1:2:120).
Gregory of Nyssa
“[The] Father conveys the notion of unoriginate, unbegotten, and Father always; the only-begotten Son is understood along with the Father, coming from him but inseparably joined to him. Through the Son and with the Father, immediately and before any vague and unfounded concept interposes between them, the Holy Spirit is also perceived conjointly” (Against Eunomius 1 [A.D. 382]).
The Athanasian Creed
“[W]e venerate one God in the Trinity, and the Trinity in oneness. . . . The Father was not made nor created nor begotten by anyone. The Son is from the Father alone, not made nor created, but begotten. The Holy Spirit is from the Father and the Son, not made nor created nor begotten, but proceeding” (Athanasian Creed [A.D. 400]).
Augustine
“If that which is given has for its principle the one by whom it is given, because it did not receive from anywhere else that which proceeds from the giver, then it must be confessed that the Father and the Son are the principle of the Holy Spirit, not two principles, but just as the Father and the Son are one God . . . relative to the Holy Spirit, they are one principle” (The Trinity 5:14:15 [A.D. 408]).
“[The one] from whom principally the Holy Spirit proceeds is called God the Father. I have added the term ‘principally’ because the Holy Spirit is found to proceed also from the Son” (ibid., 15:17:29).
“Why, then, should we not believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds also from the Son, when he is the Spirit also of the Son? For if the Holy Spirit did not proceed from him, when he showed himself to his disciples after his resurrection he would not have breathed upon them, saying, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit’ [John 20:22]. For what else did he signify by that breathing upon them except that the Holy Spirit proceeds also from him” (Homilies on John 99:8 [A.D. 416]).
Cyril of Alexandria
“Since the Holy Spirit when he is in us effects our being conformed to God, and he actually proceeds from the Father and Son, it is abundantly clear that he is of the divine essence, in it in essence and proceeding from it” (Treasury of the Holy Trinity, thesis 34 [A.D. 424]).
“[T]he Holy Spirit flows from the Father in the Son” (ibid.).
“Just as the Son says ‘All that the Father has is mine’ [John 16:15], so shall we find that through the Son it is all also in the Spirit” (Letters 3:4:33 [A.D. 433]).
Council of Toledo
“We believe in one true God, Father and Son and Holy Spirit, maker of the visible and the invisible.
. . . The Spirit is also the Paraclete, who is himself neither the Father nor the Son, but proceeding from the Father and the Son. Therefore the Father is unbegotten, the Son is begotten, the Paraclete is not begotten but proceeding from the Father and the Son” (Council of Toledo [A.D. 447]).
Fulgence of Ruspe
“Hold most firmly and never doubt in the least that the only God the Son, who is one person of the Trinity, is the Son of the only God the Father; but the Holy Spirit himself also one person of the Trinity, is Spirit not of the Father only, but of Father and of Son together” (The Rule of Faith 53 [A.D. 524]).
“Hold most firmly and never doubt in the least that the same Holy Spirit who is Spirit of the Father and of the Son, proceeds from the Father and the Son” (ibid., 54).
John Damascene
“Likewise we believe also in one Holy Spirit, the Lord and giver of life . . . God existing and addressed along with Father and Son; uncreated, full, creative, all-ruling, all-effecting, all-powerful, of infinite power, Lord of all creation and not under any lord; deifying, not deified; filling, not filled; sharing in, not shared in; sanctifying, not sanctified; the intercessor, receiving the supplications of all; in all things like to the Father and Son; proceeding from the Father and communicated through the Son” (Exposition of the Orthodox Faith 8 [A.D. 712]).
“And the Holy Spirit is the power of the Father revealing the hidden mysteries of his divinity, proceeding from the Father through the Son in a manner known to himself, but different from that of generation” (ibid., 12).
“I say that God is always Father since he has always his Word [the Son] coming from himself and, through his Word, the Spirit issuing from him” (Dialogue Against the Manicheans 5 [A.D. 728]).
Council of Nicaea II
“We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and giver of life, proceeding from the Father through the Son” (Profession of Faith [A.D. 787]).
The second ecumenical council 381 AD, stated that the Holy Spirit “proceedeth from the Father” (John 15:26). All of the Fathers of the Church, 300-800 AD, accepted these councils (the councils from 325 to 787 AD), and ALL of the Popes of ROME accepted the AUTHORITY of this statement of FAITH, so if you say the Holy Spirit proceeds “from the Son”, then you are rejecteing the Apostolic authority of both these 7 ecumenical councils and the Petrine endorsement in apostolic succession of these bishops of Rome, and you are out of apostolic fellowoship with this former Popes. You also learn the Popes of Rome fell out fellowship with their former popes, and began teaching the heresy Filioque, while the former popes of Rome, along with the majority of Church Fathers (except Augustine of Hippo) rejected Hippo. You need to read what blessed Saint Photius of Constantinople said on your shameless quoting of Church Fathers OUT OF CONTEXT. Like the sin of Ham, you not only expose the nakedness of Noah, you do not cover up Fr. Noah’s nakedness, The Fathers were human beings, and perhaps they spoke a language which seems to you to support your preconceived notion of Filioque, but they were not at all talking about an eternal causation of the Spirit by the Son, but merely expressing the fact that the Spirit does issue through the Son in temporal mission, something ALL of the Fathers agreed on, and SO does the EO Church, but it does not mean the same thing as an eternal procession FILIOQUE “FROM THE SON ETERNALLY”, something that is HERESY. None of the Fathers said this, and even Augustine (to bless him and not expose him to shame), he did not teach this as dogma: he was only speaking humanly to defend the fully divinity of the Son, not speaking de fide that you must believe in Filioque or face anathema. He never said that.
scott,
Thanks for a comprehensive reply.
Here is what the Catechism of the Catholic church has to say on the matter:
“CCC 246-248
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.
((77. John 15:26 “John 15:26 “26 When the Paraclete comes, *whom I shall send to you* from the Father, the Spirit of truth who issues from the Father, he will be my witness.” ))
CCC264
264 “The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father as the first principle and, by the eternal gift of this to the Son, from the communion of both the Father and the Son” (St. Augustine, De Trin. 15, 26, 47: PL 42, 1095).”
scott,
To make it easier for you:
Didymus the Blind
” ……. it is now to be recognized that the Holy Spirit receives from the Son that which he was of his own nature. . . . ….. nor has the Holy Spirit any other substance than that given him by the Son” (The Holy Spirit 37 [A.D. 362]).
Epiphanius of Salamis
“The Father always existed and the Son always existed, and the Spirit breathes from the Father and the Son” (The Man Well-Anchored 75 [A.D. 374]).
The Athanasian Creed
” …….. The Holy Spirit is from the Father and the Son, not made nor created nor begotten, but proceeding” (Athanasian Creed [A.D. 400]).
Cyril of Alexandria
“Since the Holy Spirit when he is in us effects our being conformed to God, and he actually proceeds from the Father and Son, ……” (Treasury of the Holy Trinity, thesis 34 [A.D. 424]).
Water, Unless and until you read the following sources, you will not understand the truth on the eternal procession of the Holy Spirit. First of all, the Athanasian creed was not written by Saint Athanasius, so that is fraud. It is correct except for the Filioque part of it. Since Rome refuses to follow Pope Leo III and Pope John VIII in this matter, she is not even following her earlier Popes, and she is disobeying the 7 ecumenical councils which Rome used to believe in between 325 and 787 AD, and also in 879-880 with good Pope John VIII. You need the truth. Which is in these books: Saint Photios. (1983). On the Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit. Holy Transfiguration Monastery, trans. Boston, MA: Studion Publishers. Saint Photios. (1987). The Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit. Dr. Joseph P. Farrell, Ph.D., trans. Brookline, MASS: Holy Cross Orthodox Press. Randomly quoting Church Fathers, none of who disbelieved in Monopatrism or believed in Filioque; at best, they were talking about “from the Father through the Son”, the temporal mission of the Holy Spirit through the sending by the Son; not an eternal casuation of the Spirit by the Son, or an eternal procession from the Son. So beware of rushing to judgment from miseducated random quotes from random Church Fathers. The definitive authoritative fathers on this matter of the eternal procession include, along with Saint Basil the Great and the Cappadocian theologians (and Cyril of Alexandria did not believe in Filioque), include the three Pillars of Orthodoxy: Saint Photius the Great, Saint Gregory Palamas, and Saint Mark of Ephesus (Evgenikos). “I will not weary the reader with the endless debates on this question [on the Filioque and eternal procession of the Spirit]. The question was deliberated first in Ferrara., absolutely without result, and then in Florence. The Greeks indicated, citing decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, that the introduction of the “Filioque” in itself was uncanonical, but the Latins affirmed that this addition expressed a sound dogmatic idea” [page 20: “St. Mark of Ephesus and the False Union of Florence”, by Archimandrite Amvrossy Pogodin, M. Sc. Eccl., D.D., LIVING ORTHODOXY, #143, Volume XXIV, #5, September -October 2004].
scott,
Here is a good article explaining the Catholic position:
“One proof is that the Holy Spirit is referred to in Scripture as both the Spirit of the Father
Mt 10:20 “20 because it is not you who will be speaking; the Spirit of your Father will be speaking in you.”
Rom 8:10-11 “10 But when Christ is in you, the body is dead because of sin but the spirit is alive because you have been justified;
11 and if the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead has made his home in you, then he who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will give life to your own mortal bodies through his Spirit living in you.”
2 Cor 1:21-22 “21 It is God who gives us, with you, a sure place in Christ
22 and has both anointed us and marked us with his seal, giving us as pledge the Spirit in our hearts.
Eph 3:14-16 “14 This, then, is what I pray, kneeling before the Father,
15 from whom every fatherhood, in heaven or on earth, takes its name.
16 In the abundance of his glory may he, through his Spirit, enable you to grow firm in power with regard to your inner self,
and as the Spirit of the Son
Rom 8:9 “9 You, however, live not by your natural inclinations, but by the Spirit, since the Spirit of God has made a home in you. Indeed, anyone who does not have *the Spirit of Christ* does not belong to him.
Gal 4:6 “Gal 4:6 “6 As you are sons, God has sent into our hearts *the Spirit of his Son* crying, ‘Abba, Father’;”
Phil 1:19 “19 and I shall go on being happy, too, because I know that this is what will save me, with your prayers and with the support of *the Spirit of Jesus Christ*;
1 Pt 1:11 “11 searching out the time and circumstances for which *the Spirit of Christ*, bearing witness in them, was revealing the sufferings of Christ and the glories to follow them.”
Statements saying that the Spirit is “of” the other two Persons of the Trinity indicate that his Person is tightly bound up with and originates from them (just as the Son is the Son “of” the Father).
A second proof is that the external relations of the Trinity model their internal ones. In John 14:26 the Spirit is said to proceed from the Father, but a chapter later, in 15:26, Jesus states that he will send the Spirit from the Father. The same relation is reflected in Acts 2:33, where Peter states that Jesus has received the Spirit from the Father and sends him.
A philosophical explanation of this is found in the Council of Florence, which stated in 1439, “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” (Decree for the Greeks).
The Spirit proceeds from the Father *and* the Son because the Father has given all things to the Son, including the procession of the Holy Spirit.
Water, The Holy and Infallible 2nd Ecumenical Council of the Infallible Catholic Church, Constantinople, 381 AD: “And in the Holy Spirit, the LORD and Giver of Life, WHO PROCEEDETH FROM THE FATHER, Who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified; Who spake through the Prophets”. The Holy and Infallible LORD GOD and Saviour CHRIST JESUS, our Master and Teacher, through the Holy and Infallible word of the Holy and Beloved Apostle of Christ, Saint John, Chapter 15, verse 26: JESUS SAID: “But whenever the Comforter should come, Whom I shall send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of Truth, WHO PROCEEDETH FROM THE FATHER, He shall bring the Testimony regarding Me”. These do NOT SAY “AND FROM THE SON”, so it is a SIN to add words to the Bible which are taught NOWHERE ANYWHERE IN THE BIBLE, and JESUS CHRIST is not deceiving anyone by leaving out “AND THE SON”. If “AND THE SON” were true, CHRIST WOULD HAVE SAID THOSE WORDS IN JOHN 15:26.
scott,
Doctrine evolves, you should know that. The Holy Spirit gradually brings the church into the fullness of the truth.
The Catholic church does not teach “an eternal casuation of the Spirit by the Son,”
nor “an eternal procession from the Son”, but that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son.
Here are a few scriptural quotes in support:
John 15:26 “26 When the Paraclete comes, *whom I shall send to you* from the Father, the Spirit of truth who issues from the Father, he will be my witness.”
Gal 4:6 “6 As you are sons, God has sent into our hearts *the Spirit of his Son* crying, ‘Abba, Father’;”
John 16:13-15
“13 However, when the Spirit of truth comes he will lead you to the complete truth, since he will not be speaking of his own accord, but will say only what he has been told; and he will reveal to you the things to come.
14 He will glorify me, since *all he reveals to you will be taken from what is mine*.
15 *Everything the Father has is mine*; that is why I said: *all he reveals to you will be taken from what is mine*.”
John 3:35 “35 The Father loves the Son and has entrusted everything to his hands.”
Water, What the Church Fathers means is dealt with & explained thoroughly & adequately by blessed Saint Photius the Great (820-895), Patriarch of Constantinople (“On the Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit”, Holy Transfiguration Monastery, translators. Boston, MA: Studion Publishers, 1983). God bless.
scott,
We all agree that the church fathers taught that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father. No argument there. Some, including some Eastern fathers, did teach that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. And scripture backs them up.
None of the Fathers before Lateran and Lyons and Florence taught the Spirit proceeds from Father and Son as from one principle. And they were not, as far as I can tell, most of them were not talking about an eternal existence of the Spirit caused eternally by the Person of the Son, but a temporal mission, sending. from the Son in time, which is not a procession in the ordinary sense. The Greek makes distinctions. The Latin is more imprecise and does not distinguish these matters. Which may be half of the problem. Semantics of the word “procession”, which is a Latin, not a Greek word.
scott,
Scripture is clear that the Spirit is the Spirit of the Father and the Spirit of the Son, it follows therefore that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son.
However, I think that we run the risk of becoming too rigid here, and it is probably better to accept that we have a somewhat different understanding. May the Holy Spirit guide us both to his truth and may he not allow this to be an obstacle to our being brothers in Christ.
GB.
Scripture is clear that the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of the Father. Scripture is clear that the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of the Son. Scripture is clear that Jesus Christ is LORD. Scripture is clear that Jesus Christ Himself knows and understand from Whom the Holy Spirit proceeds. Therefore, it is clear that Christ explains this in Scripture that the Spirit “proceeds from the Father”, and since Christ does not say “from the Son”, nor does Paul or John say the Spirit “proceeds from the Son”, we have a case where the West is reading SOME Scriptures and ignoring the others. Also, it is clear that in Revelation the Apostle says the Living Water proceeds from “THE THRONE” of the Lamb, not “from the Lamb”.
scott,
Of course the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father also. That is clear to all.
John 4:14 “14 but no one who drinks the water that I shall give will ever be thirsty again: the water that I shall give will become a spring of water within, welling up for eternal life.”
John 20:22 “22 After saying this he breathed on them and said: Receive the Holy Spirit.”
Since Christ revealed that the Holy Spirit “proceedeth from the Father” (KJV), and Christ did not reveal that the Spirit proceedeth “from the Son”, it is clear that the Spirit does not proceed “from the Son”, because Christ came to proclaim the Gospel (Good News/Word of God), not to conceal it, and if the Spirit proceeded from the Son, and Christ did not reveal it (which He didn’t), Christ would be a concealer, not a Revealer, and of course this is not possible, because Christ is the Eternal Son of God, and the Truth, (John 14:6), and not a false prophet, and Christ in the Spirit of truth reveals the Truth (John 14:6,26; John 15:26; John 16:!3).
scott,
You do not take one verse from scripture and hang your whole interpretation on it when there are many other verses that deal with the same issue, you consider scripture as a whole. That is how Protestants get themselves tied into a knot sometimes, because they “stand on the Word of God”, which often is one verse or passage, to the exclusion of everything else.
It is not true that there are many verses which deal with the procession of the Holy Spirit. There are only 2: John 15:26 and Acts 2:33. It has nothing at all to do with Protestantism; that analogy is a straw man and you are mischaracterizing my position as Protestant. And I don’t go by John 15:26 and Acts 2:33. I read them in the light of Photius, his Mystagogy. The Papists and Protestants read John 15:26 and Acts 2:33 not in the light of John 15:26 and Acts 2:33, but in the light of Augustine, “De Trinitate”. This is proved from what one honest Catholic writes, Hans Kung, in “The Catholic Church: A Short History”, New York: Modern Library, 2001.
scott,
I am not reading scripture in the light of Augustine, but in the light of scripture.
Water, I think if you read the West: Anselm of Canterbury, On the Procession of the Holy Spirit, Peter Lombard, The Sentences, BOOK I, The Trinity, And Thomas Aquinas, “CONTRA ERRORES GRAECORUM”, in James Likoudis, “ENDING THE BYZANTINE GREEK SCHISM”, and Azkoul, Fr. Michael, trans. St. Photius, On the Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit, Holy Transfiguration Monastery, Boston, 1983; you will see the West does not agree fully with Saint Photius. So we have a problem here; the faith is not the same.
scott,
We do have a different understanding, but let not this be the issue we rush to, let us be thankful for all the things we have in common and celebrate those.
I repeat:
However, I think that we run the risk of becoming too rigid here, and it is probably better to accept that we have a somewhat different understanding. May the Holy Spirit guide us both to his truth and may he not allow this to be an obstacle to our being brothers in Christ.
Water and Spirit, The Franks and their Latin/Roman captives left the Church in 1014 and 1054 AD. I believe the Pope at the time, I forget which and when, was Pope Benedict VIII, whether this was in 1014 or 1054. i think it was Pope Benedict VIII in 1014 that first said Filioque. Anyway, the Papacy became captive of Frankish emperor Henry II, and this is why Catholicism was born out of Orthodoxy, and the Orthodoxy of the West turned from Catholicity (Orthodoxy, John 15:26) to Catholicism (Filioque, Augustine, De Trinitate); as Hans Kung rightly states the honest truth, Western Christians do not even seem to know that when they say Filioque, they are reading the procession of the Holy Spirit not so much in the Light of the New Testament, but only in the light of Saint Augustine. See Kung, Hans. (2001). The Catholic Church: A Short History. New York: Modern Library.
Water and Spirit. You speak of “two churches”. There has never been such a thing, and there never will be. There is only one Church, the Catholic Church, but since 1054 AD it also began to be called Orthodox. And rightly so. Because it is the same Church founded by Christ as the “one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church” (381 AD). It was because of Charlemagne, in 792-809 AD, falsely, at the councils of Frankfurt and Aachen, accused the Church of deleting the Filioque from the Creed of the Catholic Church.
scott,
You said : “(Cyril of Alexandria did not believe in Filioque).
But he did say: “Since the Holy Spirit when he is in us effects our being conformed to God, and *he actually proceeds from the Father and Son*, it is abundantly clear that he is of the divine essence, in it in essence and proceeding from it” (Treasury of the Holy Trinity, thesis 34 [A.D. 424]).
“*[T]he Holy Spirit flows from the Father in the Son*” (ibid.).
“Just as the Son says ‘All that the Father has is mine’ [John 16:15], so shall we find that through the Son it is all also in the Spirit” (Letters 3:4:33 [A.D. 433]).
This is a case of some imprecision in language nothing more. It is still true you need to read the Mystagogy of St. Photius. He deals more thoroughly and completely with Cyril and the other Fathers than I can. He explains these things. And again, the word “proceeds” is Latin and does not capture the Greek of Cyril.
scott,
I take your word for it, but the scriptural evidence still stands.
As a matter of method, I refer to Scripture, because both Protestantism and Catholicism believe Christianity is an ideology based on a text, or a particular bishop, the pope of Rome. Eastern Orthodoxy is in no way based upon a book, even the Bible. It is based on the Holy Spirit and the Church, which is What is the Source of both Scripture and Tradition: The Living Person and Life of the Holy Spirit in the One Community, the Body of Christ, the Church, in both East and West, in Latin and in Greek, and the other ancient languages. Until about the time of pope Nicholas I, 867 AD, the body was in perfect agreement; with Nicholas I’s prejudicial treatment of Photius, a schism or the seeds of schism began at Old Rome.
scott,
We’re probably not far apart there, just a question of language I’d say. Catholicism is not a religion of the book. It is certainly not based upon a bishop, the bishop of Rome, either. Christ is the head of the church, his body, which is enlivened by the Holy Spirit. We learn about God through his revelation to us, principally in the scriptures, which is the highest authority, as interpreted by the magisterium of the church and Tradition. So scripture, Tradition and the church , under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, are the building blocks of the faith.
I hope I have not expressed it too clumsily.
The faith of the Church has never been that an individual person in the Church could not err; including those who were later Saints, Paul and Peter, made some mistakes, but once they were forgiven and acquired the Holy Spirit, they did not err; but Peter had to be corrected by Paul. The faith of the Church has always been that the first councils of the Church did not and cannot err, and these Councils were accepted by the Whole Catholic Church, 325 to 787 AD. Unfortunately, Charlemagne rejected the Council of 787 AD; it was CHARLEMAGNE that hijacked OLD ROME< and BECAUSE OF CHARLEMAGNE and the FRANKS, Rome went into SCHISM in 1014 AD by ADDING FILIOQUE, something the councils of 431 and 451 AD FORBAD.
scott,
I don’t know why you bring Charlemagne or the Franks into this, he never was a theologian and he lived between A.D. 742 – 814. Sounds like a nationalistic prejudice is at work here.
Scott–
The Orthodox and Catholics use 2 Thessalonians 2:15 and 3:6 as a loophole to add things to Scripture. It’s clear from the Early Church Fathers that oral and written traditions completely overlapped. Catholic apologists will admit that not a single word exists in tradition, attributable to Jesus or the Apostles, outside of the Scriptures. Not a single word!
Sola Scriptura couldn’t possibly mean that no one ever compares notes to better discern what the text means. Yes, we look at what all sorts of historians and exegetes have to say, including Augustine and Aquinas and Calvin and Luther. Is that supposed to be a knock on our position?
Calvin quoted Chrysostom right, left, and sideways. The Reformers were incredibly conversant with the fathers.
Catholics and the Orthodox interpret Scripture according to church edict. We Protestants do not slavishly follow anyone. Augustine may corroborate what we believe, but we don’t believe anything at all just because he said it. Scripture takes priority over everything and everyone.
Hans, Not a single word of Scripture says that the traditions of which Paul speaks in 2 Thess. 2:15 and 3:6 refer to words in the Old and New Testament, and that nothing Paul, himself, said, did, or preached, can be considered Christian, or apostolic, because it is not written down somewhere in the New Testament; nor can any Protestant ever preach even one sermon without going beyond Scripture alone. Scripture instructs that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation, but, starting with Charlemagne, and ending first most of all with the papacy of Nicholas I, and later popes of Rome after Leo III and John VIII, the last really Orthodox pope, I think, was John VIII, and I think I have the Spirit of God. Since Nicholas I at Rome, defying the humble and irenic spirit of Pope Saint Gregory I the Great, Catholicism developed, and became an error, departing from Orthodoxy, and Protestantism departing from Orthodoxy along with Catholicism, with Wycliffe, Huss, and the earliest Protestants. The Protestants corrected some of the Catholicism errors, but fell into errors of their own, private interpretation, and they did not overcome the Filioque heresy.
Hans, Catholics and Orthodox do not interpret Scripture according to Church edict. Catholics and Protestants are outside the Church. The Holy Spirit in the Orthodox Church interprets all things in the Church, and leads His Church into all of the truth (John 14:26, John 15:26, John 16:13), but individual human members of the Church fall short, sometimes, many times, of the fullness of all of the truth. All people are finite, and this includes members of the true Church. It is difficult for all Christians to be saved, whether in the Church, or beyond and outside it. We make no judgment about who is or is not in the Church, though we can identify by the Spirit of truth (John 15:26) what doctrines are heresies, and thus not from the Orthodox Church.
Hans, The Protestants use Luther, Calvin, or one of the Reformers, as loopholes to misunderstand, misinterpret, or even reject Scripture, reject 2 Thess. 2:15 and 3:6, and to follow Luther and Calvin as sources of their belief in Sola Scriptura. Not even Augustine of Hippo, whom Luther and Calvin both look to, taught Sola Scriptura.
Hans,
That’s hard to believe when Protestants differ between themselves in respect of innumerable doctrines, some of them on fundamental issues like sola fide.
You show me from scripture alone where it says unequivocally that sola scriptura is a valid doctrine.
Water–
It is impossible for Protestants to differ on Sola Fide. If you don’t believe in Sola Fide, you’re NOT a Protestant!
Scripture does not contain instructions on how to interpret Scripture. That being the case, the simplest, most straightforward method should prevail. When it comes to divine revelation, stick to the basics: read it and follow it. Anything else is making up your own rules. Anything else smacks of the “private” sort of interpretation which Scott decried…in other words, man-centered hermeneutics.
Hans,
Here is something for you to contemplate: “The Story: A new survey claims that on two key doctrines, the majority of U.S. Protestants hold views that are more in line with the Roman Catholic Church than with the historical position of the Reformation. But is that true, or were respondents merely confused? [Note: This article has been significantly updated after several people pointed out that the questions asked by Pew Research Center do not really clarify the differences between Catholics and Protestants in the way in which I first understood their survey.]
The Background: According to a new survey by the Pew Research Center, 46 percent of U.S. Protestants agree that faith alone is needed to get into heaven while 52 percent say both good deeds and faith are needed to get into heaven. Originally, I had read that statement to mean that faith alone was needed for justification since that is the what seperates Catholics from Protestants, which was the point of Pew’s survey. Pew specifically identifies this as the sola fide (faith alone) position, which is indeed what Protestants believe about justification. However, as one theologian has pointed out to me, “We are justified by faith alone, with no works whatsoever as the necessary instrument. But we do not ‘get into heaven’ without the confirmation of that faith through good deeds, as many texts in the New Testament affirm, and which Protestants have historically believed.” (I agree with this point wholeheartedly, of course.)
Pew also attempted to gauge American’s position on sola scriptura—the traditional Protestant belief that the Bible is ultimately the sole source of religious authority for Christians. Only 46 percent of American Protestants say the Bible is the sole source of religious authority for Christians while 52 percent say that in addition to the Bible, Christians need guidance from church teachings and traditions.”
Hans, Protestants say “Scripture alone”; and from that point on, Protestants can’t come to a common consensus on what all of the Scriptures mean. This problem is not solved, even by believing in “Scripture AND Tradition” or “Scripture IN Tradition”, as Catholics and Orthodox BOTH believe in COMMON, but they don’t agree on what the content and meaning of these are; because of the Papacy. Water, bringing in Charlemagne was no kind of prejudice. It is precisely because the State influences the Church in every form of Christianity, that Charlemagne was the political reason that later the Popes capitulated to Filioque; it wasn’t on solid doctrinal grounds, but the vital political reality of the West, which wasn’t present in the doctrines or politics in the East. See James Russell: The Germanization of Early Medieval Christianity
(that’s not the precise title, but it’s something like that; I forget which). God bless.
scott,
Going back to nationalism.
Talk to me about the scripture passages I quoted you rather.
Some of the nastiest, angriest bloggers I have come across have been Wesleyan and Catholic and Pentecostal and what have you. Calvinists, in general, are neither angry nor arrogant, and you should repent your silly, misinformed bigotry and judgmentalism. Words of Hans. Misinformed nasty bigotry and judgmentalism against Wesleyans, Catholics, and Pentecostals. Very unkind words. Not all Calvinists talk this way.
Quit being silly. I made no generalizations about Wesleyans or Catholics or Pentacostals. All denominations, faiths, and creeds have their rotten apples. And that is ALL that I was saying. I have friends and acquaintances and relatives who are all of the above. None of whom I would call angry or arrogant. Take the time to read what I actually say!
You and Water/Spirit are stuck on your bigotry. You probably have “plenty” of Black acquaintances who are ignorant, lazy, and violent. “Plenty” of Jewish acquaintances who are greedy and controlling. “Plenty” of Native American acquaintances who are petty thieves and drunks. And on and on.
Hans,
Not bigotry, but insisting upon the truth.
Hans,
You never did come back to me about this: “You show me from scripture alone where it says unequivocally that sola scriptura is a valid doctrine.”
Water–
Where have you met all these supposedly arrogant (or “severe”) Calvinists? Online? Cantankerous fools from every persuasion under the sun like to peddle their wares online.
Calvinism is an intellectually robust system not unlike Thomism, so academic nerds sometimes like to sink their teeth into it. There is a phenomenon where young academics, new to the system, relish Reformed systematics overmuch. There’s a name for this. It’s called “cage stage” Calvinism, fledglings full of testosterone-laced confidence but lacking any real maturity or wisdom. Can’t say that I’ve ever met one in person or online, but I’ve heard they’re out there.
The problem with this–and with your evaluation, for that matter– is that these young turks can hardly be labeled Reformed. They may be on their way there, but they’re not there yet. I mentioned before that the very focus of Calvinism is humility. A Calvinist who is not basically humble (or who doesn’t want to be with all his heart) is about as Reformed as a person who despises the Blessed Virgin or cannot stand to go to Mass is Catholic. No, they’re not!
I’ve known way too many Calvinists in too many sections of the country for you to be correct.
But I will go ahead and give you the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps you’re not a bigot after all. Just honestly mistaken.
Hans,
All I have said is I found the Calvinists I know to be “severe”. Not just young turks either.
The Calvinist doctrines themselves are “severe”.
Water–
I thought I had answered you back concerning Sola Scriptura. There’s really no need for common sense to be written down in Scripture before following its dictates. What does one do with divine revelation? You read it and follow it. Easy-peasy. Lemon-squeezy.
You think it’s a “gotcha” question, but it’s nothing of the sort. The Constitution of the United States has no instructions attached: this is how one ought to interpret this document. It goes without saying that it should be taken for what it clearly says within the context of the time frame and culture it was written in. “Sola Constitutio” or whatever the Latin would be. Liberals, who want to make it into a “living document” that slowly changes over time (despite the fact that it already has a built-in means for adaptation to change), are ridiculous in their utter ignorance of what law ought to be. What a standard–to be a standard–needs to entail. And this is the same rudimentary mistake Catholics make in elevating Tradition to equality with Scripture…which they most certainly do…and admit that they do.
Hans,
Where the heck in scripture does it say scripture “ALONE”? Show me. One or two unequivacal quotes. Nothing more. It is not there. Luther had to invent this sola scriptura thing to allow his private interpretation of scripture that Peter warns about in his epistle.
The Catholic church does not elevate Tradition to equality with scripture. Scripture is the highest authority, but its interpretation is the work of the magisterium, in the light of Tradition. That authority of the magisterium derives from Jesus giving his authority to Peter and to the twelve.
Water–
Ah, so that’s what you’re talking about. Yes, without question, Calvinism is severe. God in his wrath is severe. That’s part of what makes grace so amazing! You’re actually rescued from something daunting.
You Catholics have such a cavalier, namby-pamby attitude toward sin. You think that as long you haven’t murdered several people during this past week, you’re pretty much ok. Let the priest know, shed a few tears, do a few hail Mary’s, rinse and repeat. Go back to killing (but no more than one a week, mind you).
I’m being facetious, but I’m deadly serious. You’re riddled with mortal sin on an ongoing basis, every moment of every day. The sacrament of reconciliation has no hope of keeping up. You simply have no idea how miserable you really are. You believe you’re basically a “good person” with a smidgen of concupiscence thrown in for good measure. Nothing to get all worked up about!
You fit in very well with modern secularists. They feel the same way.
Hans,
Your idea of confession is laughable, typical of a cynic.
Water, “Jesus Christ is the Same, Yesterday, and Today, & Forever” (Hebrews, St. Paul); Therefore, doctrine does NOT evolve. You should know that, Water. God bless. Doctrine is the same, yesterday, and today, and forever; understanding may improve, but it does not change. It gets better, but the doctrine is exactly the same; only the same doctrine is understood more thoroughly and completely; but it is the same old doctrine; the “old landmark” which the fathers have set for us. God bless.
scott,
Doctrine does evolve. The early church fathers gradually developed the doctrine of the Trinity, which was finally proclaimed it appears by the council of Constantinople in ca. 381 A.D.
GB.
The teaching and understanding may evolve, but the doctrine remains exactly the same. You should understand that, Water. The New Testament remains the same. Only the understanding of which is the correct NT improves and evolves. Whatever the NT originally was will eventually be understood and evolved by most or by all.
scott,
In the first couple of centuries, there was initially no doctrine on the Trinity. A new doctrine came about when this was promulgated. It’s not hard to figure out.
Water, the doctrine was already there, Matthew 28, right in the first century. It just wasn’t THOUGHT ABOUT much, but it WAS there. Undeveloped, as you say, but not changed. The doctrine was the same; the Church was being martyred and persecuted, so they didn’t have time for philosophy or formulating precise doctrines of Trinitarian theology; they simply believed in the TRINITY. Faith is not merely intellectual assent; it is TRUST in God, the Infinite Personal God.
scott,
The word Trinity was not around then, that concept was developed later. Of course it is there in scripture, that is where the development of doctrine comes from, a greater understanding of scripture.
We are not talking about faith or trust here, but a particular aspect of it: the development of doctrine.
The Church does not teach the doctrine of “the development of doctrine”; the Church Fathers do not teach that tradition. It is a development of later schismatic & heretical Catholicism at best, and stems from a speculative, non-dogmatic essay of Cardinal John Henry Newman, who can hardly be the representative of what Catholics have to believe on penalty of anathema. Even if it were a dogma that the papacy taught as necessary, the papacy, like every Christian, is not infallible. Only the LORD Himself is infallible, and from Him, the Scriptures were breathed infallible, and the Church received at least 7 councils as infallible, 325-787.
scott,
You are starting to sound like a Protestant, going back to the same old refrain. The Trinity IS a development of doctrine. There was no doctrine on the Trinity before, then there was a doctrine on the Trinity. That does not mean that the biblical basis for it was not there in the first place. It was, but the church fathers gradually formulated the dogma, and over the course of the first few centuries developed the doctrine. If you refuse to accept that you are a bit like the Jews (or most Protestants for that matter) refusing to accept Jesus’ teaching on the Eucharist because of some prohibition in Deuteronomy. Their understanding becomes a block because they do not recognise who is speaking to them, Jesus, or God himself.
All ecumenical councils of the Catholic church are infallible in her definitive dogmatic teaching regarding matters of faith and morals.
How ironic. It’s the development of doctrine idea that is more modernist and Protestant than ancient and conciliar. Doctrine comes from the Holy Spirit in councils of bishops, Acts 15, and also 325 AD, 381 AD, and not from ideas invented and developed by men. The Fathers mostly got things right, more than most of us do, or I do, since they were nearer the Holy Spirit through the bishops and apostles. There is no early Church Father document who said anything like John Henry Newman said in his “development of doctrine” essay, so like papal infallibility, as late as 1870 AD, it is a non-catholic, non-orthodox, heterodox, heretical & schismatic sectarian innovation. The spirit of Protestantism is all over Vatican I. Papism and Protestantism are just two different sides of the same self-authority coin.
scltt,
If you are blind to the facts, I cannot help you.
scott,
The church fathers constantly developed doctrine which ecumenical councils further defined to combat heresies and instruct the faithful.
scott,
Some of my replies do not seem to come through.
John 4:14 “14 but no one who drinks the water that I shall give will ever be thirsty again: the water that I shall give will become a spring of water within, welling up for eternal life.”
John 20:22 “22 After saying this he breathed on them and said: Receive the Holy Spirit.”
Clear references that Jesus, independently of the Father, but of course together with him, gives the Holy Spirit to his followers. This shows that the Holy Spirit proceeds from Jesus as well, that is, from the Father and from the Son as well.
Those verses do not show the Spirit proceeds from the Son as well, since Christ reveals how and from Whom the Spirit proceeds in John 15:26, and He clearly reveals the Spirit “Proceeds from the Father”, and Christ does not say here “and the Son”. If He proceeded from the Son, Christ would have said it here in John 15:26; and of course, if you are saying He proceeds from the Son, you have to explain why Christ did not reveal it in John 15:26, and this is something you cannot do, as Christ came to reveal the truth, not conceal it, and if the Spirit proceeded from the Son, this implies Christ would be a concealer if it is true and in the place where He revealed the truth about the procession of the Spirit, He did not mention a procession from the Son.
scott,
Christ does not with each sentence cover all his teaching. Jesus says “your faith has saved you”, he also says that if you have faith and you are baptised you are saved, that the disciples must preach the gospel to all nations and teach them to obey all the commands he gave them. So in your view he should have addressed these three issues at the same time? He did not, whatever you might say. Scripture is only intelligible as a whole. You can’t just ignore some of it because it does not fit in with your theology.
scott,
Jesus said that he and the Father are one. He did not add the Holy Spirit. According to you, if it were true he would have done that, which as you can see is nonsensical, as we know that there are three persons in the Trinity, three persons in one God, and Jesus never actually specified that. That doctrine is not clearly spelt out in scripture in that many words. The doctrine was gradually developed by the church fathers. That is called a development of doctrine, whatever obstacle that may present you with the term. But you can choose to hang on to your dislike of the term like the Jews with drinking blood, but that’s your problem.
It’s a bit ironic. You make a false statement that the Orthodox hang everything on 2 verses, John 15:26 and Acts 2:33. That is not correct. We also go by the holy council, 381 AD, which just happens to agree with John 15:26 and Acts 2:33. And some doctrines do only have a few verses to back them up, so the point is moot. But you seem willing to look at what you characterize as all the other verses of the NT in this matter, but you exclude John 15:26 and Acts 2:33 as having any weight or authority in interpreting the other verses; you use the other verses to read John 15:26 and Acts 2:33; you do not use John 15:26 and Acts 2:33 to read the other verses. John 15:26 is exactly more pertinent and of more weight than the other verses, precisely because it is our common LORD GOD and Saviour, CHRIST JESUS, Who is speaking in John 15:26. And He is backed up by blessed Saint Luke the Apostle in Acts 2:33. And Saint Paul everywhere says “the Spirit OF the Son”, not the “Spirit FROM the Son”. So Paul backs up Christ and Luke, too.
scott,
“18 Have you eyes and do not see, ears and do not hear?”
The Spirit “of the Son”, which is why Jesus can say to the apostles: “Receive the Holy Spirit”.
scott,
You have avoided my comment about Jesus saying that the Father and him are one without including the Holy Spirit. Too hard?
Yes, Jesus does not include the Holy Spirit in His statement that “He and the Father are one”. So what? There is no Scripture that says the Holy Spirit is not included in the unity of Father and Spirit, so you are reading that INTO the Scriptures. It is not there. So what if He doesn’t mention the Spirit? So what? John 3:16 doesn’t mention the Spirit, but you wouldn’t say the Holy Spirit is not God because He is not mentioned in every verse of the Bible?
scott,
My point was that the fact that John 3:16 does not say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son does not mean that that is not the case.
In any case, I understand the Catholic position much better now as you have led me to investigate further. thanks for that. I realise now that we are not as far apart as I would have thought.
Here is an extract from the article I referred to: “Augustine clearly taught that the Father is the sole “Principium” (Augustine’s word) of the Spirit. Indeed, in this very same section of his On the Trinity, Augustine clearly writes (emphasis mine)…
“For the Father alone is not from another, and therefore He alone is called unbegotten, not indeed in the Scriptures, but in the usage of disputants, who employ such language as they can on so great a subject. And the Son is begotten of the Father; and the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father principally, the Father giving the procession without any interval of time, yet in common from Both [Father and Son]. But He [the Spirit] would be called the Son of the Father and of the Son, if–a thing abhorrent to the feeling of all sound minds–Both had begotten Him. Therefore the Spirit of Both is not begotten of Both, but proceeds from Both.” (On the Trinity, xv; 26)
Here, Augustine uses ‘begotten’ as a synonym for ‘spirates’ –a reference to the Spirit’s one spiration (from the Father) …….. The reference is to the eternal, consubstantial communion between Father and Son (the context of a collective procession –”proienai”), not to the procession from the Father alone (“ekporeusis”) as the Spirit’s ultimate Cause or Source.”
…… “the Western Church does not view the Son as a ‘cause’ of the Spirit’s procession at all –not in the sense of ekporeusis. The Son is not a ‘secondary cause’ (aition) of the Spirit, vs. the Father’s role as primary Cause (Aition). It is not a matter of “the Son alone” or “the Son in addition to the Father.” Rather, what Filioque refers to is the reality that the Son eternally participates with the Father in the procession of the Holy Spirit –that Father and Son together account for a procession of the Spirit (proienai), in a context that is totally complimentary to the dogma that the Spirit proceeds (ekporeusis) from the Father alone as His ultimate Source or Cause (Aition / Principium).
Metropolitan Zizoulas’ problem (and it is a stumbling block for many Eastern Orthodox) is that he can only see “and the Son” (Filioque) as an addition to the Creedal statement of the Byzantine Church, and thus assumes that the context must be one of ‘causes’ –the Son as an ‘additional’ or ‘secondary’ cause. But since, as we discussed earlier, the Latin-speaking West never used the Creedal statement of Constantinople I to specifically refer to the Father as Cause (because of the implied meaning of the Latin “procedit” vs. the Greek “ekporeusis”), it never had this focus in mind. The West certainly never denied that the Father is the Spirit’s Source and Cause (as is clear from St. Augustine’s statements above). But, this was simply not the West’s focus or preoccupation, and so not the way in which it implemented the Creed. Rather, the preoccupation of the West was always the collective context of the Spirit’s procession, which is, yes, a different approach from the Byzantine tradition, but also an equally valid and orthodox one. As in my analogy, does the ‘game of catch’ proceed from the human father who initiates it, or from both the human father and the human son, who jointly participate in it? The answer is that the ‘game of catch’ proceeds from both these things, complimentarily and at the same time. The procession of the Spirit is no different. Our different approaches are just that –a matter of context, perspective, and emphasis. ”
I hope that makes things a bit clearer, but it would help if you read the article.
GB.
Out of respect for his piety, Augustine has never been condemned as a heretic. But some of his teachings are opinions and not dogmas necessary for salvation, so I reject them. I will be condemned by the Holy Spirit in my conscience if I view Augustine as an authority in deciding this matter. For us in the Church, the truth is Constantinople I, 381 AD, “who proceedeth from the Father”; with all due respect for his zeal for God, Augustine’s opinions in this issue do not matter and must rightly be rejected. He has some good things about his writings, but clearly he was a philosopher and psychologist, not an exegete of the Greek NT. I get what I know about this from blessed Photius (The Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit), and I do consider it necessary for salvation for everyone to believe what Photius writes in the “Mystagogia”.
scott,
I reiterate: ““the Western Church does not view the Son as a ‘cause’ of the Spirit’s procession at all –not in the sense of ekporeusis. The Son is not a ‘secondary cause’ (aition) of the Spirit, vs. the Father’s role as primary Cause (Aition). It is not a matter of “the Son alone” or “the Son in addition to the Father.” Rather, what Filioque refers to is the reality that the Son eternally participates with the Father in the procession of the Holy Spirit –that Father and Son together account for a procession of the Spirit (proienai), in a context that is totally complimentary to the dogma that the Spirit proceeds (ekporeusis) from the Father alone as His ultimate Source or Cause (Aition / Principium).”
I don’t know how to make it clearer.
Water, You say you believe the Son eternally participates with the Father with the procession of the Holy Spirit? What do you mean by procession? Do you mean the temporal mission of the Holy Spirit, the sending of the Holy Spirit by the Father and the Son together in time? If so, that is what the Orthodox would say about the Orthodox meaning of the procession. However, if you mean the Son participates with the Father in the eternal procession of the Spirit in eternity, the Orthodox deny this, for this would deny the humanity and Incarnation of God the Word as a fully human man, as the Holy Spirit comes “from God” (the Father), and could not come from a man, this would result in a problem akin to denying the full humanity of Christ, and saying Christ is God, but not a man, for the Spirit of God could not come from a man, as Christ was fully a man, like us in all things, except He was without sin, and we, as men, the Spirit does not come from us. Nor does the Spirit come from the Pope of Rome. The Spirit comes from the Father alone. Monopatrism is right there in John 15:26.
scott,
We are starting to talk now. I am no expert on this, but I am learning as I go. Forgive my earlier brashness’ I need to become less impulsive.
“the Council of Florence, which stated in 1439, “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” (Decree for the Greeks).
The Spirit proceeds from the Father *and* the Son because the Father has given all things to the Son, including the procession of the Holy Spirit.
That does not mean that the son is a “secondary cause” or a cause “in addition to ” the Father, but that the Son “participates” with the Father, ( who alone is the source or cause (Aition/Principium) of the Holy Spirit ), in the procession of the Holy Spirit.
About the Holy Spirit “not coming from a man, Jesus”, it is clear that for example when Mary visits Elizabeth in Luke 1, John the Baptist is filled by the Holy Spirit from Jesus in Mary’s womb.
Jesus’ humanity is in no way hampering his divinity. That woul
d indeed be heresBut I think we are digressing here anyway..
Water, My point was, and I need admit, I believe, here I am, I am not standing in principle, based upon what traditions I have received, personally, from our bishop, and from our fathers in our church here, as a tradition that they tell me, us, we need to hold to, de fide, as part of our orthodox (Orthodox) faith, not a doctrine which they taught me in Church, in Sunday school, or something one of our Orthodox theologians, contemporary, or 20th, 19th century, or ancient Church Fathers, say, 325-880 AD, taught in their writings, but an inference I have just begun to thought about as a tentative theologoumen, a perhaps permissible theological opinion, unless I am on any wrong ground of philosophy or error here: since Christ is indeed truly a man, a male, a human being, the same as all human beings, the same as all human beings, except human beings are male or female, and He was (is) a male, man, and unmarried, and He is without any sins, but all people, male and female, are or were sinners, He is the same as us, and since the Holy Spirit does not proceed from us as human beings, it does not proceed from us as a human being; but since He is the God-man, and one with the Father, and since the Scripture says the Spirit is sent by both Father and Son together, in the sense of a sending of the Spirit in (His) time on earth, the Spirit proceeds in the sense of “sending” (a proceeding in a missionary sense, sending, not an eternal ontological causation of the Spirit’s existence by the Son). But the Son does not have it from the Father, otherwise, that the Spirit proceeds from Him, from the Son; no, John 15:26 makes it clear He proceeds from the Father alone. Monopatrism. Not Filioquism.
scott,
I will attempt an answer. You are right in the sense of causation, that the father is the sole cause of the Holy Spirit, but proceeds (procedit) is not the same as Aition/Principium. This is where the confusion arises.
I think when we start to analyse Jesus as to his humanity/divinity in this respect we are starting to go astray, as Jesus (God) does not change, it’s not as if the “proceeding” say in a missionary sense, applies only during Jesus’ time on earth. We are moving into speculative territory here, Jesus is eternal with the Father and the Holy Spirit. There was never a time when Jesus was not God, when the Holy Spirit was not God, when God was without a son or without a Holy Spirit, and Jesus and the Holy Spirit are not subject to alteration or change whatsoever.
scott,
I want to reiterate that the Catholic church is in full agreement with the Orthodox creed, we have no issue with the Orthodox creed, we hold that it is true in everything it says, that God the Father is the source and cause of the Holy Spirit.
The “proceeds from the Father and the Son” in the Catholic version of the creed addresses something completely different. I think if we can get as far as recognise that, we will have made real progress.
The Smithy
A mediaevalist trying to be a philosopher and a philosopher trying to be a mediaevalist write about theology, philosophy, scholarship, books, the middle ages, and especially the life, times, and thought of the Doctor Subtilis, the Blessed John Duns Scotus.
Friday, April 3, 2009
Scotus on the Filioque
On this question the Greeks disagree with the Latins. I have found, however, in a note of Lincoln [i.e. Robert Grosseteste] . . . that the Greeks really did not disagree with the Latins, because the opinion of the Greeks is that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son. In this way, therefore, two wise men, one Greek and the other Latin, not lovers of proper speech but of divine zeal, would perhaps find the disagreement not to be real, but one of words, for otherwise either the Latins or the Greeks would be heretics. But who wishes to say that Basil, Gregory of Nazianzus, Gregory of Nyssa, Damascene, Chrysostom and many other excellent doctors are heretics; and for the other part that Ambrose, Jerome, Augustine, Gregory, Hilary, etc., who were the most excellent Latin doctors, are heretics? Perhaps modern Greeks have added to the aforesaid article from their obstinacy what the preceding doctors have not said or understood. This must be held, therefore, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, because the Church declares this. . . . . . one must say that many things were transmitted explicitly in the later creeds that were contained implicitly in the first ones. Hence, heresies were the occasion of expressing and explaining truths, and therefore, in the first creed it was not necessary to explain, because then there was no heresy. Afterwards, however, there was, and a new creed followed, and with as much authority as those before had. Hence there is no corruption of the first creed, but an explanation; nor did we make another creed, but a new one from it.
–Scotus, Reportatio I-A Dist. 11 Q.2, trans. Wolter and Bychkov.
Posted by Michael Sullivan
Labels: Scotism, Theology, Trinity
scott,
A man after my own heart.
Water, I reject and disagree with this Duns Scotus Smithy article; I include it because it is fair game and I include both Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic articles for and and against Filioque.
Anselm Contra Greeks
The question of the procession of the Holy Spirit remains a bone of contention between the Greek East and the Latin West. The Greeks have historically denied the doctrine known as Filioque (literally, “and from the Son”), the Latin Christian belief that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, as stated in the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed. The Greek Orthodox have rejected and continue to reject this teaching, stating instead that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone. The Church has had no lack of talented saints and theologians arguing in favor of the Latin tradition; in this essay, we will examine the arguments of St. Anselm of Canterbury against the Greek position and in favor of the double-procession of the Spirit. St. Anselm (d. 1109) was one of the most important churchmen of his age. He was a rigorous theologian and is considered one of the fathers of the Scholastic movement.
St. Anselm’s famous work on the Holy Spirit is De processione Spiritus Sancti, which, though containing important contributions to Trinitarian theology in its own right, was written to defend the western doctrine of the Filioque against the Greeks (for a primer on Trinitarian theology, we recommend this article).
In this pivotal work, Anselm refines the distinctions between indivisible unity and incompatible diversity within the Godhead in order to establish a framework from which to argue the double-procession of the Spirit. He distinguishes two basic expressions (1) “God from whom God exists” and (2) “God from God”. Now, each of the three Persons of the Godhead has a unique position or relation within this framework. The Father is unique because he is God from whom God exists, because the Son and the Spirit proceed from Him; but He is not God from God, because He Himself proceeds from none and is not begotten. The Father is the “ground” of the Trinity; He is 1 but not 2.
The Son, on the other hand, is both 1 and 2. The Son both is begotten by the Father and is God from God, as well as spirating the Spirit, who proceeds from the Son. The Holy Spirit, then, is 2 but not 1, because He proceeds from the Father and the Son but neither the Father nor the Son proceed from or are begotten of Him. Or, to make it simpler:
Father: 1 but not 2
Son: 1 and 2
Holy Spirit: 2 but not 1
The purpose of these distinctions is to argue a true plurality among the Persons of the Godhead and explore their relations to one another, and in this point Anselm argues that both Latins and Greeks are in agreement; from this common ground, Anselm says, “Having advanced these premises, let us inquire how, in God,the indivisible oneness and the irreducible plurality are related to each other” [1]. This relationality will demonstrate the double-procession of the Spirit.
It is important to understand that the Greeks do not deny that the Spirit has some relation to the Son; some confess that the Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son – others will note that since the Holy Spirit has to be the Spirit of someone, He must be the Spirit of the Son. The Scriptures say as much (cf. Rom 8:9; 1 Pet. 1:11). So the Greeks do not deny any relation with the Son and the Spirit – such would be to break the unity of the Godhead. Rather, they deny that that relation is one of procession. The Spirit does not proceed from the Son but the Father alone, though He does have some relation to the Son – so say the Greeks.
Anselm agrees with the Greeks that if the plurality of Persons and the unity of the Godhead is to be maintained, the Son and the Spirit must be in some sort of relation. But if the relation is not one of procession, of what sort is it? Here Anselm argues that only procession makes any sense. Divine Revelation reveals only two ways that God can be from God: being begotten or proceeding. If the Spirit does not proceed from the Son, the only other way He can be in relation to the Son is to be begotten by Him. But Anselm argues that this would be unfitting, for it would make the Spirit’s the Son’s Son even as the Son is the Father’s Son; it would make the Holy Spirit into a grandson, which is absurd.
But, if the Son and the Holy Spirit are in some sort of relation, then either the Holy Spirit must proceed from the Son or the Son from the Holy Spirit. Anselm obviously argues in favor of the former, since if the Son proceeded from the Holy Spirit, the Holy Spirit would be the Father of the Son, something with no warrant in Christian Tradition, which clearly affirms the Son is begotten by the Father. To say otherwise would make the Father and the Holy Spirit identical with regard their relations. The Son cannot proceed from the Spirit because He would be the Son of the Spirit; but since the Scriptures refer to the Spirit as the Spirit of the Son, it makes sense to conclude that the relation between the two is that the Spirit proceeds from the Son as well as the Father.
Anselm also resorts to the Scriptures to prove the double-procession. In John 15:26, Jesus says that He will send the Spirit from the Father; Jesus is the agent who “sends” the Spirit. In John 14:26, it is the Father who “sends” the Spirit but He does so in Jesus’ name. Clearly, both the Father and the Son are portrayed in the Gospel of John as “sending” the Spirit, and neither is said to do so exclusively.
Anselm also makes an interesting observation on Matthew 11:27, “No man knows the Son except the Father, nor does anyone know the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal him.” Anselm wonders whether the Holy Spirit may be counted among those who “know” the Father and the Son? If the Holy Spirit did not have knowledge of the Son and the Father, He would be less than either and hence not God. Obviously the Spirit does have this knowledge; but how does He possess it? Anselm allows only two possibilities: that the Son had to reveal the knowledge of the Father to the Spirit just as He does to creatures, or else the Spirit knows it by virtue of sharing His essence with the Father and the Son. Anselm uses this dilemma to argue the necessity of the double-procession. Let him speak for himself:
“If the Greeks are unwilling openly to resist the truth, then let them choose one of the two alternatives: either (1) the Holy Spirit does not know the Father and the Son unless the Son reveals [this knowledge to Him], or (2) because of the fact that insofar as the Father and the Son know each other they are one with the Holy Spirit, then when they are said to know each other, it follows necessarily that the Holy Spirit is included in this knowledge. Surely, there is no middle course provided [the Greeks] do not want altogether to take away this knowledge from the Holy Spirit or altogether to take away truth from the words of Truth, both of which things true confession curses. For Truth speaks as follows: “No one knows the Son except the Father; and not anyone knows the Father except the Son and him to whom the Son chooses to reveal [this knowledge].”Now indeed, if they opt for the Holy Spirit’s knowing the Father and the Son by means of the Son’s revelation, then the Holy Spirit has this knowledge from the Son, and this knowledge is, for the Holy Spirit, nothing else than His being. Hence, He exists and proceeds from the Son, since He proceeds from the one from whom He exists.
On the other hand, suppose they [opt for] maintaining: when the Father and the Son are said to know each other, then because the essence through which they know each other is the same for the Holy Spirit, it follows that the Holy Spirit shares this knowledge. [In that case], when they read that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, about whom the Son says “ I and the Father are one”: let them confess with us, because of the essential identity of the Father and the Son, that the Holy Spirit without doubt proceeds also from the Son.” [2]
Thus, unless we want to maintain the absurdity that the Spirit has no inherent knowledge of the Father, we are compelled to admit that the Spirit proceeds from the Son and the Father doubly.
Anselm will also make the case that the Spirit can in no way be considered the “Spirit of Christ” or the Spirit of the Son if He does not proceed from the Son:
“However, I ask those who deny that the Holy Spirit exists and proceeds from the Son how they interpret His so being the spirit of the Son that the Son sends Him as His own spirit. Do they think that the Father gave His own spirit to the Son, as to one not having [a spirit] from Himself ? (For the Son has [a spirit] either from Himself or from another. But He cannot have it from anyone else except from the Father.) In that case, the Son would have received [this spirit] from the Father, from whom He has it, and the Father would have given the Holy Spirit to the Son as to one not having [a spirit] from Himself. At this point let [the Greeks] show (since the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are equal, and since each one of them is sufficient unto Himself) what reason there was or what need the Son had for the Father to give His own spirit to Him rather than giving His own son to the Holy Spirit” [3]
One argument of the Greeks Anselm attempts to rebut directly is the belief that Romans 11:36, which says of God that “all things are from him, through him, and in him”, refers to the relations within the Godhead, where the Father is whom all things are from, the Son all things through, and the Spirit all things in. Since the Scripture says “all things”, the Holy Spirit would be included in “all things” as something that is from the Father but given through the Son. St. Anselm’s answer is simple yet compelling; if the Greeks insist that “all things” be taken as an absolute universal, then the Father and the Son must be included under “all things” as well, which would lead to an obvious absurdity. Clearly, the Greeks cannot argue from Romans 11:36 against Filioque.
Anselm offers more arguments in the rest of his work, which is 16 chapters long; if you want to read the entirety of this important treatise, you can click here to download a PDF version of St. Anselm’s De processione Spiritus Sancti. His arguments are not exhaustive and should be supplemented by other theological treatises on the subject, but they provide a very solid footing for discussions about the Filioque and form an important contribution to the corpus of western Latin theology.
NOTES
[1] De processione Spiritus Sancti, 1
[2] ibid., 7
[3] ibid., 4
scott,
Contra Anselm: The son does not “proceed” from God the Father, but is begotten by him.
In general I find his logic confusing.
“To understand the genesis and development of the doctrine of [papal] infallibility, its checkered past, its acceptance, repudiation, re-acceptance and ultimate enthronement, one must, of course, start at the beginning, exploring the teaching of the papal office from Rome’s position as an honorable see within the early Church, to her role as a political pawn in the medieval period of ecclesiastical intrigue. … Luis Bermejo summarizes the preceding history into a concise, yet cogent prelude to the events at Vatican Council I: “For now we know that the novel doctrine of papal infallibility was proposed for the first time around 1280 by Olivi, an eccentric Franciscan who, in the midst of the controversy on poverty, sought by means of the new theory not to extol but to restrict pontifical power, since, on the basis of his opinion, each pope would be bound by the “infallible” definitions of his predecessors. Pope John XXII, who clearly perceived the unacceptable limitations Olivi’s theory would impose on his power, rejected it as a “pestiferous doctrine”, a “pernicious audacity”. The 12th century canonists taught both the indefectibility of the Church and the position of the Roman See as a court of appeal, but they failed to draw the doctrine of papal infallibility from either of these two premises. In the course of Vatican I (some) argued “ex silencio”: the early centuries certainly knew of, but did not explicitly state, their belief in papal infallibility. In reality this opinion was totally unknown before 1280: then it erupted suddenly, under suspicious circumstances – only to be condemned by John XXII”. [Auer, Rev. Fr. Marc. (1990). pages 55-56: The Myth of Papal Infallibility. Buffalo, NY: The Cenacle/ Liberty, TN: St. John of Kronstadt Press.].
scott,
I suppose papal infallibility is hard to digest for non Catholics. It is very rare that a pope would pronounce a dogma on his own. Usually it is in concert with the bishops. But that, although it is seldom attacked, is a nearly equivalent doctrine. But more mileage can be had by attacks on the pope.
Matt 16 and Matt 18 are a good start in order to understand it.
Confusion in the West: West vs. West on the Filioque
The Orthodox View
“Moreover, we have from the letter written by the same Saint Maximus to the priest Marinus concerning the procession of the Holy Spirit, where he implies that the Greeks tried, in vain, to make a case against us, since we do not say that the Son is a cause or principle of the Holy Spirit, as they assert. But, not incognizant of the unity of substance between Father and the Son, as he proceeds from the Father, we confess that he proceeds from the Son, understanding processionem, of course, as “mission.” Interpreting piously, he instructs those skilled in both languages to peace, while he teaches both us and the Greeks that in one sense the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son and in another sense he does not proceed, showing the difficulty of expressing the idiosyncrasies of one language in another.”
–Anastasius Bibliothecarius, Anastasius Ad Ioannem Diaconum, PL 129, 560-61
“It is from the person [substantia] of the Father that the Son is begotten and the Holy Spirit proceeds.”
— John Scotus Erigena, De Divisione Naturae, PL 122, 613
Note: John follows the older Latin understanding of substantia is hypostasis and essentia is ousia which is why I translate substantia as “person” here.
The view of the Heterodox
“The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father because he flows from his substance…and just as the Son received his substance from the Father by being begotten, so also he received from the Father the ability to send the Spirit of Truth from himself through proceeding…For just as the Father and the Son are of one substance, so too by procession from both did the Holy Spirit receive his consubstantial existence.”
–Ratramnus of Corbie, Contra Graecorum Opposita Romanam Ecclesiam Inflamantium, PL 121, 229
Ratramnus’ assumption that there is only one manner of coming forth from the Father echoing his presupposition on absolute divine simplicity:
“Therefore if the Son proceeds from God the Father and the Holy Spirit also proceeds, what will keep the Arians silent, not blaspheming that the Holy Spirit is also the Son of the Father.”
— Ibid., PL 121, 247
Peter Lombard
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
For the Irish archbishop, see Peter Lombard (archbishop of Armagh). For the Guamanian cyclist, see Peter Lombard II.
Peter Lombard at work[1]
Emblem of the Papacy SE.svg
Part of a series on
Catholic philosophy
Aquinas, Scotus, and Ockham
Ethics
Natural law Personalism Social teaching Virtue ethics
Schools
Augustinianism Molinism Occamism Salamanca Scholasticism
Neo-scholasticism Scotism Thomism
Philosophers
Ancient
[show]
Medieval
[show]
Renaissance
[show]
Early Modern
[show]
Modern
[show]
046CupolaSPietro.jpg Catholicism portal
Socrates.png Philosophy portal
vte
Peter Lombard (also Peter the Lombard,[2][3] Pierre Lombard or Petrus Lombardus;[4] c. 1096, Novara[3][5][6] – 21/22 July 1160, Paris),[3][5][6] was a scholastic theologian, Bishop of Paris, and author of Four Books of Sentences, which became the standard textbook of theology, for which he earned the accolade Magister Sententiarum.
Contents
1 Biography
1.1 Early years
1.2 Professor
1.3 Priesthood and Bishop of Paris
2 Writings
3 Doctrine
4 Works
5 Notes
6 Further reading
7 External links
Biography
Early years
Peter Lombard was born in Lumellogno[7] (then a rural commune, now a quartiere of Novara, Piedmont), in northwestern Italy, to a poor family.[8] His date of birth was likely between 1095 and 1100.
His education most likely began in Italy at the cathedral schools of Novara and Lucca. The patronage of Odo, bishop of Lucca, who recommended him to Bernard of Clairvaux, allowed him to leave Italy and further his studies at Reims and Paris. Petrus Lombardus studied first in the cathedral school at Reims, where Magister Alberich and Lutolph of Novara were teaching, and arrived in Paris about 1134,[9] where Bernard recommended him[10] to the canons of the church of St. Victor.
Professor
In Paris, where he spent the next decade teaching at the cathedral school of Notre Dame, he came into contact with Peter Abelard and Hugh of St. Victor, who were among the leading theologians of the time. There are no proven facts relating to his whereabouts in Paris until 1142 when he became recognized as writer and teacher. Around 1145, Peter became a “magister”, or professor, at the cathedral school of Notre Dame in Paris. Peter’s means of earning a living before he began to derive income as a teacher and from his canon’s prebend is shrouded in uncertainty.
Lombard’s style of teaching gained quick acknowledgment. It can be surmised that this attention is what prompted the canons of Notre Dame to ask him to join their ranks. He was considered a celebrated theologian by 1144. The Parisian school of canons had not included among their number a theologian of high regard for some years. The canons of Notre Dame, to a man, were members of the Capetian dynasty, relatives of families closely aligned to the Capetians by blood or marriage, scions of the Île-de-France or eastern Loire Valley nobility, or relatives of royal officials. In contrast, Peter had no relatives, ecclesiastical connections, and no political patrons in France. It seems that he must have been invited by the canons of Notre Dame solely for his academic merit.
Priesthood and Bishop of Paris
He became a subdeacon in 1147. Possibly he was present at the consistory of Paris in 1147, and certainly he attended the Council of Reims in 1148, where Pope Eugenius III was present at the synod, which examined Gilbert de la Porrée and Éon de l’Étoile. Peter was among the signers of the act condemning Gilbert’s teachings.[11] At some time after 1150 he became a deacon, then an archdeacon, maybe as early as 1152. He was ordained priest some time before 1156. On 28 July 1159, at the Feast of Saints Peter and Paul, he was consecrated as bishop of Paris. Walter of St Victor accused Peter of obtaining the office by simony.[12] The more usual story is that Philip, younger brother of Louis VII. and archdeacon of Notre-Dame, was elected by the canons but declined in favor of Peter, his teacher.
His reign as bishop was brief.[13] He died on either 21 or 22 July 1160. Little can be ascertained about Lombard’s administrative style or objectives because he left behind so few episcopal acta. He was succeeded by Maurice de Sully, the builder of the Cathedral of Notre Dame.[14] His tomb in the church of Saint-Marcel in Paris was destroyed during the French Revolution, but a transcription of his epitaph survives.
Writings
Sententiae, 1280 circa, Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana, Florence
Peter Lombard wrote commentaries on the Psalms and the Pauline epistles; however, his most famous work by far was Libri Quatuor Sententiarum, or the Four Books of Sentences, which became the standard textbook of theology at the medieval universities.[15] From the 1220s until the 16th century, no work of Christian literature, except for the Bible itself, was commented upon more frequently. All the major medieval thinkers, from Albert the Great and Thomas Aquinas to William of Ockham and Gabriel Biel, were influenced by it. Even the young Martin Luther still wrote glosses on the Sentences, and John Calvin quoted from it over 100 times in his Institutes.
Though the Four Books of Sentences formed the framework upon which four centuries of scholastic interpretation of Christian dogma was based, rather than a dialectical work itself, the Four Books of Sentences is a compilation of biblical texts, together with relevant passages from the Church Fathers and many medieval thinkers, on virtually the entire field of Christian theology as it was understood at the time. Peter Lombard’s magnum opus stands squarely within the pre-scholastic exegesis of biblical passages, in the tradition of Anselm of Laon, who taught through quotations from authorities.[16] It stands out as the first major effort to bring together commentaries on the full range of theological issues, arrange the material in a systematic order, and attempt to reconcile them where they appeared to defend different viewpoints. The Sentences starts with the Trinity in Book I, moves on to creation in Book II, treats Christ, the saviour of the fallen creation, in Book III, and deals with the sacraments, which mediate Christ’s grace, in Book IV.
Doctrine
Peter Lombard’s most famous and most controversial doctrine in the Sentences was his identification of charity with the Holy Spirit in Book I, distinction 17. According to this doctrine, when the Christian loves God and his neighbour, this love literally is God; he becomes divine and is taken up into the life of the Trinity. This idea, in its inchoate form, can be extrapolated from certain remarks of St. Augustine of Hippo (cf. De Trinitate xiii.7.11). Although this was never declared unorthodox, few theologians have been prepared to follow Peter Lombard in this aspect of his teaching. Compare Pope Benedict XVI’s encyclical Deus caritas est, 2006.
Also in the Sentences was the doctrine that marriage was consensual and need not be consummated to be considered perfect, unlike Gratian’s analysis (see sponsalia de futuro). Lombard’s interpretation was later endorsed by Pope Alexander III, and had a significant impact on Church interpretation of marriage.
Works
Main article: Sentences
The Sentences. Book 1: The Mystery of the Trinity. Translated by Giulio Silano. Toronto, Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies (PIMS), 2007. LVIIII, 278 pp. ISBN 978-0-88844-292-5
The Sentences. Book 2: On Creation. Translated by Giulio Silano. Toronto, PIMS, 2008. XLVI, 236 pp. ISBN 978-0-88844-293-2
The Sentences. Book 3: On the Incarnation of the Word. Translated by Giulio Silano. Toronto, PIMS, 2008. XLVIII, 190 pp. ISBN 978-0-88844-295-6
The Sentences. Book 4: The Doctrine of Signs. Translated by Giulio Silano. Toronto, PIMS, 2010. 336 pp. ISBN 978-0-88844-296-3
Notes
Prof. Harold Tarrant & Prof. Godfrey Tanner (2001). The Cultural Collections Unit: 2nd Edition. University of Newcastle, Australia.
Milman, Henry Hart (1857). History of Latin Christianity: Vol.VI. London.
W. and R. Chambers (1864). Chambers’s encyclopædia: Vol.VI. London.
Baur, Ferdinand Christian (1858). Lehrbuch der christlichen Dogmengeschichte. Tübingen.
Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich (1836). Werke: Vol.XV. Berlin.
Ginsburg, Christian David (1861). Coheleth; commonly called The Book of Ecclesiastes. London.
Hödl, in Biografisch-Bibliografisches Kirchenlexikon.
The few known facts of Peter’s life are presented in Philippe Delhaye, Pierre Lombard: sa vie, ses œuvres, sa morale (Paris/Montreal) 1961.
Hödl
In a surviving letter, Ep. 410, Opera omnia viii.391, noted by Hödl
Hödl.
In his polemic Contra quatuor labyrinthos Franciae II.4.
His successor, Maurice de Sully, was bishop by the end of 1160.
Wikisource-logo.svg Herbermann, Charles, ed. (1913). “Peter Lombard”. Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company.
Joseph Rickaby (1908). Scholasticism. A. Constable. p. 23.
This is a central point of Delhaye 1961, who sees Abelard, rather than Peter, as the founder of scholasticism.
Further reading
Doyle, Matthew. Peter Lombard and His Students (Studies and Texts, 201; Mediaeval Law and Theology, 8), Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 2016, ISBN 978-0-88844-201-7
Colish, Marcia L. Peter Lombard. 2 Vols. New York: E.J. Brill, 1994.
Delhaye, Philippe. Pierre Lombard: sa vie, ses œuvres, sa morale. Paris/Montreal: 1961.
Herlihy, David. Medieval Households. Cambridge: Harvard UP, 1985.
Rosemann, Philipp W. Peter Lombard. New York: Oxford UP, 2004.
Rosemann, Philipp W. The Story of a Great Medieval Book: Peter Lombard’s “Sentences”. Peterborough, Ontario: Broadview, 2007.
External links
“Peter Lombard (1095–1160)” article in the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Ludwig Hödl (1993). “Lombardus, Petrus”. In Bautz, Traugott. Biographisch-Bibliographisches Kirchenlexikon (BBKL) (in German). 5. Herzberg: Bautz. cols. 197–202. ISBN 3-88309-043-3.
“Peter Lombard Magister Sententiarum” Texts and further links.
Peter Lombard’s Book of Sentences in parallel Latin English (Book I)
Online Galleries, History of Science Collections, University of Oklahoma Libraries High resolution images of works by Peter Lombard in .jpg and .tiff format.
This page was last edited on 7 September 2018, at 06:58 (UTC).
Water, I want to reiterate that the Orthodox Church is in full disagreement with the Catholic Filioque and it was not the Catholic Creed of the original Catholic Church in 809 AD, Leo III, and John VIII, 880 AD. We were on the same page. Later Popes left the Catholic Church over this, and started a new religion, that was based on this misunderstanding, and it was due to the political pressure of the Franks, starting with Charlemagne. Romanides, John Samuel. (1982). Franks, Romans, Feudalism, and Doctrine: An Interplay of Theology & Society. Brookline, Massachusetts: Holy Cross Orthodox Press.
scott,
Thanks for the discussion anyway.
In his Rectractationun, Augustine explains how he intended to explain what had happened in another writing and not publish his De Trinitate himself. However, his friends prevailed upon him, and he simply corrected the books as much as he could and finished the work with which he was not really satisfied.
What is most remarkable is that the spiritual and cultural descendants of the Franks, who pricked and swelled Roman livers for so many centuries, are still claiming that Augustine is the authority par excellence on the Patristic doctrine of the Holy Trinity.
Whereas no Greek-speaking Roman Father ever used the expression that the Holy Spirit proceeds (ekporeuetai) from the Father and Son, both Ambrose and Augustine use this expression. Since Ambrose was so dependent on such Greek-speaking experts as Basil the Great and Didymos the Blind, particularly his work on the Holy Spirit, one would expect that he would follow Eastern usage.
It seems, however, that at the time of the death of Ambrose, before the Second Ecumenical Synod, the term procession had been adopted by Didymos as the hypostatic individuality of the Holy Spirit. It had not been used by Saint Basil (only in his letter 38 he seems to be using procession as Gregory the Theologian) or by Saint Gregory of Nyssa before the Second Ecumenical Synod. Of the Cappadocian Fathers, only Saint Gregory the Theologian uses very clearly in his Theological Orations what became the final formulation of the Church on the matter at the Second Ecumenical Synod.
The first fully developed use of procession as the manner of existence and the hypostatic property of the Holy Spirit is to be found in the Pseudo-Justin collection of works, which probably came out of the Antiochene tradition. It reached Cappadocia via Saint Gregory the Theologian and Alexandria via Didymos the Blind. Saint Ambrose however, did not pick up this tradition. Augustine picked it up in a confused manner.
It is clear that, in the third or fourth century, the term generation, used with regard to the Logos and God, changed from signifying the Holy Trinity’s relation to creation and the incarnation whereby the already existing God became Father, having generated the already existing Logos, who thus became the Son, so that He may be seen and heard by the prophets and become man) to signifying the manner of existence of the Logos from the Father. The question of the Holy Spirit’s manner of existence and hypostatic attribute arose as a result of this change.
With the exception of Antioch, the prevailing tradition and, perhaps, the only tradition, was that the Father is from no other being, that the Logos is from the Father my means of generation, and the Holy Spirit is from the Father also, but not by generation. Saint Gregory of Nyssa initially seems to have put forth the idea that the Holy Spirit differs from the Son in so far as the Son receives existence from the Father, and the Spirit received existence from the Father also, but through the Son. The Father is His only principle and cause of existence, since these pertain to what is common, belonging to all three persons. Saint Gregory’s usual usage is the “not by generation.” To this “not by generation” was added “by procession” in Antioch. This gained enough support to be put into the Creed of the Second Ecumenical Synod. However, this term “procession” neither adds nor subtracts anything from the patristic understanding of the Holy Trinity, since the Fathers always insisted that we don not know what generation and procession mean. The Fathers evidently accepted the term in the Creed because it was better than inserting such cumbersome and negative expressions as “from the Father not by generation.” In combining Saint Gregory Nyssa’s through the Son with the final settlement, we get Saint Maximos the confessor’s and Saint John of Damascus’ “procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father through the Son.”
It is obvious that the Greek-speaking Fathers before this development used procession as the Bible does, and so spoke of the Holy Spirit as proceeding from the Father, and never from the Father and the Son. It seems, however, that in the Latin-speaking tradition procedure is used for_ekporeuomai, but sometimes also for_exercomai, and even for_pemyiV. In any case, when Saint Ambrose used procedure, he does not mean either manner of existence or hypostatic property. This is clear from his insistence that whatsoever the Father and the Son have in common, the Holy Spirit also has. When the Father and the Son send the Spirit, the Spirit sends himself. What is individual belongs to only one person. What is common is common to all three persons.
Evidently, because Augustine transformed the doctrine of the Holy Trinity into a speculative exercise of philosophical acumen, the simple, schematic and biblical nature of the doctrine in the Roman tradition had been lost sight of by those stemming from the scholastic tradition.
Thus, the history of the doctrine of the Trinity has been reduced to searching out the development of such concepts and terminology as three persons or hypostases, one essence, homoousios, personal or hypostatic properties, one divinity, etc.
For the Fathers, the Arians and the Eunomians, however, the doctrine of the Trinity was identical to the appearances of the Logos in His Glory to the prophets, apostles, and saints. The Logos was always identified with the Angel of God, the Lord of Glory, the Angel of Great Council, the Lord Sabbaoth and the Wisdom of God who appeared to the prophets of the Old Testament and became Christ by His birth as man from the Virgin Theotokos. No one ever doubted this identification of the Logos with this very concrete individual, who revealed in himself the invisible God of the Old Testament to the prophets, with the peculiar exception of Augustine, who in this regard follows the Gnostic and Manichaean traditions.
The controversy between the Orthodox and Arians was not about who the Logos is in the Old and New Testament, but about what the Logos is and what His relationship is so the Father. The Orthodox insisted that the Logos is uncreated and unchangeable, having always existed from the Father, who by nature generates the Logos before the ages. The Arians insisted that this same Logos is a changeable creature, deriving His existence from non-being before the ages by the will of the will of the Father.
Thus the basic question was, did the prophets see in God’s uncreated glory a created Logos, or an uncreated Logos, a Logos who is God by nature and, therefore, has all the energies and powers of God by nature, or a God by grace who has some, but not all, the energies of the Father and then only by grace and not by nature.
Both Orthodox and Arians agreed in principle that, if the Logos has every power and energy of the Father by nature, then He is uncreated. If not, He is a creature.
Since the Bible is a witness of whom and what the prophets and apostles saw in the glory of the Father, the Bible itself will reveal whether or not the Logos has all the energies and powers of the Father by nature. Thus, we will know whether the prophets and apostles saw a created or an uncreated Logos_omoousioV with the Father.
Once can see clearly how, for the Fathers, the con-substantiality of the Logos with the Father is not only the experience of the apostles and saints, but also of the prophets.
One of the most amazing things in doctrinal history is the fact that both Arians and Orthodox use both the Old and New Testaments indiscriminately. The argument is very simple. They make a list of all the powers and energies of the Father. They do the same for the Son. Then they compare them to see if they are identical or not. The important thing is for them to be not similar, but identical.
Parallel to this, both Arians and Orthodox agree against the Sabellians and Samosatenes that the Father and Son have individual hypostatic properties which are not common, although they do not completely agree on what these are. When the controversy is extended into the question of the Holy Spirit, the exact same method of theologizing is used. Whatever powers and energies the Father and Son have in common, the Holy Spirit must also have both in common and by nature, in order to be God by nature.
However, parallel to this argumentative process is the personal experience of those living spiritual masters who themselves reach theoria, as we saw expounded by Saint Gregory above. This experience verifies or certifies the patristic interpretation of the Bible, which witnesses to the uncreatedness of the Logos and the Holy Spirit and their oneness nature with the Father and the identity of their uncreated glory, rule, grace, will, etc. This personal experience of the glory of God also certifies the biblical teaching that there is absolutely no similarity between the created and the uncreated. This means also that there can be no uncreated universals of which creatures are supposedly copies. Each individual creature is dependent upon the uncreated glory of God, which is, one the one hand, absolutely simple, yet indivisibly divided among individual creatures. All of God is present in each and every energy simultaneously. This the Fathers know by experience, not by speculation.
This summary of the Patristic theological method is perhaps sufficient to indicate the nonspeculative method by which the Father theologize and interpret the Bible. The method is simple and the result is schematic. Stated simply and arithmetically, the whole doctrine of the Trinity may be broken down into two simple statements as far as the Filioque is concerned. (1)What is common in the Holy Trinity is common to and identical in all three persons or hypostases. (2)What is hypostatic, or hypostatic property, or manner of existence is individual, and belongs only to one person or hypostasis of he Holy Trinity.
Thus, we have ta koina and ta akoinwnhta , what is common and what is incommunicably individual.
Having this in mind, one realizes why the Romans did not take the Frankish Filioque very seriously as a theological position, especially as one which was supposed to improve upon the Creed of the Second Ecumenical Synod.
However, the Romans had to take the Franks themselves seriously, because they backed up their fantastic theological claims with an unbelievable self-confidence and with a sharp sword, What they lacked in historical insight, they made up with “nobility” of descent, and a strong will to back up their arguments with muscle and steel.
In any case, it may be useful in terminating this section to emphasize the simplicity of the Roman position and the humor with which the Filioque was confronted. We may recapture this Roman humor about the Latin Filioque with two syllogistic jokes from the Great Photios which may explain some of the fury of Frankish reaction against him.
“Everything, therefore, which is seen and spoken of in the all-holy and consubstantial and coessential Trinity, is either common to all, or belongs to one only of the three: but the projection (probolh) of the Spirit, is neither common, but nor, as they say, does it belong to anyone of them alone (may propitiation be upon us, and the blasphemy turned upon their heads). Therefore, the projection of the Spirit is not at all in the life-giving and all-perfect Trinity.”
In other words, the Holy Spirit must then derive His existence outside of the Holy Trinity since everything in the Trinity is common to all or belongs to one only.
“For otherwise, if all things common to the Father and the Son, are in any case common to the Spirit,…and the procession from them is common to the Father and the Son, the Spirit therefore will then proceed from himself: and He will be principle (arch) of himself, and both cause and caused: a thing which even the myths of the Greeks never fabricated.”
Keeping in mind the fact that the Fathers always began their thoughts about the Holy Trinity from their personal experience of the Angel of the lord and Great Counselor made man and Christ, one only then understands the problematic underlying the Arian/Eunomian crisis, i.e., whether this concrete person derives His existence from the essence of hypostasis of the Father or from non-being by the will of the Father. Had the tradition understood the method of theologizing about God as Augustine did, there would never have been and Arian or Eunomian heresy. Those who reach glorification (theosis) know by this experience that whatever has its existence from non-being by the will of God is a creature, and whoever and whatever is not from non-being, but from the Father is uncreated. Between the created and the uncreated, there is no similarity whatsoever.
Before the Cappadocian Fathers gave their weight to the distinction between the three divine hypostases (upostaseiV) and the one divine essence, many Orthodox Church leaders avoided speaking either about one essence or one hypostasis since this smacked of Sabellian and Samosatene Monarchianism. Many preferred to speak about the Son as deriving His existence from the Father’s essence and as being like the Father in essence (omoousioV) . Saint Athanasios explains that this is exactly what is meant by (omoiousioV)–coessential. It is clear that the Orthodox were not searching for a common faith but rather for common terminology and common concepts to express their common experience in the Body of Christ.
Equally important is the fact that the Cappadocians lent their weight to the distinction between the Father as cause (aitioV) and the Son and the Holy Spirit as caused (aitiata). Coupled with the manners of existence (tropoi uparxewV) of generation and procession, these terms mean that the Father causes the existence of the Son by generation and of the Holy Spirit by procession or not by generation. Of course, the Father being from no one (ex oudenoV) derives His existence neither from himself nor from another. Actually, Saint Basil pokes fun at Eunomios for being the first to say such an obvious thing and thereby manifest his frivolousness and wordiness. Furthermore, neither the essence nor the natural energy of the Father have a cause of manner of existence. The Father possesses them by His very nature and communicates them to the Son in order that they possess them by nature likewise. Thus, the manner by which the uncaused Father exists, and by which the Son and the Holy Spirit receive their existence from the Father, are not be confused with the Father’s communicating His essence and energy to the Son and the Holy Spirit. It would, indeed, be strange to speak about the Father as causing the existence of His own essence and energy along with the hypostases of the Son and the Holy Spirit.
It also must be emphasized that for the Fathers who composed the creeds of Nicaea and Constantinople neither generation nor procession mean energy or action. This was the position of the heretics condemned. The Arians claimed that the Son is the product of the will of God. The Eunomians supported a more original but bizarre position that the uncreated energy of the Father is identical with His essence, that the Son is the product of a single energy of the Son, and that each created species is the product of a special energy of the Holy Spirit, there being as many crated energies as there are species. Otherwise, if the Holy Spirit has only one created energy, then there would be only one species of things in creation. It is in the light of these heresies also that one must appreciate that generation and procession in the Creed in no way mean energy or action.
Augustine did not understand generation and procession in this manner since he clearly identifies them with energies. It is this which allowed him to speculate psychologically about the Holy Trinity, a luxury which was methodologically impossible for the Fathers. Thus, Augustine did not use and neither was he aware of the conciliar and especially East Roman understanding of generation and procession. He identified these terms with the Father’s communication of being, i.e., essence and action to the Son and the Holy Spirit, an aspect which exists in all the Fathers, but not to be identified with generation and procession, at least after the First and Second Ecumenical Synod. It is within such a context that Augustine should be understood when he speaks about the Holy Spirit as receiving His being (essence) and as proceeding principally from the Father, but also from the Son. This is exactly what the East Roman Fathers mean by the Holy Spirit receiving His essence and energy from the Father through or even and (St. Gregory Palamas) the Son simultaneously with His procession or reception of His proper or individual existence of hypostasis from the Father. Neither the essence nor the essential energy of the Father are caused, nor are they the cause of the existence of the Son and the Holy Spirit. The Father’s essence and energy are communicated and common (koina) to the Holy Trinity which is thus one cause of creation. However, neither the Father’s nor the Son’s, nor the Holy Spirit’s hypostasis is communicated. The hypostases are incommunicable (akoinwnhta) . Thus, the persons of the Holy Trinity are one, not by union or identity of persons, but by the unity and identity of essence and energy, and by the Father being the sole cause of the existence of the Son and the Holy Spirit.
In the experience of illumination and glorification in Christ, one is aware that God is three absolutely similar realities, two derived from one and con-inhering in each other, and at the same time one identical reality of uncreated communicated glory, rule (basileia) and grace in which God indivisibly divides himself in divisible things, His one mansion (monh) thus becoming many while remaining one. The divine essence, however, is not communicated to creatures and, therefore, can never be known.
Augustine did not approach the doctrine of the Holy Trinity in the manner of the other Fathers. However, the other West Roman Fathers each have their parallels in the developing East Roman tradition. Augustine also accepted the settlement of the Second Ecumenical Synod and the Fathers who forged it as we saw. Thus, the East Roman Fathers became West Roman Fathers. To speak about a Western doctrine of the Holy Trinity is, therefore, a falsification of how the West Romans themselves understood things. It is within such a context that procession in the West came to have the two meanings as explained by Maximos the Confessor and Anastasios the Librarian.
However, when the Franks began raiding the Fathers for arguments to support their addition to the Creed, they picked up the categories of manner of existence, cause and cause, and identified these with Augustine’s generation and procession, thus transforming the old Western Orthodox Filioque into their heretical one. This confusion is nowhere so clear than during the debates at the Council of Florence where the Franks used the terms “cause” and “caused” as identical with their generation and procession, and supported their claim that the Father and the Son are one cause of the procession of the Holy Spirit. Thus, they became completely confused over Maximos who explains that for the West of his time, the Son is not the cause of the existence of the Holy Spirit, so that in this sense the Holy Spirit does not proceed from the Father. That Anastasios the Librarian repeats this is ample evidence of the confusion of both the Franks and their spiritual and theological descendants.
We end this section with the reminder that for the Fathers, no name or concept gives any understanding of the mystery of the Holy Trinity. Saint Gregory the Theologian, e.g., is clear on this as we saw. He ridicules his opponents with a characteristic taunt: “Do tell me what is the unbegotteness of the Father, and I will explain to you the physiology of the generation of the Son and the procession of the Spirit, and we shall both of us be frenzy-stricken for prying into the mystery of God” Names and concepts about God give to those who reach theoria understanding not of the mystery, but of the dogma and its purpose. In the experience of glorification, knowledge about God, along with prayer, prophecy and faith are abolished. Only love remains (1 Cor. 13, 8-13; 14,1). The mystery remains, and will always remain, even when one sees God in Christ face to face and is known by God as Paul was (1 Cor. 13.12).
[ Return ]
scott,
Rather cavernous logic.
“St. Athanasius himself testifies that….
“Insofar as we understand the special relationship of the Son to the Father, we also understand that the Spirit has this same relationship to the Son. And since the Son says, ‘everything that the Father has is mine (John 16:15),’ we will discover all these things also in the Spirit through the Son. And just as the Son was announced by the Father, Who said, ‘This is my beloved Son, in Whom I am well pleased (Matthew 3:17),’ so also is the Spirit of the Son; for, as the Apostle says, ‘He has sent the Spirit of His Son into our hearts, crying, ‘Abba! Father!’ (Galatians 4:6).” (Athanasius, Letters to Serapion, III, 1, 33, PG 26, 625 B).
Once again, it is the eternal relationship of Persons that is being referred to. Either the Sonship of Christ is eternal or it is not. St. Athanasius clearly promoted one, eternal Sonship, and so an eternal Spirit of Sonship Who proceeds eternally from the Father ‘through the Son.’ This is precisely why the Alexandrians (just like the Latins –e.g. St. Augustine) constantly cite John 16:15 in regard to the Son’s possession of the Spirit. The Son does not possess or participate in the Spirit of Sonship in a mere temporal sense, but from all eternity; and the Spirit (as the Spirit of Sonship) receives His Personal identity from the Father ‘through the Son.’”
“St. Basil the Great writes …
“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]).
What cannot be disputed here is that the Spirit, for Basil, is joined to the Father eternally and Personally through the Son. There is a Personal connection –an eternal, Personal participation of the Son. This is the reality that Filioque addresses. .”
“St. Gregory of Nyssa writes …
“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).
Once again, it is the eternal order that is being described here, not merely the temporal imparting of the Spirit. The Holy Spirit is the Spirit “of the Son” (the Spirit of Sonship) in an eternal capacity. The Spirit’s Personal identity is depended upon the Personhood of the Son.”
“St. Epiphanius of Salamis, who writes … .
“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).
Once again, an eternal, Personal connection between Son and Spirit is recognized. And St. Epiphanius also says …
“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)
This is exactly the same theology found in the Alexandrians and Cappadocians above, in which an eternal, Personal connection between Son and Spirit is recognized.
He also writes …
“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):
Also, in the year A.D. 410 –that is, after the A.D. 381 Council of Constantinople, the Council of Seleucia (in the Antiochian patriarchate), declared its faith in …
“…the Holy Living Spirit, the Holy Living Paraclete, Who proceeds from the Father and the Son.” (Lamy, “Concilium Seleucia”, Louvain, 1868).
The Greek term used was “proienai” (not “ekporeusis”). It was, thus, an orthodox profession, and possibly an intentional attempt to validate the Alexandrian theology of St. Athanasius, etc. Please keep in mind also that, in A.D. 410, this regional Council of Seleucia was on par with the contemporary view of Constantinople I, which was also seen as merely a regional council, and not yet counted as Ecumenical. Indeed, if the bishops at Seleucia in A.D. 410 interpreted the Constantinopolitan Creed in the exclusive, rigid sense in which most modern Eastern Orthodox interpret it, they would never have been able to make the profession quoted above. A change in Eastern understanding has clearly taken place.”
Plucking the TULIP (1) – An Orthodox Critique of the Reformed Doctrine of Predestination
August 12, 2012 · Robert Arakaki
The doctrine of double predestination is the hallmark of John Calvin and Reformed theology. (#1) It is the belief that just as God predestined his elect to eternal life in Christ, he likewise predestined (reprobated) the rest to hell.
With blunt frankness Calvin wrote:
We call predestination God’s eternal decree, which he compacted with himself what he willed to become of each man. For all are not created in equal condition; rather, eternal life is foreordained for some, eternal damnation for others (Institutes 3.21.5; Calvin 1960:926).
Double predestination was one of Calvin’s more controversial teachings and he wrote extensively to defend this belief. In the final edition of his Institutes, Calvin devoted some eighty pages to defending this doctrine. (#2) Despite its controversial nature, double predestination became the official position of the Reformed churches.
This blog posting will provide an Orthodox critique of Reformed theology. More specifically, it will focus on the doctrinal formula TULIP, because TULIP provides a clear and concise summary of Reformed theology. The acronym is a catchy way of conveying the five major points of the Canons of Dort: T = total depravity, U = unconditional election; L = limited atonement, I = irresistible grace, and P = perseverance of the saints.
Synod of Dort
Synod of Dort
The Canons of Dort represent the Dutch Reformed Church’s affirmation of predestination in the face of the Remonstrant movement (popularly known as Arminianism) which attempted in the early 1600s to temper the rigor of predestination by allowing for human free will in salvation. (#3) Although the Canons of Dort form the official confession of the Dutch Reformed Church, its affirmation of predestination parallels that found in other major confessions, e.g., the Westminster Confession, the Second Belgic Confession, and the Heidelberg Catechism. (#4)
Calvinism and Eastern Orthodoxy represent two radically different theological traditions. Orthodoxy has its roots in the early Ecumenical Councils and the Church Fathers, whereas Calvinism emerged as a reaction to medieval Roman Catholicism. Aside from a brief encounter in the early seventeenth century, there has been very little interaction between the two traditions. (#5) This is beginning to change with the growing interest among Evangelicals and mainstream Protestants in Orthodoxy. (#6) This lacuna has often presented a challenge for Protestants in the Reformed tradition who wanted to become Orthodox and Orthodox Christians who want to reach out to their Reformed/Calvinist friends. This is why I created the OrthodoxBridge (see Welcome) and why I am tackling such difficult issues like the doctrine of predestination.
THE ORTHODOX CRITIQUE OF TULIP
This critique will consist of two parts: Part I (this blog posting) will critique the five points of TULIP and Part II (the next blog posting) will discuss Calvinism as an overall theological system.
The critique will proceed along four lines of argument:
(1) Calvinism relies on a faulty reading of Scripture,
(2) it deviates from the historic Christian Faith as defined by the Ecumenical Councils and the Church Fathers,
(3) its understanding of God’s sovereignty leads to the denial of the possibility of love, and
(4) it leads to a defective Christology and a distorted understanding of the Trinity.
T – Total Depravity
Total depravity describes the effect of the Fall of Adam and Eve on humanity. It is an attempt to describe what is otherwise known as “original sin.” Where some theologians believed that man retained some capacity to please God, the Calvinists believe that man was incapable of pleasing God due to the radical effect of the Fall on the totality of human nature. The Scots Confession took the extreme position that the Fall eradicated the divine image from human nature: “By this transgression, generally known as original sin, the image of God was utterly defaced in man, and he and his children became by nature hostile to God, slaves to Satan, and servants to sin.” (The Book of Confession 3.03; italics added) The Swiss Reformer, Heinrich Bullinger, taught that the image of God in Adam was “extinguished” by the Fall (Pelikan 1984:227).
The Canons of Dort asserted the universality and the totality of the Fall; that is, all of humanity was affected by the Fall and every aspect of human existence was corrupted by the Fall.
Therefore all men are conceived in sin, and are by nature children of wrath, incapable of saving good, prone to evil, dead in sin, and in bondage thereto; and without the regenerating grace of the Holy Spirit, they are neither able nor willing to return to God, to reform the depravity of their nature, or to dispose themselves to reformation (Third and Fourth Head: Article 3).
The Canons of Dort (Third and Fourth Head: Paragraph 4) went so far as to reject the possibility the unregenerate can hunger and thirst after righteousness on their own initiative. It insists this spiritual hunger is indicative of spiritual regeneration and only those who have been predestined for salvation will show spiritual hunger.
In taking this stance, the Canons of Dort reflected faithfully Calvin and the other Reformers’ understanding of the Fall. Calvin believed the Fall affected human nature to the point that man was even incapable of faith which is so necessary for salvation. He wrote:
Here I only want to suggest briefly that the whole man is overwhelmed–as by a deluge–from head to foot, so that no part is immune from sin and all that proceeds from him is to be imputed to sin (Institutes 2.1.9, Calvin 1960:253).
Martin Luther held to a similar radical understanding of original sin. At the Heidelberg Disputations, Luther asserted:
‘Free will’ after the fall is nothing but a word, and so long as it does what is within it, it is committing deadly sin (in Kittelson 1986:111; emphasis added).
The Reformed understanding of the Fall derives from Augustine’s interpretation of the story of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. Augustine assumed that Adam and Eve were mature adults when they sinned. This assumption led to a more catastrophic understanding of the Fall. However, Augustine’s understanding represented only one reading of Genesis and was not reflective of the patristic consensus. Another reading of Genesis can be found in Irenaeus of Lyons, widely regarded as the leading Church Father of the second century. Irenaeus believed Adam and Eve were not created as fully mature beings, but as infants or children who would grow into perfection (Against the Heretics 4.38.1-2; ANF Vol. 1 p. 521). This foundational assumption leads to radically different theological paradigm. John Hick, in his comparison of Irenaeus’ theodicy against that of Augustine, notes:
Instead of the fall of Adam being presented, as in the Augustinian tradition, as an utterly malignant and catastrophic event, completely disrupting God’s plan, Irenaeus pictures it as something that occurred in the childhood of the race, an understandable lapse due to weakness and immaturity rather than an adult crime full of malice and pregnant with perpetual guilt. And instead of the Augustinian view of life’s trials as a divine punishment for Adam’s sin, Irenaeus sees our world of mingled good and evil as a divinely appointed environment for man’s development towards perfection that represents the fulfilment of God’s good purpose for him (1968:220-221).
Many Calvinists may find Irenaeus’ understanding of the Fall bizarre. This is because Reformed theology, like much of Western Christianity, has become so dependent on Augustine that it has become provincial and isolated in its theology.
One of the key aspects of the doctrine of total depravity is the belief that the Fall deprived humanity of any capacity for free will rendering them incapable of desiring to do good or to believe in God. Yet a study of the early Church shows a broad theological consensus existed that affirmed belief in free will. J.N.D. Kelly in his Early Christian Doctrine notes that the second century Apologists unanimously believed in human free will (1960:166). Justin Martyr wrote:
For the coming into being at first was not in our own power; and in order that we may follow those things which please Him, choosing them by means of the rational faculties He has Himself endowed us with, He both persuades us and leads us to faith (First Apology 10; ANF Vol. I, p. 165).
Irenaeus of Lyons affirmed humanity’s capacity for faith:
Now all such expression demonstrate that man is in his own power with respect to faith (Against the Heretics 4.37.2; ANF Vol. I p. 520).
Another significant witness to free will is Cyril of Jerusalem, Patriarch of Jerusalem in the fourth century. In his famous catechetical lectures, Cyril repeatedly affirmed human free-will (Lectures 2.1-2 and 4.18, 21; NPNF Second Series Vol. VII, pp. 8-9, 23-24). Likewise, Gregory of Nyssa, in his catechetical lectures, taught:
For He who holds sovereignty over the universe permitted something to be subject to our own control, over which each of us alone is master. Now this is the will: a thing that cannot be enslaved, being the power of self-determination (Gregory of Nyssa, The Great Catechism, MPG 47, 77A; in Gabriel 2000:27).
Another patristic witness against total depravity can be found in John of Damascus, an eighth century Church Father famous for his Exposition of the Catholic Faith, the closest thing to a systematic theology in the early Church. John of Damascus explained that God made man a rational being endowed with free-will and as a result of the Fall man’s free-will was corrupted (NPNF Series 2 Vol. IX p. 58-60). Saint John of the Ladder, a sixth century Desert Father, in his spiritual classic, The Ladder of Divine Ascent, wrote:
Of the rational beings created by Him and honoured with the dignity of free-will, some are His friends, others are His true servants, some are worthless, some are completely estranged from God, and others, though feeble creatures, are His opponents (1991:3).
Thus, Calvin’s belief in total depravity was based upon a narrow theological perspective. His failure to draw upon the patristic consensus and his almost exclusive reliance on Augustine resulted in a soteriology peculiar to Protestantism. However great a theologian Augustine may have been, he was just one among many others.
An important aspect of Orthodox theology is the patristic consensus. Doing theology based upon the consensus of the Church Fathers and the seven Ecumenical Councils reflects the understanding among the early Christians that they shared a common corporate faith. This approach is best summed up by Vincent of Lerins: “Moreover, in the Catholic Church itself, all possible care must be taken, that we hold that faith which has been believed everywhere, always, by all.” (A Commonitory 2.6; NPNF Second Series, Volume XI, p. 132). See also, Irenaeus of Lyons’ boast to the Gnostics: “…the Church, having received this preaching and this faith, although scattered through the whole world, yet, as if occupying but one house, carefully preserves it (Against the Heretics 1.10.2, ANF Volume I, p. 331).
Thus, when the Orthodox Church confronted Calvinism in the 1600s, it already had a rich theological legacy to draw upon. Decree XIV of Dositheus’ Confession rejects the Calvinist belief in total depravity, affirming the Fall and humanity’s sinful nature, but stops short of total depravity.
We believe man in falling by the [original] transgression to have become comparable and like unto the beasts, that is, to have been utterly undone, and to have fallen from his perfection and impassibility, yet not to have lost the nature and power which he had received from the supremely good God. For otherwise he would not be rational, and consequently not man; but to have the same nature, in which he was created and the same power of his nature, that is free-will, living and operating (Leith 1963:496; emphasis added).
The Orthodox Memorial Service has a line that sums up the Orthodox Church’s understanding of the Fall: “I am an image of Your indescribable glory, though I bear the scars of my sins” (Kezios 1993:46). In summary, the Orthodox Church’s position is that human nature still retains some degree of free will even though subject to corruption by sin.
Biblical support for the Orthodox understanding of fallen human nature can be found in Paul’s speech to the Athenians. He commends the Athenians for their piety, noting they even had an altar dedicated to an unknown deity. Although their fallen nature prevented them from making full contact with the one true God, they nonetheless retained a longing for communion with God. Paul takes note of the spiritual longing that underlay the Athenians’ religiosity using it as a launching point for the proclamation of the Gospel:
From one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live. God did this so that men would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us (Acts 17:26-27; emphasis added).
What Paul says here flies in the face of the Canons of Dort’s assertion that the unregenerate were incapable of spiritual hunger. Peter took a similar approach in his speech to Cornelius the Gentile centurion notes:
I now realize how true it is that God does not show favoritism but accepts men from every nation who fear him and do what is right (Acts 10:34-5).
Peter and Paul’s belief in God’s love for the nations is not a new idea. The Gentiles’ capacity to respond to God’s grace is a recurring motif in the Old Testament. Alongside Israel’s divine election was the theme of Yahweh as Lord of the nations in the Old Testament (see Verkuyl 1981:37 ff.)
It is important to keep in mind that the doctrine of election — the elect status of the Jewish people — is key to understanding Jesus’ messianic mission and much of Paul’s letters. Contrary to the expectations of many of the Jews of the time, Jesus’ messianic calling involved his bringing the Gentiles into the kingdom of God. This was a revolutionary doctrine — that the Gentiles could become saved through faith in the Messiah apart from becoming Jewish. This precipitated a theological crisis over the doctrine of election that underlie Paul’s reasoning in Romans and Galatians. In Romans 9-11, Paul had to explain and uphold God’s calling of Israel in the face of the fact that Israel had rejected the promised Messiah. To read the Calvinist understanding of double predestination into Romans 9 constitutes a colossal misreading of what Paul was attempting to do. Furthermore, it overlooks the great reversal of election that took place in the former Pharisee Paul’s thinking: the non-elect — the Gentiles — receive the grace of God and the elect — the nation of Israel — are rejected (Romans 10:19-21).
U – Unconditional Election
Whereas the first article of TULIP describes our fallen state, the second article describes God, the author of our salvation. The emphasis here is on the transcendent sovereignty of God whose work of redemption is totally independent of human will.
That some receive the gift of faith from God, and other do not receive it, proceeds from God’s eternal decree (Canons of Dort First Head: Article 6)
Calvin likewise affirms unconditional election through his rejection of the idea that our election is based on God’s foreknowing our response. He writes:
We assert that, with respect to the elect, this plan was founded upon his freely given mercy, without regard to human worth; but by his just and irreprehensible but incomprehensible judgment he has barred to door of life to those whom he has given over to damnation (Institutes 3.21.7, Calvin 1960:931; see also Institutes 3.22.1, Calvin 1960:932).
In another place, Calvin uses a medical analogy to describe double predestination:
Therefore, though all of us are by nature suffering from the same disease, only those whom it pleases the Lord to touch with his healing hand will get well. The others, whom he, in his righteous judgment, passes over, waste away in their own rottenness until they are consumed. There is no other reason why some persevere to the end, while others fall at the beginning of the course (Institutes 2.5.3; Calvin 1960:320).
Although the doctrine of total depravity is listed first, it is not the logical starting point of TULIP. The real starting point is in the second article, unconditional election. God’s transcendent sovereignty is the true starting point of Calvin’s soteriology. Karl Barth argued that it is Calvin’s insistence on God’s absolute sovereignty which characterizes Calvin’s theology; double predestination is but a logical outworking of this fundamental premise (Barth 1922:117-118).
The Calvinist doctrine of unconditional election is at odds with the Church Fathers who taught that predestination is based upon God’s foreknowledge. John of Damascus wrote:
We ought to understand that while God knows all things beforehand, yet He does not predetermine all things. For He knows beforehand those things that are in our power, but He does not predetermine them. For it is not His will that there should be wickedness nor does He choose to compel virtue. So that predetermination is the work of the divine command based on fore-knowledge. But on the other hand God predetermines those things which are not within our power in accordance with His prescience (NPNF Series 2 Vol. IX p. 42).
Another Church Father, Gregory of Palamas, asserted the same principle:
Therefore, God does not decide what men’s will shall be. It is not that He foreordains and thus foreknows, but that He foreknows and thus foreordains, and not by His will but by His knowledge of what we shall freely will or choose. Regarding the free choices of men, when we say God foreordains, it is only to signify that His foreknowledge is infallible. To our finite minds it is incomprehensible how God has foreknowledge of our choices and actions without willing or causing them. We make our choices in freedom which God does not violate. They are in His foreknowledge, but ‘His foreknowledge differs from the divine will and indeed from the divine essence.’ (Gregory of Palamas’ Natural, Theological, Moral and Practical Chapters, MPG 150, 1192A; Gabriel 2000:27).
Supported by the patristic consensus, the Orthodox Church in the Confession of Dositheus in no uncertain terms condemns the Calvinist doctrine of unconditional election.
But to say, as the most wicked heretics–and as is contained in the Chapter answering hereto-that God, in predestinating, or condemning, had in no wise regard to the works of those predestinated, or condemned, we know to be profane and impious (Decree III; Leith 1963:488).
L – Limited Atonement
One of the more controversial assertions in the Canons of Dort is the doctrine of limited atonement — that Christ died only for the elect, not for the whole world.
…it was the will of God that Christ by the blood of the cross, whereby He confirmed the new covenant, should effectually redeem out of every people, tribe, nation, and language, all those, and those only, who were from eternity chosen to salvation and given to Him by the Father (Second Head: Article 8; emphasis added).
Whereas the Canons of Dort is explicit in its affirmation of limited atonement, surprisingly a careful reading of Calvin’s Institutes does not yield any explicit mention of limited atonement (see Roger Nicole’s article).
There are a number of biblical passages that can be used to refute the doctrine of limited atonement. Biblical references commonly used to challenge the Calvinist position tend to be those that teach God’s desire for all to be saved, e.g., John 3:16:
For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life (emphasis added).
Another important passage is I Timothy 2:3-6:
This is good, and pleases God our Savior, who wants all men to be saved and come to a knowledge of the truth. For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all men…. (emphasis added)
Another significant passage that specifically challenges the notion of limited atonement is I John 2:2:
He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world (emphasis added).
This passage is especially relevant for two reasons: (1) it specifically refers to Christ’s atoning death on the Cross, and (2) it teaches that Christ died not just for the elect (us) but also for the non-elect (the whole world). Calvin cited I John 2:2 three times, but what is surprising is that nowhere in his Institutesdid Calvin deal with the latter part of the verse. (The Biblical Reference index in the back of the Institutes (McNeill, ed.) shows that I John 2:2 is cited three times: 2.17.2, 3.4.26, and 3.20.20.)
The real challenge for those who appeal to the above passages lies in the semantic tactics used by Calvinists in which they argue that “all” and “the world” are not to be taken literally but as referring to only those predestined for salvation. (#7) Zacharias Ursinus, the German Reformer, understood “all” to refer to “all classes” rather than to individuals (Pelikan 1984:237). Similarly, Theodore Beza, Calvin’s colleague and successor, insisted that John 3:16 applied only to the elect. Roger Nicole’s explanation describes well the Calvinist strategy for reading biblical texts:
For instance, “all” may vary considerably in extension: notably “all” may mean, all men, universally, perpetually and singly, as when we say “all are partakers of human nature”; or again it may have a broader or narrower reference depending upon the context in which it is used, as when we say “all reached the top of Everest,” where the scope of the discourse makes it plain that we are talking about a group of people on which set out to ascend the mountain. It is not always easy to determine with assurance what is the frame of reference in view: hence controverted interpretations both of Scripture and of individual theologians. (emphasis added)
This hermeneutical approach imparts a certain imperviousness to Reformed theology; one either accepts their semantic perspective or one does not. The inductive method will not work here. This means that effective refutation of Calvinism cannot be carried out solely on the grounds of biblical exegesis. This longstanding impasse in Protestantism is an example of sola scriptura’s inability to create doctrinal unity on fundamental issues.
This is where historical theology can help us assess the competing truth claims. The advantage of historical theology is two-fold: (1) it enables us to understand the historical and social forces that shaped Calvinists’ exegesis and (2) it enables us to determine the extent to which Calvin’s theology reflected the mainstream of historic Christianity or to what extent Calvin’s theology became deviant and heretical.
Historical theology shows there existed a widespread belief among the Church Fathers in God’s universal love for humanity. Irenaeus of Lyons wrote.
For it was not merely for those who believed on Him in the time of Tiberius Caesar that Christ came, nor did the Father exercise His providence for the men only who are now alive, but for all men altogether, who from the beginning, according to their capacity, in their generation have both feared and loved God, and practised justice and piety towards their neighbours, and have earnestly desired to see Christ and to hear his voice (Against the Heretics 4.22.2).
St. John of the Ladder wrote:
God belongs to all free beings. He is the life of all, the salvation of all–faithful and unfaithful, just and unjust, pious and impious, passionate and dispassionate, monks and laymen, wise and simple, healthy and sick, young and old–just as the effusion of light, the sight of the sun, and the changes of the seasons are for all alike; ‘for there is no respect of persons with God.’ (1991:4)
The universality of Christ’s redeeming death can be found in the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, used on most Sundays in the Orthodox Church. During the words of institution over the bread and the wine, in one of the inaudible prayers, the Orthodox priest will pray a paraphrase of John 3:16:
You so loved Your world as to give Your only-begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life. …. Having come and having fulfilled the divine plan for us, on the night when He was delivered up, or rather gave Himself for the life of the world…. (Kezios 1996:24; emphasis added).
Probably the most resounding affirmation of this can be found at the end of each Sunday Liturgy when the priest concludes: “…for He alone is good and He loveth mankind.” (Kezios 1993:41)
I – Irresistable Grace
The fourth article attributes our faith in Christ to God’s effectual calling. The Canons of Dort stresses that God “produces both the will to believe and the act of believing also” (Third and Fourth Head: Article 14; see also Article 10). Faith in Christ is not the result of our choosing or our initiative, but is solely from God.
And as God Himself is most wise, unchangeable, omniscient, and omnipotent, so the election made by Him can neither be interrupted nor changed, recalled, or annulled; neither can the elect be cast away, nor their number diminished (Canon of Dort First Head: Article 11).
Furthermore, the Canons of Dort rejects the teaching that God’s converting grace can be resisted. The Third and Fourth Head: Paragraph 8 condemns the following statement: “That God in the regeneration of man does not use such powers of His omnipotence as potently and infallibly bend man’s will to faith and conversion….” Our free will has no bearing on our having faith in Christ. Faith in Christ is purely by the grace of God.
Although Calvin did not teach with the same starkness as the Canons of Dort the doctrine of irresistible grace, we find indications in his Institutes that he believed in the underlying idea. He wrote of God’s election being “inviolable” (Institutes 3.21.6, Calvin 1960:929), God’s unchangeable plan being “intrinsically effectual” for the salvation of the elect (Institutes 3.21.7; Calvin 1960:931); and God as the “intrinsic cause” of spiritual adoption (Institutes 3.21.7; Calvin 1960:941). Probably the closest we can find to an explicit endorsement of irresistible grace is Calvin’s paraphrase of Augustine.
There Augustine first teaches: the human will does not obtain grace by freedom, but obtains freedom by grace; when the feeling of delight has been imparted through the same grace, the human will is formed to endure; it is strengthened with unconquerable fortitude; controlled by grace, it never will perish, but, if grace forsake it, it will straightway fall…. (Institutes 2.4.14; Calvin 1960:308).
These passages lead to the conclusion that Calvin and the Synod of Dort shared the same belief in irresistible grace.
Orthodoxy rejects the doctrine of irresistible grace because this doctrine assumes the absence of human free will. The early Church Fathers — as noted in the section on total depravity — affirmed the role of free will in our salvation. One of the earliest pieces of Christian literature, the second century Letter to Diognetus, contains a clear affirmation of human free will and a rejection of salvation by compulsion. The author writes concerning the Incarnation:
He sent him as God; he sent him as man to men. He willed to save man by persuasion, not by compulsion, for compulsion is not God’s way of working (Letter to Diognetus 7.4; Richardson 1970:219).
Ultimately, the underlying flaw of Reformed soteriology is the emphasis on God’s sovereignty to the denial of love. The Calvinist insistence on God’s sovereignty undercuts the ontological basis for the human person. Closer inspection of the doctrine of irresistible grace brings to light a certain internal contradiction in Reformed theology: God’s free gift of grace is based on compulsion. Or to put it another way: How can a gift be free if there’s no freedom of choice? Love that is not free cannot be love. Love must arise from free choice. Bishop Kallistos Ware writes:
Where there is no freedom, there can be no love. Compulsion excludes love; as Paul Evdokimov used to say, God can do everything except compel us to love him (Ware 1986:76; emphasis in original).
Where there is no free will, there is no genuine love, nor can there be genuine faith. This in turn subverts and overthrows the fundamental Protestant dogma of sola fide. Ironically, Calvinism’s crowning glory also happens to be its fatal flaw.
Another reason why Calvinism is incompatible with Orthodoxy is its implicit monotheletism.In the seventh century, there arose a controversy as to whether Christ had one will or two. Monotheletism asserted that Christ had only one will (the divine) and bitheletism affirmed that Christ had two wills (human and divine working in harmony). The Sixth Ecumenical Council (Constantinople III) rejected monotheletism in favor of bitheletism. For an informed discussion of the theological debates surrounding the monotheletism heresy see Jaroslav Pelikan’s The Spirit of Eastern Christendom Vol. 2 (1973).
The Calvinists’ denial of human free will and their insistence on the dominance of the divine will over human will parallels the heresy of monothelitism, which insisted that Christ did not have two wills: a human will and a divine will. This assertion is made on the basis that the doctrine of the Incarnation rests on what constitutes the divine nature and what constitutes human nature. A defective anthropology (e.g., the denial of free will or the importance of physical flesh) leads to a defective Christology. Thus, the Reformed tradition’s implicit monotheletism points to a defective Christology and a significant departure from the historic Faith as defined by one of the Seven Ecumenical Councils.
P – Preservation of the Elect
Also known as the Perseverance of the Saints, the fifth article in TULIP addresses the troubling issue of Christians backsliding or falling into sin. Their failure to display the marks of election would seem to call into question the effectiveness of divine election. Again, we find the emphasis on God’s sovereignty:
Thus it is not in consequence of their own merits or strength, but of God’s free mercy, that they neither totally fall from faith and grace nor continue and perish finally in their backsliding; which, with respect to themselves is not only possible, but would undoubtedly happen; but with respect to God, it is utterly impossible, since His counsel cannot be changed nor His promise fail; neither can the call according to His purpose be revoked, nor the merit, intercession, and preservation of Christ be rendered ineffectual, nor the sealing of the Holy Spirit be frustrated or obliterated (Canons of Dort Fifth Head: Article 14).
Similarly, in response to questions about the status of the lapsed, Calvin’s position was: the elect cannot fall from salvation, even after their conversion, they will inevitably be saved (Institutes 3.24.6-7, Calvin 1960:971-3). Calvin writes:
For perseverance itself is indeed also a gift of God, which he does not bestow on all indiscriminately, but imparts to whom he pleases. If one seeks the reason for the difference–why some steadfastly persevered, and others fail out of instability–none occurs to us other than that the Lord upholds the former, strengthening them by his own power, that they may not perish; while to the latter, that they may be examples of inconstancy, he does not impart the same power (Institutes 2.5.3; Calvin 1960:320).
One could say crudely that the elect will be saved against their will, but the more nuanced approach is to say that the elect will inevitably choose to be saved because that desire has been implanted in them by God.
In contrast to Calvinism, the Orthodox understanding of the perseverance of the saints is based upon synergy — our cooperation with God’s grace, and deification — our becoming partakers in the divine nature. The Confession of Dositheus affirms the synergistic approach to salvation in contrast to the monergistic approach found in the Reformed confessions.
And we understand the use of free-will thus, that the Divine and illuminating grace, and which we call preventing grace, being, as a light to those in darkness, by the Divine goodness imparted to all, to those that are willing to obey this-for it is of use only to the willing, not to the unwilling-and co-operate with it, in what it requireth as necessary to salvation, there is consequently granted particular grace; which, co-operating with us, and enabling us, and making us perseverant in the love of God, that is to say, in performing those good things that God would have us to do, and which His preventing grace admonisheth us that we should do, justifieth us, and makes us predestinated (Leith 1963:487-8; emphasis added).
Irenaeus likewise teaches the perseverance of the saints, but from the perspective of theosis.
…but man making progress day by day, and ascending towards the perfect, that is, approximating to the uncreated One. …. Now it was necessary that man should in the first instance be created; and having been created, should receive growth; and having received growth, should be strengthened; and having been strengthened, should abound; and having abounded, should recover [from the disease of sin]; and having recovered, should be glorified; and being glorified, should see His Lord (Against the Heretics 4.38.3; ANF Vol. I p. 522).
The Orthodox approach to salvation provides the basis for a relational approach to salvation as opposed to the more forensic and mechanistic approach found in Western theology. This provides the basis for salvation as union with Christ and salvation as life in the Trinity.
Robert Arakaki
#1 Although closely related, Calvin and Calvinism are not synonymous. The relationship between Calvin and Reformed theology is more complex than most people realize. As a matter of fact, Alister McGrath warns against equating the two (1987:7). Also, it should be noted that some would dispute the centrality of predestination for Calvin’s theology. McGrath describes it as being an “ancillary doctrine, concerned with explaining a puzzling aspect of the consequence of the proclamation of the gospel of grace” (1990:169).
#2 See the edition by John T. McNeill (ed.) 3.21-25. For a discussion of the growing prominence of the doctrine in the successive editions of Calvin’s Institutes see Pelikan 1984:217-220.
#3 For a discussion of the theological issues at stake in the Remonstrant/Reformed controversy see Pelikan 1984:232-244.
#4 Unlike Lutheranism with its Formula of Concord, the Reformed tradition has no confessional statement with a similar normative stature (Pelikan 1984:236).
#5 In the early seventeenth century, the Patriarch of Constantinople, Cyril Lucaris, came under the influence of Reformed theology. In response to the challenge of Calvinism, the Orthodox Church responded by swiftly deposing Cyril, followed by convening a synodal gathering in Jerusalem. At that council, Calvinism was formally repudiated through The Confession of Dositheus, composed by the Patriarch of Jerusalem by that name (in Leith 1963:486-517. Thus, for Orthodoxy Calvinism is not a theological option.
#6 See Bradley Nassif’s, “Will the 21st be the Orthodox Century?” in Christianity Today (December 2006).
#7 Medieval Catholic theologians who sought to defend double predestination in the face of I Timothy 2:4 would employ a more philosophical line of defense. They drew upon the distinction between God’s “antecedent will” and his “ordinate will” (Pelikan 1984:34).
References
ANF = Ante-Nicene Fathers.
MPG = Migne’s Patrologia Graecae
NPNF = Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers.
Barth, Karl. 1922. The Theology of John Calvin. Geoffrey W. Bromiley, translator. English translation, 1995. Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.
Calvin, John. 1960. Institutes of the Christian Religion. The Library of Christian Classics Vol. XX. John T. McNeill, ed. Translated by Ford Lewis Battle. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press.
Dort, Synod of. 1619. Canons of Dort. Site visited August 11, 2012.
Gabriel, George S. 2000. Mary: The Untrodden Portal. Ridgewood, New Jersey: Zephyr Books.
Hick, John. 1968. Evil and the God of Love. Great Britain: Fontana Books.
Kelly, J.N.D. 1960. Early Christian Doctrines. Revised Edition. New York: Harper & Row Publishers.
Kezios, Spencer T., ed. 1993. The Divine Liturgy. Leonidas Contos, translator. Northridge, CA: Narthex Press.
Kittelson, James M. 1986. Luther the Reformer: The Story of the Man and His Career. Minneapolis, Minnesota: Augsburg Publishing House.
Leith, John H., ed. 1963. Creeds of the Churches. Atlanta: John Knox Press.
Nicole, Roger. 1985. “John Calvin’s View of the Extent of the Atonement.” Westminster Theological Journal 47:2 (Fall).
http://www.apuritansmind.com/arminianism/john-calvins-view-of-limited-atonement/ Site visited August 11, 2012.
Pelikan, Jaroslav. 1984. Reformation of Church and Dogma (1300-1700). The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine. Volume 4. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.
Richardson, Cyril C., ed. 1970. Early Christian Fathers. New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc.
United Presbyterian Church. 1970. The Book of Confessions. The Constitution of the United Presbyterian Church in the United States of America, Part I. Second Edition. New York, NY: The United Presbyterian Church in the United States of America.
Verkuyl, Johannes. 1981. “The Biblical Foundation for the Worldwide Mission Mandate.” In Perspectives on the World Christian Movement: A Reader, pp. 35-50. Ralph D. Winter and Steven C. Hawthorne, editors. Pasadena, California: William Carey Library.
Ware, Kallistos (Timothy). 1963. The Orthodox Church. New Edition, 1997. London: Penguin Books.
__________. 1986. The Orthodox Way. Crestwood, New York: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press.
Good article scott, a very Catholic response.
You addressed it to me rather than Hans, though.
The fact that John 3:16 does not say the Holy Spirit “proceeds from the Son” does not mean that it is the case that the Spirit proceeds from the Son. Christ already promised to lead His followers, His Church, into all truth, John 16:13, and Christ cannot lie, or omit the truth in His complete and holy statements, and the complete and holy statement on the eternal procession of the Holy Spirit is from Christ, not from Augustine of Hippo, in John 15:26. The West is reading the New Testament not so much in the Light of the New Testament, but in the light of Augustine, which is not theology, but speculation, not doctrine. See: Kung, Hans. (2001). The Catholic Church: A Short History. New York: Modern Library.
Why The Filioque Is A Heresy | MYSTAGOGY RESOURCE CENTER
https://www.johnsanidopoulos.com/2010/10/why-is-filioque-heresy.html
Oct 11, 2010 – By Fr. John Romanides. The Filioque is a heresy, because it confuses the hypostatic properties of the Father, i.e. His being cause, with those of …
https:// orthodoxwiki.org/Filioque
Filioque
Filioque is a Latin word meaning “and the Son” which was added to the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed by the Church of Rome in the 11th century, one of the major factors leading to the Great Schism between East and West. This inclusion in the Creedal article regarding the Holy Spirit thus states that the Spirit “proceeds from the Father and the Son.”
Its inclusion in the Creed is a violation of the canons of the Third Ecumenical Council in 431, which forbade and anathematized any additions to the Creed, a prohibition which was reiterated at the Eighth Ecumenical Council in 879-880. This word was not included by the Council of Nicea nor of Constantinople. The term itself has been interpreted in both an Orthodox fashion and a heterodox fashion. It may be read as saying that the Spirit proceeds from the Father through (dia) the Son. This was the position of St Maximus the Confessor. On this reading, the Son is not an eternal cause (aition) of the Spirit. The heterodox reading sees the Son, along with the Father, as an eternal cause of the Spirit. Most in the Orthodox Church consider this latter reading to be a heresy.
The description of the filioque as a heresy was iterated most clearly and definitively by the great Father and Pillar of the Church, St. Photius the Great, in his On the Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit. He describes it as a heresy of Triadology, striking at the very heart of what the Church believes about God.
scott,
Did you read the article? It does not appear so from your comment.
scott,
By the way the Filioque was added at Toledo in 589, not in the 11th century.
Both Catholics and Orthodox believe that the Father is the ONLY source or cause (Aition/Principium) of the Holy Spirit.
Now that is a good place to start.
Water, It is both/and. The Filioque WAS added in 589 AD, AND in the 11th century. But in 808-809 AD, Pope Leo III FORBAD the Filioque to be added, so an early Pope of Rome forbad was King Reccared added; and Reccared did not speak as a representative of an ecumenical, catholic council; he was fighting Arianism, and this was his chief motivation, not a heretical one, but understandable, but even so a mistake on his part, though he meant well by it.
scott,
Both/and ok.
I just want to add here to my previous comment:
“St. Cyril of Alexandria says …
“We must not say that the one Lord Jesus Christ has been glorified by the Spirit, in such a way as to suggest that through the Spirit He made use of a power foreign to Himself, and from the Spirit received the ability to work against unclean spirits, and to perform Divine signs among men; but must rather say that the Spirit, through Whom He did indeed work His Divine signs, is His own. [The Twelve Errors, Error 9, 430 A.D.]
Here again, St. Cyril of Alexandria clearly acknowledges the Son’s eternal, Personal possession of (i.e., participation in) the Spirit. Christ did not work from some post-incarnational pouring forth of the Spirit, but by a Spirit Who was proper to Himself (the Person of the Son) *from all eternity*.”
I believe that pope Leo III approved of the filioque, but gave advice for it to be excluded from the creed.
There has never been a demand by Rome for the Orthodox church to include the filioque in the Orthodox creed, partly because of the difference in meaning conveyed by Latin and Greek, which would be offensive to Orthodox ears.
But in substance I don’t think we are very far apart.
Hans, The statements which come for you are characterized by making statements aimed personally at Water and me. Your statements attempt to judge. And without evidence, you make unfounded accusations of bigotry. It seems therefore that you yourself are a bit culpable against us in that which you, falsely, and without basis, falsely, and without justification, accuse us. We present evidence for the doctrines we believe, but we do not (I did not, until this email) respond to you personally. I have neither desire nor right to try to judge others. God bless. Just as it is wrong for others to accuse us of bigotry, we do not accuse others of bigotry. It does seem they who accuse us of such a shortcoming are not completely clear and free of that which they say about us. Our intention is to not say anything wrong about anyone else, nor to despair in ourselves that we, too, ourselves are less than perfect. God bless us everyone, and save us all. It is easy to fall into error, and I sure it is possible for anyone, including ourselves, to fall into some bigotry. If that is at all true of us in any way, we apologize. But I do not speak the same for Water in his Catholicism. Unfortunately, we still have not come to common agreement on Filioque. Other than that, the beliefs of Catholicism are Orthodoxy are largely, in many ways, mostly the same; we were all together as one, at least until 1013 AD. God bless us. God bless you too, Hans. Amen.
While it is a bit true there are SOME rotten apples in all creeds, what need is there ever to bring that up? It’s not necessary to do that at all I think. I think you could be a bit more positive in your approach to matters, if you ask me, Hans. God bless you anyway. Take care. Water and I are in agreement in substance and style on quite a few things, especially in the matter of the error of Sola Scriptura; we just disagree about the papacy a bit and on Filioque. But there have been quite a few Orthodox popes in the past. Gregory I being the best of them.
Scott–
Well, at least you are in very good company. Calvin thought that Gregory the Great was the last of the good popes!
Water–
My depiction of confession was INTENDED to be laughable. (That’s why I said I was being FACETIOUS!)
Your understanding of sin, on the other hand, is not laughable at all. It’s sad. Very sad. It keeps you from the Gospel.
Hans,
What is my understanding of sin?
Water–
That you are in a State of Grace based on your own loving obedience, your own inherent righteousness…not on the righteousness of Christ alone.
Yes, you can easily fall from “friendship with God” through mortal sin, and even anticipate the rigors of purgatory due to your venial trespasses. So you do take sin seriously after a fashion.
What we believe you do not understand is the prevalence of mortal sin. You’re a far worse sinner than you think. You have no hope of keeping up even if you were to come to confession daily…or hourly, for that matter.
Hans,
You say: “That you are in a State of Grace based on your own loving obedience, your own inherent righteousness…not on the righteousness of Christ alone.”
That may be what you think my understanding of sin is. In fact I’m not aware that I have expressed it in this forum. I wouldn’t think so.
In any case, what you have described above has very little to with an understanding of sin, but rather what grace or justification is about.
Sin is inherited from Adam, original sin, on the one hand, and it is an act or omission that is evil, on the other. That in a few words would express what I understand by sin.
Hans, Calvinism is not laughable at all. It’s sad. Very sad. Calvinism keeps you from the Gospel.
Water–
Catholics most certainly do elevate Sacred Tradition to equality with Scripture! Get to know your own faith tradition a little better.
From “Dei Verbum,” a document of Vatican II:
“Hence there exists a close connection and communication between sacred Tradition and sacred Scripture. For both of them, flowing from the same divine wellspring, in a certain way merge into a unity and tend toward the same end. For sacred Scripture is the word of God inasmuch as it is consigned to writing under the inspiration of the divine Spirit. To the successors of the apostles, sacred Tradition hands on in its full purity God’s word, which was entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit.
“Thus, by the light of the Spirit of truth, these successors can in their preaching preserve this word of God faithfully, explain it, and make it more widely known. Consequently it is not from sacred Scripture alone that the Church draws her certainty about everything which has been revealed. Therefore, both sacred Tradition and sacred Scripture are to be accepted and venerated with the same devotion and reverence.”
You want me to show you Sola Scriptura in Scripture. It doesn’t work that way. In fact, it betrays the fact that you don’t even understand what Sola Scriptura is!
Now, you show ME from Scripture how we are to interpret the Bible through the authoritative teaching of the magisterium in the light of Sacred Tradition.
What’s that, you say? The magisterium doesn’t even appear in Scripture? Oh, and Sacred Tradition doesn’t either (unless you interpret certain passages according to magisterial authority in light of Sacred Tradition itself…in other words, through circular reasoning)?
Oh, my! Oh, my!
Hans,
So we agree on one thing. Sola scriptura is not a biblical doctrine. You are the first Protestant I have heard say that.
As to tradition, you have your own tradition, Luther and Calvin’s teachings, etc passed down the centuries, and your own magisterium, yourself, your pastor, or those you read.
With the perspicuity of scripture each Protestant becomes effectively his own magisterium, resulting in thousands upon thousands of denominations, not on important matters mind you, according to Protestants, but minor things like the divinity of the Holy Spirit, whether baptism is regenerative, whether divorce and remarriage is ok, whether gay marriage or clergy is ok, etc, etc, ad nauseam.
Water–
Sola Scriptura is certainly compatible with Scripture and is, therefore, not unbiblical. But it is not definitively established by Scripture. No hermeneutic is, including your own.
In a world without tyranny, one has no choice but to allow for a multiplicity of denominations. Should I take it, then, that you are against freedom of religion?
Since we do have such freedom, people will choose to pervert Christianity to their own ends. This is NOT a result of Protestantism. It is the result of modern democracy and the freedom of conscience.
Mainstream/Mainline Protestantism is not Protestant, having jettisoned the creeds and confessions decades ago. By now, they are barely recognizable as even Christian. I don’t consider them so.
Among the continuing confessional Protestants–often termed Evangelical–there is actually very little theologically that separates us. Read the faith statements of various Evangelical churches and seminaries, and unless you are extremely versed in distinctives, you will not be able to discern whose is whose. There is a standing tradition of intercommunion between all of us, almost without exception.
None of us accepts divorce and remarriage as anything other than sin. None of us accepts any part of the same-sex agenda. None of us reject the divinity of the Holy Spirit. Virtually none of us accepts baptismal regeneration (a tenet without any real significance if you ask me).
So what’s your complaint? Sola Scriptura works quite well. The Catholic magisterium, made up out of whole cloth by Rome, has no precedents in either Ancient Judaism or the Apostolic Church.
Hans,
That is exactly it. Sola scriptura is NOT compatible with scripture as it cannot be reconciled with scripture, no matter how hard you try.To protestants this has become a slogan, a rallying cry or an idol. It is not in the bible, is not taught by the new or old testaments, nor by the church fathers nor by the church. It rears its head with Luther and his reformation.
That is not to devalue scripture which is the highest authority in matters of faith and morals.
Quite early on Rome was recognised as the first and foremost see, the one to arbitrate disputes and to settle differences, just as Peter was recognised as the first among the apostles.
Water–
How could Sola Scriptura not be in the Bible, or be incompatible or irreconcilable with Scripture? That doesn’t even make sense. We’re not supposed to READ Scripture? What are we supposed to do with it? Eat it?
Hebrews has all sorts of passages from the Old Testament imbedded in it. The writer inserts them without explaining or interpreting them. Clearly, one is supposed to simply read them and understand what they say. The author doesn’t tell us to go to our pastor or priest or bishop for help.
Every passage of Scripture where the interpretation is not dogmatically defined is validly open to mere discernment. Sola Scriptura reigns in the vast majority of texts IN THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. There are all kinds of acceptable interpretations of a given passage, as a result. “Oh, no!” you cry, “We can’t have that! Mayhem will result!” Yup. You have Molinists and Thomists, Charismatics and non-Charismatics, rosary pray-ers and non-rosary pray-ers, scapular wearers and non-scapular wearers….
Pandemonium will certainly ensue!
In 2 Peter 3, we are told:
“And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures.”
See that? A PERFECT opportunity to tell us NOT to do this Bible reading thing all on our own! (Let’s see what happens next….)
Here we go:
“So therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, take care that you are not carried away with the error of lawless people and lose your own stability. But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To him be the glory both now and to the day of eternity. Amen.”
Wait! What? No exhortation to seek assistance? This can’t be. Sola Scriptura is NOT reconcilable with Scripture! At least that’s what I’ve always been told. I’m so confused!
Hans, Straw man. That is not what Water is saying. He nowhere said people aren’t supposed to read Scripture. The question is: How is Scripture to be read, known, and understood, and who understands Scripture correctly, and who misunderstands Scripture, and who reads Scripture incorrectly? Everyone has an authority they consider infallible by which they think they infallibly interpret the infallible Scriptures. Or mostly infallibly, most of the time, while admitting, which is justified, that anyone could possibly misunderstand some of the Scriptures. Some believe Calvinism is the infallible truth by which the Bible is correctly interpreted. The problem is, this falsifies and nullifies Matthew 16, as the New Testament is not Calvinist, and none of the Church Fathers were Calvinist, not even Augustine. The Apostolic Fathers, the earliest document outside the NT, says nothing about TULIP.
Hans, You say, “What are we supposed to do with Scripture? Eat it?” Exactly! That is exactly what Saint John says in Revelation.
Hans,
All this woffling doesn’t help you. Sola scriptura means scripture ALONE. Nowhere in scripture is this found.
Quite the contrary. Paul tells his followers to hold on to the traditions he has passed on to them by word and letter, to do the things that they see him do, Jesus gives his authority to Peter and the twelve. John tells us that he who listens to the apostles listens to Jesus. Etc, etc.
No sola scriptura here. But it takes some honesty to admit this when this is what you have been fed all your life. Maybe one day you’ll find the courage to admit it.
Scott–
Batter up!
Yes, Scott, I teed that up for you to see if you’d be silly enough to take a swing. You didn’t disappoint.
So, is that how the Orthodox do hermeneutics? Munch on scrolls? It wouldn’t surprise me.
Water–
So, you think Sola Scriptura is not found in Scripture! Boy, oh, boy, are you left holding the bag!
Care to tell me what any of these Pauline oral traditions are that we were supposed to hold onto? What’s that? Nobody thought them important enough to write them down? Oops. We don’t have a single one of them verbatim? Oops. Ah, but we do have the gist. How do we know? We just know. Trust us. (Nefarious smile.)
By the way, you say I can’t see the truth because I’ve been fed a pack of lies all my life. By whom? I’ve just taken Scripture and followed wherever it led. Your way of thinking never appealed to me. Struck me as a “pack of lies.”
It’s not a straw man, Scott. It is a simplification, yes. According to Sola Scriptura, Scripture is to be read. Just read. Reading includes a kind of straightforward interpretation (i.e., We read for content. We don’t simply pronounce the words.)
We’re not to add anything to it. Scripture is very specific on this. No additions are allowed. EO and RC “interpreters” add all kinds of crap. That’s NOT an interpretation of Scripture!
What does Matthew 16 have to do with anything? There’s nothing there on how we are to read Scripture.
Hans, Sola Scriptura IS an ADDITION to the Scripture, so your statement is hypocritical & self-contradictory.
Scott–
Oh, I see.
So, is holding the Bible in my lap while reading also an addition? Is using a reading light an addition?
And the method you use to interpret Scripture…I take it that that is found clearly in the text for all to see?
I think we know who is playing “fast and loose” with the existing data. And it’s not me.
Hans, You wrote: “What does Matthew 16 have to do with anything? There’s nothing there on how we are to read Scripture”.
Matthew 16 says the gates of hell will not prevail against the Church. Did the Church fail? According to the very existence of the Protestant Reformation, Yes. The Reformation is the claim to restore the true Church, to restore the true Gospel to the Church. Did the Church fail to preach the true Gospel? No. According to Matt. 16, the Church didn’t fail. Rome left the Church in 1054, and excommunicated herself from Christ, by adding “Filioque”. Then, the Reformation tried to restore what was lost by Rome, but failed, as the Reformation retained Rome’s error, Filioque.
Scott–
Awfully presumptuous of you to claim that Orthodoxy is the church against whom the Gates of Hell would not prevail.
Supposedly there at the beginning but unwilling to go “ad fontes.” Doesn’t pass the smell test. You’re afraid to check too closely into the Apostolic Church lest your precommitments be threatened.
Hans, Absolutely no presumption whatsoever from me. Only the truth.
You are the one who is presumptuous to say that Calvinism is the Gospel.
Calvinism is not the Gospel.
Scott–
Do you ever make arguments? Or do you merely continuously assert that truth emanates from that magnificent brain of yours?
Make no mistake, we are all truly in awe. (Nevertheless, an argument now and again might be nice.)
Hans,
Arguing for argument’s sake leads nowhere. But you haven’t given me a scrap of biblical evidence supporting scripture ALONE. Woffling won’t help you.
More bull, nonsense, disrespect, contempt of self-restraint, and bad attitude again from you, Hans.
A kind word from you never comes to anyone who in any way dares to ever question Calvinism, your golden calf idolatry.
Scott–
Which of my comments do you construe as personal attacks?
I play around a lot. So you may not have fully understood the intent of my words.
You called the god of Luther and Calvin evil and abhorrent. That’s MY God!!! It might not technically be a personal attack, but it’s close enough.
That’s just how it is in interfaith dialogue. We are disparaging each other’s most cherished beliefs. There are going to be plenty of misunderstandings and sore feelings to go around. Like I told you before, put on your thickest skin. Commit yourself to climbing into the octagon to fight for your convictions. And quit whining like a school girl.
I may have misunderstood Water’s words to be the perpetuation of a false stereotype. Or he/she may have walked it back after comprehending the intensity of my offense. It is a stereotype too often acquiesced to by otherwise decent people. And I will not tolerate it.
For what it’s worth, I side mostly with Scott on the development of doctrine. Development to be legitimate must be like the growth of a tree. The leaves and fruit must be of the exact same DNA as the branches, trunk, and root. Too often in Catholic theology, the terminology of “development” has been used for a complete reversal (as with Francis on the death penalty recently or in regards to EENS at V2). That’s not development; that’s transformation. Cherries don’t grow on Sycamore trees!
The Filioque–which I don’t happen to care two figs about one way or the other–should be decided by Ecumenical Council. (Good luck with that!)
I sincerely believe that none of your words there mean anything. Since Jesus is LORD, one should let Him be LORD, and let Him decide from Whom the Holy Spirit proceeds. And He said “from the Father” John 15:26. And so did St. Luke “received from the Father” Acts 2:33. So Catholics should just let Filioque go and be content to believe what Christ says here: All of the earliest Fathers (the fathers of 381 AD) agree with Jesus Christ. It matters not how many fathers say for or against Filioque. Most of the Fathers in the East, some of the Fathers in the West, and all of the bishops in the Church, East and West, all popes of Rome endorsed the 7 earliest councils, 325-787 AD, and these popes, on the authority of the Holy Councils, these popes agreed to say NO to Filioque. If you really believe the truth, you will see the earliest popes got this right. If later popes contradict earlier popes, and they do, you have a big problem here. Some of the Patriarchs of Constantinople have been heretics, and some of the Popes of Rome have been heretics too. The thing is to know and understand the popes like Leo III and John VIII who forbad Filioque got this right.
Scott–
I get seriously tired of folks who claim one’s view of the Eucharist or Eschatology or the Atonement or Women’s roles in the church or the Procession of the Spirit has “Trinitarian” implications.
I call B.S.
You just want that as a bargaining chip to impose your will on the rest of the church. Your attitude is authoritarian and obsessive. I don’t even begin to see Christ in it. It’s smacks of power politics through and through.
Invalid & emotional arguments (non-arguments) sometimes start with one small little (subjective) spurious word: “I”. It matters not what any given “you” or “I” think about anything, but what Christ says in the Words of the Word of God (written), the Bible. As far as true Christianity goes (and it goes very far toward reaching Christ), what matters is to be part of the Church where it is not “private interpretation” that goes as standard, but what has been believed by all Christians of all times the common faith (Jude 1:3), “always, everywhere, and by (with) everyone” (St. Vincent of Lerins, “Commonitories”). Otherwise, it’s good to remember Saint Augustine: In essentials unity, in non-essentials freedom, (liberty), in all things love (charity)”.
Water, I sincerely apologize. It wasn’t so much that your words did not mean anything, but that they did not mean anything TO ME. My oversight. I fail to see how Christ saying “I and the Father are one” is leaving out the Holy Spirit. Just because Christ did not say “I and the Father and the Holy Spirit” are one, does not mean that is not true, as well. But it seems to us and to the Holy Spirit that Christ saying “Who proceeds from the Father” ends the discussion for us, and we simply take Christ at His word. We do not try to figure this out through philosophy or Augustinianism. Even Photius, as much as we need him and love him, is not considered the only Father whom we listen to in this matter of the procession of the Spirit. We also listen to Basil and Gregory Palamas and blessed Mark of Ephesus, and others, as well.
scott,
Do read the article I mentioned, we can both learn from it, at least we will understand why we disagree. God bless.
scott,
I am learning a lot here, thanks for introducing the subject.
I quote below an extract from an article that traces the history of the filoque, including differences between Greek and Latin. I recommend you read it in full. You will find it at:
http://www.catholicbridge.com/orthodox/catholic-orthodox-filioque-father-son.php
“But, if the Western Church agrees with the East that the Spirit proceeds from the Father alone, then what does it mean by “Filioque” –that the Spirit proceeds “from the Father and the Son”? Very simply, and keeping in mind the West’s isolation from the original Greek-language intention of the Constantinopolitan Creed, what the West means to express is a truth that is equally valid, but distinct and parallel to, the original Greek-language intention. For, when the West speaks of the Spirit “proceeding” from the Father and the Son, it is referring to something all-together different than “procession” as from a single source (aitia). It is not advocating two sources or principals for the Spirit, or some kind of “double spiration,” as is all-too-commonly (wrongly) assumed by many Eastern Orthodox. Rather, it is using the term “proceeds” in an all-together different sense. And the best way to illustrate the two different senses or uses of the term “proceeds” (Greek vs. Latin) is though the following analogy:
If a human father and son go into their back yard to play a game of catch, it is the father who initiates the game of catch by throwing the ball to his son. In this sense, one can say that the game of catch “proceeds” from this human father (an “aition”); and this is the original, Greek sense of the Constantinopolitan Creed’s use of the term “proceeds” (“ekporeusis”). However, taking this very same scenario, one can also justly say that the game of catch “proceeds” from both the father and his son. And this is because the son has to be there for the game of catch to exist. For, unless the son is there, then the father would have no one to throw the ball to; and so there would be no game of catch. And, it is in this sense (one might say a “collective” sense) that the West uses the term “proceeds” (“procedit”) in the Filioque. Just as acknowledging the necessity of the human son’s presence in order for the game of catch to exist does not, in any way, challenge or threaten the human father’s role as the source or initiator (aition) of the game of catch, so the Filioque does not deny the Father’s singular role as the Cause (Aition) of the Spirit; but merely acknowledges the Son’s necessary Presence (i.e., participation) for the Spirit’s eternal procession from the Father to Someone else –namely, to the eternal Son. Father and Son are thus collectively identified as accounting for the Spirit’s procession. This is all that the Filioque was ever intended to address; and it was included in the Creed by the Western fathers at Toledo in order to counter the claims of the 6th Century Spanish (Germanic) Arians. These Arians were of course denying this essential and orthodox truth –that is, the Son’s eternal participation in the Spirit’s procession –an issue which was never challenged or comprehensively addressed in the Byzantine experience, aside from the fact that there does exist throughout the writings of the Eastern fathers the profession that the Spirit proceeds from the Father “through [or ‘by way of’] the Son.” –an expression equivalent to the Filioque.
Now, it has unfortunately become a very popular (though largely baseless) argument among modern Eastern Orthodox to claim that the Eastern fathers, in professing that the Spirit proceeds “through the Son,” are always referring to the Son’s temporal pouring fourth of the Spirit upon the Church (e.g. John 20:22), and so not the eternal procession of the Spirit within the Trinitarian nature of God. This of course not only seriously (nay, dangerously) threatens the very essence of the Christian Gospel (i.e., Christ’s adopting us into the very same Sonship –and so the very same Spirit of Sonship [Romans 8:15] –which He Himself enjoys eternally with the Father), but it also fails to acknowledge the full testimony of the Eastern fathers, which I will address in detail below.
The Canonical Authority of Filioque
Before addressing Filioque’s Apostolic validity as a matter of theology, we would do well to first explore its canonical validity and the history behind its inclusion in the Western Creed. For, it is often claimed by Eastern Orthodox that the West’s insertion of Filioque into the Creed violates Canon VII of the Council of Ephesus (A.D. 431), which reads …
“The holy Council decrees that no one should be permitted to offer a different Creed of Faith, or in any case, to write or compose another, than the one defined by the holy fathers who convened in the city of Nicaea …As for those who dare either to compose a different Creed or Faith, or to present one, or to offer one to those who wish to return to recognition of the truth, whether they be Greeks or Jews, or they be members of any heresy whatsoever, they, if bishops or clergymen, shall be deprived as bishops of their episcopate, and as clergymen of their clericate; but if they are laymen, they shall be anathematized.”
Likewise, at this same Council, St. Cyril of Alexandria (as Council president) declared:
“We prohibit any change whatsoever in the Creed of Faith drawn up by the holy Nicene fathers. We do not allow ourselves or anyone else to change or omit one word or syllable in that Creed.”
Now, at first glance, and without resource to historical context, these decrees of the Council of Ephesus seem pretty damning to Filioque. And, while they are easily addressed and dismissed in the light of authentic history, they do call attention to a much larger difference in the way that modern Catholics and modern Eastern Orthodox view the Church and Church authority, and why it has been so difficult for us to communicate with each other about this particular issue. But, before we delve into this larger (and much more substantive) difference, let’s explore why Canon VII of the Council of Ephesus is clearly not a barrier to the inclusion of Filioque.
First of all, please notice how, in the quotes from Canon VII of Ephesus and St. Cyril of Alexandria above, the prohibition is not against adding to the Creed of Constantinople I (A.D. 381), but rather adding to the Creed “defined by the holy fathers who convened in the city of Nicaea” (A.D. 325); and, as we already observed, the Creed of Nicaea makes no mention of the Spirit’s procession, but merely reads:
“[We believe] in the Holy Sprit …” (followed by a direct anathema against Arianism.)
So, if one wishes to be technical about it (as some Eastern Orthodox choose to do by using Canon VII of Ephesus to challenge the legitimacy of Filioque), then one must conclude that Canon VII of Ephesus renders the Constantinopolitan Creed itself illegitimate, since it also “added to” the Creed of Nicaea.”
That you dpn’t care “two figs” shows your standard of judgment is subjective and emotional, and not based on Scripture or Christ’s words, whether in the Scriptures themselves, or in the way the Fathers interpret the Scriptures; the main person who says “AND THE SON” first of all was Augustine, and as early as 381 AD the ecumenical council overruled Augustine’s private opinion.
Scott–
Get over yourself. Just because your sun rises and sets over the Filioque Sea doesn’t mean anyone else finds it all that significant. Just because Paul talks about his forgotten cloak in 2 Timothy, doesn’t mean we should all go jetting off to Troas to search for it.
We are not allowed “personal interpretation” of PROPHECY according to 2 Peter. Not of all Scripture. Just prophecy. And it’s unclear whether that’s making sure the original prophet’s words were directly from God or making sure our take on it accords with the Apostles’ take.
You don’t give a plug nickel for Scripture. You just want to shore up the East’s idiosyncratic interpretation of it. There does not exist one single tenet of the faith that literally has been believed “always, everywhere, and by all.” Talk about an incredibly subjective criterion! Who decides what a consensus consists of anyway? Orthodoxy includes only about one eighth of Christendom. You can’t squeeze a “consensus” out of a tiny minority! Pick up your oddly shaped ball, dust off your innovative rule book, and go home. We don’t want to play your game.
Hans, For some reason, your comments are filled with criticisms of other people and statements about Water and me and other people. There seems to be a lack of restraint and a spirit of having to comment on me. Or on others. Or calling people names. I don’t know why. I would prefer to discuss ideas, not talk about others, criticize anyone, or attempt to defend myself. I am sure there is a lot wrong with me. It is true certain ideas I think about a lot. I feel I have a lot to improve about myself.
I was responding to what Water said about Christ saying “I and the Father are one”. That does not mean Christ anywhere says “The Holy Spirit, Who proceeds from the Father” AND THE SON. Christ did not say THAT. You have to tell us why Christ did not say that if it is true, in light of John 16:13. You have a big problem explaining why the words “AND THE SON” are not in Scripture.
The church fathers as a whole and as a group which formed a consensus, a common faith, a common mind, from Christ, in the Holy Spirit, never once developed or invented doctrines, they received doctrines directly from the bishops who received their doctrines from the apostles who received their doctrines from Christ in His Holy Spirit; the doctrines came from the mind of Christ, the Holy Spirit, in the apostolic traditions, written and spoken 2 Thess. 2:15, 3:6; the apostles knew Greek, and theology was in Greek. Augustine knew non-Christian philosophy, and this in Latin, not in Greek; Augustine speculated, he did not theologize, and he did not receive his model of the Trinity from any bishop who got if from an Apostle of Christ. Augustine tried to defend the Trinity, and in defending the Trinity using philosophy and human psychology, Augustine erred. No Father was infallible; Chrysostom had some problems with language which to later sensitive minds seems to be a bit anti-semitic. I myself have erred a lot on my own, and it wasn’t Luther or Calvin’s fault; it was my own. And I don’t blame Augustine for anything. But Origen had some worse errors than Augustine’s. Augustine was a good man, and he sought truth. Anyone can make a mistake, even a man who was truly after God in his heart like blessed Saint Augustine was. God save and rescue us. God bless us everyone.
Scott–
Just so that you understand. We come from diametrically opposed points of view. You find my “god” abhorrent. I find your Gospel inadequate and unbiblical.
Reformed theologians do use the “abhorrent” tag just like you. So it’s tit for tat. Here’s Charles Spurgeon:
**************
“If anyone should ask me what I mean by a Calvinist, I should reply, “He is one who says, Salvation is of the Lord.” I cannot find in Scripture any other doctrine than this. It is the essence of the Bible. “He only is my rock and my salvation.”
Tell me anything contrary to this truth, and it will be a heresy; tell me a heresy, and I shall find its essence here, that it has departed from this great, this fundamental, this rock-truth, “God is my rock and my salvation.” What is the heresy of Rome, but the addition of something to the perfect merits of Jesus Christ—the bringing in of the works of the flesh, to assist in our justification? And what is the heresy of Arminianism but the addition of something to the work of the Redeemer? Every heresy, if brought to the touchstone, will discover itself here.
“I have my own private opinion that there is no such thing as preaching Christ and Him crucified, unless we preach what nowadays is called Calvinism. It is a nickname to call it Calvinism; Calvinism is the gospel, and nothing else.
I do not believe we can preach the gospel, if we do not preach justification by faith, without works; nor unless we preach the sovereignty of God in His dispensation of grace; nor unless we exalt the electing, unchangeable, eternal, immutable, conquering love of Jehovah; nor do I think we can preach the gospel, unless we base it upon the special and particular redemption of His elect and chosen people which Christ wrought out upon the cross; nor can I comprehend a gospel which lets saints fall away after they are called, and suffers the children of God to be burned in the fires of damnation after having once believed in Jesus. Such a gospel I abhor.”
***************
So I abhor your beliefs as much as you abhor mine. Are we feeling all warm and fuzzy yet? (You never did say WHY you hate Calvinism, by the way.)
The Calvinist god damns most people for sins which He Himself forces them and causes them to commit. If everything is predestined, sin is predestined, and sin is God’s will. If Calvinism is the gospel, the “gospel” justifies sin. Gordon H. Clark, Calvinist, says as much. He writes, “If a man comes home and shoots his wife, it was God’s will that he should shoot her”. This I reject. This is why I hate Calvinism. It calls evil “God’s” (sic) will. I have also found in Calvin’s Institutes that Calvin also believes everything is God’s will, including sin. So no distinction is made between good and evil in Calvinism. And since no works are involved, no repentance is needed, only faith “alone”. We Orthodox agree we cannot save ourselves by our works. Before God, works are without merit, and are as filthy rags. But God has prepared before hand the good works He wills His children to walk in, as a result of true faith Eph. 2:8-9, 10. I agree salvation is of the LORD.
I do not agree “justification by faith alone is the doctrine by which the church stands or falls”.
Those words are not in the New Testament, the Fathers, the ecumenical councils, or in the Holy Spirit.
When asked to justify why he added the non-Greek, non-Pauline word “alone” to the text of Romans 3:28 in German, Luther said, “It is so. And I will have it so. And my own will is reason enough. When they ask why it is so, it is because I, Herr Doctor Martin Luther, say that it is so”.
I reject the warrior wrathful Augustinian predestinarian no free-will anxiety-laden god of Calvin and Luther. Especially of Calvin, more than Luther. Luther had his good points.
The Finnish approach to Luther is of some help. Luther and Calvin’s gospel is. Everything, it’s all predestined. There is no free will. Salvation is guaranteed by faith alone, with no works. Be a sinner. Sin boldly. You’ll still be saved. There’s nothing you can do about it. It rewrites the New Testament, which says, “Repent, and believe the Gospel”, to “Believe the Gospel”. It is what Bonhoeffer called “Cheap grace”.
….
scott,
I don’t think that Augustine is all that predestinarian.
My point was that exactly. But Luther and Calvin think Augustine is thoroughly predestinarian and denies free will, though later Luther softened his monergism. Monergism is heresy.
scott,
Here again an extract from an article on St Augustine and free will:
“Among the early Fathers of the Church, St. Augustine stands preeminent in his handling of this subject (free will). He clearly teaches the freedom of the will against the Manichaeans, but insists against the Semipelagians on the necessity of grace, as a foundation of merit. He also emphasizes very strongly the absolute rule of God over men’s wills by His omnipotence and omniscience—through the infinite store, as it were, of motives which He has had at His disposal from all eternity, and by the foreknowledge of those to which the will of each human being would freely consent. St. Augustine’s teaching formed the basis of much of the later theology of the Church on these questions, though other writers have sought to soften the more rigorous portions of his doctrine. This they did especially in opposition to heretical authors, who exaggerated these features in the works of the great African Doctor and attempted to deduce from his principles a form of rigid predeterminism little differing from fatalism.”
A definition of free will : “Free will is the ability to choose between different possible courses of action unimpeded. Free will is closely linked to the concepts of responsibility, praise, guilt, sin, and other judgements which apply only to actions that are freely chosen.”
Water and Scott–
Augustine was clearly monergistic. His principal disagreement with Reformed thought was his embrace of baptismal regeneration. He was also, like Calvin, into double predestinarianism, which Catholicism ditched at the Second Council of Orange. Thus, Catholic soteriology came to be termed semi-Augustinian.
From Augustine’s works:
“Can you say, ‘We will first walk in His righteousness, and will observe His judgments, and will act in a worthy way, so that He will give His grace to us’? But what good would you evil people do? And how would you do those good things, unless you were yourselves good? But Who causes people to be good? Only He Who said, ‘And I will visit them to make them good,’ and, ‘I will put my Spirit within you, and will cause you to walk in my righteousness, and to observe my judgments, and do them’ (Ezek.36:27). Are you asleep? Can’t you hear Him saying, ‘I will cause you to walk, I will make you to observe,’ lastly, ‘I will make you to do’? Really, are you still puffing yourselves up? We walk, true enough, and we observe, and we do; but it is God Who He makes us to walk, to observe, and to do. This is the grace of God making us good; this is His mercy going before us.”
Augustine,
Against Two Letters of the Pelagians 4:15
Absolutely none of that matters about Augustine, whether it is true,or not, the Church cannot depend on Augustine as the teacher of all Christians. The only teacher of all Christians is Christ and the Holy Spirit, and the majority of Church Fathers did not agree with the mistakes made by Augustine.
Isn’t it a wonderful world. Hans loves being nasty. No wonder he loves talking about other people. I don’t know how he really feels, but he sure does seem to like saying “you” about others, and instead of discussing Scripture in a kind and reasonable way.
What is the heresy of Calvinism? Saying that the Scriptures teach Calvinism. Salvation is of the LORD, not of Calvinism. Calvinism is not the gospel. It is the tradition of Calvin, and blames its angry unloving sin-causing god on Augustine.
Scott–
It is as I thought. You don’t have the faintest hint of a clue as to what Calvinism is about.
You count things as personal attacks because I use the pronoun “you”?
Now, that’s really adult.
I like being nasty???????
Where in tarnation did that come from?
So what’s your explanation for where evil comes from?
He allows it? My, my isn’t THAT a gracious God. Genocide and rape and famine and natural disaster. He could stop them, but he doesn’t so as not to hurt our feelings.
He can’t stop them? He hasn’t got the power? Well, that sure is comforting.
If we reject Calvinism (not to mention Thomism and Augustinianism), we get stuck with an uncaring, weak, and frivolous God. Such an improvement!!!
Scripture says evil originated in Satan. In the name of omnipotence, Calvinism wrongly states God has the power to cause sin. This makes darkness in God. But Scripture says, “God is Light, and in Him is no darkness at all”. Calvinism is not true. God has the power to stop evil. He defeated it on the Cross. He requires free will, because love that is forced is not true love. Calvinism’s god is uncaring and frivolous.
Hans, You haven’t the faintest idea what I am saying. You have given absolutely know proof that I don’t know what Calvinism is. You have given no proof that you know what Calvinism is. I have read the major Calvinist works. They all agree. Calvinism is fatalism. Double predestination. Double predestination is heresy. The essence and main doctrine of Calvinism is double predestination. If you have read on the eternal decree section of the Westminster Confession of Faith, you would know what Calvinism is. It is wrong. Do you know what the WCD says, Hans?
If we reject Calvinism, we reject Satan and heresy and error and evil. If we accept Calvinism, we accept error, we accept the idea that what they call “God” predestines some people to hell, and makes them sin so he (it) can damn them: do they sin? It is this Calvinist god which is doing the sinning in them. In the Calvinist god, the Calvinist god wills and predestines all evil. Is it any wonder that it the fullness of grace, truth, love, and mercy and holiness, to reject Calvinism, then?
If there is no free will, there can be no love. If there is free will, there can be evil. Because God wants to be freely loved, He wills to allow free will. It is the nature of things that men must choose God. If they can choose God freely, they can also choose evil. God does not allow evil. He allows free will, which means a choice between good and evil must be made. Calvinism blames God for evil and amounts to atheism.
Scott–
Allowing free will, knowing that evil can and will result, is to allow evil. You are blaming God for evil, which is a no-no in your book. Is Orthodoxy schizophrenic?
By the way, I know of no theological system anywhere that DOESN’T allow for free will. Are you making one up?
Hans, Projection. You are projecting onto me that which is wrong with yourself. I make no blame of God for evil. That is what Calvinism does. You don’t want to believe that or acknowledge it, but you have a problem with honesty, as you said WCF does not teach double predestination, but I quoted WCF on the eternal decree; but you would probably just say it doesn’t say what it says. You must be stubborn not to acknowledge the simple truth that Calvinism is evil fatalism and double predestination. It’s right there, open heresy, in black and white, a great evil, in the evil WCF, a tradition of men. Sin.
Scott–
Learn about your opponents. Even just a tiny little bit. Before taking on a discussion. Otherwise you end up looking incredibly small minded.
Westminster Confession of Faith
God is not the author of evil:
IV. “The almighty power, unsearchable wisdom, and infinite goodness of God so far manifest themselves in his providence, that it extends itself even to the first fall, and all other sins of angels and men; and that not by a bare permission, but such as has joined with it a most wise and powerful bounding, and otherwise ordering, and governing of them, in a manifold dispensation, to his own holy ends; yet so, as the sinfulness thereof proceeds only from the creature, and not from God, who, being most holy and righteous, neither is nor can be the author or approver of sin.”
On Free Will:
I. “God has endued the will of man with that natural liberty, that is neither forced, nor, by any absolute necessity of nature, determined good, or evil.”
The WCF gives lip service to free will, but this is cancelled out by its heretical doctrine of double predestination. There can be no free will if double predestination is true.
Scott–
Here’s the “eternal decree”:
“God from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass; yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.”
What gives YOU the right to say this is lip service? The huge majority of Calvinists, for your information, DO NOT subscribe to double predestination. WCF doesn’t endorse it.
Yes, Calvin believed it. Calvinists, on the other hand, by and large, do not.
But that said, even Supralapsarianism does NOT take away free will. God does not directly make people for hell. He passes them by in his Providence and leaves them to their own just desserts.
Get it through your head though that people do go to hell, and–under every single Christian system–God doesn’t stop it from happening. If you want to be angry about it, go ahead. But you’re angry at God…not Calvinists.
All I can say is that you clearly haven’t taken the time to think this through.
Hans, It seems you have not read the WCF. You say WCF does not endorse double predestination. Here is proof that you are not telling the truth, Hans!
III. By the decree of God, for the manifestation of His glory, some men and angels are predestinated unto everlasting life; and others foreordained to everlasting death Westminster Confession of Faith, On the Eternal Decree, III.
Calvinists are worshipping an angry, false god. Not at all am I angry at God. I am angry at heresy, because it deceives and ruins and shipwrecks innocent souls. It adds to the Calvinist guilt and sin. My own sin was Lutheran and Pentecostal, not Calvinist. My sin I can’t blame on anyone but myself, but I am sure some things in Lutheranism did nothing to help me overcome sin. And if it doesn’t help you, and when in doubt: throw it out! Delete false doctrines! Delete Filioque. Delete Lutheranism, the Reformation, the Solas (except for solus Christus and soli Deo gloria), and sola Gratia misunderstands the nature of grace. Delete the Filioque of the Papacy, and return the Latin papacy to the humble example of Leo III, John VIII, and Gregory I. The problem began with Charlemagne and Nicholas I. And King Reccared in Toledo Spain 589 AD.
Scott–
As usual, you don’t know what you’re talking about. But I give you credit for that heaping helping of bravado you’ve been endowed with.
The large majority of Westminster Divines were infralapsarian, so more than likely, the document should be interpreted in that fashion. Of course, some do believe that it was written to be purposefully ambiguous so that both sides could walk away happy.
Read this (from the WCF):
VII. “The rest of mankind God was pleased, according to the unsearchable counsel of his own will, whereby he extends or withholds mercy, as he pleases, for the glory of his sovereign power over his creatures, to pass by; and to ordain them to dishonor and wrath for their sin, to the praise of his glorious justice.”
That God “allowed” the non-elect to remain in their depravity in accordance with their own free will is often spoken of as his “passing them by.” And that’s the wording here (i.e., infralapsarian).
What you don’t seem to understand is that God’s actions are in another realm, on a completely different plane from our own. He can be totally in charge without being personally responsible for disobedience and sin.
I think it’s “Water and Spirit” who likes to talk about those theological concepts that are both/and…in other words, paradoxical. God is both one and three. Christ is both fully human and fully divine.
Well, in terms of free will vs. predestination, it’s a both/and situation. God is totally sovereign, and yet man is still totally responsible for his own actions: We are to work out our salvation in fear and trembling even though it is God at work in us to will and to do.
Not at all Hans! You haven’t proven that I do not know what I am talking about. You haven’t proven that you know what you are talking about. If you think Calvinism is the Gospel, you are far from mere Christianity.
In those evil and non-Biblical words, the Westminster Confession of Faith teaches the very most evil of all possible heresies, which must be thoroughly repented of, or anathema maranatha; if the Westminster Confession of Faith is true in these words, then three verses of the Bible are heresies:
1. John 3:16.
2. 1 Timothy 2:4.
3. 2 Peter 3:9.
Hans,
That is a step in the right direction.
Scott–
Just so you’re aware, Craig Truglia, the writer of this blog, is Eastern Orthodox and fully embraces Sola Gratia.
So do I. But some forms of Calvinism say: sola fide mean faith alone, salvation = justification – minus works (antinomianism). R.C. Sproul Sr. explains, traditional Protestantism teaches: salvation = justification + plus works But Craig, like me, embraces Synergism, not Monergism. Which is not Semi-Pelagianism. It is the faith of the EOC, which is expressed in the work of St. John Cassian. Protestantism errs when it teaches Sola Gratia, and it teaches something about grace alone that Craig does not believe.
Scott–
If you believe that Calvinism is fatalistic or antinomian in any way, you don’t know what you’re talking about.
Most Protestants label Orthodoxy as semi-Pelagian. Is it? Or do people wrapped up in their own way of thinking get things wrong?
By the way, Calvinists have absolutely no problem whatsoever with John 3:16 or 1 Timothy 2:4 or 2 Peter 3:9.
Chapter III
“Of God’s Eternal Decree”
I. God from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass;[1] yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin,[2] nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.[3]
II. Although God knows whatsoever may or can come to pass upon all supposed conditions;[4] yet has He not decreed anything because He foresaw it as future, or as that which would come to pass upon such conditions.[5]
III. By the decree of God, for the manifestation of His glory, some men and angels[6] are predestinated unto everlasting life; and others foreordained to everlasting death.[7]
IV. These angels and men, thus predestinated, and foreordained, are particularly and unchangeably designed, and their number so certain and definite, that it cannot be either increased or diminished.[8]
V. Those of mankind that are predestinated unto life, God, before the foundation of the world was laid, according to His eternal and immutable purpose, and the secret counsel and good pleasure of His will, has chosen, in Christ, unto everlasting glory,[9] out of His mere free grace and love, without any foresight of faith, or good works, or perseverance in either of them, or any other thing in the creature, as conditions, or causes moving Him thereunto;[10] and all to the praise of His glorious grace.[11]
VI. As God has appointed the elect unto glory, so has He, by the eternal and most free purpose of His will, foreordained all the means thereunto.[12] Wherefore, they who are elected, being fallen in Adam, are redeemed by Christ,[13] are effectually called unto faith in Christ by His Spirit working in due season, are justified, adopted, sanctified,[14] and kept by His power, through faith, unto salvation.[15] Neither are any other redeemed by Christ, effectually called, justified, adopted, sanctified, and saved, but the elect only.[16]
VII. The rest of mankind God was pleased, according to the unsearchable counsel of His own will, whereby He extends or withholds mercy, as He pleases, for the glory of His sovereign power over His creatures, to pass by; and to ordain them to dishonor and wrath for their sin, to the praised of His glorious justice.[17]
VIII. The doctrine of this high mystery of predestination is to be handled with special prudence and care,[18] that men, attending the will of God revealed in His Word, and yielding obedience thereunto, may, from the certainty of their effectual vocation, be assured of their eternal election.[19] So shall this doctrine afford matter of praise, reverence, and admiration of God;[20] and of humility, diligence, and abundant consolation to all that sincerely obey the Gospel.[21]
| Previous | Next | Contents |
Scripture Proofs
[1] EPH 1:11 In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will. ROM 11:33 O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out! HEB 6:17 Wherein God, willing more abundantly to shew unto the heirs of promise the immutability of his counsel, confirmed it by an oath. ROM 9:15 For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. 18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.
[2] JAM 1:13 Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man. 17 Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning. 1JO 1:5 This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.
[3] ACT 2:23 Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain. MAT 17:12 But I say unto you, That Elias is come already, and they knew him not, but have done unto him whatsoever they listed. Likewise shall also the Son of man suffer of them. ACT 4:27 For of a truth against thy holy child Jesus, whom thou hast anointed, both Herod, and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and the people of Israel, were gathered together, 28 For to do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel determined before to be done. JOH 19:11 Jesus answered, Thou couldest have no power at all against me, except it were given thee from above: therefore he that delivered me unto thee hath the greater sin. PRO 16:33 The lot is cast into the lap; but the whole disposing thereof is of the Lord.
[4] ACT 15:18 Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world. 1SA 23:11 Will the men of Keilah deliver me up into his hand? will Saul come down, as thy servant hath heard? O Lord God of Israel, I beseech thee, tell thy servant. And the Lord said, He will come down. 12 Then said David, Will the men of Keilah deliver me and my men into the hand of Saul? And the Lord said, They will deliver thee up. MAT 11:21 Woe unto thee, Chorazin! woe unto thee, Bethsaida! for if the mighty works, which were done in you, had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. 23 And thou, Capernaum, which art exalted unto heaven, shalt be brought down to hell: for if the mighty works, which have been done in thee, had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day.
[5] ROM 9:11 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;) 13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated. 16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy. 18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.
[6] 1TI 5:21 I charge thee before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, and the elect angels, that thou observe these things without preferring one before another, doing nothing by partiality. MAT 25:41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels.
[7] ROM 9:22 What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: 23 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory. EPH 1:5 Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, 6 To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved. PRO 16:4 The Lord hath made all things for himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil.
[8] 2TI 2:19 Nevertheless the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are his. And, Let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity. JOH 13:18 I speak not of you all: I know whom I have chosen: but that the scripture may be fulfilled, He that eateth bread with me hath lifted up his heel against me.
[9] EPH 1:4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: 9 Having made known unto us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure which he hath purposed in himself: 11 In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own wilL. ROM 8:30 Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified. 2TI 1:9 Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began. 1TH 5:9 For God hath not appointed us to wrath, but to obtain salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ.
[10] ROM 9:11 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;) 13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated. 16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy. EPH 1:4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love. 9 Having made known unto us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure which he hath purposed in himself.
[11] EPH. 1:6,12 To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved. 12 That we should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ.
[12] 1PE 1:2 Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied. EPH 1:4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: 5 Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will. 2:10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them. 2TH 2:13 But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth.
[13] 1TH 5:9 For God hath not appointed us to wrath, but to obtain salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ, 10 Who died for us, that, whether we wake or sleep, we should live together with him. TIT 2:14 Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works.
[14] ROM 8:30 Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified. EPH 1:5 Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will. 2TH 2:13 But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth.
[15] 1PE 1:5 Who are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.
[16] JOH 17:9 I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine. ROM 8:28 And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose. JOH 6:64 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him. 65 And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father. 10:26 But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you. 8:47 He that is of God heareth God’s words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God. 1JO 2:19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.
[17] MAT 11:25 At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes. 26 Even so, Father: for so it seemed good in thy sight. ROM 9:17 For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth. 18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth. 21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? 22 What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction. 2TI 2:19 Nevertheless the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are his. And, Let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity. 20 But in a great house there are not only vessels of gold and of silver, but also of wood and of earth; and some to honour, and some to dishonour. JUD 4 For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ. 1PE 2:8 And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed.
[18] ROM 9:20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? 11:33 O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out! DEU 29:29 The secret things belong unto the Lord our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever, that we may do all the words of this law.
[19] 2PE 1:10 Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall.
[20] EPH 1:6 To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved. ROM 11:33 O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out!
[21] ROM 11:5 Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace. 6 And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work. 20 For when ye were the servants of sin, ye were free from righteousness. 2PE 1:10 Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall. ROM 8:33 Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God’s elect? It is God that justifieth. LUK 10:20 Notwithstanding in this rejoice not, that the spirits are subject unto you; but rather rejoice, because your names are written in heaven.
| Previous | Next | Contents |
DISCUSS THIS TOPIC
Please join others who have commented upon this and other topics in our Discussion Group.
Return to the Main Highway
Go to Calvinism and the Reformed Faith Calvinism and the Reformed Faith
Rock and Sand – Orthodox Christian Information Center
orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/Rock_Sand_Excerpt.pdf
The World at the Time of the Protestant Reformation . …. archpriest josiah trenham: rock and sand …… bodies which profess to proclaim that Good News. Hence.
This excellent book, New Rome Books, LLC, Columbia, Missouri; deals with positive & negative aspects of Protestantism. I have highlighted some of the negative aspects of Protestantism, including Filioque. But there are good aspects; they love the Scriptures; they understand some of the Scriptures; so do the Catholics; the Orthodox understanding of the Scriptures, in the Church Fathers, and most of the Orthodox writers, is an improvement over the incomplete or false aspects of Catholic and Protestant theology.
Water, Perhaps you have not read Thomas Aquinas’ “Contra Errores Graecorum”. It clearly states another gospel (Galatians) other than the Gospel preached by the LORD Jesus Christ [John 3:16, John 14:6, John 14:26, John 15:26, John 16:13, Acts 2:33]. It also preaches that to believe the Holy Spirit is “necessary” for salvation, which is not true. It also preaches that for every soul to be subject unto the Roman pope is “necessary” for salvation, which is not true.
Hans, It is not true that Calvinists have no problem with 2 Peter 3:9. Jay Green Sr. in his Modern King James Version adds the words “of us” to 2 Peter 3:9.
Scott–
Silly me. I forgot that you are the world’s preeminent expert on all things Reformed.
What was I thinking? Forgive me, your excellency!
Hans, Sarcasm is not necessary. I did not mention Reformed; I don’t claim to be an “expert” on Reformed theology in all of its forms, but all of the forms of Calvinism stand united in the same basic double predestination, the distinctions of infralapsarian sublapsarian and superlapsarian, I confess I think these don’t amount to much, and the simple truth is that all Christians probably do have their own different teachers whom they rely on, just as the Ethiopian eunuch in Acts relied upon the Apostle Saint Philip to open the Scriptures unto him. Calvin is one individual, and the Church through the ages doesn’t rely on only one individual, though some are more prominent in Orthodoxy, as some are more prominent in Calvinism, chiefly Calvin himself. Why is that? Anyway, God bless you. The passage you mentioned Reformed, I was talking about Aquinas Contra Errores Graecorum, and Aquinas, like the Greek Orthodox Church, is not Reformed.
scott,
The faith comes through the church, even Calvin and Luther get their faith through the church, so the link is always there, God will sort out the details when judgement comes.
THE FILIOQUE
© John S. Romanides
TABLE OF CONTENTS
|Part 1| — |Part 2| — |Part 3|
Historical Background
The Theological Background
The Significance of the Filioque Question
[ Return ]
Historical Background
One must take note from the very beginning that there never was a Filioque controversy between the West and East Romans. There were domestic quarrels over details concerning the Christological doctrine and the Ecumenical Synods dealing with the person of Christ. The West Romans championed the cause of Icons defined by the Seventh Ecumenical Synod, but they never supported the Frankish Filioque, either as doctrine or as an addition to the Creed. The Filioque controversy was not a conflict between the Patriarchates of Old Rome and New Rome, but between the Franks and all Romans in the East and in the West.
As we saw in Part 1, there is strong evidence that the cause of the Filioque controversy is to be found in the Frankish decision to provoke the condemnation of the East Romans as heretics so that the latter might become exclusively “Greeks” and, therefore, a different nation from the West Romans under Frankish rule. The pretext of the Filioque controversy was the Frankish acceptance of Augustine as the key to understanding the theology of the First and Second Ecumenical Synods. That this distinction between cause and pretext is correct seems adequately clear in the policy manifested at the Synod of Frankfurt in 794 which condemned both sides of the iconoclastic controversy so that the East Romans would end up as heretics no matter who prevailed.
The Franks deliberately provoked doctrinal differences in order to break the national and ecclesiastical unity of the Roman nation, and thus separate, once and for all, the revolutionary West Romans under their rule from the East Romans. The free Romans supposedly have `changed’ their nationality by becoming heretics, by moving their capital from Old Rome to New Rome, and preferring Greek over Latin. So goes the argument of Emperor Louis II in his letter to Emperor Basil I in 871, as we saw.
Because of this deliberate policy, the Filioque question was about to take on irreparable dimensions. Up to this time, the Filioque was a Frankish political weapon which had not yet become a theological controversy because the Romans hopefully believed that the Papacy could dissuade the Franks from their doctrinal dead-end approach. When it became clear that the Franks were not going to retreat from these politico-doctrinal policies, the Romans accepted the challenge and condemned both the Filioque and the Frankish double position on icons at the Eighth Ecumenical Synod of 879 in Constantinople-New Rome.
During the ensuing centuries long course of the controversy, the Franks not only forced the Patristic tradition into an Augustinian mold, but they confused Augustine’s Trinitarian terminology with that of the Father’s of the First and Second Ecumenical Synods. This is nowhere so evident as in the Latin handling of Maximos the Confessor’s description, composed in 650, of the West Roman Orthodox Filioque at the Council of Florence (1438-42). The East Romans hesitated to present Maximos’ letter to Marinos about this West Roman Orthodox Filioque because the letter did not survive in its complete form. They were pleasantly surprised, however, when Andrew, the Latin bishop of Rhodes, quoted the letter in Greek in order to prove that in the time of Maximos there was no objection to the Filioque being in the Creed. Of course, the Filioque was not yet in the Creed. Then Andrew proceeded to translate Maximos into Latin for the benefit of the pope. However, the official translator intervened and challenged the rendition. Once the correct translation was established, the Franks then questioned the authenticity of the text. They assumed that their own Filioque was the only one in the West, and so they rejected on this ground Maximos’ text as a basis of union.
When Maximos spoke about the Orthodox Filioque, as supported with passages from Roman Fathers, he did not mean those who came to be known as Latin Fathers, and so included among them Saint Cyril of Alexandria.
The fanaticism with which the Romans clung to the Papacy, the struggle of the Romans to preserved this institution, and the hierarchy within the confines of the Roman nation are very well-known historical facts described in great detail in Medieval histories.
However, the identity of the West Romans and of the East Romans as one indivisible nation, faithful to the Roman faith promulgated at the Roman Ecumenical Synods held in the Eastern part of the Empire, is completely lost to the historians of Germanic background, since the East Romans are consistently called “Greeks” and “Byzantines.”
Thus, instead of dealing with church history in terms of a united and indivisible Roman nation, and presenting the Church a being carved up in the West by Germanic conquerors, European historians have been sucked into the Frankish perspective, and thereby deal with church history as though there were a Greek Christendom as distinguished from a Latin Christendom. Greek Christendom consists of supposedly, the East Romans, and Latin Christendom, of the Franks and other Germanic peoples using Latin plus, supposedly, the West Romans, especially Papal Romania, i.e. the Papal States.
Thus, the historical myth has been created that the West Roman Fathers of the Church, the Franks, Lombards, Burgundians, Normans, etc., are one continuous and historically unbroken Latin Christendom, clearly distinguished and different from a mythical Greek Christendom. The frame of reference accepted without reservation by Western historians for so many centuries has been “the Greek East and the Latin West.”
A much more accurate understanding of history presenting the Filioque controversy in its true historical perspective is based on the Roman viewpoint of church history, to be found in (both Latin and Greek) Roman sources, as well as in Syriac, Ethiopian, Arabic, and Turkish sources. All these point to a distinction between Frankish and Roman Christendom, and not between a mythical Latin and Greek Christendom. Among the Romans, Latin and Greek are national languages, not nations. The Fathers are neither Latins nor Greeks but Romans.
Having this historical background in mind, one can then appreciate the significance of certain historical and theological factors underlying the so-called Filioque controversy. This controversy was essentially a continuation of the Germanic of Frankish effort to control not only the Roman nation, but also the rest of the Roman nation and Empire.
In order to expand on this historical approach, we would point out the following:
1.) The doctrinal differences which exist between Saint Ambrose and Saint Augustine are a summary of the differences between Frankish and Roman theological method and doctrine. This is indeed a strange discovery, since one is given the impression that Augustine was a student and friend of Ambrose, and that the latter instructed and baptized the former. After comparing the two, I have come to the conclusion that Augustine did not pay much attention to the sermons of Ambrose and evidently read little of Ambrose’s works.
The two differ radically over the questions of the Old Testament appearances of the Logos, the existence of the universals, the general framework of the doctrine of the Trinity, the nature of communion between God and man, the manner in which Christ reveals His divinity to the apostles, and in general, over the relation between doctrine and speculation, or revelation and reason. A reason. Ambrose clearly follows the East Roman Fathers, and Augustine follows the Bible interpreted within the framework of Plotinus, and under the pressure of his Manichaean past.
scott,
I wish you ceased all this political posturing and ideological propaganda and focused instead on the theology. You are doing a disservice to your cause.
It’s unfortunate you mischaracterize my approach as ideology and political posturing.
It is not.
Monopatrism is pure theology.
There is no Church Father who says Constantinople I, 381 AD, does not matter. Or that John 15:26 and Acts 2:33 do not matter.
Truth matters.,
Filioque is an error.
You can take that or leave that, but it is the truth, even if you don’t like it.
scott,
Raving and ranting about Franks, Normans, Romans, etc is political and ideological and nationalistic.
I have appreciated the theological exchange.
2.) The province of Gaul was the battleground between the followers of Augustine and of Saint John Cassian, when the Franks were taking over the province and transforming it into their Francia. Through his monastic movement and his writings in this field and on Christology, Saint John Cassian had a strong influence on the Church in Old Rome also. In his person, as in other persons such as Ambrose, Jerome, Rufinus, Leo the Great, and Gregory the Great, we have an identity in doctrine, theology, and spirituality between the East and West Roman Christians. Within this framework, Augustine in the West Roman area was subjected to general Roman theology. In the East Roman area, Augustine was simply ignored.
3.) In contrast to East and West Roman theology, the Frankish theological tradition makes its appearance in history reading and knowing in full only Augustine. As the Franks became acquainted with other Latin-speaking or Greek-speaking Roman Fathers, they subordinated them all to the authority of Augustinian categories. Even the dogmas promulgated at Ecumenical Synods were replaced by Augustine’s understanding of these dogmas.
4.) This theological frame of reference within the framework of feudalism gives the Franks confidence that they have the best theology, not only because they have what Latin (i.e. Frankish) Christendom ever since has considered the greatest Father of the Patristic period, but also because the Franks and the other Germanic peoples are, by the very nature of their birth, a noble race superior to the Romans, “Greeks” (East Romans), and Slavs. The natural result of this superiority is that the Germanic races, especially the Fanks, Normans, Lombards, and, finally, the Germans, should produce a theology better than that of the Romans. Thus, the scholastic tradition of the Germanic Europe surpasses the Patristic period of the Romans. I personally can find no other justification of the claim, so popular until a few years ago in the West, that scholastic theology succeeded and surpassed patristic theology.
5.) This distinction has its derivation in a second factor which has gone unnoticed in European, Russian, and modern “Greek” manuals because of the identification of Germanic or Frankish theology with Latin-language Roman theology under the heading “Latin Christendom”.
The historical appearance of Frankish theology coincides with the beginnings of the Filioque controversy. Since the Roman Fathers of the Church took a strong position on this issue, as they did on the question of Icons (also condemned initially by the Franks), the Franks automatically terminated the patristic period of theology with Saint John of Damascus in the East (after they accepted the Seventh Ecumenical Synod) and Isidore of Seville in the West. After this, the Roman Empire no longer can produce Fathers of the Church because the Romans rejected the Frankish Filioque. In doing so, the Romans withdrew themselves from the central trunk of Christianity (as the Franks understood things) which now becomes identical with Frankish Christianity, especially after the East Franks expelled the Romans from the Papacy and took it over themselves.
6.) From the Roman viewpoint, however, the Roman tradition of the Fathers was not only not terminated in the eighth century, but continued a vigorous existence in free Romania in the East, as well as within Arab-occupied areas. Present research is now leading to the conclusion that the Roman Patristic period extended right in tot he period of Ottoman rule, after the fall of Constantinople New Rome. This means that the Eighth Ecumenical Synod (879), under Photios, the so-called Palamite Synods of the fourteenth century, and the Synods of the Roman Patriarchate during the Ottoman period, are all a continuation and an integral part of the history of Patristic theology. It is also a continuation of the Roman Christian tradition, minus the Patriarchate of Old Rome, which, since 1009 after having been captured, ceased to be Roman and became a Frankish institution.
7.) Without ever mentioning the Franks, the Eighth Ecumenical Synod of 879 condemned those who either added or subtracted from the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, and also those who had not yet accepted the Seventh Ecumenical Synod.
It must first be emphasized that this is the first instance in history wherein and Ecumenical Synod condemned heretics without naming them. In this case, the heretics are clearly the Franks.
It is also significant that Pope John VIII’s Commonitorium to the Synod does not mention the need to condemn those who either add or subtract from the Creed.
There is, however, a letter of John to Photios, which is usually published at the end of the acts of the Synod, in which the Filioque is vigorously condemned, and is described as something added not long ago, but never in the Church of Rome. The letter also requested that admonition from the pope be used for its removal, since a harsher approach may lead to its addition by force.
It has been argued that the surviving version for the letter is a product of the fourteenth century. However, the existing version fits in perfectly with the conditions of Papal Romania under Frankish domination at the time of John VIII, which could not have been known by either a Frank or an East Roman in the fourteenth century.
The power of the Franks over the Papacy, although not completely broken after the death of Charlemagne in 814, was in any case weakened with the dissolution of his Empire, and, in turn, neutralized by the reconquest of South Italian Romania from the Saracens by the Roman army beginning in 876. However, Roman power had not been so strongly established that the Papacy in 879 could afford an open doctrinal war with the Franks. Such an open conflict would have led to the transformation of papal Romania into a Frankish duchy, and of the Roman population into the condition of the Romans conquered in other parts of Western Romania by the Franks and other Germanic nations and, of course, also would have meant the addition of the Filioque to the Creed by force, as pointed out by John.
At the same time, the Roman popes, after the death of Charlemagne, seem to have gained a real influence over the Frankish kingdoms which recognized the magical powers of the popes to anoint an emperor in the West, thus making him equal to the emperor in the East. John VIII seems to have been extraordinarily successful in this regard, and there is not doubt that his request to Photios to be allowed to use persuasion for the removal of the Filioque was based on a real possibility of success.
8.) It is always claimed by Protestant, Anglican, and Latin scholars that since the time of Hadrian I or Leo III, through the period of John VIII, the Papacy opposed the Filioque only as an addition to the Creed, but never as doctrine or theological opinion. Thus, it is claimed that John VIII accepted the Eight Ecumenical Synod’s condemnation of the addition to the Creed and not of the Filioque as a teaching.
However, both Photios and John VIII’s letter to Photios mentioned above testify to this pope’s condemnation of the Filioque as doctrine also. Yet the Filioque could not be publicly condemned as heresy by the Church of Old Rome. Why? Simply because the Franks were militarily in control of papal Romania, and as illiterate barbarians were capable of any kind of criminal act against Roman clergy and populace. The Franks were a dangerous presence in papal Romania and had to be handled with great care and tact.
Gallic Romania and Italic Romania (including papal Romania) are for the Romans one continuous country, identical with East Romania. The conquering movements of the Franks, Lombards, and Normans into the free sections of Romania are seen from the Roman viewpoint as a united whole, and not from the viewpoint of the Germanic European conquerors, who see the Romans as happy to be conquered and liberated from the so-called “Greeks”, or now, “Byzantines”, so that once conquered, they are of no concern to the Romans of free Romania.
9.) That the above is the correct framework for understanding the historical context of the Filioque controversy and the place of the roman popes with this conflict, from the time of Pepin till the descent of the descent of the Teutonic or East Franks into the papal scene in 962-963, and their removal of the Romans from their papal ethnarchy finalized in 1009, can be seen in a.)the doctrinal positions of Anastasios the Librarian, the chief advisor of the pro-Frank Nicholas I and also of John VIII, in preparation for the Eighth Ecumenical Synod of 879, representing the newly restored Roman power over the Papacy, and b.) in the attitudes toward the Filioque of anti-Pope Anastasios the Librarian (855-858) and Pope Leo III.
********************************************************
It is obvious that Anastasios the Librarian did not at first understand the Frankish Filioque, since on this question he reprimands the “Greeks” for their objections and accuses them of not accepting Maximos the Confessor’s explanation that there are two usages of the term; the one whereby procession means essential mission, wherein the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and Son (in which case the Holy Spirit participated in the act of sending, so that this is a common act of the whole Trinity), and the second, whereby precession means casual relation wherein the existence of the Holy Spirit is derived. In this last sense, Maximos assures Marinos (to whom he is writing), that the West Romans accept that the Holy Spirit proceeds casually only from the Father and that the Son is not cause.
There is every reason to believe that this reflects the position of Nicholas I on the question.
However, this was not the position of the Franks who followed, not the West Romans on the question, but Augustine, who can easily be interpreted as teaching that the Holy Spirit receives not only His essence, but His existence from the Father and the Son.
But this also means that the Romans in the West could never support the introduction of the Filioque into the Creed, not because they did not want to displease the “Greeks,” but because this would be heresy. The West Romans knew very well that the term procession in the Creed was introduced as a parallel to generation, and that both meant causal relation to the Father, and not energy or mission.
It was perhaps as a result of the realization that the Franks were confused on the issue and were saying dangerous things that led Anastasios to a serious reappraisal of the Frankish threat, and to the support of the East Roman position, as clearly represented by Photios the Great and John VIII at the Eighth Ecumenical Synod of 879.
This interpretation of the Filioque, given by Maximos the Confessor and Anastasios the Librarian is the consistent position of the Roman popes, and clearly so in the case of Leo III. The minutes of the conversation held in 810 between the three apocrisari of Charlemagne and Pope Leo III, kept by the Frankish monk Smaragdus, bear out this consistency in papal policy. Leo accepts the teaching of the Fathers, quoted by the Franks, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, as taught by Augustine and Ambrose. However, the Filioque must not be added to the Creed as was done by the Franks, who got permission to sing the Creed from Leo but not to add to the Creed.
When one reads these minutes, remembering the Franks were a dangerous presence in Papal Romania capable of acting in a most cruel and barbarous manner if provoked, then one comes to the clear realization that Pope Leo III is actually telling the Franks in clear and diplomatic terms that the Filioque in the Creed is a heresy.
What else can Leo’s claim mean but that the Second Ecumenical Synod, and the other synods, left the Filioque out of the Creed neither by oversight nor out of ignorance, but on purpose by divine inspiration?
This theological position is that of Pope Hadrian I (772-795) also and of the Toledo Synods where the Filioque is not in the Creed but is in another context.
10.) Once the Franks secured their hold on Papal Romania, the Papacy became like a “mouse caught in the paws” of its traditional enemy-the cat. The Franks knew very well what they had captured. They began developing theories and church policy which would put this Roman institution to good use for the fostering of Frankish control over territories formerly under the control of the Romans, and of aiding in new conquests. The West Franks continued in the steps of Charlemagne, but in a weak manner. The Romans regained full control of the papacy after 867, but then the East Franks entered the papal scene beginning in 962, with the known results.
scott,
Boring.
There is nothing boring in Christianity.
There is much that is boring in world history.
The men who stood up for the truth are interesting.
The deceivers will soon be forgotten.
Charlemagne. The Third Reich. Napoleon. Peter the Great. Calvin. Servetus. Henry VIII. Nestorius. Arius. Jehovah’s Witnesses. Lenin. Stalin. Mao Zedong. Genghis Khan. Joseph Smith Jr. Mary Baker Eddy. Ellen G. White. Harold Camping. Hal Lindsey. Tim LaHaye. Rousas John Rushdoony. Luther. Peter Lombard. George Santayana. Innocent III. Pius IX. Boniface VIII. Eugene IV. Benedict VIII. Nicholas I.
scott,
I was not talknig about Christianity, but about your post.
I may be boring. I am not interested in forming judgments about others, or receiving characterizations of myself from others. I do not say who is wrong. I do not defend myself as not being wrong. All judgment of all of us comes from the Holy Spirit, not from ourselves. No need for any one of us to make personal statements about ourselves or the others. Leave these thoughts Who alone is of perfect justice and sound judgment. Christ certainly is not boring, and when He says the Spirit “proceeds from the Father” He is telling the whole truth, and is not saying “and the Son”. Therefore, since I follow Christ, I do not believe Filioque. God bless everyone who comes to the truth. God have mercy on us sinners. Lord Jesus Christ Son of God have mercy on all of you.
scott,
Here again, when you say “the whole truth”, you are adopting a very Protestant reading of scripture. Scripture is read as a whole.
Water, It is true I once was Protestant.
By baptism, I renounced Protestantism and all of its errors.
There is nothing particularly Protestant about saying a tradition in the Scripture can be the whole and complete truth on a topic even if it is only written down in one or 2 verses of Scriptures. It is quality that counts in Scripture, not the quantity of how many times it is repeated in Scriptures. And surely the words of Christ in John 15:26 count as of greater quality and value than Augustine’s belief in Filioque in De Trinitate. Christ is not wrong, but Filioque is wrong. How many times do I have to tell you we are talking about an eternal procession of the Person of the Spirit from the Person of the Son, fusing the Son and Father together as One Principle, and thus confusing and blending together as One Fatherson Person the Persons of Father and Son, a kind of Semi-Sabellianism. Do you understand that, Water? It is an error against the sole Monarchy of the Father in the Trinity, even if I must repeat that again for you to see Filioque ruins the distinction between Father and Son.
scott,
We’ll have to agree to disagree. In truth we are not far off, but the conclusions you come to about filioque go beyond what the church teaches and do not flow from it.
The attitudes of the West and East Franks toward the Papacy and the Filioque were different, the first being mild, and the second fanatically hard. One of the important reasons for this is that, after 920, the new reform movements gained enough momentum to shape the policies of the East German Franks who took over the Papacy. When the Romans lost the Papacy, the Filioque was introduced into Rome for the first time in either 1009, or at latest by 1014.
In the light of the above, we do not have the situation usually presented by European, American, and Russian historians in which the Filioque is an integral part of so-called “Latin” Christendom with a “Greek” Christendom in opposition on the pretext of its introduction into the Creed. (The addition to the Creed was supposedly opposed by the popes not doctrinally, but only as addition in order not to offend the “Greeks.”) What we do have is a united West and East Roman nation in opposition to an upstart group of Germanic races who began teaching the Romans before they really learned anything themselves. Of course, German teachers could be very convincing on question of dogma, only by holding a knife to the throat. Otherwise, especially in the time of imposing the Filioque, the theologians of the new Germanic theology were better than their noble peers, only because they could read and write and had, perhaps, memorized Augustine.
11.) The cleavage between the Roman and Frankish Papacy is nowhere so clearly apparent as in the fact that, when at the Pseudo-Union Council of Florence (1439), the Romans presented to the Franks Saint Maximos the Confessor’s interpretation of the Filioque as a basis of union. The Franks not only rejected this interpretation as false and not in keeping with Franco-Latin doctrine, but also they were not aware of its correct reading.
[ Return ]
The Theological Background
At the foundation of the Filioque controversy between Franks and Romans lie essential differences in theological method, theological subject matter, spirituality, and therefore, also in the understanding of the very nature of doctrine and of the development of the language or of terms in which doctrine is expressed. Of all the aspects dealt with in my published works, I will single out the following as necessary to an elemental understanding of the Roman attitudes to Frankish pretensions on the Filioque. Although we have named the second part of this paper “The Theological Background,” we are still speaking about theology within historical perspective, and not abstractly with extra contextual references to the Bible.
When reading through Smaragdus’ minutes of the meeting between Charlemagne’s emissaries and Pope Leo III, one is struck not only by the fact that the Franks had so audaciously added the Filioque to the Creed and made it into a dogma, but also by the haughty manner in which they so authoritatively announced that the Filioque was necessary for salvation, and that it was an improvement of an already good, but not complete, doctrine concerning the Holy Spirit. This was in answer to Leo’s strong hint at Frankish audacity. Leo, in turn, warned that when one attempts to improve what is good he should first be sure that in trying to improve he is not corrupting. He emphasizes that he cannot put himself in a position higher than the Fathers of the Synods, who did not omit the Filioque out of oversight or ignorance, but by divine inspiration.
The question arises, “Where in the world did the newly born Frankish theological tradition get the idea that the Filioque is an improvement of the Creed, and that it was omitted from creedal expression because of oversight or ignorance on the part of the Fathers of the Synod?” Since Augustine is the only representative of Roman theology that the Franks were more or less fully acquainted with, one must turn to the Bishop of Hippo for a possible answer.
I think I have found the answer in Saint Augustine’s lecture delivered to the assembly of African bishops in 393. Augustine had been asked to deliver a lecture on the Creed, which he did. Later he reworked the lecture and published it. I do not see why the Creed expounded is not that of Nicaea-Constantinople, since the outline of Augustine’s discourse, and the Creed are the same. Twelve years had passed since its acceptance by the Second Ecumenical Synod and, if ever, this was the opportune time for assembled bishops to learn of the new, official, imperially approved creed. The bishops certainly knew their own local Creed and did not require lessons on that.
In any case, Augustine makes three basic blunders in this discourse and died many years later without ever realizing his mistakes, which were to lead the Franks and the whole of their Germanic Latin Christendom into a repetition of those same mistakes.
In his De Fide et Symbolo, Augustine makes an unbelievable naive and inaccurate statement: “With respect to the Holy Spirit, however, there has not been, on the part or learned and distinguished investigators of the Scriptures, a fuller careful enough discussion of the subject to make it possible for us to obtain an intelligent conception of what also constitutes His special individuality (proprium).”
Everyone at the Second Ecumenical Synod knew well that this question was settled once and for all by the use in the Creed of the word “procession” as meaning the manner of existence of the Holy Spirit from the Father which constitutes His special individuality. Thus, the Father is unbegotten, i.e. derives His existence from no one. The Son is from the Father by generation. The Holy Spirit is from the Father, not by generation, but by procession. The Father is cause, the son and the Spirit are caused. The difference between the ones caused is the one is caused by generation, and the other by procession, and not by generation.
In any case, Augustine spent many years trying to solve this non-existent problem concerning the individuality of the Holy Spirit and, because of another set of mistakes in his understanding of revelation and theological method, came up with the Filioque.
It is no wonder that the Franks, believing that Augustine had solved a theological problem which the other Roman Fathers had supposedly failed to grapple with and solve came to the conclusion that they uncovered a theologian far superior to all other Fathers. In him the Franks had a theologian far superior to all other Fathers. In him the Franks had a theologian who improved upon the teaching of the Second Ecumenical Synod.
A second set of blunders made by Augustine in this same discourse is that he identified the Holy Spirit with the divinity “which the Greeks designate qeothV, and explained that this is the “love between the Father and the Son.”
Augustine is aware of the fact that “those parties oppose this opinion who think that the said communion, which we call either Godhead, or Love, or Charity, is not a substance. Moreover, they require the Holy Spirit to be set forth to them according to substance; neither do they take forth to them according to substance; neither do they take it to have been otherwise impossible for the expression `God is Love’ to have been used, unless love were a substance.”
It is obvious that Augustine did not at all understand what the East Roman Fathers, such as Saint Gregory Nyssa, Saint Gregory the Theologian, and Saint Basil the Great, were talking about. On the one hand, they reject the idea that the Holy Spirit can be the common energies of the Father and Son known as qeothV and love since these are not an essence or an hypostasis, whereas the Holy Spirit is an hypostasis. Indeed, the Fathers of the Second Ecumenical Synod required that the Holy Spirit not be identified with any common energy of the Father and Son, but they did not identify the Holy Spirit with the common essence of the Father and Son either.
The Holy Spirit is an individual hypostasis with individual characteristics or properties not shared by other hypostases, but He does share fully everything the Father and Son have in common, to wit, the divine essence and all uncreated energies and powers. The Holy Spirit is an individuality who is not what is common between the Father and Son, but has in common everything the Father and Son have in common.
All his life, Augustine rejected the distinction between what the persons are and what they have (even though this is a Biblical distinction) and identified what God is with what He has. He not only never understood the distinction between 1.) the common essence and energies of the Holy Trinity and 2.) the incommunicable individualities of the diving hypostases; but completely failed to grasp the very existence of the difference between a.) the common divine essence and b.) the common divine love and divinity. He himself admits that he does not understand why a distinction is made in the Greek language between ousia and upostaseiV in God. Nevertheless, he insisted that his distinctions must be accepted as a matter of faith and rendered in Latin as una essentia and tes substantiae. (De Trinitate, 5.8.10;7.4-6)
It is clear that St. Augustine accepted the most important aspect of the Trinitarian terminology of the cappadocian Fathers and the Second Ecumenical Synod.
However, not aware of the teaching of such Fathers, like Basil and the two Gregories mentioned, who do not identify the common qeothV and the agaph of the Trinity with the common divine essence of the Trinity, Augustine has the following peculiar remarks:
“But men like these should make their heart pure, so far as they can, in order that they may have power to see that in the substance of God there is not anything of such a nature as would imply that therein substance is one thing, and that which is accident to substance (aliud quod accidat substantia) another thing, and not substance; whereas whatsoever can be taken to be taken therein is substance.”
Once these foundations are laid, then the Holy Spirit as that which is common to the Father and Son exists by reason of the Father and Son. Thus, there can be no distinction between the Father and Son sending the Holy Spirit, and the Father causing the existence of the Holy Spirit. What God is by nature, how the three hypostases exist by nature, and what God does by will, become confused. Thus, it is a fact that for Augustine both generation and procession end up being confused with the divine powers and energies and, thereby, also end up meaning the same thing. The Filioque thus is an absolute necessity in order to salvage something of the individuality of the Holy Spirit. God, then, is from no one. The Son is from one. The Holy Spirit must be from two. Otherwise, since generation and procession are the same, there would be no difference between the Spirit and the Son since they would both be from one.
The third and most disturbing blunder in Augustine’s approach to the question before us is that his theological method is not only pure speculation on what one accepts by faith (for the purpose of intellectually understanding as much as one’s reason allows by either illumination or ecstatic intuition), but it is a speculation which is transferred from the individual speculating believer to a speculating church, which, like an individual, understands the dogmas better with the passage of time.
Thus, the Church awaits a discussion about the Holy Spirit “Full enough or careful enough to make it possible for us to obtain an intelligent conception of what also constitutes His special individuality (proprium)…”
The most amazing thing is the fact that Augustine begins with seeking out the individual properties of the Holy Spirit and immediately reduces Him to what is common to the Father and Son. However, in his later additions to his De Trinitate, he insists that the Holy Spirit is an individual substance of the Holy Trinity completely equal to the other two substances and possessing the same essence as we saw.
In any case, the Augustinian idea that the Church herself goes through a process of attaining a deeper and better understanding of her dogmas or teachings was made the very basis of the Frankish propaganda that the Filioque is a deeper and better understanding of the doctrine of the Trinity. Therefore, adding it to the Creed is an improvement upon the faith of the Romans who had allowed themselves to become lazy and slothful on such an important matter. This, of course, raises the whole question concerning the relationship between revelation and verbal and iconic or symbolic expressions of revelation.
For Augustine, there is no distinction between revelation and conceptual intuition of revelation. Whether revelation is given directly to human reason, or to human reason by means of creatures, or created symbols, it is always the human intellect itself which is being illumined or given vision to. the vision of god itself is an intellectual experience, even though above the powers of reason without appropriate grace.
Within such a context, every revelation is a revelation of concepts which can be searched out by reason for a fuller and better understanding. Suffice it that faith and the acceptance of dogmas by virtue of the authority of the Church always forms the starting point. What cannot now be fully understood by reason based on faith will be fully understood in the next life. “And inasmuch as, being reconciled and called back into friendship through love, we shall be able to become acquainted with all the secret things of God, for this reason it is said of the Holy Spirit that “He shall lead you into all truth.” What Augustine means by such language is made very clear by what he says elsewhere, “I will not be slow to search out the substance of God, whether through His scripture or through the creature.”
Such material in the hands of the Franks transformed the purpose of theology into a study or searching out of the divine substance and, in this respect, the scholastic tradition far surpassed the tradition of the Roman Fathers who consistently taught that not only man, but even the angels, neither know, nor will ever know, the divine essence which is known only to the Holy Trinity.
Both Orthodox and Arians fully agreed with the inherited tradition that only God knows His own essence. This means that He who knows the divine nature is himself God by nature, Thus, in order to prove that the Logos is a creature, the Arians argued that the Logos does not know the essence of the Father. The Orthodox argued that the Logos does know the essence of the Father and, therefore, is uncreated. The Eunomians threw a monkey wrench into the agreed rules for proving points with their shocking claim that, not only does the Logos know the essence of God, but man also can know this essence. Therefore, the Logos does not have to be uncreated because He knows this essence.
Against the Arian and Orthodox position that creatures cannot know the divine uncreated essence, but may know the uncreated energy of God in its multiple manifestations, the Eunomians argued that the diving essence and uncreated energy are identical, so that to know the one is to know the other.
Strangely, Augustine adopted the Eunomian positions on these questions. Therefore, when the Franks appeared in the East with these positions they were accused of being Eunomians.
In contrast to this Augustinian approach to language and concepts concerning God, we have the Patristic position expressed by Saint Gregory the Theologian against the Eunomians. Plato had claimed that it is difficult to conceive of God but, to define Him in words is an impossibility. Saint Gregory disagrees with this and emphasizes that “it is impossible to express Him, and yet, more impossible to conceive Him. For that which may be conceived may perhaps be made clear by language, if not fairly well, at any rate imperfectly…”
The most important element in Patristic epistemology is that the partial knowability of the divine actions or energies, and the absolute and radical unknowability and incommunicability of the divine essence is not a result of the philosophical or theological speculation, as it is in Paul of Samosata, Arianism, and Nestorianism, but of the personal experience of revelation or participation in the uncreated glory of God by means of vision or theoria. Saint Gregory defines a theologian as one who has reached this theoria by means of purification and illumination, and not by means of dialectical speculation. Thus, the authority for Christian truth is not the written words of the Bible, which cannot in themselves either express God, but rather the individual apostle, prophet, or saint who is glorified in God.
Thus, the Bible, the writings of the Fathers, and the decisions of Synods are not revelation, but about revelation. Revelation itself transcends words and concepts, although it inspires those participating in divine glory to accurately express what is inexpressible in words and concepts. Suffice it that under the guidance of the saints, who know by experience, the faithful should know that God is not to be identified with Biblical words and concepts which point to Him, albeit infallibly.
Thus, we find that Saint Gregory the Theologian does not only point to the revelatory experience of the prophets, apostles, and saints in order to set out the theological foundations for confuting the Arians, Eunomians, and Macedonians, but also to his own experience of this same revelation of divine glory.
“What is this that has happened to me, O friends, and initiates, and fellow lovers of the truth? I was running to lay hold of God, and thus I went up into the Mount, drew aside the curtain of the Cloud, and entered away from matter and material things, and as far as I could I withdrew within myself. And then when I looked up, I scarcely saw the back parts of God; although I was sheltered by the Rock, the Word that was made flesh for us. And when I looked a little closer, I saw, not the first and unmingled Nature known to itself, to the Trinity I mean; not that which abideth within the first veil, and is hidden by the Cherubim; but only that (Nature), which at last even reaches to us. And that is, as far as I can learn, the Majesty, or as holy David calls it, the Glory which is manifested among the creatures, which It has produced and governs. For these are the Back Parts of God, which are after Him, as tokens of Himself…”
This distinction between the first Nature and the uncreated glory of God, the first known only to God and the other to those to whom God reveals himself is to be found not only in the Orthodox Fathers but also in Paul of Samosata, the Arians, and the Nestorians all of whom claimed that God is related to creatures only by will, and not by nature, since natural relations mean necessary relations which would reduce God to a system of emanations like that of Valentinus. Paul of Samosata and the Nestorians argued that in Christ, God is united to humanity not by nature, but by will, and the Arians argued that God is related to the hypostatic Logos not by nature, but by will.
Against these positions, the Orthodox Fathers argues that in Christ, the Logos is united to His humanity by nature or hypostatically, and the Father generates His Son not by will only, but by nature primarily, the will not being in contradiction to what belongs to God by nature. Thus, God generates the Logos by nature and by will. The Holy Trinity creates and is related to creatures with the exception of the Logos who by nature unites himself His own humanity.
In any case, the Eunomians and Augustine obliterated this distinction between what God is by nature and what God does by will. In Augustine this led to a failure to distinguish between generation and procession (which are not energies of the Father) and such acts as knowing sending, loving, and giving, which are common energies of the father, Son and Holy Spirit, but not he radically incommunicable manners of existence and hypostatic properties of generation and procession.
Because the Franks, following Augustine, neither understood the Patristic position on this subject, nor were they willing from the heights of their majestic feudal nobility to listen to “Greek” explain these distinctions, they went about raiding the Patristic texts. They took passages out of context in order to prove that for all the Fathers, as supposedly in the case of Augustine, the fact that the Father and the Son send the Holy Spirit means that the Holy Spirit derives His existence from the Father and Son.
In concluding this section, we note that the Fathers always claimed that generation and procession are what distinguish the Son from the Holy Spirit. Since the Son is the only generation begotten Son of God, procession is different from generation. Otherwise, we would have two Son, in which case there is no only begotten Son. For the Fathers this was both a biblical fact and a mystery to be treated with due respect. To ask what generation and procession are is as ridiculous as asking what the divine essence is. Only energies of God may be know, and then only in so far as the creature can receive.
In contrast to this, Augustine set out to explain what generation is. He identified generation with what the other Roman Fathers called actions or energies of God which are common tot he Holy Trinity. Thus, procession ended up being these same energies. The difference between the Son and the Spirit was that the Son is from one and he Holy Spirit from two.
When he began his De Trinitate, Augustine promised that he would explain why the Son and the Holy Spirit are not brothers. After completing his twelfth book, his friends stole and published this work in an unfinished and uncorrected form. In Book 15, 45, Augustine admits that he cannot explain why the Holy Spirit is not a son of the Father and brother of the Logos, and proposes that we will learn this in the next life.
scott,
You do go on with your nationalistic narrative, don’t you? Not a very “catholic” approach.
You say “Revelation itself transcends words and concepts”. It seems to me that you are talking about grace here.
You’re not making much progress in your understanding of the Holy Spirit “who proceeds from the Father and the Son”. You are afraid that the Father might lose something in the process, that it diminishes the Father, or that it infringes on the notion that the Father is the only source or principle of the Holy Spirit, and you are wrong.
Just as Hans is clinging to his “Sola Scriptura” out of fear and as an attack upon the church – he has nothing else to hold on to – you are clinging to your anti filioque position as a distinguishing feature of Orthodoxy and as an attack on the church.
Both wound the church’s unity, not gathering with Jesus, you are scattering.
Water, You still do not understand that the Filioque is not true, and that Pope Leo III and Pope John VIII forbad Filioque. You still do not understand that Ephesus, 431 AD, forbad Filioque. It is Filioque that wounds the unity of the Church, and is not Catholic. It is an act of fratricide and sectarianism. There is nothing nationalistic in Fr. Romanides excellent book. He speaks the truth. Rome today is still Frankish, not Catholic.
scott,
Nationalism consumes you and your sources.
You do not understand the filioque. Your blessed Photius has been raised to the same status as Luther and Calvin for protestants, and he ignores much of what the fathers have to teach, and as far as I can tell, was one of the driving forces to put into effect the break from Rome.
There is a difference of attitude between us. I do not seek to attack the Orthodox church, to show it in a bad light, to expose what I perceive as its weaknesses, nor do I do this in respect of Protestant churches. I rather intend to shed light where I can, and share whatever insights I may have. I will defend myself if I have to, or point our errors where I see them. I am quite prepared to learn from others. I do not believe I know it all.
Satan is the great accuser, and he uses us for his own ends, but we are responsible for our failure to stand up to him.
I respectfully disagree with your statements. I believe it is totally unfair to accuse me and Fr. Romanides of nationalism. That is not correct. Phyletism is condemned by the Orthodox Church. As for Photius, it is unfair to mention him; on the same level as Luther and Calvin. So you are not playing fair here. I am not here to attack Protestantism and Catholicism. I am here to defend the truth. We have differences of opinions between ourselves what basic theology is. We all are defending the claims of Catholicism, or Orthodoxy, or Protestantism. God bless you.
God bless scott.
It would help to talk ideas and theological concepts, not nationalities, races, stirring up ancient rivalries, taking antagonistic postures, claiming the higher moral ground, demonising one’s opponent, etc.
It’s all theology. The Filioque was endorsed by Charlemagne, not the earlier popes, and that’s a historical fact. Today’s papacy is in schism from the earlier papacy. This is no ranting and raving about nationalities. It’s the objective truth.
scott,
Ranting and raving about Franks and Germanic tribes is not the same thing as pointing out some fact about Charlemagne.
Charlemagne was neither a pope nor a theologian, a bit like one of your Emperors in Constantinople.
Your opinion about schism we obviously disagree about.
Water, Unfortunately you demonized blessed Photius, by comparing him to Luther and Calvin. That is historically and doctrinally inaccurate and an unfair comparison. You have ignored the theological concept of Monopatrism. The fact is, I understand Filioque. But for some reason you don’t believe that fact. Any intelligent discussion of Filioque must go beyond the errors of Aquinas in his “Contra Errores Graecorum”, and deal seriously with Scripture and with “On the Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit” by Saint Photios. Holy Transfiguration Monastery, translators. Boston, MA: Studion Publishers. And Johan A. Meijer, a Successful Council of Union (Re-Union), on Pope John VIII and the eighth ecumenical council of reunion, 879-880 AD. Constantinople IV.
scott,
I don’t mean to demonise your blessed Photius, he is not a heretic as Luther and Calvin were, but it appears to me that he is a significant force that moved the East from the West. Trinity I understand, monopatrism less so.
Water, I apologize if I ever happen to begin to demonize anyone. I have no intention to do that. I do have an honest difference of opinion against the doctrines proposed by Thomas Aquinas in his “Contra Errores Graecorum”. I do agree with the doctrines of Saint Photius in his “Mystagogia” of the Holy Spirit. And I do not think there is any comparison possible between Photius, and mentioning him the other context of Luther or Calvin. God bless you.
scott,
Only as a dividing force, obviously not as a heretic.
GB.
WATER: Vladimir Lossky. “The procession of the Holy Spirit in Orthodox Trinitarian doctrine. Whether we like it or not, the question of the procession of the Holy Spirit has been the sole dogmatic grounds for the separation of East and West. All the other divergences which, historically, accompanied or followed the first dogmatic controversy about the Filioque are more or less dependent upon that original issue”.
“…. even today the East still regards this Filioque as a falsification of the old ecumenical creed and as clear heresy. However, similarly, to the present day those Catholic and Protestant dogmatic theologians of the West who attempt to make what is claimed to be the central dogma of Christianity credible to their contemporaries with every possible modernization and new argument (usually in vain) hardly seem to be aware that they are interpreting the relationship between Father, Son, and Spirit not so much in the light of the New Testament as in the light of Augustine”. [Hans Küng. (2001). The Catholic Church: a short history. New York: modern library; pages 49-51.].
HANS: Vladimir Loßky. “Die Prozession des Heiligen Geistes in der orthodoxen trinitarischen Lehre. Ob es uns gefällt oder nicht, die Frage nach der Prozession des Heiligen Geistes war der einzige dogmatische Grund für die Trennung von Ost und West. Alle anderen Meinungsverschiedenheiten, die historisch die erste dogmatische Kontroverse über das Filioque begleitet oder gefolgt haben, hängen mehr oder weniger von dieser ursprünglichen Frage ab “.
“…. Noch heute sieht der Osten dieses Filioque als Fälschung des alten ökumenischen Glaubensbekenntnisses und als klare Häresie. Aber auch heute scheinen die katholischen und protestantischen Dogmatiker des Westens, die versuchen, das, was man für das zentrale Dogma des Christentums hält, ihren Zeitgenossen mit allen möglichen Modernisierungen und neuen Argumenten glaubwürdig zu machen (meist umsonst) sei dir bewusst, dass sie die Beziehung zwischen Vater, Sohn und Geist nicht so sehr im Licht des Neuen Testaments als im Licht Augustinus interpretieren “. [Hans Küng. (2001). Die katholische Kirche: eine kurze Geschichte. New York: moderne Bibliothek; Seiten 49-51.].Vladimir Lossky. “De processie van de Heilige Geest in orthodoxe trinitaire doctrine. Of we het nu leuk vinden of niet, de kwestie van de processie van de Heilige Geest was de enige dogmatische reden voor de scheiding van Oost en West. Alle andere verschillen die, historisch gezien, de eerste dogmatische controverse over de Filioque vergezelden of volgden, zijn min of meer afhankelijk van die oorspronkelijke kwestie “.
“…. ook vandaag beschouwt het Oosten deze Filioque nog steeds als een vervalsing van de oude oecumenische geloofsbelijdenis en als duidelijke ketterij. Op dezelfde manier lijken de katholieke en protestantse dogmatische theologen van het Westen die proberen het beweerde centrale dogma van het christendom dat geloofwaardig is voor hun tijdgenoten met elke mogelijke modernisering en nieuw argument (meestal tevergeefs), tot op de dag van vandaag wees je ervan bewust dat ze de relatie tussen Vader, Zoon en Geest niet zozeer interpreteren in het licht van het Nieuwe Testament als in het licht van Augustinus “. [Hans Küng. (2001). De katholieke kerk: een korte geschiedenis. New York: moderne bibliotheek; pagina 49-51.].
scott,
To each his own opinion. But the filioque has been used as a tool to separate the East from the West, and very successfully.
To Water, and all the rest of you.
The Word of God in the Scriptures can be understood by the sheep of Christ. Sometimes, some of the sheep have gone astray; but since Christ is and remains the Good Shepherd, He goes always to seek & to save the sheep which get lost along the way. He certainly tells all of us, whatever confessional differences of specific doctrines that differ between Protestant, or Catholic, or Orthodox, and others: We all have learned that faith in Christ saves, and it is Christ Himself Who is the Only One Who can save all Christians who have faith in Him.
“Faith Is the Only Way”.
“The Scriptures say that God accepted Abraham because Abraham had faith. And so, you should understand that everyone who has faith is a child of Abraham. Long ago the Scriptures said that God would accept the Gentiles because of their faith. That’s why God told Abraham the good news that all nations would be blessed because of him. This means that everyone who has faith will share in the blessings that were given to Abraham because of his faith”. Galatians 3:6-9 CEV Contemporary English Version, American Bible Society, New York, NY: 1995.
scott,
“There are three things that last: faith hope and love, and the greatest of these is love.”
So our faith fully matured, leads to love. And God is love. So our faith needs to manifest itself in love.
Water, That is true. Nothing is more important than God’s love for us, and our love for other people. Faith and hope are needed, but love is needed more than anything else for all human beings. God loves us all more in a way that is more pure and holy than any love we human beings as sinners are capable of in love.
Dear Water,
Many Catholics, perhaps, or at least well-read Catholics who know Aquinas and Duns Scotus (and Peter Lombard, Peter Damian, John Paul II, CCC, Benedict XVI, Leo XIII, Anselm of Canterbury, Saint Augustine, Giles of Viterbo, Ratramnus of Corbie, etc.) will perhaps admit they have not read as much in Basil, Chrysostom, Cyril of Alexandria, and Photius, Gregory Palamas, Mark of Ephesus, but perhaps this is not the case with some of them.
Anyway, here is some from Photius, our Father among the Saints:
“Scattered here and there in many lengthy dissertations, arguments can be found which overturn the arrogance of those contentious men who hold the truth in unrighteousness. Because your great and God-loving zeal has asked that those arguments be gathered into a conspectus and an outline, the accomplishment of this request will by no means be unworthy of your desire and godly love if divine providence looks upon us favorably. (1). “More than anything else, a prounouncement of the LORD opposes them like a sharp and inescapable arrow that strikes and destroys very wild animal and fox as though with a thunderbolt. Which pronouncement? That which states that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father. The Son Himself delivers His mystical teaching that the Spirit proceeds from the Father. But do you still seek for another initiator into the Mysteries to make you perfect – in reality, to consummate your impiety – and do you propagate the myth that the Spirit proceeds from the Son? If you did not cower when seizing the dogmas of our common Saviour and Creator and Lawgiver with a violence that yields only to your insanity, what else could another person seek with which utterly to rebuke your impious zeal? If you despise the laws of the LORD, what godly man will not execrate your opinion? But what else can raise you from your fall? What other method of healing will cure your mortal wound? A wound not dealt by the word of the Saviour but inflicted by your own self-wrought sickness, which out of disobedience strives contumaciously to change the medicine of the LORD’s doctrine into an unspeakably deadly poison. …” (2). ON THE MYSTAGOGY OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. Blessed Saint Photius the Great (820-895 AD). HOLY TRANSFIGURATION MONASTERY, TRANSLATORS. REV. FR. DR. MICHAEL AZKOUL, PH.D. Boston, MA: Studion Publishers, 1983; pages 69-70.
scott,
Not a lot or evidence here, just assertions.
Water,
Saint Photius continues:
“(2) “Nay, rather, it is a wound dealt by that sword which has been delivered to us as a defense against our enemies, a wound dealt to one who sought to desert through the battle lines and enlist with the foe. For although you have been struck down by the two-edged sword of the Spirit, we, however, cannot display less love and eagerness for our common Master; and so far as arguments from that sacred strategy which arms us do rouse us to battle, we shall not permit you to be unconcerned about escaping wounds. (3) For if both the Son and the Holy Spirit are produced from one and the same cause, namely, the Father (even the Spirit is by procession while the Son is by begetting); and if, as that blasphemy proclaims, the Son in turn produces the Spirit, then why not assert the cognate myth, for reasons of consistency, that the Spirit produces the Son? For both came forth with equal rank from that cause; so if the Son supplemented the function of cause for the Spirit, but not the Spirit for the Son, would not the preservation of the identity of rank require that each serve equally as cause for the other?
(4) “Otherwise – if indeed, the Son is not separated from the ineffable simplicity of the Father, but the Spirit is ascribed to a dual cause and undergoes a dual projection [1] – will not composition be the result? Will it not be blasphemously asserted that the equally honored Spirit is less than the Son? O tongue bold in impiety! Will not the simplicity of the Trinity have its own proper quality corrupted?” [Photius, On the Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit; page 70.]. Notes. 1. According to Orthodox theology, the Father is the principle of the Holy Trinity (the so-called monarchy of the Father) in that His hypostasis is the origin for the hypostasis of the Son by the mode of begetting, and for the hypostasis of the Spirit by the mode of procession. “
scott,
Now I know that he does not understand the filioque.
Water, Hans, and all Roman and Reformed defenders of Filioque:
“THE EPITOMES”. Chapters of Patriarch Photius against the followers of Old Rome, showing that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone, and not from the Son”.
“1. If the Spirit is indeed simple but proceeds from the Father and the Son, then these two would certainly be considered one person, and there would be introduced here a Sabellian fusion, or better to say, a semi-Sabellian fusion. 2. If indeed the Holy Spirit does proceed from the Father and the Son, He would be altogether double and composite. If the Holy Spirit is ascribed to two principles, where will the much hymned monarchy be? 3. If the Father and the Son both originate the Spirit, the Father will be both the direct and indirect originator of the Spirit on account of His proceeding also from the SOn. 4. Certainly, if the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father is perfect, then that from the Son is superfluous”. [PHOTIUS; ON THE MYSTAGOGY OF THE HOLY SPIIRIT. Boston, Massachusetts, 1983; page 117.].
scott,
He says : ” If the Holy Spirit is ascribed to two principles,”. That is not what the Catholic church believes.
Water,
“PHOTIOS. EPITOMES”.
“If the Son has the power of origination, but the Spirit is denied it, He is inferior in power to the Son, which was the insanity of Macedonios”. [PHOTIUS, ON THE MYSTAGOGY OF THE HOLY SPIRIT; page 118.].
scott,
Are you implying that the son is inferior to the Father?
Water,
EPITOMES. SAINT PHOTIOS.
“9. They allege as an excuse, however, that Ambrose wrote thus in his treatises concerning the subject, [of the procession of the Spirit, ed.] as did also Augustine and Jerome. One must say in defense of these men that perhaps the Pneumatomachians corrupted their writings, or perhaps they spoke according to the tactics used by the great Basil, who for a time refrained from preaching the divinity of the All-Holy Spirit, or perhaps they, since they were only human, had been led astray from sound theology; for many great men, like Dionysios of Alexandria, Methodios of Patara and Pierios, Pamphilos, Theognostos, and Irenaeus of Lugdunum (Lyons) with his disciple Hippolytus, have suffered so in certain things. For we do not accept some of their statements though we greatly admire the rest.
10. So Ambrose, Augustine, and Jerome said what the Romans claim; but the hierarchs of the Seven Councils did not. All the councils in succession confirmed the definition of our faith. The leaders and lights of the Roman Church agreed with them without any contradiction and decreed that it was not permitted to add or subtract anything from the aforesaid definition of the faith, and that he who dared to do so would be absolutely cast out of the Church” (PHOTIUS; page 118.).
scott,
So was it said of the council of Nicea also, which stated nothing about the procession of the Holy Spirit, so the “proceeds from the Father was an addition”, and Photius does not have anything to say about that.
Water, The popes of Rome around 381 AD made no complaint about the Council of Constantinople I and made no statement about its statement as being an unnecessary addition. The whole Catholic Church received Nicea, Constaninople I, Ephesus, and all of the rest of the councils now known as ecumenical, and all of the popes of Rome from 325 to 787.
scott,
We’ve agreed all along that there is nothing wrong with “proceeds from the Father”. How many more times must we go through this?
Water,
“Another portion of the same work from Vienna Manuscript Greek Theology 40:
“9A. “When David said, “By the Spirit of His mouth” [Psalm 40:6], he taught also that the Spirit proceeds from the Father alone, since he applies the phrase “of His mouth” to the Father, not to the Son, in order that he might destroy by anticipation the blasphemy of those who hold that the Spirit proceeds also from the Son” [EPITOMES; page 119.].
“37. “Moreover, if the Son is begotten of the Father, and if the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, it would not be an innovation in respect of the Spirit if another should proceed from Him. In accord with their mad opinion, therefore, not three, but four hypostases would be inferred, or rather an infinitude, because the fourth could produce another, and that one another, until they would surpass even pagan polytheism”. [ON THE MYSTAGOGY OF THE HOLY SPIRIT, #37; page 86, q.v.].
scott,
He does not get it that the Father is the ONLY principle or source of the Holy Spirit. We are going round in circles.
God bless Craig, Water, Hans, and all the rest of you.
“Bringing People to God”.
“We know what it means to respect the Lord, and we encourage everyone to turn to Him. God Himself knows what we are like, and I hope you also know what kind of people we are. We are not trying once more to brag about ourselves. But we want you to be proud of us, when you are with those who are not sincere and brag about what others think of them.
“If we seem out of our minds, it is between God and us. But if we are in our right minds, it is for your good. We are ruled by Christ’s love for us. We are certain that if one person died for everyone else, then all of us have died. And Christ did die for all of us. He died so that we would no longer live for ourselves, but for the one who died and was raised to life for us. We are careful not to judge people by what they seem to be, though we once judged Christ in that way. Anyone who belongs to Christ is a new person. The past is forgotten, and everything is new”. 2 Corinthians 5:11-17 CEV Contemporary English Version.
Water, Hans, and friends.
I think that it is fortunate that we really are actually more on the same page of Scriptures than our doctrinal differences at the moment would allow us to be aware. While Water and I stand united in being non-Calvinist, actually all of the Reformers learned some things from the Church Fathers, and in spite of the emphasis on Augustine in the West and Chrysostom and others in the East, the Cappadocians, Basil, and so on, we have more in common than we have not yet discussed. We all confess the Creed mostly the same, except for that ancient problem of Filioque which does remain unresolved. In most ways, our doctrines are the same, in spite of the current situation of there being any need for labeling some thing Protestant, or Catholic, or Orthodox, at the moment. God bless all of us. Some real doctrinal differences remain, but there is actually already a measure of agreement among us about Scripture and Christ.
Water, I do not seek to attack Rome; I seek to defend Orthodoxy against the claims of Aquinas in “Contra Errores Graecorum”. This is nationalism. It calls the East Romans “Greeks” and “Byzantines”, There never has been and never will be a Byzantine Greek Empire. Up until Pope Nicholas I, Rome and Constantinople were one Roman Catholic Church. Rome was West Rome, Constantinople was East Rome. In any way, the alleged “Greeks” are not in error on the Filioque. They speak Greek, but it would be unfair to call them the Latins. They speak Latin, but since Charlemagne the Franks took over Latin speaking Rome. We may disagree on this, but from our point of view, this is a fact. No one disputes what Charlemagne did, and it was because of his influence later Rome accepted the Frankish theology on Filioque. And never once did Augustine in De Trintate say that to believe Filioque is necessary for salvation. Augustine was attempting to defend the equality of Christ with the Spirit, not denigrate the Holy Spirit, and since Augustine was trained in Platonic theology, he was thinking here as a Platonist, not a NT Greek exegete. That much is certain to me, to us in Orthodoxy. God bless us all. There is much good in both Aquinas, Duns Scotus, and Photius, and the rest of the “Greeks” (sic), we just have a difference on Filioque still. God help us.
scott,
In the Catholic understanding, there is one God, three persons. The three persons of the Trinity are consubstantial. Where one is, the other two are. The Father is unbegotten, the Son begotten of the Father, and the Spirit proceeds. The source or principle of the Holy Spirit is the Father. Thus the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father. All three are eternal, there was never a time where God was without the Son or the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit takes from what the Son has. In that sense, the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son.The source or principle of the Holy Spirit is the Father.
One kind of compromise we may be able to live with is that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son,
Water, If the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father is perfect and complete in itself, why is any procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son needed? Do you understand that when you say things, you perhaps are not talking about an eternal procession, but the temporal mission by the Son of the Son sending the Spirit in time. The Orthodox Church does not deny that. The Church also says the Father and the Son are not one principle. That confuses the Father and the Son and fuses them together into a Fatherson. It fails then to distinguish the persons of Father and Son if the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father AND THE SON as from one principle. That is impossible, because the Father is not the Son, and the Son is not the Father. If that is so, the Holy Spirit is the grandson of the love of the Father and Son. This Filioque makes the Holy Spirit the Son of Jesus Christ.
scott,
Misunderstanding again. We do not decide the why of things. We interpret the scriptures. Our reason is not sufficient to come to conclusions about the why and wherefor of what God has decided in his own wisdom.
The Father and the son as you say are not one principle. There is an element of mystery in all this that the human mind cannot grasp.
Water, The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son (through the Son means He is sent from the Father by the Son, and the Father sends the Spirit in the name of the Son, Christ). Through the Son does not mean from the Son. The Spirit proceeds from the Father alone. Because the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and rests in the Son. Since the Spirit rests and abides in the Son alone, He does not proceed from the Son. He proceeds from the Father. Alone. John 15:26. He is received from the Father Acts 2:33, in the Church. The gift of the seal of the Holy Spirit is given by Christ through the Orthodox Church. As Saint John the Baptist Forerunner reminds us, the dove which is the Spirit abides and rests in Christ alone; therefore Filioque is not true, since the Spirit abides in Christ, and does not proceed from Christ, but proceeds in eternity from the Father, and is sent in time by the Father and the Son.
scott,
You are going around in circles.
Water, Filioque is an attack on the Church. It was Humbert who pretended to have more authority than the pope. The earlier Pope Leo III did not excommunicate anyone for not holding to Filioque. The pope of Rome at the time of the Humbert schism in 1054 AD had already died by the time the upstart Cardinal Humbert pretended to have authority to cause a schism against the Patriarch of Constantinople. The Pope of Rome never did that. This is an unfortunate misunderstanding. The earlier Papacy did not presume to change the Creed. Unfortunately, many in the West simply do not yet understand that the ideas of Filioque are another gospel, another faith than the Christian faith preached in the Gospel Jude 1:3, John 3:16, John 15:26, Acts 2:33, 1 Tim. 3:15, 2 Thess. 2:15, 3:6. God bless you.
scott,
A failure to understand is the problem.
Water, You keep making assertions with no evidence, but say I am making assertions with no evidence. If the Spirit rests in the Son, how can He proceed from the Son? Filioque goes in Augustine’s philosophy circles, but there is no text of Scripture that says the Spirit proceeds from the Son. The Spirit of the Son is not equivalent to from the Son, since Christ explains the Spirit “proceeds from the Father”. That should be enough for the sheep of Christ, the pure in heart Christians. One simple word from our Saviour is enough to put into perspective all the Western claims for Filioque. The Scripture and Christ nowhere say Filioque. More important, the Greek does not say “kai to Huios” anywhere.
scott,
Obviously we are not making progress here.
Water.
Indeed, I may not be making any progress here.
But perhaps you are!
God bless.
scott,
I have learnt a lot about the filioque in the process as well as the Orthodox position, and thank you for starting the discussion.
God bless.
From my point f view we are not far apart. What drives us apart are reasonings about the filioque which one do not accord with church teaching, and two are intended to divide.
The Significance of the Filioque Question
Smaragdus record how the emissaries of Charlemagne complained the Pope Leo III was making an issue of only four syllables. Of course, four syllables are not many. Nevertheless, their implications are such that Latin of Frankish Christendom embarked on a history of theology and ecclesiastical practice which may have been quite different had the Franks paid attention to the “Greek.”
I will indicate some of the implication of the presuppositions of the Filioque issue which present problems today.
1.) Even a superficial study of today’s histories of dogma and biblical scholarship reveals the peculiar fact that Protestant, Anglican, Papal, and some Orthodox theologians accept the First and Second Ecumenical Synods only formally. This is so because there is at least an identity of teaching between Orthodox and Arians, which does not exist between Orthodox and Latins, about the real appearances of the Logos to the Old Testament prophets and the identity of this Logos made flesh in the New Testament. This, as we saw, was the agreed foundation of debate for the determination of whether the Logos seen by the prophets is created or uncreated. This identification of the Logos in the Old Testament is the very basis of the teachings of all the Roman Ecumenical Synods.
We emphasize that the East Roman Fathers never abandoned this reading of the Old Testament theophanies. This is the teaching of all the West Roman Fathers, with the single exception of Augustine, who, confused as usual over what the Fathers teach, rejects as blasphemous the idea what the prophets could have seen the Logos with their bodily eyes and, indeed, in fire, darkness, cloud, etc.
The Arians and Eunomians had used, as the Gnostics before them, the visibility of the Logos to the prophets to prove that He was a lower being than God and a creature. Augustine agrees with the Arians and Eunomians that the prophets saw a created Angel, created fire, cloud, light, darkness, etc., but he argues against them that none of these was the Logos himself, but symbols by means of which God or the whole Trinity is seen and heard.
Augustine did not have patience with the teaching that the Angel of the Lord, the fire, the glory, the cloud, and the Pentecostal tongues of fire, were verbal symbols of the uncreated realities immediately communicated with by the prophets and apostles, since for him this would mean that all this language pointed to a vision of the divine substance. For the bishop of Hippo this vision is identical to the whole of what is uncreated, and could be seen only by a Neoplatonic type ecstasy of the soul, out of the body, within the sphere of timeless and motionless eternity, transcending all discursive reasoning. Since this is not what he found in the Bible, the visions therein described are not verbal symbols of real visions of God, but of creatures symbolizing eternal realities. The created verbal symbols of the Bible became created objective symbols. In other words, words which symbolized uncreated energies like fire, etc,. became objectively real created fires, clouds, tongues, etc.
2.) This failure of Augustine to distinguish between the divine essence and its natural energies (of which some are communicated to the friends of God). led to a very peculiar reading of the Bible, wherein creatures or symbols come into existence in order to convey a divine message, and them pass out of existence. Thus, the Bible becomes full of unbelievable miracles and a text dictated by God.
3.) Besides this, the biblical concept of heaven and hell also becomes distorted, since the eternal fires of hell and the outer darkness become creatures also whereas, they are the uncreated glory of God as seen by those who refuse to love. thus, one ends up with the three-story universe problem, with God in a place, etc., necessitating a demythologizing of the Bible in order to salvage whatever one can of a quaint Christian tradition for modern man. However, it is not the Bible itself which need demythologizing, but the Augustinian Franco-Latin tradition and the caricature which it passed off in the West as “Greek” Patristic theology.
4.) By not taking the above-mentioned foundations of Roman Patristic theology of the Ecumenical Synods seriously as the key to interpreting the Bible, modern biblical scholars have applied presuppositions latent in Augustine with such methodical consistency that they have destroyed the unity and identity of the Old and New Testaments, and have allowed themselves to be swayed by Judaic interpretations of the Old Testament rejected by Christ himself.
Thus, instead of dealing with the concrete person of the Angel of God, Lord of Glory, Angel of Great Council, Wisdom of God and identifying Him with the logos made flesh and Christ, and accepting this as the doctrine of the Trinity, most, if not all, Western scholars have ended up identifying Christ only with Old Testament Messiahship, and equating the doctrine of the Trinity with the development of extra Biblical Trinitarian terminology within what is really not a Patristic framework, but an Augustinian one. Thus, the so-called “Greek” Fathers are still read in the light of Augustine, with the Russians after Peter Mogila joining in.
5.) Another most devastating result of the Augustinian presuppositions of the Filioque is the destruction of the prophetic and apostolic understanding of grace and its replacement with the whole system of created graces distributed in Latin Christendom by the hocus pocus of the clergy.
For the Bible and the Father, grace is the uncreated glory and rule (basileia) of God seen by the prophets, apostles, and saints and participated in by the faithful followers of the prophets and the apostles. The source of this glory and rule is the Father who, in begetting the Logos, and projecting the Spirit, communicates this glory and rule so that he Son and the Spirit are also by nature one source of grace with the Father. This uncreated grace and rule (basileia) is participated in by the faithful according to their preparedness for reception, and is seen by the friends of God who have become gods by grace.
Because the Frankish Filioque presupposes the identity of uncreated divine essence and energy, and because participation in the divine essence is impossible, the Latin tradition was led automatically into accepting communicated grace as created, leading to its objectification and magical priestly manipulation.
On the other hand, the reduction by Augustine of this revealed glory and rule (basileia) to the status of a creature has misled modern biblical scholars into the endless discussion concerning the coming of the “Kingdom” (basileia should rather be rule) without realizing its identity with the uncreated glory and grace of God.
6.) In order not to extend ourselves into more detail, we end this section and this paper by pointing out what the presupposition of the Filioque have done to the matter of authority on questions of biblical interpretation and dogma.
In this patristic tradition, all dogma or truth is experienced in glorification. The final form of glorification is that of Pentecost, in which the apostles were led by the Spirit into all the truth, as promised by Christ at the Last Supper. Since Pentecost, every incident of the glorification of a saint, (in other words, of a saint having a vision of God’s uncreated glory in Christ as its source), is an extension of Pentecost at various levels of intensity.
This experience includes all of man, but at the same time transcend all of man, including man’s intellect. Thus, the experience remains a mystery to the intellect. Thus, the experience remains a mystery to the intellect, and cannot be conveyed intellectually to another. Thus, language can point to, but cannot convey, this experience. The spiritual father can guide a person to, but cannot produce, the experience which is a gift of the Holy Spirit.
When, therefore, the Fathers add terms to the biblical language concerning God and His relations to the world, like hypostasis, ousia, physis, homoousios, etc., they are not doing this because they are improving current understanding as over against a former age. Pentecost cannot be improved upon. All they are doing is defending the Pentecostal experience which transcends words, in the language of their time, because a particular heresy leads away from, and not to, this experience, which means spiritual death to those led astray.
For the Fathers, authority is not only the Bible, but the Bible plus those glorified or divinized as the prophets and apostles. The Bible is not in itself either inspired or infallible. It becomes inspired and infallible within the communion of saints because they have the experience of divine glory described in the Bible.
The presuppositions of the Frankish Filioque are not founded on this experience of glory. Anyone can claim to speak with authority and understanding. However, we follow the Fathers and accept only those as authority who, like the apostles, have reached a degree of Pentecostal glorification.
Within this frame of reference, there can be no institutionalized or guaranteed form of infallibility, outside of the tradition of spirituality which leads to theoria, mentioned above, by St. Gregory the Theologian.
As a heresy, the Filioque is as bad as Arianism, and this is borne out by the fact that the holders of this heresy reduce the Pentecostal tongues of fire to the status of creature as Arius had done with the Angel of Glory. Had Arius and the Scholastics been gifted with the Pentecostal glorification of the Fathers, they would have known by their experience that the Logos who appeared to the prophets and the apostles in glory, and the tongues of fire are uncreated; the one an uncreated hypostasis, and the other the common and identical energies of the Holy Trinity emanating from the new presence of the humanity of Christ by the Holy Spirit.
What is true of the Bible is true of the Synods, which, like the Bible, express in symbols that which transcends symbols and is known by means of those who have reached theoria. It is for this reason that the Synods appeal to the authority, not only of the Fathers in the Bible, but also to the Fathers of all ages, since the Fathers of all ages participate in the same truth which is God’s glory in Christ.
For this reason, Pope Leo III told the Franks in no uncertain terms that the Fathers left the Filioque out of the Creed neither because of ignorance nor by omission, but by divine inspiration. However, the implications of the Frankish Filioque were not accepted by all Roman Christians in the Western Roman provinces conquered by Franco-Latin Christendom and its scholastic theology. Remnants of Roman biblical orthodoxy and piety have survived all parts may one day be reassembled, as the full implications of the Patristic tradition make themselves known, and spirituality, as the basis of doctrine, becomes the center of our studies.
* Because the question of the Filioque played such an important role in the centuries long conflict between the Frankish and Roman worlds, the author’s study originally prepared as the Orthodox position paper for the discussions on the Filioque between Orthodox and Anglicans at the subcommision meeting in St. Albans, England in 1975 and at the plenary commission meeting I Moscow in 1976, is presented here as Lecture 3 in a revised form. It was first published in Kleronomia, 7 (1975), 285-34 and reprinted in Athens in 1978.
E N D
[ Part 1 ] – [ Part 2 ] – [ Part 3 ]
scott,
I’d never come across that before: “The Bible is not in itself either inspired or infallible.”
Maybe you have another religion.
Jesus said: “He who does not gather with me scatters.” You are scattering scott.
Hans, I did not say the Bible is not in any way inspired or infallible. The Bible is honest. You are not.
scott,
Read your article. I copy/pasted from it.
By the way, I’m not Hans.
Water, I did not see those words in Romanides text. Show what he said. And if he said it, what did he mean by Bible? A translation of the Bible is not in itself either inspired or infallible. Only the original Bible is the Bible and is inspired. Was he saying that? The KJV is not the original Bible. Only Greek, from the lost Hebrew texts which have not yet been shown to us, is the original. The evidence suggests the Jews have hidden or suppressed the original Hebrew texts. Surely the MT Masoretic text of 800-1000 AD is not the original Hebrew Bible. The DSS Hebrew is older, but even it is probably not the oldest Hebrew. The Septuagint LXX (in various versions) is probably the best version of the OT anyone has. But I could be wrong. So far, no one has provided enough evidence what the best OT text is. For the NT, however, the Greek Orthodox Church has preserved the best NT texts, there are some variants, but I am not a scholar or critic of which the original NT text is. The text behind the KJV is close to the original, but that’s all I know. I can say no more than that. Who has the original NT, maybe the Patriarch of Constantinople, is not known by me.
scott,
In my understanding, all scripture is inspired. Provided that the translations accurately reflect the originals and contain no additions or substractions or changes. Clearly, any translation has to be read in the light of the original text, as well as the context it was written in, to clear up misunderstandings.
I believe the original scrolls were on material which could not stand the test of time. So we have some major sources, Codex Vaticanus, Codex Sinaiticus, etc, and handreds and thousands of fragments to work with, none of which are complete. As far as the old testament goes, I do believe that the Septuagint is the best version, it is quoted in the new testament 80% of the time as opposed to the Hebrew O.T.
Does the Orthodox church use the Septuagint or the Hebrew?
Here is a larger extract from Romanides’ text:
:5.) Another most devastating result of the Augustinian presuppositions of the Filioque is the destruction of the prophetic and apostolic understanding of grace and its replacement with the whole system of created graces distributed in Latin Christendom by the hocus pocus of the clergy.
For the Bible and the Father, grace is the uncreated glory and rule (basileia) of God seen by the prophets, apostles, and saints and participated in by the faithful followers of the prophets and the apostles. The source of this glory and rule is the Father who, in begetting the Logos, and projecting the Spirit, communicates this glory and rule so that he Son and the Spirit are also by nature one source of grace with the Father. This uncreated grace and rule (basileia) is participated in by the faithful according to their preparedness for reception, and is seen by the friends of God who have become gods by grace.
Because the Frankish Filioque presupposes the identity of uncreated divine essence and energy, and because participation in the divine essence is impossible, the Latin tradition was led automatically into accepting communicated grace as created, leading to its objectification and magical priestly manipulation.
On the other hand, the reduction by Augustine of this revealed glory and rule (basileia) to the status of a creature has misled modern biblical scholars into the endless discussion concerning the coming of the “Kingdom” (basileia should rather be rule) without realizing its identity with the uncreated glory and grace of God.
6.) In order not to extend ourselves into more detail, we end this section and this paper by pointing out what the presupposition of the Filioque have done to the matter of authority on questions of biblical interpretation and dogma.
In this patristic tradition, all dogma or truth is experienced in glorification. The final form of glorification is that of Pentecost, in which the apostles were led by the Spirit into all the truth, as promised by Christ at the Last Supper. Since Pentecost, every incident of the glorification of a saint, (in other words, of a saint having a vision of God’s uncreated glory in Christ as its source), is an extension of Pentecost at various levels of intensity.
This experience includes all of man, but at the same time transcend all of man, including man’s intellect. Thus, the experience remains a mystery to the intellect. Thus, the experience remains a mystery to the intellect, and cannot be conveyed intellectually to another. Thus, language can point to, but cannot convey, this experience. The spiritual father can guide a person to, but cannot produce, the experience which is a gift of the Holy Spirit.
When, therefore, the Fathers add terms to the biblical language concerning God and His relations to the world, like hypostasis, ousia, physis, homoousios, etc., they are not doing this because they are improving current understanding as over against a former age. Pentecost cannot be improved upon. All they are doing is defending the Pentecostal experience which transcends words, in the language of their time, because a particular heresy leads away from, and not to, this experience, which means spiritual death to those led astray.
For the Fathers, authority is not only the Bible, but the Bible plus those glorified or divinized as the prophets and apostles. The Bible is not in itself either inspired or infallible. It becomes inspired and infallible within the communion of saints because they have the experience of divine glory described in the Bible.”
Look at the last paragraph.
Water, Context for Romanides’ words is important. The key remains in the words “in itself”. If the Bible remains in itself, it does not come into the readers. Scripture that is unknown is not “in” the readers. An inspired and infallible Bible that is not “in” the hearts of the readers and interpreters can do nothing to change the readers unless the readers and interpreters become inspired and infallible. Some sort of relationship with the inspiring infallible Holy Spirit is required in the readers of the Bible. The inspired Bible is either correctly understood or it is not. Romanides is saying the Spirit-filled Fathers of the Church are needed by the laity and the Church to know what the Scriptures mean. The Scripture notes, “Not knowing the Scriptures, nor the power of God, ye do greatly err”. The inspired Scriptures must be interpreted rightly in the Spirit-inspired life of the Spirit, holy tradition, in the readers of the Scriptures. Not all laymen have this inspiration; some do, to some extent; some don’t at all, like the Jehovah’s Witness’ New World Translation, which is a fraud.
scott,
Good thing that you explain, but it is a rather clumsy way of putting it.
Hans,
Oh, I see. The truth is simply “Sola Scriptura!” Scripture alone. Nothing added to the Scripture, Bible alone. By which you mean, Scripture alone., skip 450 years and turn left at Augustine of Hippo, the Bible alone, through the work of Augustine of Hippo, then Augustine alone, skip 600 more years, turn left at the German and French/Swiss Reformation, shift gears, turn Left again, stop at Scripture alone, Left at John Calvin alone, mainly Scripture alone in the Institutes of the Christian Religion, or perhaps the consensus of Calvin’s Reformers, John Knox perhaps, turn left again, another 100 years, Westminster Confession of Faith, in the Scripture alone: oh yes, it’s all there in Scripture alone, Augustine of Hippo, John Calvin, Institutes of the Calvinist Religion, Westminster Confession of Faith, all of these are clearly Scripture alone.
And the method you use to interpret Scripture… Augustine, Calvin, WCF, yes, that’s Sola Scriptura, all right: and I take it that that is found clearly in the text for all to see?
I think we know who is playing “fast and loose” with the existing data. And it’s not me.
Scott–
Would it make sense to you that, as we have moved on in time through the centuries, some men have interpreted Scripture faithfully and some have not?
So, yes, there are some names that I rely on more than others…because they have shown themselves faithful to interpret the Bible straightforwardly without twist or innovation. I don’t interpret Scripture by their light because it’s their light, but I do find their insights and corroborations helpful. Likewise, I read others with whom I do not agree so as not to miss anything through a dearth of perspectives. This is how history is done. Except in your world, I guess.
I do not interpret Scripture in such and such a way because I’m Calvinistic. I interpret Scripture in such and such a way because IT is Calvinistic. You can believe that or not. I don’t much care.
You believe things about Mary and the sacraments and church hierarchy and soteriology that are demonstrably abiblical and ahistorical. You believe them because Orthodoxy believes them, pure and simple.
Scripture is not Calvinistic. I feel sorry for you that you are so terribly deceived that you actually believe that lie. Calvinism is a big mistake. Your mind has been deceived by it. It is sad that you don’t know the truth. I pray that God will enlighten you before it is too late for you.
Hans wrote:
Scott–
Would it make sense to you that, as we have moved on in time through the centuries, some men have interpreted Scripture faithfully and some have not?
So, yes, there are some names that I rely on more than others…because they have shown themselves faithful to interpret the Bible straightforwardly without twist or innovation. I don’t interpret Scripture by their light because it’s their light, but I do find their insights and corroborations helpful. Likewise, I read others with whom I do not agree so as not to miss anything through a dearth of perspectives. This is how history is done. Except in your world, I guess.
I do not interpret Scripture in such and such a way because I’m Calvinistic. I interpret Scripture in such and such a way because IT is Calvinistic. You can believe that or not. I don’t much care.
You believe things about Mary and the sacraments and church hierarchy and soteriology that are demonstrably abiblical and ahistorical. You believe them because Orthodoxy believes them, pure and simple.
Hans, Would it make sense to you that, as we have moved on in time through the centuries, Augustine and Calvin have not faithfully interpreted Scripture?>
Does it make sense to you that you should not at all rely on Augustine, Luther, and Calvin more than others, since Augustine wrote in Latin, and knew philosophy and legalism, not Greek and the Greek Fathers and the Greek New Testament. He did not understand the NT very well at all. He new Manicheism and Platonism, And logic, twisted. You fail to note that Scripture is NOT Calvinistic. There is where you greatly err. You do EISOGESIS: you read Calvinism INTO Scripture; you do not allow Scripture to speak for itself. It is you, Hans, who probably believe things about Mary, the sacraments, and church hierarchy and soteriology that are demonstrably heterodox, abiblical ahistorical and heretical, like Monergism. You believe them because Calvin believes that Augustine believed them, pure and simple.
Dear Craig and Water, What is your take on the Filioque and the controversy over which is the 8th ecumenical council; was it in 869-870, or in 879-880? What about Pope John VIII? What about Pope Leo III? What about the agreement of Calvinists (& other Protestants, Lutherans), on Filioque, and that the EOC rejects Filioque? Why does Rome now accept Filioque? Why did Rome once not follow Filioque? Why has the EOC always rejected Filioque?
Here is another post by Craig and his dialogue; Craig, can you summarize what you said in this video?
Date: July 17, 2017Author: Craig Truglia 0 Comments
Which is the real ecumenical council of Constantinople IV? The council held in 869-870AD or the one in 879-880AD? What makes a council ecumenical? An Orthodox catechumen and a Western Rite Catholic duke it out. The whole issue is reduced to different epistemological presuppositions. Featuring Craig Truglia and Matthew P.
In short, the Pope approved the council in 879-880, making it ecumenical (and making the modern RC view of ecumenicity sorta suspect.) However, the council in 879-880 did not say the filioque was actually incorrect…it merely affirmed that it was a matter of faith and morals not to change the creed on this point. This is interesting, as Constan I changed Nicea I’s creed, but due to centuries of reception it is not impossible that the Church had discerned and made official in the 8th council that any other changes would falsify the faith.
Water, Now I know that you do not yet understand Photius. If you read all of Photius, and compare him to John 15:26 and Acts 2:33, you will know that Photius understands the Filioque. I believe you do not yet understand the Filioque.
You certainly need to read Photius.
I have read Aquinas Contra Errores Graecorum. I know what he is saying, and Aquinas contradicts Photius. Photius agrees with Scripture. Aquinas does not.
I have still to read and diges Anselm of Canterbury “On the Procession of the Holy Spirit”. I have studied somewhat Peter Lombard, The Sentences, Book I. I have to see what it means, what he means by the temporality of the Holy Spirit. I will have to see if he means what it seems he means, before I give an assessment or analysis. Too early to tell.
The Bible is inspired and infallible IN the Church, the Orthodox Church. Outside of the Church, the Bible is misinterpreted, and a misinterpreted infallible inspired Bible lacks infallibility and inspiration in the scripture twisting of the sectarians, heretics and schismatics outside of the Church, the Orthodox Church. See: 2 Peter 3:14-18.
Water,
PHOTIUS (820-895). Patriarch of Constantinople. Epitomes. Saint Photios. (1983). On the Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit. Rev. Fr. Dr. Michael Azkoul, Ph.D. Holy Transfiguration Monastery, translators. Boston, Massachusetts: Studion Publishers, Inc.: “11. Divine Gregory the Dialogist [Saint Gregory I the great, Pope of Rome], who flourished long after the Sixth Council, preached and wrote in Latin that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone.
Zacharias, a hundred sixty-five year later, translated the Dialogues into Greek and said, “The Comforter Spirit, proceeds from the Father and abides in the Son”; for he had been taught this by the Forerunner, [blessed Saint John the Baptist], who saw the Spirit descending like a dove and abiding upon Him [Jesus Christ].
12. Leo and Benedict, great hierarchs of Rome of later times, decreed that the Symbol of Faith be recited in Greek at the sacred rites in Rome and the other Churches subject to her, lest the inadequacy of Latin furnish an occasion for blasphemy.
This Leo, when he had opened the treasury of the apostolic Church of the Romans, brought forth two shields which had been preserved among the other sacred heirlooms, and which were engraved with the pious exposition of the Faith in Greek letters and words, and which he ordered to be read before the entire Roman people.
Up to the time of the pious patriarch of Constantinople Sergios, the Roman high priests sent confirmatory letters of their belief at the beginning of their high priesthood to all of the patriarchal sees, and in these letters they inscribed the Symbol of Faith without any variation.
13. But what need is there to say much?
The Son and Master reveals that “The Spirit proceeds from the Father” [Saint John 15:26]; and, likewise, great Paul declares, saying: “But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other Gospel unto you, than that which we have preached unto you, let him be anathema”.
And who will ask for another teacher unless he is patently insane?” [PHOTIUS, 1983; cf. pp. 118-119, Fr. Azkoul, Ph.D.].
The Patriarchal Encyclical of 1895
A Reply to the Papal Encyclical of Pope Leo XIII, on Reunion
To the most Sacred and Most Divinely-beloved Brethren in Christ the Metropolitans and Bishops, and their sacred and venerable Clergy, and all the godly and orthodox Laity of the Most Holy Apostolic and Patriarchal Throne of Constantinople.
“Remember them which have the rule over you, who have spoken unto you the word of God: whose faith follow, considering the end of their own conversation:
“Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and today, and for ever. Be not carried about with divers and strange doctrines.” (Heb. xiii. 7, 8).
I. Every godly and orthodox soul, which has a sincere zeal for the glory of God, is deeply afflicted and weighed down with great pain upon seeing that he, who detests that which is good and is a murderer from the beginning, impelled by envy of man’s salvation, never ceases continually to sow divers tares in the field of the Lord, in order to sift the wheat. From this source indeed, even from the earliest times, there sprang up in the Church of God heretical tares, which have in many ways made havoc, and do still make havoc, of the salvation of mankind by Christ; which moreover, as bad seeds and corrupted members, are rightly cut off from the sound body of the orthodox catholic Church of Christ. But in these last times the evil one has rent from the orthodox Church of Christ even whole nations in the West, having inflated the bishops of Rome with thoughts of excessive arrogance, which has given birth to divers lawless and anti-evangelical innovations. And not only so, but furthermore the Popes of Rome from time to time, pursuing absolutely and without examination modes of union according to their own fancy, strive by every means to reduce to their own errors the catholic Church of Christ, which throughout the world walks unshaken in the orthodoxy of faith transmitted to her by the Fathers.
II. Accordingly the Pope of Rome, Leo XIII, on the occasion of his episcopal jubilee, published in the month of June of the year of grace 1895 an encyclical letter, addressed to the leaders and peoples of the world, by which he also at the same time invites our orthodox Catholic and Apostolic Church of Christ to unite with the papal throne, thinking that such union can only be obtained by acknowledging him as supreme pontiff and the highest spiritual and temporal ruler of the universal Church, as the only representative of Christ upon earth and the dispenser of all grace.
III. No doubt every Christian heart ought to be filled with longing for union of the Churches, and especially the whole orthodox world, being inspired by a true spirit of piety, according to the divine purpose of the establishment of the church by the God-man our Savior Christ, ardently longs for the unity of the Churches in the one rule of faith, and on the foundation of the apostolic doctrine handed down to us through the Fathers, ‘Jesus Christ Himself being the chief corner stone.’ [1] Wherefore she also every day, in her public prayers to the Lord, prays for the gathering together of the scattered and for the return of those who have gone astray to the right way of the truth, which alone leads to the Life of all, the only-begotten Son and Word of God, our Lord Jesus Christ. [2] Agreeably, therefore, to this sacred longing, our orthodox Church of Christ is always ready to accept any proposal of union, if only the Bishop of Rome would shake off once for all the whole series of the many and divers anti-evangelical novelties that have been ‘privily brought in’ to his Church, and have provoked the sad division of the Churches of the East and West, and would return to the basis of the seven holy Ecumenical Councils, which, having been assembled in the Holy Spirit, of representatives of all the holy Churches of God, for the determination of the right teaching of the faith against heretics, have a universal and perpetual supremacy in the Church of Christ. And this, both by her writings and encyclical letters, the Orthodox Church has never ceased to intimate to the Papal Church, having clearly and explicitly set forth that so long as the latter perseveres in her innovations, and the orthodox Church adheres to the divine and apostolic traditions of Christianity, during which the Western Churches were of the same mind and were united with the Churches of the East, so long is it a vain and empty thing to talk of union. For which cause we have remained silent until now, and have declined to take into consideration the papal encyclical in question, esteeming it unprofitable to speak to the ears of those who do not hear. Since, however, from a certain period the Papal Church, having abandoned the method of persuasion and discussion, began, to our general astonishment and perplexity, to lay traps for the conscience of the more simple orthodox Christians by means of deceitful workers transformed into apostles of Christ, [3] sending into the East clerics with the dress and headcovering of orthodox priests, inventing also divers and other artful means to obtain her proselytizing objects; for this reason, as in sacred duty bound, we issue this patriarchal and synodical encyclical, for a safeguard of the orthodox faith and piety, knowing ‘that the observance of the true canons is a duty for every good man, and much more for those who have been thought worthy by Providence to direct the affairs of others.’ [4]
IV. The union of the separated Churches with herself in one rule of faith is, as has been said before, a sacred and inward desire of the holy, catholic and orthodox apostolic Church of Christ; but without such unity in the faith, the desired union of the Churches becomes impossible. This being the case, we wonder in truth how Pope Leo XIII, though he himself also acknowledges this truth, falls into a plain self-contradiction, declaring, on the one hand, that true union lies in the unity of faith, and, on the other hand, that every Church, even after the union, can hold her own dogmatic and canonical definitions, even when they differ from those of the Papal Church, as the Pope declares in a previous encyclical, dated November 30, 1894. For there is an evident contradiction when in one and the same Church one believes that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father, and another that He proceeds from the Father and the Son; when one sprinkles, and another baptizes (immerses) thrice in the water; one uses leavened bread in the sacrament of the Holy Eucharist, and another unleavened; one imparts to the people of the chalice as well as of the bread, and the other only of the holy bread; and other things like these. But what this contradiction signifies, whether respect for the evangelical truths of the holy Church of Christ and an indirect concession and acknowledgment of them, or something else, we cannot say.
V. But however that may be, for the practical realization of the pious longing for the union of the Churches, a common principle and basis must be settled first of all; and there can be no such safe common principle and basis other than the teaching of the Gospel and of the seven holy Ecumenical Councils. Reverting, then, to that teaching which was common to the Churches of the East and of the West until the separation, we ought, with a sincere desire to know the truth, to search what the one holy, catholic and orthodox apostolic Church of Christ, being then ‘of the same body,’ throughout the East and West believed, and to hold this fact, entire, and unaltered. But whatsoever has in later times been added or taken away, every one has a sacred and indispensable duty, if he sincerely seeks for the glory of God more than for his own glory, that in a spirit of piety he should correct it, considering that by arrogantly continuing in the perversion of the truth he is liable to a heavy account before the impartial judgment-seat of Christ. In saying this we do not at all refer to the differences regarding the ritual of the sacred services and the hymns, or the sacred vestments, and the like, which matters, even though they still vary, as they did of old, do not in the least injure the substance and unity of the faith; but we refer to those essential differences which have reference to the divinely transmitted doctrines of the faith, and the divinely instituted canonical constitution of the administration of the Churches. ‘In cases where the thing disregarded is not the faith (says also the holy Photius), [5] and is no falling away from any general and catholic decree, different rites and customs being observed among different people, a man who knows how to judge rightly would decide that neither do those who observe them act wrongly, nor do those who have not received them break the law.’ [6]
VI. And indeed for the holy purpose of union, the Eastern orthodox and catholic Church of Christ is ready heartily to accept all that which both the Eastern and Western Churches unanimously professed before the ninth century, if she has perchance perverted or does not hold it. And if the Westerns prove from the teaching of the holy Fathers and the divinely assembled Ecumenical Councils that the then orthodox Roman Church, which was throughout the West, even before the ninth century read the Creed with the addition, or used unleavened bread, or accepted the doctrine of a purgatorial fire, or sprinkling instead of baptism, or the immaculate conception of the ever-Virgin, or the temporal power, or the infallibility and absolutism of the Bishop of Rome, we have no more to say. But if, on the contrary, it is plainly demonstrated, as those of the Latins themselves, who love the truth, also acknowledge, that the Eastern and orthodox catholic Church of Christ holds fast the anciently transmitted doctrines which were at that time professed in common both in the East and the West, and that the Western Church perverted them by divers innovations, then it is clear, even to children, that the more natural way to union is the return of the Western Church to the ancient doctrinal and administrative condition of things; for the faith does not change in any way with time or circumstances, but remains the same always and everywhere, for ‘there is one body and one Spirit,’ it is said, ‘even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.” [7]
VII. So then the one holy, catholic and apostolic Church of the seven Ecumenical Councils believed and taught in accordance with the words of the Gospel that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father; but in the West, even from the ninth century, the holy Creed, which was composed and sanctioned by Ecumenical Councils, began to be falsified, and the idea that the Holy Ghost proceeds ‘also from the Son’ to be arbitrarily promulgated. And certainly Pope Leo XIII is not ignorant that his orthodox predecessor and namesake, the defender of orthodoxy, Leo III, in the year 809 denounced synodically this anti-evangelical and utterly lawless addition, ‘and from the Son’ (filioque); and engraved on two silver plates, in Greek and Latin, the holy Creed of the first and second Ecumenical Councils, entire and without any addition; having written moreover, ‘These words I, Leo, have set down for love and as a safeguard of the orthodox faith’ (Haec Leo posui amore et cautela fidei orthodoxa’). [8]
Likewise he is by no means ignorant that during the tenth century, or at the beginning of the eleventh, this anti-evangelical and lawless addition was with difficulty inserted officially into the holy Creed at Rome also, and that consequently the Roman Church, in insisting on her innovations, and not coming back to the dogma of the Ecumenical Councils, renders herself fully responsible before the one holy, catholic and apostolic Church of Christ, which holds fast that which has been received from the Fathers, and keeps the deposit of the faith which was delivered to it unadulterated in all things, in obedience to the Apostolic injunction: ‘That good thing which was committed unto thee keep by the Holy Ghost which dwelleth in us’; ‘avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: which some professing have erred concerning the faith.” [9]
VIII. The one holy, catholic and apostolic Church of the first seven Ecumenical Councils baptized by three immersions in the water, and the Pope Pelagius speaks of the triple immersion as a command of the Lord, and in the thirteenth century baptism by immersions still prevailed in the West; and the sacred fonts themselves, preserved in the more ancient churches in Italy, are eloquent witnesses on this point; but in later times sprinkling or effusion, being privily brought in, came to be accepted by the Papal Church, which still holds fast the innovation, thus also widening the gulf which she has opened; but we Orthodox, remaining faithful to the apostolic tradition and the practice of the seven Ecumenical Councils, ‘stand fast, contending for the common profession, the paternal treasure of the sound faith.’ [10]
IX. The one holy, catholic and apostolic Church of the seven Ecumenical Councils, according to the example of our Savior, celebrated the divine Eucharist for more than a thousand years throughout the East and West with leavened bread, as the truth-loving papal theologians themselves also bear witness; but the Papal Church from the eleventh century made an innovation also in the sacrament of the divine Eucharist by introducing unleavened bread.
X. The one holy, catholic and apostolic Church of the seven Ecumenical Councils held that the precious gifts are consecrated after the prayer of the invocation of the Holy Ghost by the blessing of the priest, as the ancient rituals of Rome and Gaul testify; nevertheless afterwards the Papal Church made an innovation in this also, by arbitrarily accepting the consecration of the precious gifts as taking place along with the utterance of the Lord’s words: ‘Take, eat; this is my body’: and ‘Drink ye all of it; for this is my blood.’ [11]
XI. The one holy, catholic and apostolic Church of the seven Ecumenical Councils, following the Lord’s command, ‘Drink ye all of it,’ [12] imparted also of the holy chalice to all; but the Papal Church from the ninth century downwards has made an innovation in this rite also, by depriving the laity of the holy chalice, contrary to the Lord’s command and the universal practice of the ancient Church, as well as the express prohibition of many ancient orthodox bishops of Rome.
XII. The one holy, catholic and apostolic Church of the seven Ecumenical Councils, walking according to the divinely inspired teaching of the Holy Scripture and the old apostolic tradition, prays and invokes the mercy of God for the forgiveness and rest of those ‘which have fallen asleep in the Lord’; [13] but the Papal Church from the twelfth century downwards has invented and heaped together in the person of the Pope, as one singularly privileged, a multitude of innovations concerning purgatorial fire, a superabundance of the virtues of the saints, and the distribution of them to those who need them, and the like, setting forth also a full reward for the just before the universal resurrection and judgment.
XIII. The one holy, catholic and apostolic Church of the seven Ecumenical Councils teaches that the supernatural incarnation of the only-begotten Son and Word of God, of the Holy Ghost and the Virgin Mary, is alone pure and immaculate; but the Papal Church scarcely forty years ago again made an innovation by laying down a novel dogma concerning the immaculate conception of the Mother of God and ever-Virgin Mary, which was unknown to the ancient Church (and strongly opposed at different times even by the more distinguished among the papal theologians).
XIV. Passing over, then, these serious and substantial differences between the two churches respecting the faith, which differences, as has been said before, were created in the West, the Pope in his encyclical represents the question of the primacy of the Roman Pontiff as the principal and, so to speak, only cause of the dissension, and sends us to the sources, that we may make diligent search as to what our forefathers believed and what the first age of Christianity delivered to us. But having recourse to the fathers and the Ecumenical Councils of the Church of the first nine centuries, we are fully persuaded that the Bishop of Rome was never considered as the supreme authority and infallible head of the Church, and that every bishop is head and president of his own particular Church, subject only to the synodical ordinances and decisions of the Church universal as being alone infallible, the Bishop of Rome being in no wise excepted from this rule, as Church history shows. Our Lord Jesus Christ alone is the eternal Prince and immortal Head of the Church, for ‘He is the Head of the body, the Church,” [14] who said also to His divine disciples and apostles at His ascension into heaven, ‘Lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world.’ [15] In the Holy Scripture the Apostle Peter, whom the Papists, relying on apocryphal books of the second century, the pseudo-Clementines, imagine with a purpose to be the founder of the Roman Church and their first bishop, discusses matters as an equal among equals in the apostolic synod of Jerusalem, and at another time is sharply rebuked by the Apostle Paul, as is evident from the Epistle to the Galatians. [16] Moreover, the Papists themselves know well that the very passage of the Gospel to which the Pontiff refers, ‘Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church,’ [17] is in the first centuries of the Church interpreted quite differently, in a spirit of orthodoxy, both by tradition and by all the divine and sacred Fathers without exception; the fundamental and unshaken rock upon which the Lord has built His own Church, against which the gates of hell shall not prevail, being understood metaphorically of Peter’s true confession concerning the Lord, that ‘He is Christ, the Son of the living God.’ [18] Upon this confession and faith the saving preaching of the Gospel by all the apostles and their successors rests unshaken. Whence also the Apostle Paul, who had been caught up into heaven, evidently interpreting this divine passage, declares the divine inspiration, saying: ‘According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise master-builder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.’ [19] But it is in another sense that Paul calls all the apostles and prophets together the foundation of the building up in Christ of the faithful; that is to say, the members of the body of Christ, which is the Church; [20] when he writes to the Ephesians: ‘Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellow-citizens with the saints and of the house hold of God; and are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief corner stone.’ [21] Such, then, being the divinely inspired teaching of the apostles respecting the foundation and Prince of the Church of God, of course the sacred Fathers, who held firmly to the apostolic traditions, could not have or conceive any idea of an absolute primacy of the Apostle Peter and the bishops of Rome; nor could they give any other interpretation, totally unknown to the Church, to that passage of the Gospel, but that which was true and right; nor could they arbitrarily and by themselves invent a novel doctrine respecting excessive privileges of the Bishop of Rome as successor, if so be, of Peter; especially whilst the Church of Rome was chiefly founded, not by Peter, whose apostolic action at Rome is totally unknown to history, but by the heaven-caught apostle of the Gentiles, Paul, through his disciples, whose apostolic ministry in Rome is well known to all. [22]
XV. The divine Fathers, honoring the Bishop of Rome only as the bishop of the capital city of the Empire, gave him the honorary prerogative of presidency, considering him simply as the bishop first in order, that is, first among equals; which prerogative they also assigned afterwards to the Bishop of Constantinople, when that city became the capital of the Roman Empire, as the twenty-eighth canon of the fourth Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon bears witness, saying, among other things, as follows: ‘We do also determine and decree the same things respecting the prerogatives of the most holy Church of the said Constantinople, which is New Rome. For the Fathers have rightly given the prerogative to the throne of the elder Rome, because that was the imperial city. And the hundred and fifty most religious bishops, moved by the same consideration, assigned an equal prerogative to the most holy throne of New Rome.’ From this canon it is very evident that the Bishop of Rome is equal in honor to the Bishop of the Church of Constantinople and to those other Churches, and there is no hint given in any canon or by any of the Fathers that the Bishop of Rome alone has ever been prince of the universal Church and the infallible judge of the bishops of the other independent and self-governing Churches, or the successor of the Apostle Peter and vicar of Jesus Christ on earth.
XVI. Each particular self-governing Church, both in the East and West, was totally independent and self-administered in the time of the Seven Ecumenical Councils. And just as the bishops of the self-governing Churches of the East, so also those of Africa, Spain, Gaul, Germany and Britain managed the affairs of their own Churches, each by their local synods, the Bishop of Rome having no right to interfere, and he himself also was equally subject and obedient to the decrees of synods. But on important questions which needed the sanction of the universal Church an appeal was made to an Ecumenical Council, which alone was and is the supreme tribunal in the universal Church. Such was the ancient constitution of the Church; but the bishops were independent of each other and each entirely free within his own bounds, obeying only the syndical decrees, and they sat as equal one to another in synods. Moreover, none of them ever laid claim to monarchical rights over the universal Church; and ii sometimes certain ambitious bishops of Rome raised excessive claims to an absolutism unknown to the Church, such were duly reproved and rebuked The assertion therefore of Leo XIII, when he says in his Encyclical that before the period of the great Photius the name of the Roman throne was holy among all the peoples of the Christian world, and that the East, like the West, with one accord and without opposition, was subject to the Roman pontiff as lawful successor, so to say, of the Apostle Peter, and consequently vicar of Jesus Christ on earth is proved to be inaccurate and a manifest error.
XVII. During the nine centuries of the Ecumenical Councils the Eastern Orthodox Church never recognized the excessive claims of primacy on the part of the bishops of Rome, nor consequently did she ever submit herself to them, as Church history plainly bears witness. The independent relation of the East to the West is clearly and manifestly shown also by those few and most significant words of Basil the Great, which he writes in a letter to the holy Eusebius, Bishop of Samosata: ‘For when haughty characters are courted, it is their nature to become still more disdainful. For if the Lord be merciful to us, what other assistance do we need? But if the wrath of God abide on us, what help is there for us from Western superciliousness? Men who neither know the truth nor can bear to learn it, but being prejudiced by false suspicions, they act now as they did before in the case of Marcellus.’ [23] The celebrated Photius, therefore, the sacred Prelate and luminary of Constantinople, defending this independence of the Church of Constantinople after the middle of the ninth century, and foreseeing the impending perversion of the ecclesiastical constitution in the West, and its defection from the orthodox East, at first endeavored in a peaceful manner to avert the danger; but the Bishop of Rome, Nicholas 1, by his uncanonical interference with the East, beyond the bounds of his diocese, and by the attempt which he made to subdue the Church of Constantinople to himself, pushed maners to the verge of the grievous separation of the Churches. The first seeds of these claims of a papal absolutism were scattered abroad in the pseudo-Clementines, and were cultivated, exactly at the epoch of this Nicholas, in the so-called pseudo-lsidorian decrees, which are a farrago of spurious and forged royal decrees and letters of ancient bishops of Rome, by which, contrary to the truth of history and the established constitution of the Church, it was purposely promulgated that, as they said, Christian antiquity assigned to the bishops of Rome an unbounded authority over the universal Church.