Today, I was at a Vietnamese Restaurant and I saw a picture of a deity (Tara) that stuck me as a Buddhist version of the Virgin Mary. Even though a lot of Atheists and Protestants will jump on these things as “proof” of paganism infiltrating Catholicism/Orthodoxy, the earliest known mention of the goddess was from the second century and her earliest image was 700-800 years after the time of Christ. By then, iconography of the Virgin Mary and her veneration existed for centuries.
Nevertheless, that does not mean that Pagans did not precede Christians in several things. Here are my top five:
5. Halos. Most people are so culturally used to halos they do not even think of their religious significance. In short, they do have a profound Christian meaning. The Scriptures call God “Light” and speak of Him dwelling in “inapproachable light.” Further, Jesus Christ shined with brilliant light at the Transfiguration. Yet, the earliest images of Jesus Christ in Christian history lacked any indication of light glowing around Him.
By the fourth century, Christian art started putting a halo behind Christ’s head. However, it is a historical fact that halos were used in Greek and Roman art. This art predated the use of the halo by Christians. Picture above is Apollo, a god of the sun. Obviously, the halo is meant to represent his “sun-goddiness.”
By the 5th or 6th century, Christian art started portraying the saints of the Church with halos as well. At the same time, the halo for Jesus Christ was altered to have a cross and the Greek letters for “I AM” in order to clearly differentiate Jesus Christ from the saints. While one may be quick to think the adding of halos is proof of a sort of Christianized henotheism which elevated the saints to gods, the truth of the matter is it is nothing more profound than what we sing in “Amazing Grace:”
When we’ve been there ten thousand years,
Bright shining as the sun,
We’ve no less days to sing God’s praise
Than when we first begun.
The hymn is referring to how the saved will shine in heaven (Dan 12:3, Matt 13:43). We shine in heaven, because we are being transformed into the likeness of God who is Light. So, the halo in iconography, though pagan in its origins, was simply put to Christian use to visually portray a Christian doctrine.
4. Reliquaries. While there is Biblical evidence that the Jews venerated their own saints and held onto their relics, there is also evidence that the ancient Greeks did the same. While one can certainly argue that the Jewish practice predated the Greek one, most secular historians do not take this view.
Nevertheless, the crucial difference between ancient Greek and Judeo-Christian practice was that while the latter believed relics to be miraculous (i.e. God worked healing through them, such as Elisha’s bones raising a dead person in 2 Kings 13:20-21), the Greeks did not attribute such miracles to their relics. Rather, the relics were either used like mementos or objects that had to be venerated and treated properly to avoid angering the Manes (demons that the deceased men become after death). If you think that’s weird, well, we are talking about Paganism after all.
3. Hesychasm. In short, Hesychasm is a Christian mystical practice that joins meditation, the repetition of the Jesus Prayer, and oftentimes breathing practices in the pursuit of experiencing firsthand a vision of God (i.e. Divine Light). While the Scriptures have examples of such visions (i.e. Moses seeing the fringes of God and the disciples seeing the Transfiguration), they also have examples of visions of God which do not explicitly involve Light (i.e. Isaiah’s). Further, none of the examples contained calculated breathing practices or repetitious prayer as far as we know.
A thousand years before Christianity existed, Hinduism allegedly used the chanting of mantras with seemingly the same goal in mind. However, historical evidence seems to indicate otherwise. Just as the Scriptures themselves warned against repetitious prayers, early mantras appeared to be exactly what Christ was teaching against–praying repetitiously for stuff thinking that by doing it the right way you’ll get the crap you prayed for. Hence, mantras were not pagan attempts to experience the divine (though Pagan meditative practices with that goal did exist).
Pagan attempts at meditating upon “heavenly things” was accomplished by emptying one’s thoughts. However, Jewish meditation (as recorded by Philo who lived during the time of Christ) busied itself with contemplating the Scriptures and actively thinking about God. Hence, Judeo-Christian prayer and meditation has always been contemplative. By the time Augustine discovered Neo-Platonism (whose meditation included active contemplation and not the emptying of oneself), Jewish practices predated Neo-Platonism’s by centuries.
Granted, the Platonists and the Pythagoreans meditated with the goal of achieving a divine experience. However, it appears their practices was not a humble prayer or repeating of Scriptures, but rather a hard-core reflection upon thinking about math, philosophy, and other stuff that took years of learning. Clearly, Hellenistic meditation does not provide for us the Christian antecedent that detractors are looking for.
So, how about Hesychasm itself with the weird breathing stuff? It is possible Elijah prayed in the same was (notice his posture when praying in 1 Kings 18:42). Further, it is known that Hesychastic practices were mentioned by name, and their prayers documented, in the fourth century. So, despite the claims of some that Hesychasm itself was borrowed by Eastern Christians from Sufism (who I suppose allegedly stole it from the Hindus/Buddhists), this is historically indefensible.
2. Multiplication. Finally, an easy one! Jesus says we have to forgive our enemies 70 times 7 (that equals 490 by the way). Yet, base ten multiplication existed among the ancestor-worshiping Chinese centuries before Christ! What does this prove? Nothing! Just because someone was first and they were pagan, that does not completely invalidate whatever they came up with! The Bible could invoke Pagan math without being sycretistic.
1. The Greek Language. I will also end with an easy one! Did you know that the New Testament was originally written in a language that for centuries was used to praise pagan gods? In fact, the Greek word used for God in the New Testament (Theos/Theon) was used in reference to pagan deities! If that does not prove that Christianity borrowed something from Paganism, what will?
Of course, the preceding is silly. Like the previous point, just because something (here, an entire language) was used by Pagans, that does not invalidate the worthiness of the language or Christianity for using it.
There is only one thing that can invalidate Christianity: if what it teaches lacks a concrete reality. “If Christ is not risen, then our preaching is empty and your faith is also empty” (1 Cor 15:14).
In the end of the day, whether or not a Pagan once used a halo or chanted a prayer does not matter. It does not mean that Christians cannot use similar practices. Similarity is not automatically bad. If similarity to Paganism invalidated a Christian practice, then we would have to throw our Bibles into the trash because they were originally written in a Pagan language.
Christians believe in a God who has really risen from the dead and who intercedes for us daily in heaven. We believe in a faith that is unchanged over centuries as proof that God has had the same, visible impact in the lives of many over the centuries. This consistency is what we perceive as the testimony of the Holy Spirit throughout history. In the end of the day, practices that have been approved by Christians sharing His Spirit over the centuries must take precedence over armchair historians making a logical leap that everything that once was Pagan makes anything similar to it bad forever.
I pretty much differ from Catholicism and Protestantism on Filioque. Other than that, there is much to be admired in both Catholicism and Protestantism where we as Orthodox in the one Orthodox Church share with them in the Scriptures, especially as most things in most verses in the KJV King James Version square perfectly with holy Eastern Orthodoxy. God bless. Take care. Craig. How big is the Russian/Greek, etc. Church, Orthodox Church, in Cambodia? Moscow Patriarchate? Constantinople? Etc.?
50 believers max
Christ’s attitude to Cornelius, the Roman Centurion, and his great faith among the pagans, such faith Christ Himself had not found even in the blessed house of Israel itself; he praised the faith of this man, holding him up in his humble simplicity as an example for God from any nation, for all nations; later pagan Cornelius became a saved baptized Christian (Acts). Paganism is not all darkness; God has His people among the nations, and He is working out His plan among them, in ways not revealed to us in the Church; God wills that all men be saved; they need to hear the word of truth, the Gospel, but God has His testimony to His unity and goodness and law and grace and transcendence, even among pagan nations and religions (Romans 1). One Jehovah’s Witness who talked to me tried to tell me the Trinity is a pagan idea from Plato, and not in the New Testament. As it is, the Trinity is revealed even in paganism, and the New Testament reveals the inspired truth of God, unknown to the secular Arian Jehovah’s Witness group and their nefarious cult. Yes, cult. Surely, a danger, though they are peace-loving peoples generally.
Craig: Two very different Christian books.
1) Andreyev, I.M. (1995). Orthodox Apologetic Theology. Fr. Seraphim Rose, trans. Saint Herman of Alaska Brotherhood, PO Box 70, Platina, CA 96076; Saint Paisius Missionary School, PO Box 130, 7777 Martinelli Road, Forestville, CA 95436
2) Grady, William P., Ph.D. (1993). Final Authority: A Christian’s Guide to the King James Bible. Grady Publications, Inc., PO Box 243, Swartz Creek, MI 48473 http://www.gradypublications.com
Craig,
As far as repetition goes, Psalm 136 repeats the words “for his steadfast love endures for ever” 26 times in 26 verses.
Rev 4:8-11 “8 Each of the four living creatures had six wings and was studded with eyes all the way round as well as inside; and day and night they never stopped singing: Holy, Holy, Holy is the Lord God, the Almighty; who was, and is and is to come.’
9 Every time the living creatures glorified and honoured and gave thanks to the One sitting on the throne, who lives for ever and ever,
10 the twenty-four elders prostrated themselves before him to worship the One who lives for ever and ever, and threw down their crowns in front of the throne, saying:
11 You are worthy, our Lord and God, to receive glory and honour and power, for you made the whole universe; by your will, when it did not exist, it was created.”
About the number 490: “Daniel 9 made a specific prophecy about when the Messiah would come.
Dan 9:24 “24 [a]“Seventy weeks of years ( i.e 490 years) are decreed concerning your people and your holy city, to finish the transgression, to put an end to sin, and to atone for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness,”
That prophecy was given to Daniel by the angel Gabriel, who also appeared to Mary at the Annunciation.
Artaxerxes of Persia gave Ezra permission to go back to Jerusalem to rebuild the temple in 457 B.C., and Jesus died in 33 A.D. That is, 490 years. Forty years later (approx), Jerusalem was razed to the ground by the Romans (Titus), and the temple destroyed.”
Water: I believe Craig and you & I are on about all or most of the same pages when it comes to eschatology, Bible prophecy.
Both Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy is amillennial. Some of Calvinism is postmillennial. Some of it is premillennial. Most of Evangelicalism (fundamentalism) is premillennial. And pretribulation rapture. We do not believe the rapture/resurrection of the dead will be pretribulation.
We also agree the 70 weeks were fulfilled, some may say 30 AD, some say 33 AD, for the death and resurrection of Christ, so depending when you start BC and how you calculate that, it’s about right. No specified knowable 7 year future tribulation, just a time of trouble, a final antichrist figure, which century and when, unknown, though some think it, today, to be contemporaneous. The Church all of it just tells us to be ready for Christ to come again when least expected, which could be anytime whenever, but identity of final Antichrist yet unknown, said to arise from among the Jews, and possibly in Europe too. And Israel. Modern Israel, not necessarily a sign of end times. Possibly so. Possibly not. Theologoumenon. Not fixed dogma known to all of Christian Church. Christ Messiah came and fulfilled all of Daniel’s 70 weeks, Temple destroyed, 70 AD.. Christ is the New Temple, Now, Christ in the Church. No future temple in earthly Jerusalem some feel, St. John Chrysostom said, I believe. Not certain on what consensus of all Latin and Greek Fathers was/is on Bible prophecy. For the Orthodox, some Orthodox, see Charlemagne as a sign of coming apostasy in future, with his sign of contradiction against Christ, FILIOQUE. Much of Western Christendom innocent of knowing this, not knowing any better, I once said FILIOQUE. Until the Holy Spirit in Fr. Gillquist pointed out John 15:26 and Acts 2:33 to me. To us. Craig and I. It is time to agree on what we agree on. And leave to God to bring us to unity in FILIOQUE controversy, where some of us still part ways. Take care.
scott,
We do agree on very many things. The church does not require Orthodoxy to say the filioque in the creed because you and I know the sensibilities involved.
The Church cannot have communion with anyone who says Filioque in the Creed, does not do baptism and eucharist in the correct way, or who has any other serious heresy. But penitent sinners are welcome in communion. As well, there must be a sufficient confession of the same theology (doctrines/dogmas) of the faith, and no schisms. Generally the Church also rejects communion with those who have more serious differences with us than Catholicism is: Catholicism and Orthodoxy are much closer in history and theology than Orthodoxy and Protestantism: while Lutheranism is closer to Orthodoxy than Calvinism since Lutheranism is sufficiently Catholic, Orthodoxy reject Luther’s sola fideism and (nominalism) and sola scriptura (and subjectivism(, and rejects Calvinism in any form as totally nefarious anti-theology (Calvinism is neo-Nestorian and antinomian fatalism).
jaysanalysis.com
JaysAnalysis.com
From Thomism to Enlightenment Deism/Atheism
Published On August 22, 2013 » 520 Views» !
How would Thomism possibly lead to Enlightenment Deism/Atheism?
By: Jay
In my twenties, I was completely invested in the fortified religio-philosophical system known as Thomism. Catholicism was a massive castle of argumentation that was impenetrable to any skeptical challenger that might bombard the system with (what I assumed were) futile attacks. I recall reading Umberto Eco in his dissertation on Aquinas’ aesthetics commenting that he, too, was once an ardent Thomist until he came to the conclusion that the system just didn’t work. At that time, I couldn’t understand why anyone would come to that conclusion. How could something so vast and, as a my friend James Kelley said, “elegant,” be fundamentally flawed? That was some ten years or so ago, and in that span of time, Thomism was completely dismantled.
The path to that dismantling is not the subject of this article, but it is worth noting that I was someone totally invested in it, just as in my earlier years, I was totally invested in Protestantism. This has been the source of a lot of criticism for me from those who have observed my journey, but I could care less. Any change of view or new path I have taken was taken out of sincere interest in the truth or falsity of the worldview itself, regardless of the consequences of adopting those positions. And I suspect I’ll always be that way. From my perspective, wouldn’t you rather examine the opposing position to see if it holds water? What other option is there (assuming one has chosen a lifestyle which allows for such religio-philosophical investigations – a conscious choice I made)?
That said, the point of this article is simply to clarify some points on a recent debate I had with a friend concerning the major reasons that Thomism, as a system, is fundamentally flawed. In fact, I want to go even further and show how the Thomistic schema is precisely what led to the Enlightenment and the subsequent deism and atheism of the West. What’s in question here is not Augustine or Aquinas’ motivations or psychology, anymore than I care what Calvin’s motivations were. What’s in question here is the actual published position of Aquinas (and Augustine by extension), in terms of whether it had an instrumental influence on the Enlightenment and the trek Western philosophy took into modernism and the endless word-sludge we see in philosophy today. It is my contention that this is correct: the lesser known Eastern critique is right in making the strong claim that Thomism is a pivotal step in the Western trek from what might be termed a revelational epistemology to Enlightenment empiricism, scientism, deism and atheism.
This article is going to assume knowledge of Thomism on the part of the reader, too, since those interested in an abundance of footnotes and citations can easily search the archives for numerous articles full of citations. Here, we are just going to speak about the system’s golden chain of internal “Dumb Ox” logic. This also doesn’t mean that I think the Eastern view is itself free from all problems or difficulties, but rather that it provides a strong enough critique that I doubt I would ever be reconciled to Thomism again, as much as I would never be brought back to Protestantism. Indeed, it is quite evident to me (and has been for the last several years unchallenged) that Thomism, for whatever good points might be salvaged from it, is so fundamentally flawed that it actually propelled the West down its path of downward spiraling dissolution.
The key issue to look at in order to understand this problem in Thomism is God’s relation to, and action in, the world. Aquinas starts with the assumption of divine simplicity meaning that God is what God has, and God is what God does. God is actus purus, or pure act, with no potentiality. His essence is utterly simple, such that anything predicated of God is only distinguished logically. That means the distinctions made between attributes are only distinctions suited to human finite cognition, and not actual distinctions in reality. Thus, God’s act of creating might be distinguished from His justice or foreknowledge in the human mind, but in actuality, those acts, attributes and predicates are strictly identical to the divine essence, or ousia, in reality. This is a fundamental law in Thomism, as well as in Augustine, and should be without question to those who are studied Thomists. This is abundantly clear in both Summas, as well as in other works like De Veritate.
How, then, does a Being that is so constituted operate in a world of flux and temporality? Aquinas’ answer is dominated by the idea of the analogia entis: we know God by His created effects in the world. This is why causality plays such a large role in his theology. God is not only the First Cause, following Aristotle, but also the providential sovereign over history and temporal causality within history, too. God’s foreknowledge is His justice and love, and all history is in the process of its summation in the grand telos of all things returning to their source, the First Cause, in the beatific vision of eternity where his renewed rational creation will see all things in that singular, supremely simple divine essence. That is an accurate, general statement about the totality of the Thomistic system, but what emerges is a serious problem: how does a deity so defined actually act in this world?
For Augustine, Thomas’ chief theological mentor, God acted through created effects such that even the apparently direct actions were still created effects. Or, to be more accurate, created special effects: in De Trinitate, Augustine stipulated that the manifestations of the Angel of the Lord could only have been temporary angelic holograms. They could not have been the Logos (despite what other patristic writers had said). This conclusion was reached because it was impossible for the divine to manifest directly in time and space, since that would mean God was no longer simple. Any being located in a certain place at a certain time was a being composed or parts, and therefore not absolutely simple. For Aquinas this law holds as well, inasmuch as the analogia entis is a central component of his superstructure: God is only known by analogy to created things because we have no access to the divine ousia in this life. God grants illumination, to be sure, but those gifts He gives are still a created effect of supernatural grace. Knowledge of God and participation in divine life are theologically precluded from any direct divine experience until the beatific vision. That is not to say that God can’t speak to men or convey blessings, but these are still, for us, created effects.
To be fair to Aquinas and Augustine, they do speak of “divine life,” “deification,” etc., but how this is possible in both theologians is often very hairy. Sometimes it sounds as if believers are participating in the divine essence, and other times the impossibility of such an idea precludes them from really making sense. The Roman divisions of grace into all the “categories” like prevenient, sanctifying, supernatural, etc., are often marshaled as explanations, but none of these serve to answer the problem at hand: how do we participate in this divine life if there is no access to the divine ousia in this life? Indeed, when Christ was resurrected in classical Christian theology, what was the divine light shown radiating from Him? The answer of the East is quite different from the answer of the West. For the West, the light is a created effect, while for the East, it is the divine energy itself. The question of Tabor really serves to solidify these two positions, since the question of the “deification” of the flesh of Christ is the same issue as the deification of the believer.
Likewise, for Aquinas, revelation of God can only be had through created effects because of his empirical approach to theology. Since he accepts the basically Aristotelian approach to the human psyche, man’s knowledge, even of God, comes through sense experience. Since the human mind, even in its obtaining of natural knowledge, does so by abstracting a universal concept from the phantasm presented to the mind through sense experience, the same problem as above arises for epistemology due to where Thomas locates the universal. Universal concepts are located in the divine Mind, which, as you can now see, is also the divine essence. In classical and medieval philosophy, this is called exemplarism. It means that the ideas behind things, often functioning as the essence of a thing, are ultimately contained in the Mind of God.
For Aquinas and Augustine, exemplarism is true, and the exemplars, or forms of things, are located in God. Thus, for Aquinas, even the knowledge men have naturally is had through empirical experience that ultimately draws upon a universal concept located in God. But a dilemma emerges: how is the human mind supposed to abstract the universal in its little mirror in the human mind, when it has no access to the divine directly? The only way this can work is if there is some bridge between the phantasm and the actual concept in the divine Mind. But even if its said to be a faint mirror of the “real” concept in the divine mind, it wouldn’t matter, since the definition of divine simplicity has already precluded distinctions in the divine Mind (because it is the divine essence). In other words, the problem is moved back a step, since no mind in this life has access to the beatific vision. For Thomas’ scheme to work, he needs access in this life to the divine directly in some form or fashion. But remember: his working definition of simplicity absolutely precludes such a direct, revelational experience of divinity itself. All that can be known of God in this life are His created effects in the world which in a faint way are supposed to show us some analogy of His essence. This is also why Maximos the Confessor identifies the logoi (his version of exemplars) as divine energies, not the divine essence.
Another problem this view has is that the analogia entis sets up God as somehow operating on a continuum of being where, because Aquinas interprets ‘I Am that I Am” as oddly meaning “I am Pure Being,” that therefore God’s being is like all other being. This is the basis of the analogia entis, wherein the assumption is made that things “be,” and God “bes,” so there is some kind of faint analogy of “being” that can be grasped between created being and divine being. However, the same pesky problem emerges again with the question of absolute divine simplicity. How can there be any similarity in the “being” of created, temporal being and uncreated, eternal “being”? There is no similarity at all.
Indeed, apophatic theology, which Aquinas professes to hold to, dictates that the infinite and uncreated is only understood by negation – by what it is not. “But wait,” you retort, “that means we cannot know God, since there is no analogical predication. Aquinas rejects univocal and equivocal predication of God, opting for analogical predication. See, it’s the happy medium!” Mr. Thomist, you’ve missed the point. Aquinas has not solved his dilemma, but compounded it, by making the divine essence somehow analogical to created being (which is idolatry). It’s the divine energy that is known, not God’s essence. The divine essence is utterly impossible to know or fathom, precisely because the created mind will always be finite. No man or angel could ever take on omniscience or omnipresence or omnipotence.
So what presents itself is a two-fold path Thomism can take with all these working assumptions. It can 1) say that the divine is confined to its realm, only interacting in this world through created effects and created grace and various created causes, but this path would mean the fundamentals of Christianity are no longer possible. The divine Person of Christ could not really deify flesh, the sacraments are just conduits of more “created grace,” and human knowledge this life is never really a divine illumination, or 2) it can make the divine essence become something to be shared in by created being, in which case pantheism would ensue. Either path is a dead-end, and either path is necessitated because of the rejection of the essence/energy distinction and the inflexible, rigid Neo-platonic definition of what simplicity is. I want to stress that it is the same problem throughout these examples because it’s constantly the question of how to relate Thomas’ idea of an absolutely simple being of Pure Act to a created world of flux and time.
Once this framework is grasped, it now becomes clear how this might lead to Enlightenment skepticism, deism, rationalism, and atheism. If all that is ever known of God are created effects in this life, or if God is placed on a continuum of “being” where the divine essence is likened to created being, then it makes no sense to believe in this God, especially when the starting point for theology is empirical. How could empirical sense-data ever give any “evidence” for a being that, even according to Thomas’ definition of divine simplicity, bears no real relation to created being? The absolutely simple divine essence itself has no cause, and is not itself caused or a cause, so what use is the analogia entis in saying it’s a “First Cause”? It’s a meaningless phrase, as it tells us nothing and still never bridges the impenetrable gap of Thomistic simplicity. What use is it to say that human knowledge is grounded in the untouchable exemplar in the divine essence? Again, it’s worthless and tells us nothing – indeed, it’s impossible on this systems’ own grounds! Those who have read Palamas’ argumentation with Barlaam the Calabrian will immediately be familiar with the similarities of argumentation. In fact, it is precisely these points that Palamas makes to Barlaam that lead him to prophetically conclude that the track of the person who adopted this would be atheism, logically carried out. Regardless of one’s view of eastern theology, Palamas was prescient when it came to where western theology would go.
The path to Enlightenment skepticism, deism. rationalism and scientism is directly from the empirical theology that even preceded Aquinas in thinkers like Abelard, and was contemporary with Aquinas in people like Ockham. Though Thomas was not a nominalist, he accepted the same epistemic starting point of the nominalists, namely, empiricism, and empirical based theology, that, again, derives from the analogia entis. Nominalism is absurd, and certainly worse than Aquinas in many respects, but insofar as they shared the same empirical starting point as Aquinas, they were more consistent. If God is banished from being directly present in the world through His immanent energies, all that is left is a material world of causation with an unknown deity locked within itself. That position is deism, and deism quickly leads to atheism. If sense-data is the only source of human knowledge, and sense-data is therefore the source of knowledge of God,. none of these created causal effects amounts to real knowledge of the divine itself. The divine is never accessed or experienced at all, just a series of created causes. And that, my readers, is the view of David Hume – that is how Thomism leads to Enlightenment atheism.
For further reading, I recommend Dr. Sherrard’s criticism along the lines above of Teilhard de Chardin – another shining example
romeosyne says:
August 22, 2013 at 8:10 am
I am reading a book called “Religion of the Heart” that shows how the “affective” piety of Jansenism is, oddly enough, close to Molinism, German Pietism, and the “Sacred Heart” phenomenon. What is the basis of their similarity? Their re-affirmation of Augustinian teachings on the will as being “affective.” One ironic detail: When the Jansenists were attacked by Dominicans, the Jansenists simply quoted other prominent Dominicans’ Augustinian statements back to them; quoted them against themselves. It does show that there is some tension amongst Catholics when a group gets too Augustinian; but it also reveals that there is nowhere to go but “all the way” to Jansenism if you are consistently Augustinian…
Against All Logic says:
August 22, 2013 at 7:37 pm
Jay I always think the Catholic and Protestant churches shoot themselves in the foot by at once believing in God whilst insisting the only mediator between God and the people can be the church. In other words for the people there can be no revelation. The atheists have a field day with this because they can brand the church “belief” and “superstition”. If the church wants to win the argument why not embrace revelation as opposed to belief? To me the church and atheists are two sides of the same coin – no revelation for anyone. I’m especially puzzled by this because Loyola and various Christian mystics promoted revelation not belief.
jay008 says:
August 22, 2013 at 7:50 pm
There has to be a direct perception of God or else we are led to the failed theology of Thomism and created causality. This means God is immediately present to the Nous that seeks God. This wouldn’t necessarily preclude organized religion, but if Maximos’ view of the logoi is right, clearly God is immanently present. Dr Sherrard has good essays on this.
Against All Logic says:
August 23, 2013 at 11:23 am
I agree there must be direct perception but when we talk of intellect the situation is not straight forward. There is overt intellect and there is intuition. Personally I consider the overt intellect to be a kind of usurper that militates against direct perception. The intuition is another matter as it is grounded at a deeper level of perception. The church is in a losing battle with atheism precisely because it has abandoned the idea of personal development. Why are people leaving the church and increasingly interested in religions like Buddhism? It’s because Buddhism offers them something to get their teeth into whereas present day Christianity is a bit dull and formulaic. Bring back the Christian mystics.
Thanks for the link. I agree that there is no separation between the material world and man and God because they are all emanations of a divine cause. Heaven can be found here on earth but heaven is a state of being. I also don’t see any contradiction between the idea that the world is illusion and God. What is matter anyway when we get down to it. Can matter as a solid substance actually exist? The problem with considering matter as an actual object somehow separate from underlying reality is that the laws of physics would have to be incorporated in individual objects. But clearly the laws of physics belong to reality not to matter alone. The problem with materialism is that it actually posits the idea that material objects are self contained universes even though this is flatly contradicted by it’s own empirical science (think quantum mechanics). The material world must be a projection from the centre of creation.
jay008 says:
August 22, 2013 at 8:00 pm
Click to access default.aspx
Bruce J. Kolinski, P.E. says:
August 22, 2013 at 10:16 pm
Great commentary. Thank you. In my ignorant world of childlike simplicity, God is infinite. Therefore, everything in existence is God including humans, rocks and especially dogs, regardless the energy form manifested. To suggest A is not A or that any form of physical or spiritual reality is not God, or is apart from God is to deny creative intelligence, which is in itself a denial of reality.
Daniel says:
August 23, 2013 at 12:58 am
“Universal concepts are located in the divine Mind, which, as you can now see, is also the divine essence. In classical and medieval philosophy, this is called exemplarism. It means that the ideas behind things, often functioning as the essence of a thing, are ultimately contained in the Mind of God.”
Does exemplarism logically then lead to pantheism since everything is contained in the mind of God–to include persons and things? If not, why not? Thank you.
Is there room for a non-ADS triadology in protestantism? It seems not–though I suppose protestants can sort of do as they please, theologically speaking anyway.
Good essay. I will be rereading it again soon.
jay008 says:
August 26, 2013 at 5:10 pm
If this is Daniel Jones, I’m sure you know the responses to all this. Protestantism might be able to escape ADS since it has no consistent Dogma or Tradition, but it’s pretty standard commitment to sola scriptura is bound up with analogia fidei, the Protestant version of the analogia entis. It, too, suffers from the same issues, as Romanides explains here:
http://www.oodegr.com/english/filosofia/analog1.htm
http://orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/frjr_notes1.aspx
Daniel says:
August 26, 2013 at 11:02 pm
No, this is not Daniel Jones. I am asking honest questions that I have been mulling over for some time–particularly the pantheism question. Thank you for the links to the Fr. Romanides articles. I appreciate the time you take to write these essays–they are informative and concise.
Chris Young says:
September 3, 2014 at 6:00 pm
Jay did not respond, but I’ll take a crack at it. It is the “idea” that is in the Mind of God. The material reflection is another matter. In Christian theology, God is always separate from creation. Somehow, Platonism crept into the thought of Aquinas and Augustine. But as far as I’m concerned, these two simply muddle perfectly good Gospel teaching, and the teaching of the apostles and St Paul.
Anon says:
December 13, 2017 at 1:59 am
Pantheism would (as far as my understanding goes) reduce God to a cosmic totality wherein God is not more than the sum of His ‘parts’, whereas in true metaphysics God is—while indeed immanent in all reality—also transcending all and being thus infinitely more than any manifestation. So even though creation does not exist apart from the fullness of God, it can in no way limit Him, and therefore it is not a matter of pantheism.
Caleb says:
October 28, 2013 at 1:27 pm
People can still know truths about God through abstraction because we are made in the image of God. in the Thomistic system we cannot know God directly because we do not apprehend His essence, but we can still know logical truths about Him by examining truths in the world and then understanding what the cause of those truths must therefore be.
jay008 says:
October 28, 2013 at 2:07 pm
Yes, Caleb, I know. That is the problem with placing the archetypes of created things, upon which even natural knowledge is based, in the divine essence. I have dealt with that in these articles:
https://jaysanalysis.com///2010/05/13/problems-in-thomistic-epistemology/
https://jaysanalysis.com///2010/04/11/gregory-of-nazianzus-vs-thomistic-analogia-entis/
https://jaysanalysis.com///2010/04/07/lengthy-response-to-a-thomist/
Hans Coessens says:
February 14, 2014 at 12:44 am
There is a problem in your critique of Thomism as being “exemplarist”. He does not believe that all universals or properties are to be found in the mind of God. It is pretty obvious that the property of “being a computer” is contingent and is limited to the instantiations of it in the material world. St Thomas never wrote anywhere that contingent properties are ultimately found in the mind of God. Nor did Plato, nor St Augustine. The only properties that God would have that could be called “universal” would be the five transcendentals. Even so, they would not be in God’s mind rather they are to be found in God and all things participate in them to one degree or another. You seem to lack a bit of understanding of St Thomas’ doctrine of participation which is necessary to understand the concept of analogia entis. The great book by Fr Tomas Tyn OP ‘Metafisica della sostanza’ clarifies this a bit more but it is Italian only. We do not only participate of Grace in God through the sacraments, etc. but our very being is a participation of the Divine Esse.
Augustinus says:
May 11, 2015 at 9:56 pm
While I cannot agree with your views on Neoplatonism and only partially with those on Augustine, your assesement and criticism of Thomism is spot on and the same as my own: my major criticism of Thomism is that it denies that the human soul can come, in a certain measure, to be transformed so as to know and participate in Divine Wisdom and Being , even during this very life. This is the cornerstone of the Platonic Church Fathers and Theologians and the Contemplative Saints and Masters of all time (down to Elizabeth of the Trinity). You acutely observe that the Thomistic texts are at the most disturbingly ambiguious about this – and Garrigou-Lagrange needed to juggle for 1000 pages to reconcile Aquinas and Saint John of the Cross. I would like to mention that you should not approach the golden radiance of Classical and Alexandrian Philosophy through the foggy lens of Thomism or Scholasticism ! Read the texts in the original – the potential deification of man is everywhere, there is no cutting off and separation and unknowability.
I am a practicing Roman Catholic and a non-Thomist (and in fact in many respects an anti-Thomist), and admirer of the Platonic and Neoplatonic Fathers and of Ontologism. You mentioned your acquaintance with Catholic Traditionalism, so you are probably familiar with their pet 19th-century Catholicism as well as their arguments against Vatican II. I wish to find in Vatican II a positive purification of the Roman Church from her historical crimes and errors that potentially would allow a return to the pure essence of Gospel, the Church Fathers and the first seven Ecumenical Councils. This would means a return to Platonic and Neoplatonic Christianity and an overthrow of Thomism and Tridentine and 19th-century Catholicism – in fact the whole shape and state of the Church crafted specifically by the Dominicans and the Jesuits. The traditionalists could argue from Trent and the 19th-Century Encyclicals that I am not a Catholic and indeed that the post-Vatican II Church is not Catholic. The Vatican II Popes and Hierarchy do not seem to be able to produce any clear and cogent counter-argument to the Traditionalists except an appeal to Obedience and Unity, or at worse a Newman-type evolutionary relativistic (Marxist-like) Living Magisterium which is an insult to reason and morality. A most glaring example is the following: since the institution of the New Testament the Jews were pronounced damned and the Old Covenant Abolished… until 1965; but now we pray on Good Friday that the Jews should remain faithful to their Covenant. What I wish is for the Church to make a clear official doctrinal statement that THE CHURCH WAS WRONG IN THE PAST ABOUT THE JEWS and therefore THE CHURCH IS LIABLE TO ERROR AND THE PAPAL ENCYCLICALS AND MAGISTERIUM ARE NOT INFALLIBLE. But were not many Church Fathers such as Chrysostom also very explicit about Extra Ecclesia Nulla Salvus and the collective guilt of the Jews ? And also where would the supreme authority be then ? Of course , with Orthodoxy, we could answer: in Scripture and the Fathers (Tradition). I decided not to put such controversial considerations in my main blog, which is mainly philosophical.
I liked your posts that illustrated how the clumbsy sophisms of the New Atheists do not stand up to a serious philosophical and logical analysis – and in particular your tracing their roots in Hume and Carnap. I have included links to these posts on my blog.
However I think the real problem here is not bad logic and bad philosophy (and bad hygiene) but bad science and in particular bad biology. Current materialistc biology does not make use of the elaborate geometrical-dynamical models necessary for grasping the global hierarchical structure of living organism (and its harmonious >>integration<< with its environment) and the vast array of data that irrefutably confirms the necessary existence of a spectrum of new fields and forces (analogous to the discovery of the electomagnetic, weak and strong fields) that determine and regulate living beings. In the light of these facts, Darwinism is puerile rubbage that belongs in the historical dustbin of materialist mythology (with Frankenstein and the robots of La Mettrie) , having as much relevance to biological science as Ptolomean astronomy to modern Physics.
jay008 says:
May 11, 2015 at 9:58 pm
Thanks. Much to agree with in your comments but I ended up parting ways with Rome over the E/E distinction.
Augustinus says:
May 18, 2015 at 5:57 pm
I have been reading some of your very well written and interesting articles on ADS and the E/E distinction (which, I am sure your are aware, is in a reality a return to the most fundamental of all philosophical questions inaugurated by Plato’s Parmenides), which means on the question of Thomism, and also, so it would seem, the whole Neoplatonic and Augustinian tradition in Western Theology. One thing that is clear is how tightly knit together are philosophy (psychology, epistemology, metaphysics) and systems of dogmatic theology – using all these terms all in a general “scholastic” sense. From the dawn of the Middle Ages until the 1860’s there was always a great variety of differentiated philosophical and theological traditions, schools and systems – attached to different religious orders – that could equally claim the right to be called “Catholic” and rooted in the Fathers and Classical Philosophy. The Church’s authority and position was supposedly generally never one to take sides in philosophical or theological debates and controversies between different orders and schools, except when fundamental dogmas of the faith are involved, which in turn had to be grounded on Scripture and the Unanimous consent of the Fathers. Such brilliant, profoundly non-Thomistic philosophers and theologians as Cusa, Descartes, Malebranche and Fénelon (which reflourished as Ontologism in the 19th-century until the Jesuit-Neothomist coup of 1879) can also trace their roots to aspects of Augustine – but it is true, their most outstanding works where placed on the Index, as was nearly the case of Saint John of the Cross.
The fact that after the preliminary attacks of the 1860’s in 1879 Papal Power and Authority (in particular Leo XIII, Pius IX and Piux X, Doctoris Angelici: “the principles of philosophy laid down by St. Thomas Aquinas are to be religiously and inviolably observed, because they are the means of acquiring such a knowledge of creation as is most congruent with the Faith”) was used to exclusively, extravagantly and brutally promote, exalt and impose in all domains the particular quasi-empricist PHILOSOPHY and theology of the Dominican Aquinas to the exclusion, contempt and elimination of all others schools and systems, and the very Church Father Augustine, is a complete unfounded abuse and overstepping of the legitime role and power of the Papacy and not consistent with traditional Catholic Doctrine or Practice, and indeed quite philosophically laughable. Also the fact that Vatican II abrogated the Neothomist inquistion shows how infallibly short such infallible pontifications are! But what really happen behind the scenes was that the corrupt Jesuits after they had instigated this Neothomism (a Jesuit by the name Kleutgen wrote the 1879 Aeterni Patris), which was Plan A, proceeded to Plan B, which was the Theilhardian -Marxist-Liberation Theology Vatican II ideology.
So I do not think that being highly critical of Aquinas is sufficient grounds to leave Rome ! Have you read
Malebranche, Fénelon’s (Treatise on the Existence of God (only exists in French)), Ubaghs, Hugonin, Gerdil, and D’Envieu, all great figures in Ontologism – a system of theological idealism in which we know all thing directly by the examplars in God, which are diverse modes of the Infinite. Also have your read the original works of Saint John of the Cross and Saint Teresa of Avila – in particular the positive way she describes the intimate union fo the soul with God which seems very hard to square with any “created Grace” or “intellectual visions”. Ontologism also has some connection to counter-enlightment and counter-revolutionary figures such as De Maistre.
Thank you! I’m researching for a paper, and knew you would have some good stuff. This is what I was thinking on the matter. My thesis is comparing Dostoyevsky’s “necessity of God/to believe in God view or else there is depravity” to Aquinas’ need to syllogistically prove God exists.
Dostoyevsky uses the metaphor of the Jesuit to represent the whole Western rationalistic theology. For him it is casuistry. A Catholic told me that there need not be depravity without a belief in God because of the natural law. My thesis however is that the depravity of man without a confession of God is self-evident, and that the issue, in the mind of Dostoyevsky, is not whether God exists, but that He exists, and to not believe in Him is to be depraved. But with the Western concept of natural law, you can be just as good, or just about, without believing. Granted, there is a natural law, but it is an exaggerated concept in the West, which, as you know, led to humanism, and what has followed.
About Us
JaysAnalysis has grown to become one of the premier film and philosophy sites on the net, showcasing the talents of Jay Dyer, whose graduate work focused on the interplay of film, geopolitics, espionage and psychological warfare. Jay is a public speaker, lecturer, comedian and author of the popular title Esoteric Hollywood: Sex, Cults and Symbols in Film, which made it to Amazon’s No. 1 spot in its first month of release in the Film and Hollywood Category.
Contact and Content
Copyright, JaysAnalysis.com
scott,
A lot of speculation here.
I wish Thomas Aquinas was here to speak for himself.
Aquinas’ doctrines and beliefs were heretical, so I reject them.
His calling pagan Aristotle “the Philosopher” as if he were an apologetic for Christianity is another heretical mistake.
scott,
A question for you: Is God the Father greater than God the Son in his divinity?
The Father is not greater than the Son in His Divinity, but Christ said and Christ is God, Christ said, “The Father is Greater Than I”. Which means the Cause of Christ’s Divinity is God the Father, God from God, Light from Light. And the Cause of the Holy Spirit’s Divinity is the Father alone, not the Father and the Son Filioque. If Christ is truly a fully human man, He cannot be the source of the eternal Divinity procession of the Holy Spirit. But as true God and true Man, Christ can and did send the Holy Spirit from the Father in time, temporal mission, temporal “procession”, so to speak, not the same as the eternal origin of the Spirit ek monou to Patros, from the Father alone.
scott,
Good to know we agree on that at least. You guys are still tangled up about procession. You will not admit the distinction between first cause and procession, and like protestants, you stick to one or two scripture quotes and ignore the rest, just like Jehovah’s witnesses stick to “The Father is greater than I” to deny Jesus’ divinity, to your detriment.
Water, Your suggestion I act like a Protestant because I stick to one or two Scripture quotes but ignore the rest is hypocritical. I know the Scripture that says “Spirit of Christ”, but those words do not prove Filioque. The only Scriptures that deal with procession of the Spirit are John 15:26 and Acts 2:33, so it has nothing to do with acting like a Protestant. You say I stick to one or two Scriptures but ignore the rest. You quote Matthew 16 to try to prove the papacy. One Scripture. See what I mean. You do ignore the rest of the Scripturew which prove the equality of the apostles and which nowhere make Peter a king over the other apostles. Saint Paul actually rebuked Saint Peter, but papal infallibility is based on the premise that no other human has the right to rebuke the Pope.
scott,
Where did you dig up that rubbish? “papal infallibility is based on the premise that no other human has the right to rebuke the Pope.”
Many popes have been rebuked, and many times rightly so.
Rubbish? That does not agree with the statements on papal infallibility, which states the decisions and doctrines of the popes are irreformable in themselves, and not with the consent of the Church. How do you explain that statement away? If the pope’s decisions are irreformable, how can there be any rebuke by the Church?
scott,
Not any old decisions of the pope!
Not every decision of the Pope is irreformable. The Pope only is infallible when he speaks with his special Charism ex Cathedra. There seems to be a gross misunderstanding between the theological ideas of infallibility and impeccability.
scott,
The doctrine of the Filioque was declared to be a dogma of faith in the Fourth Lateran Council (1215), the Second Council of Lyons (1274), and the Council of Florence (1438-1445).
It’s not just the pope making decisions.
Papal infallibility was declared a dogma of the church by a church council, not by the pope himself.
Those councils contradict the 2nd Ecumenical Council of the Orthodox Catholic Church, 381 AD, of 318 holy Fathers. Therefore, these alleged councils are robber councils of heresiarchs (arch-heretics) and schismatics, and fall under the ANATHEMA MARANATHA of the All-Holy Spirit in the Holy Catholic Church (and all of the Popes, 325-880 AD), and the seal of the Holy Spirit in good popes Leo III and John VIII, 8th Ecumenical Council of the Roman Catholic Church, Rome, 879-880 AD. Florence is an abomination; those Greek who fell away from God, from the Holy Spirit, fell away from the LORD Christ Jesus, by signing onto the abomination of desolation, FILIOQUE, caused God’s judgment to fall on Constantinople 1453 AD, the Turkish captivity of the Greek East and Ecumenical Patriarchate, for this betrayal of Orthodoxy, of Catholicity, of the holy Ecumenical Councils. God is not mocked; whatsoever a man soweth, the same shall he reap. My experience with walking with the LORD, when I confessed Filioque, and I confessed Lutheranism, I was an antinomian, and steeped in carnal sin. I repented not. I followed the tradition of an arch-heretic, Martin Luther. And his casual stance toward the Holy New Testament, Saint Paul, and the Law of God, and his dismissal of James 2:24. When I came to Christ, in the Orthodox Church, THE RUDDER, the Holy Scripture of Saint Paul, of the nature of my sins, of my sin, the Holy Spirit set me free of my carnal lust and my bad misconduct, and took away my bad sexual habits, and saved me, the LORD Christ Jesus saved me, while I began confessing Anathema Maranatha to FILIOQUE. That WILD ANIMAL and FOX of the CAESAROPAPIST, CHARLEMAGNE. God bless you all always and illuminate the eyes of your heart, of your inner spirit, and free you from Filioque abomination before it is too late. Too late for you. God bless us all together in the One Holy Orthodox Catholic Church (30 AD – 880 AD) as a basis for Ecumenical Reunion, especially. Take care.
scott,
In your schismatic view.
Our faith is Orthodox Christian. Your view is schismatic and heretical.
scott,
As I said.
September 1st marks the launch of a new site: Dropthefilioque.com. This web site was created by a group of Orthodox Christians who want to respond to overtures by Roman Catholics seeking the reunification of Roman Catholicism with Eastern Orthodoxy.
One major impediment to reunification is the Filioque clause in the Nicene Creed. The original version of the Nicene Creed confessed:
And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Creator of Life,
Who proceeds from the Father . . . .
The Church of Rome unfortunately added the Filioque clause (and the Son), changing the sentence from “Who proceeds from the Father” to “Who proceeds from the Father and the Son.”
Link to site
Link to site
The Site’s Petition
The site is primarily for Roman Catholics who seek to end the schism between Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy. It is basically an online petition in which the petitioner makes the following request of the church’s hierarchy:
As a Roman Catholic Christian committed to future Christian unity between both east and west, I urge that the Filioque clause (“and the Son”) be removed from the Nicene Creed as used in both liturgical services and texts.
There is also an online petition that Protestants can sign.
Tradition and Creed
Many people ask: “What’s the big deal about the Filioque? Can’t we all just get along?” One thing I’ve noticed about Western Christians, both Roman Catholics and Protestants, is that they try to show how the Filioque is a reasonable doctrine. But there is a hidden assumption at work here. It is that if a doctrine can be shown to be reasonable then it is permissible for us to alter the Nicene Creed. But do we have the authority to revise the Creed? The Orthodox answer is that only an Ecumenical Council has that authority.
Modern theology is reason driven. Theologians will put forward theological propositions and debate the matter attempting to show that their propositions or theological systems possess a superior logic to the others. The sources for theological propositions vary according to theological traditions. They can be Scripture, early church fathers, papal decrees, modern science, modern theological scholarship, etc. Creeds are viewed as expressions of our beliefs, the end result of theologizing.
Classical Christian theology assumes an Apostolic Tradition that is passed on from one generation to the next. Theology debates are attempts to explore the implications of Tradition. Tradition is the foundation for theology, not the other way around. In this context the Nicene Creed expresses Apostolic Tradition. Within the oral Tradition received from the Apostles was an implicit sense of what the Scriptures taught regarding Christ. When this implicit understanding of Jesus as the Son of God came under attack by heresy the Church was forced to define this teaching explicitly and formally.
In the early fourth century the Christian Church was faced with the deadly heresy of Arianism which denied the divinity of Christ. The bishops assembled at Nicea in 325 examined Scripture in light of the Tradition they received. Under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, they repudiated the Arian heresy and issued the Nicene Creed. That was the First Ecumenical Council. In 381 the Second Ecumenical Council (Constantinople I) expanded the section pertaining to the Holy Spirit. Then in 431 the Third Ecumenical Council (Ephesus) ruled that no further alteration to the Nicene Creed was allowed.
The significance of an ecumenical council is that it states the consensus of the Church Catholic guided by the Holy Spirit on a particular matter. It is not so much an option or an opinion as it is an authoritative teaching binding on all Christians.
Prescriptive or Descriptive?
Orthodoxy understands the Nicene Creed to be prescriptive. It does not so much describe what all Christians might believe about God as it states authoritatively what Christians must believe about God, Christ, and the Church. One could say that the Nicene Creed has an authority similar to that of a Supreme Court ruling on the US Constitution. For Orthodox Christians the Church through her bishops has the authority to teach and define doctrine. The teaching authority of the bishops trace back to Christ’s sending the Apostles to teach all the world (Matthew 28:19-20). The Church relied historically more on the bishops, the successors to the Apostles, than on theologians with academic degrees.
For Protestants the Nicene Creed is primarily descriptive. They believe that the Nicene Creed does not have authority in itself but is derived from the Bible. In other words, the authority of the Creed is derivative, not substantive. So long as the Nicene Creed is in agreement with Scripture then it is to be accepted. This is consistent with sola Scriptura. However, if a better interpretation of Scripture emerges then it is allowable to amend the Nicene Creed or make an altogether new creedal formula, hence Anglicanism’s 39 Articles, Lutheranism’s Augsburg Confession, the Reformed tradition’s Westminster Confession, Heidelberg Catechism, Second Helvetic Confession, etc.
For Roman Catholics the Nicene Creed is under the Pope, not over the Pope. When the Pope inserted the Filioque into the Nicene Creed a major realignment of ecclesial authority took place. The Pope without the assent of the other historic patriarchates: Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem, and without convening an ecumenical council of bishops, unilaterally altered the Nicene Creed. This was done even though the Third Ecumenical Council (Ephesus 431, Canon VII) forbade the creation of a new creed. In essence, the Bishop of Rome was claiming a magisterium (teaching authority) equal to or superior to the Ecumenical Councils. In exerting authority over the first three Ecumenical Councils the Pope was claiming authority over all Seven Ecumenical Councils. Simply put, the Bishop of Rome, once first among equals, now claimed supremacy over all Christians, a startling departure from Tradition. The emergence of a papal model of authority would in time clash with Orthodoxy’s conciliar model of authority. Here we see how the Filioque lies at the root of the West-East Schism.
A First Step to Reunification
The online petition is to be viewed as a first step to reunification. Unless the Filioque is officially dropped by the Roman Catholic Church any talk about reuniting with Eastern Orthodoxy will be premature. We urge the Church of Rome and other Western Christians to return to the Creed confessed by the Church of the first one thousand years of church history.
We recognize that there are other important issues that need to be addressed, e.g., papal infallibility, the Marian dogmas, the Novus Ordo Mass, the Uniate churches, etc. But let the restoration of the original authoritative version of the Nicene Creed be considered a sign that a new period of dialogue between Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy is around the corner.
Robert Arakaki
Disclosure: OrthodoxBridge is one of the sponsoring sites.
scott,
The filioque is a dogma of the church.
Yes, the Catholic Magisterium claims it never teaches error, so if they were to drop the filioque, every single other dogma would be up for grabs in a Church of over 1 billion Christians. I would think this wouldn’t be a string the Orthodox would want to pull at; however, just looking at the split of Theologians, it appears that those who are strongly in favor of this approach are the minority within Orthodoxy, much in the resemblance of SSPX. Many Orthodox Theologians agree with Maximus that “procession through the son” is totally fine between both Catholics and Orthodox. I’d imagine opposition mostly from the Russians, as I think they more or less excommunicated the Greeks today… They are more in favor of their Nationalistic church than the Gospel, something that Augustine rebuked the Donatist of in sermons on First John.
Also, another note that Scott does misrepresent Pope Leo III’s papacy on the matter of the filioque. In fact, the creed was simply dropped from masses during the pontificate because he didn’t want it added to the creed; however, it did agree that the procession through the Son was indeed Dogma. Simple research clarifies that matter.
So one Pope didn’t want Filioque added, and one Pope did want Pope added? That is not reconciliable with infallibility. ISTM. Peter had a closeness to Jesus that no other Christian had, other than John and James, who were also with Christ at Mt. Tabor Transfiguration. And none of them said Filioque. Especially not St. John 15:26. It is clear this talk of yours is out of line, and it is not correct. It is sad the beliefs you say contradict 2,000 years of Undivided Orthodox Church unchanging tradition. Minority or majority matters not. Truth matters (see Gospel of John).
Again, you seem to not understand and confuse the concepts of infallibility and impeccability.
Also, The irony of your proof text actually proves the Catholic position, so thank you for keep posting John 15:26, “When the Advocate comes whom I will send you…” If it proved your position it would say, “When the advocate comes to you from the Father.” And add no additional modifier, which the text does indeed do so. Again, you interpretation renders four words of Christ meaningless.
Philip: It is the Filioque interpretation of yours which renders the five words of Christ “who proceedeth from the Father” meaningless. It is your confusion of “whom I shall send unto you from the Father” nine words of Christ with an eternal procession of Christ, allegedly from the Son, as well, because the Son sends the Spirit from the Father, in time, you are reading an idea into this Scripture that is simply not there. You are going by Augustine of Hippo and his neo-Platonism philosophy, and not by trained Greek-speaking, Greek-reading Greek Orthodox Catholic theologians who know the New Testament Greek theology, Augustine, whose main language was Latin, not Greek, and whose main education was in pagan philosophy, not in Greek Christian theology of the NT. So Augustine did not derive His model of the Trinity from the Greek texts of the NT, but from philosophical speculation from world philosophy in the Latin language. You are admitting your main hermeneutical error, you say “I believe Augustine over you on this particular matter”, and you believe Augustine over Christ in John 15:26 and over Christ in the tradition of Saint Photius (Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit, 9th century AD).
“The Synodicon on the Holy Spirit: The epitomes.
1. “If the Spirit is indeed simple but proceeds from the Father and the Son, then those 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 of the Father be?”.
Archimandrite Vassilios Bakoyannis: “The Filioque: “The Filioque was introduced at the third local Synod of Toledo (589 AD) and confirmed by the fourth local Synod which met in the same city in 633 AD”. “The Filioque is heretical. “The Western Church believes that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. The Eastern Church believes that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and is sent into the world by the Son. Either the Western Church is confusing the “procession” with the “mission” or is deliberately closing its eyes to the difference. “We would ask just one question: Where does it say in Scripture that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son? Nowhere! On the contrary, it says clearly and bluntly (John 15:26) that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father”. [One Lord, One Faith: An introduction to comparative Christian doctrine.].
“The Trinity reinterpreted.
“For many years Augustine worked indefatigably on a great work of his old age, without being prompted to it by a heresy but rather out of an inner need for clarification: he was concerned to present a deeper, more convincing reinterpretation of the doctrine of the Trinity. His interpretation would come to command such a following in the Latin West that people would hardly be aware of any other. But to the present day it is resolutely rejected by the Greeks. Why?
“The Greek church fathers always began from the one God and Father, who for them, as for the New Testament, was “the God” (ho theos). They defined the relationship of God the Father to the Son and Spirit in the light of this one God and Father. It is as if we have a star which gives its light to a second star (“light of light, God of God”) and finally to a third. But to our human eye, all three stars appear one after the other only as one star.
“Augustine differed completely; instead of beginning from one God and Father he began from the one nature of God, or divine substance, which was common to Father, Son, and Spirit. For the Latin theologians the principle of unity was not the Father but the one divine nature, or substance. To develop the illustration given earlier: three stars do not shine one after the other but side by side in a triangle at the same level; here the first and the second stars together give light to the third.
“To explain more precisely, Augustine used psychological categories in a new way: he saw a similarity between the threefold God and the three-dimensional human spirit: between the Father and the memory, between the Son and the intelligence, and between the Spirit and the will. In the light of this analogy the Trinity could be interpreted as follows:
“The Son is “begotten” from the Father “according to the intellect”. The Father knows and begets in the Son his own word and image. But the Spirit “proceeds” from the Father (as the lover) and the Son (as the beloved) “according to the will”. The Spirit is the love between Father and Son become person: it has proceeded from both the Father and the Son. [It was the Latin term denoting this proceeding also from the Son, Filioque, which proved to be the great stumbling block for the Greeks. Their view was that the Spirit proceeded only from the Father.).
“Thus Augustine had made an intellectual construction of the Trinity with philosophical and psychological categories in an extremely subtle way as a self-unfolding of God. Here the “and the Son” seemed so essential that in the West from the sixth/seventh century it was gradually inserted into the creed. Time and again it was required by the German emperors after Charlemagne, and in 1014 it was definitively inserted by Rome into the ancient creed. But 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.].
Saint Photius the Great. Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit.
“Concerning statements in the sacred teachings which state that as the Son is
begotten of the Father alone, so likewise the proper theology concerning the Holy
Spirit is that He proceeds from one and the same cause; and also concerning the
saying that because He is of one essence with the Son, He therefore proceeds from
Him as well.
Part 1. “There are various arguments, scattered throughout many lengthy dissertations, which confute the arrogance of those contentious men who hold fast to unrighteousness and strive against the truth. Since your great zeal and love for God has requested that those corrective arguments, furnished by divine providence, be gathered into a general overview and outline, this goal is indeed not unworthy of your desire and godly love. Above all else, there is a saying of the Lord which opposes them like a sharp, inescapable arrow, striking down and destroying every wild animal and fox as though with a thunderbolt. What saying? That which the Son Himself delivers; that whichstates that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father.
Rejecting this compact garment, do you still seek for the divine clothing? Would you propagate the fable that the Spirit proceeds from the Son?
If you do not cower when seizing the dogmas of our common Saviour, Creator, and Lawgiver with a violence that yields only to your insanity, then what other things could one find by which utterly to confute 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 wounds not caused by the word of the Saviour, but by your own self-made sickness, which out of disobedience stubbornly strives to transform the medicine of the Lord’s doctrine into a noxious poison? The Saviour’s doctrine does not simply touch these wounds, but digs deeply into them and cures the whole body of sores with care and concern. We have not laid the two-edged sword of the Spirit [the Holy Scriptures] against you too often, nevertheless because of the affection of our common Master we will make a prompt and willing proof of our sacred conceptions, and arm ourselves completely, preparing a strategy and drawing up an order of battle”.
Saint Mark of Ephesus: “The Latins are not only schismatics but heretics . . . “The Latins are not only schismatics but heretics… we did not separate from them for any other reason other than the fact that they are heretics. This is precisely why we must not unite with them unless they dismiss the addition from the creed Filioque and confess the creed as we do”.
Saint Mark of Ephesus: .” . . flee those who uphold other doctrines …. All the teachers of the Church, all the Councils, and all the Divine Scriptures, exhort us to flee those who uphold other doctrines and to separate from communion with them.” — Saint Mark of Ephesus, Confession of Faith, XII, 304.
The holy traditions of the holy apostles of the holy Church which was founded by the LORD God and Saviour Christ Jesus have always, everywhere, and with everyone (Saint Vincent of Lerins, Commonitories) taught the Monopatrism that the Holy Spirit, the “promise from the Father” (Acts 2:33) eternally “proceeds from the Father” (John 15:26). Scott R. Harrington, February, 2018.
It doesn’t render it meaningless bud, I’m sorry because my stance is that the Spirit proceeds from the Father, which is stated in the vice text and through the Son, which I highlighted, “I shall send…”
Did I either quote Augustine or refers to him in my comment on this particular passage? Previously I quoted and referenced a few other Church Fathers, so perhaps I should just fill my comment with their copy and paste of their words and declare victory!
I did not reference anyone in my particular comment, so my interpretation on that scriptural passage generalized into a misreading of Augustine’s school of thought on the matter is a strawman because you’ve falsely misinterpreted my assertion, so I think you or me an apology. Good day to you Sir.
Philip. Hey, I agreed with you perfectly. When Christ said “Whom I shall send”, He does say “from the Father”, THROUGH the Son. Perfect. From the Father “AND THE SON”, FILIOQUE, Eternal Procession, means SOMETHING ELSE entirely DIFFERENT. Do you get that fact? God bless!
So your agree that from the Father and the Son means “through the Son.” Thank you for admitting your error and it should be in the creed!
Water: The Filioque is a heresy of Charlemagne.
Forbidden to be added to the Nicene-Constantinople I Creed by the Church, by Pope Leo III, and by Pope John VIII. Anyone who adds “Filioque” is in schism from earlier Popes of Rome, Pope Leo III, and Pope John VIII, Popes who surrendered to, submitted to, and endorsed the Christian Authority of the Ecumenical Councils. Up until that time, 7 Ecumenical Councils, 325-787 AD. And the 8th Ecumenical Council, sealed and ratified under the Papal Authority of Pope John VIII, 879-880 AD. Good Pope John VIII, an Orthodox Catholic Pope of Rome. Of blessed memory. ETERNAL MEMORY, Pope Leo III, Pope John VIII. ANATHEMA MARANATHA, Charlemagne.
scott,
In your view.
Your words are meaningless.
scott,
For those who do not understand.
God bless you.
You don’t understand Filioque, as Thomas Aquinas, Anselm of Canterbury, and Peter Lombard and Peter Damian taught Filioque, is a heresy. Their view does not agree with Augustine of Hippo. Augustine taught Filioque as a philosophical experiment and religious opinion intended to defend the Divinity of Christ, nothing more, not to denigrate the Divinity of the Holy Spirit, which is exactly what Filioque as a Dogma does to the Holy Spirit in the name of “and the Son”. Augustine never taught it that way. The later theologians, these men, Aquinas, Anselm, Damian,Lombard, were obliged by the Frankish captivity off Rome starting with Charlemagne, to teach this as necessary dogma, and this idea was Charlemagne’s, not the Papacy’s. Later Popes changed their minds and disagreed with the earlier Popes like John VIII. John VIII respected Constantinople I 381 AD. He was poisoned for his defense of Orthodoxy.
scott,
I thought we were to move on to things we agree on?
We agree on the Apostles Creed. No objections to anything it correct?
We agree on the original Nicene Creed. From Constantinople I, 381 AD; correct? Except for the Filioque addition of third local non-ecumenical council of Toledo Spain 589 AD. Not endorsed by the later ecumenical councils, 589-787 AD.
We agree on the Athanasian Creed which was not the work of Saint Athanasius, but in any case Orthodox and Catholic except for the words “And the Son” Filioque.
Let’s start there and not debate whether or not the Holy Spirit proceeds also from the Son. I think we agree to disagree on this matter, shall we move on about that, then; thank you! God bless!
scott,
Sounds good to me.
scott,
Something for you:
The Hail Mary is as follows:
“Hail Mary, full of grace.
The Lord is with you.
Blessed are you among women,
and blessed is the fruit of your womb,
Jesus.
Holy Mary, Mother of God,
pray for us sinners,
now and at the hour of our death.
Amen.”
The first part, namely “Hail Mary, full of grace. The Lord is with you.” is the angel’s address to Mary at the annunciation. Luke 1:28
The second “Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb,” is Elizabeth addressing Mary. Luke 1:42.
At the centre of the prayer is the name of Jesus.
Mary is holy by virtue of being Jesus’ mother and God’s grace, because she has “won God’s favour”, Luke 1:30.
Mary is the mother of Jesus, who is God. John 20:28 “28 Thomas replied, ‘My Lord and my God!'”
We ask Mary to pray for us because she is with God in Heaven. Rev 11:19 – 12:1-5.
Paul asks us to pray for each other. We are the Body of Christ, the church, and we all care for each other, and pray for each other. Death does not remove us from the Body of Christ, on the contrary we are then “the spirits of the upright who have been made perfect;” (Hebrews 12:23), because “He is God, not of the dead, but of the living.'” Matt 22:32.
Water, you do not understand Filioque, for if you understood Filioque, you would quickly reject it, for in many other things you are quite Orthodox.
scott,
I hate to break it to you, but your Orthodoxy is schismatic, not orthodox.
I hate to break it to you, but you are a Roman Catholic apologist, and no authority on either what is Orthodox or what is schismatic. God bless you.
Water: (said) -scott,
Good to know we agree on that at least. You guys are still tangled up about procession.
Scott: Good to know we agree on that at least. You guys are still tangled up about double procession.
Water, I’ve actually never read so much from someone who understands so little of Thomas Aquinas. I literally rolled my eyes when argument was made that Aquinas’ pure being is someone stating that God is like every other being. Either someone is completely missing the mark on the contingency argument and the pure actuality argument, which indicates a difference from beings who have potentiality or this is simply a willful misrepresentation of Aquinas. As it seems that the commenter doesn’t understand Aquinas’ distinctions on beings by their essences, I checked out of reading the rest of the comment.
If I understand all mysteries of Aquinas’ rationalism philosophy, based on Aristotelian principles and appeal to intellect which acts like it’s equal to Scripture and tradition, Aquinas’ Summa is innovation and lacks catholicity and universality. If I understand all Aquinas’ mysteries, but have not love 1 Cor. 13:13, but have not love of the Holy Spirit Who proceedeth from the Father alone (John 15:26) I am as a sounding brass and a clanging cymbal devoid of significance and meaning, and mere alleged papal rule of the entire earth, not the humility of the original Saint Peter, who was no pope in the modernist schismatic erroneous sense of 1870 AD.
I’m sorry, but Aquinas doesn’t argue any of those things. Furthermore, your understanding of history the papace
He does indicate that we can know of God through our reason, it’s true that he does argue that what we can know about God is what God isn’t, but Aquinas most certainly places a great importance on Scripture and Divine Revelation. Simply reading the man indicates his vast knowledge, understanding, and priority on Scripture. It’s truly an absurdity to make that claim on Aquinas.
I admit your words fluster me. I am weak. I have not distorted the truth. So there is no ? If even one Catholic parish has not wine for laity, this is not Catholic. This is schism. Is this from the Rome, the Roman papacy? How can it not be. Rome is in schism because of Filioque. Which is the dirty water that pollutes Catholicism and separates it from holy Orthodoxy. I admit, I have not read all of Aquinas. I have read all I need to know: Contra Errores Graecorum, which is in error. Since Aquinas’ basic theology of the Trinity is Filioquist, he is heretical, and it matters not how much he boasts of using reason or Aristotelian logic. The logic of Christ and Scripture John 15:26 and Tradition Photius Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit. If you don’t read and take seriously Photius’ Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit, you will never ever understand why Aquinas is in error, and will remain in the Charlemagne wild animal and fox darkness of Filioque.
As Augustine articulates, as you deny the procession of the Spirit from the Son, you deny His Divinity. You sir, are the one in true heresy.
Shall I say, Arian?
I do not deny the DIvinity of the Son. The Divinity of the Son is defended by Scripture, By Paul, “Jesus is LORD”, and not by the procession of the Holy Spirit. If the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father is perfect, no procession of the Spirit from the Son is needed. You also deny the Divine Authority of the words of Christ “who proceeds from the Father” John 15:26, if you add to Christ’s words. It is Rome that is in heresy in Filioque, for it denies the Divinity of Christ to define the procession of the Spirit “from the Father” and Christ always says the complete and whole truth in John 15:26. No Scripture says “proceeds from the Son”. No ecumenical council says “proceeds from the Father and the Son”. Constantinople I 381 AD says “proceeds from the Father” and the pope of Rome at the times the popes of Rome 325-787 AD all endorsed these councils, and did Leo III and John VIII 880 AD. You are in schism from all of these popes and their endorsement of Constantinople I 381 AD. “from the Father”. Alone.
It is not so. You insult the spirit of grace by showing contempt for the authority of the Son of God bu denying the primacy of Kepha and his successors. You deny the authority given to the office of the Papacy and his authority on the Magisterium of the Church.
You deny the authority of Peter, Leo III, who forbad Filioque, and John VIII, who rejected Filioque, and you fail to learn the later popes are in schism for the earlier ones. You also deny Rome went into schism at Avignon.
Even if your distorted history lesson that is filled with untruthful bias was correct, you’d need to differ between schism and excommunication…. as such the Pope’s nuncio saw to it the Patriarch was excommunicated out of the Church.
You insult the authority of the Son of God by misreading Matthew 16 as endorsement of universal papal jurisdiction. You insult the authority of the Undivided Church and the Pentarchy, in which the Papacy was merely first among equals, Conciliarity, not a Monarchy of Rome with Pope of Rome as New Caesar.
You spew lies. I’ve simple backed you into a corner by using Kepha the Aramaic rendering of rock.
No lies from me. John 15:26 is the gospel. God bless you.
“Who I will send you…”
How about John 20:22?
Water,
Oh it’s amusing when the illogical claim victory… bahaha
Calling anyone illogical is ad hominem illogic.
It’s a criticism, not an ad hominem, should have studied harder in that logic class.
But seriously, you’re a good sport, I simply believe Augustine and we’re not going to change each other’s minds. Have a blessed day! And if you want to pray for me, I won’t ball at any prayers.
I wish we could get together drink some beers and have this argument.
But seriously, you’re a good sport, I simply believe Augustine and we’re not going to change each other’s minds. Have a blessed day! And if you want to pray for me, I won’t balk at any prayers.
I suppose you think St. Paul a liar in Gal. 4:6. In fact, the Eastern Orthodox Church came back into communion with West with the council of Florence in 1439 admitting that the Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son…
Furthermore, taking a more measured look at Church Fathers: Tertullian, Origen, 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]”
The Athanasian Creed, Jerome, Cyril of Alexandria all agree that the Spirit proceeds through the Son as explained by Augustine.
Meh, the Constinopolitan Bishop died before signing and the Patriarchs disowned the decision of the legates who signed on.
Ira true they reneged but it was because they cowered to Islamic political pressure.
You remain in abject ignorance of the truth. The phrase “who proceeds from the Father through the Son” does not mean the same thing as “who proceeds from the Father and the Son”. No Christian objects to the first phrase. Only heretics and schismatic accept the second phrase, which means something totally. Error commences when one can not distinguish between an eternal procession of the Spirit and the temporal mission of the Spirit, in which both the Father and Son are involved, but the eternal procession of the Spirit involves both the Father and the Spirit, and the Son does not cause the Spirit to proceed from the Father, since the eternal procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father is perfect and complete in itself, and the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are perfect and complete in Themselves. The Church knows no man but Christ has the Holy Spirit abiding in Him eternally except God the Son, Christ Jesus, but Christ Jesus sends the Holy Spirit from the Father to abide also in the Blessed Mother of God, the Holy Theotokos and Ever-Virgin Mary, so Mary our Mother is “full of grace” and the LORD (Jesus Christ) is with her always.
As for the rest of mankind, the Holy Spirit abides in sinners, in all of the whole Catholic Church, only by the will and Sovereign grace and Holy Eternal Providence of the Father and the Son, and Christ, with the Father, directs how and to whom the Holy Spirit comes to abide, in the several and many members, in the present life, and in the life of the world to come, in the Holy Orthodox Catholic Church. It can be said that only in the Next Life, in the coming Kingdom of God, does the Holy Spirit rest and abide in the Holy Saints of Christ, the sinners who have repented and been redeemed by the blood of the Lamb of God, our Saviour, our LORD GOD and Saviour, Jesus Christ.
LORD Jesus Christ, Son of God, Remember us when Thou comest in Thy Kingdom. Amen.
God bless you.
God illumine you all with the True Holy Spirit so that you reject the Filioque heresy. Amen.
Abject ignorance? It is you who fails to use simple reason. Christianity without Ratio is one without theosis, Orthodox. You checkout before you enter the threshold.
Too proud to apologize to me for your intellectual dishonesty with using a strawman after I even explained your use of it, I see, well as the saying goes, “pride goes before the fall.”
You made many critical ad hominem statements about me.
Okay. I let it go.
God bless you.
No judgment from me against you personally.
I attempt not to analyze anyone else’s character.
I have too many character flaws of my own to deal with.
However, when anyone else’s words or statements are illogical or abject ignorance, by the Spirit in me, I have ability and duty to point out such flaws, for the other person’s sake, and shine the Uncreated Light, Christ Jesus in me, the hope of glory, since we have been given the true Holy Spirit in the Holy Orthodox Catholic Apostolic Church, since we reject the FILIOQUE shibboleth which characterizes the wild beast (animal) and foxes (rationalists) of the Scholastic age (and its subsequent nominalism in Ockham and Luther). (and in Calvin). Aquinas is the chief culprit in this Western plot against the Holy Spirit and the Scriptures and the 2nd ecumenical Council, after Charlemagne.
I’ve made criticisms but I don’t think they have anything to do with your overall argument, so their not as hominems. If I said you’d too proud to apologize, it makes no different on your argument. Again, please learn what is an ad hominem! This is almost laughable!
You have a penchant for lies. A critique of observation, as you misrepresent Aquinas’ theology and history. You fail to understand logic. Again a critique, doesn’t make it an ad hominem.
And I actually don’t judge you because I don’t actually think you’re a heretic, a schismatic ? Sure, in the technical sense. But little brother Orthodox has to make a harder pronouncement against Big brother Catholic.
I make no statement on you and attempt to make no assessment. I don’t attempt to characterize anyone beyond what the Holy Spirit-bearing fathers of the Catholic Church, like blessed Saint Mark of Ephesus, have said in this matter. I have called no one else heretic and schismatic. I only know I was a heretic (Filioque) and a schismatic (Lutheran/Pentecostal) in 1985. About the time I began to become aware I was in dire sin. And in 1989, the Holy Spirit showed me John 15:26. No Lutheran or Catholic today believes what Christ said in that verse. They follow Augustine more than Christ.
“The Trinity reinterpreted.
“For many years Augustine worked indefatigably on a great work of his old age, without being prompted to it by a heresy but rather out of an inner need for clarification: he was concerned to present a deeper, more convincing reinterpretation of the doctrine of the Trinity. His interpretation would come to command such a following in the Latin West that people would hardly be aware of any other. But to the present day it is resolutely rejected by the Greeks. Why?
“The Greek church fathers always began from the one God and Father, who for them, as for the New Testament, was “the God” (ho theos). They defined the relationship of God the Father to the Son and Spirit in the light of this one God and Father. It is as if we have a star which gives its light to a second star (“light of light, God of God”) and finally to a third. But to our human eye, all three stars appear one after the other only as one star.
“Augustine differed completely; instead of beginning from one God and Father he began from the one nature of God, or divine substance, which was common to Father, Son, and Spirit. For the Latin theologians the principle of unity was not the Father but the one divine nature, or substance. To develop the illustration given earlier: three stars do not shine one after the other but side by side in a triangle at the same level; here the first and the second stars together give light to the third.
“To explain more precisely, Augustine used psychological categories in a new way: he saw a similarity between the threefold God and the three-dimensional human spirit: between the Father and the memory, between the Son and the intelligence, and between the Spirit and the will. In the light of this analogy the Trinity could be interpreted as follows:
“The Son is “begotten” from the Father “according to the intellect”. The Father knows and begets in the Son his own word and image. But the Spirit “proceeds” from the Father (as the lover) and the Son (as the beloved) “according to the will”. The Spirit is the love between Father and Son become person: it has proceeded from both the Father and the Son. [It was the Latin term denoting this proceeding also from the Son, Filioque, which proved to be the great stumbling block for the Greeks. Their view was that the Spirit proceeded only from the Father.).
“Thus Augustine had made an intellectual construction of the Trinity with philosophical and psychological categories in an extremely subtle way as a self-unfolding of God. Here the “and the Son” seemed so essential that in the West from the sixth/seventh century it was gradually inserted into the creed. Time and again it was required by the German emperors after Charlemagne, and in 1014 it was definitively inserted by Rome into the ancient creed. But 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.].
So, you’re saying you’ve never referred to me as a heretic? Um okay let me take a look at all these tweets and see what inferences I can find?
And please stop copying pasting that awful theologian Kung. Find some Ratzinger, I may read it, but I doubt you find it convenient to your argument.
So another ad hominem? Against Hans Kung too? How convenient for you as an excuse for avoiding the truth.
The truth is the truth, regardless of when written spoken or uttered by anyone, whether the one who states it is fully orthodox and catholic in all of his ways, or has some weaknesses and mistakes ; and I remember a wise saying, “The truth that’s told with bad intent, beats all the lies you can invent”.
One thing I am certain of. I once was lost. And now I’m found. Was blind, but now I see. John 15:26. Acts 2:33. I also know the Pope of Rome, Matthew 16, also once agreed with Constantinople I, 381 AD. But no more. They’re in schism and heresy today, against their own popes, who bear witness against their Filioque folly. Fox. Wild animal of Charlemagne.
It’s not an ad hominem, do you understand that if I call him “stupid” or anyone it doesn’t have anything against his argument? It would be so in this manner because I’ve dismissed his argument on this basis. Can you know admit to the difference? I doubt it. But in regards to saying I’ve made an ad hominem with your arguments is a lie and needs an apology, but again your pride won’t allow it.
However, He’s a poor theologian who has been known for his poor theology both repudiated by Ratzinger, Balthasaar, Wojtyla, etc. It is simply a waste of time to re-hash and copy and paste their views as you do with Kung.
See how easily you accuse me of telling a lie. If that’s not pride, I am not sure what is. God bless you.
You really don’t know what an Ad Hominem is do you? And then you speak to me of abject ignorance? Ah what? Just say, “ Yah, you’re right I see the distinction now.” It’s that easy.
You suggest by your words an ad hominem about me, “You really don’t know what ad hominem is, do you”? Statements coming from you have a characteristic of talking to me, at me, about me, rather than addressing my words, and seeing in they agree with the Scriptures; as read by the 7 ecumenical councils, 325-787.
Are you aware of anything I have said that disagrees with any of these councils, 7 councils, in any way whatsoever?
The Church has had more than 7 councils.
The Church has not had Lateran, Lyons, Florence, or Vatican I, Vatican II, and some other false councils. These are not ecumenical but schismatic.
No. They’re valid.
No. They are not valid.
If they are valid, then Constantinople I 381 AD and Ephesus 431 are invalid.
The popes of Rome, 381 AD – 431 AD said these councils are valid.
These councils said the Holy Spirit “proceeds from the Father”.
Ephesus 431 AD said no other words can be added to the Creed of Nicea, which the Church East and West received as the Creed of Constantinople I, 381 AD, and all of the Church Fathers, East and West, received the Creed of Constantinople I, 381 AD, and so did all of the popes of Rome, 381-431 AD.
Therefore the other Councils which add “and the Son” to the Creed of Constantinople I(, 381 AD, since Ephesus 431 said no words can be added to the Creed. Filioque is an addition to the Creed. The popes of Rome, the earlier ones, said this.
Filioque is the will of Charlemagne, not the will of God, not the two wills of Jesus Christ.
Sorry, it just isn’t true in reality.
scott,
In your opinion.
It is the Word of God by Jesus Christ, Whose words you reject. John 15:26, and you reject Saint Luke’s words, Acts 2:33. See: Acts 2:38-39. God bless you.
scott,
I certainly do not reject John 15:26, nor any other verse of scripture. You seem to ignore anything that goes against what you believe. AOG to the core.
Water: Horse hockey! You singular lack all horse sense! Common sense?
AOG? Not at all. Have you never heard of logic, “Post hoc ergo propter hoc”? After this, therefore because of this?
AOG Assemblies of God.
My exposure to Assemblies of God was brief, and only aberration I got from that sect was a mental defect (I admit this) of gibberish glossolalia. This is from before when I was saved, baptized and chrismated and saved.
I still yet hope to be and to remain saved. And endure until the end in Christ Jesus, to abide in the Vine (Church) of Christ Jesus.
I did not get John 15:26 from AOG. Not once in a AOG meeting did they read to me John 15:26, nor preach against Filioque.
I got John 15:26 from Fr. Peter Gillquist, and his background was Campus Crusade of Christ and Lutheran, not AOG.
So get your facts straight. He quoted John 15:26 in 1989, long after my AOG days, and in his 1st edition book, Brentwood, TN: Wolgemuth & Hyatt, Publishers, Inc. God bless you.
scott,
Your literal understanding of everything is AOG.
You have already decided and presupposed that I am a literalist, so your prejudiced view you read literalness into my every statement, which is not there, and which is not AOG. A few attendance at AOG does not make one an apologist for AOG theology, and I certainly am not. Any more than I am ELCA apologist for women’s ordination. Gradually, the LCA became the ELCA, and the ELCA went left field to radical feminism and many of the ELCA and EPCUSA endorse homosexuality.
One renegade Orthodox priest in Russia who performed a same-sex male homsexual “wedding” (sic), the priest was defrocked and excommunicated, and his temple, the “church” building where he preached and performed this filthy homosexual abomination, the temple and all of its contents were razed to the ground by a bulldozer and all of its contents destroyed and demolished by the Russian authorities in Russia. You would never see that in Trump’s America. This was in Vladimir Putin’s blessed and holy Orthodox Russia, by the way. God bless Russia and President Vladimir Putin. God save America from President Donald J. Trump.
scott,
I take it you are a Russian Orthodox, what are your views on Constantinople in the current drama?
You may not like what I say here, but I consider what happened to Rome and the bishop of Rome, Pope, starting with Pope Nicholas I, 867 AD, to be papism, papalism, and this is not anti-Catholic, as papism is not Catholic but sectarian, and I consider what happened to EP Ecumenical Patriarchate to be Eastern papism, Neo-papism, he is trying to set up a new papacy in the Orthodox Church in Constantinople. The problem started at Constantinople when what blessed Pope Gregory I, Saint Gregory the Great, objected against Constantinople calling itself “Ecumenical” Patriarchate, as a pretense. No Patriarch and no bishop is Ecumenical, that is, covering the whole Catholic Church in every location on earth. Each Catholic bishop, including the Pope Bishop of Rome, is bishop only of a small Catholic territory, city, or, at most, a nation, and not of every city on earth and every nation. This is why the Church, the Orthodox Church, rejects the false interpretation of Saint Peter being the bishop of the entire Christian Church; he is a rock and he has a place in the keys of the kingdom, but with Peter all bishops and all apostles of Christ including James, John, and Andrew, etc.also have the keys of Christ’s Church. Papists misread and twist Matthew 16 to their own destruction. Just as the new Patriarch of Constantinople, Bartholomew, twists his title Ecumenical to his own schism. At worst he is a schismatic, and not necessarily also heterodox, but he could become that if he persists in his Byzantine Papism attitude.
scott,
How significant is Constantinople and those aligned with it in numbers as opposed to the Russian Orthodox church? 50%?
I am not-at-all sure of the true figures for Constantinople and Greece and GOARCH in USA. Maybe 25 million. I do not know. For Moscow and Russia, maybe 135-235 million, I am not sure on Russia.
Thanks.
Let me answer this question to in short Russia is right because the Kiev Church was started by a Nazi out of all things and they’re more of a political body than a religious one
The Russian Church is Orthodox. Not political. The Nazis are in Ukraine and are backed by the West, Catholics and Protestants who want Ukraine part of the EU. They are very anti-Orthodox and political. There are a lot of people in America who are Russophobic. Russophobia is a current illness of many in America. As for the Orthodox, it was in Romania during WWII that some Romanian Orthodox were Nazis. The MP Moscow Patriarchate was in schism during the post Revplution, with the Sergianist schism the Living Church puppet of the Communists. ROCOR was anti-communist and some of them were Tsarist Monarchist. ROCOR very democratic and pro capitalism and freedom. I am part of ROCOR. Today’s MP is pro-Putin and so am I.
scott,
What does it mean: “The Nazis are in Ukraine”?
Pro-Western fascists (Nazis) Right wingers are fighting Putin and Moscow in Ukraine. I can look up proof if you are interested.
scott,
Let me have something short on it if you can. Thanks.
Water:
Analysis: U.S. Cozies Up to Kiev Government Including Far Right
https://www.nbcnews.com/…/ukraine…/analysis-u-s-cozies-kiev-government-includin…
Mar 30, 2014 – The new Ukrainian government contains several ministers from a party some … John McCain traveled to Kiev in December, he told the crowd of 200,000 … Some policy analysts have called Svoboda ultra-nationalist and even neo-Nazi. … the party on account of its “racist, anti-Semitic and xenophobic views.
Far-right group at heart of Ukraine protests meet US senator – Channel 4
https://www.channel4.com/news/ukraine-mccain-far-right-svoboda-anti-semitic-protests
Dec 16, 2013 – Ukraine’s pro-EU protests show no sign of stopping – US Senator John McCain dined with opposition leaders this weekend, including the extreme far-right Svoboda party. … Senator McCain later waved to protesters from the stage in … member of the Alliance of European National Movements – a group that …
scott,
More politics.
Water: Do you think there is any human being who does not play politics?
Is not every soul trapped by a game, “my politics are justified and good”, whereas “your politics are not justified and are not good”.
Today’s politics in America is now America is great only because I am great, and America is great again only because of Donald Trump and me, myself, a white male evangelical. Everyone else is non-human and must be subject to my rule and authority and power and dominion. Most of the money to Trump and his people. Women can’t be believed about accusations of sexual assault against men,because they’re all liars and Democrats and liberals until proven to be innocent. The best thing about America was slavery and the Confederacy. We’re half-way there to making America great again: We need to return to the way it was in America, 1859-1860, before Lincoln. Trump is right on everything. Democrats are always wrong. Science is bad. There is no climate change. All is well. More clean coal and oil. Stir up hostility against China. We can trust North Korea. Saudi Arabia is really better than Iran. So much democracy there.
scott,
Anyway, you’ve lost me here. Theology and politics do not mix.
Exactly. 100 percent. Theology and politics do not mix. I agree with you. I mean the same thing you mean. However, in America, the theology of the Religious Right, that Trump is for God, and God is for Trump, are implicitly if not explicitly believed unthinkingly by millions of pro-Trump Evangelical American voters. But not all Evangelicals are pro-Trump.
scott,
We are not talking just America, but everywhere else as well.
Thanks.
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
Craig,
Who founded it and when?
The significance of the Filioque question
by fr. John S. Romanides (†)
Source: http://reocities.com/heartland/5654/orthodox/romanides_filioque.html
John Savvas Romanides (1928–2001) was a Greek Orthodox priest, author and professor who, for a long time, represented the Greek Church to the World Council of Churches. He was born in Piraeus, Greece, on 2 March 1928 but his parents emigrated to the United States when he was only two months old. He grew up in Manhattan. A graduate of the Hellenic College, Brookline, Massachusetts, and of the Yale Divinity School, he received his Ph. D. from the University of Athens. From 1956 to 1965 he was Professor of Dogmatic Theology at the Holy Cross Theological School in Brookline, Massachusetts. In 1968 he was appointed as tenured Professor of Dogmatic Theology at the University of Thessaloniki, Greece, a position he held until his retirement in 1982. His latest position was Professor of Theology at Balamand Theological School, in Lebanon. Romanides died in Athens, Greece in 2001.
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 sub-commission meeting in St. Albans, England in 1975 and at the plenary commission meeting in Moscow in 1976, is presented here in a revised form. It was first published in Kleronomia, 7 (1975), 285-34 and reprinted in Athens in 1978.
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.
scott,
Political.
Excerpt from: Orthodox Christianity and the English Tradition
31. From Filioque to Humanism
The Creator of all creatures begat a Son, and sent forth of Himself the comforting Spirit: through the Son He created all creatures that are, and quickened them all through the living Spirit.’
Abbot Ælfric of Eynsham, The Life of St. Cecilia,
written c. 990. (Skeat, Vol II. p. 365.)
One of the great myths of Church History is without doubt the notion that a Schism between Eastern and Western Christianity took place in 1054. That a Schism took place is of course fact. But the date of 1054 is the date of nothing more than a symbolic event. We must first understand that the separation of Eastern and Western Christianity was not an event, but a process. Moreover, this process began at the summit of Western society and its consequences only gradually spread downwards. As the English proverb says: ‘A fish always stinks from the head’. But when did the process of Schism begin? And when did it end? To these questions we shall now attempt to reply.
We believe that the Schism process begins at the end of the 8th century among a select few at the Court of Charles the Great, Charlemagne. It began with the revival of pagan Roman knowledge, of the Judeo-Babylonian legacy of Rome. In the sin of pride, Charlemagne wanted to set up a new Roman Empire in the West. All Western rulers have since tried to do the same, but all their Empires, like Charlemagne’s, have fallen, because they lacked God’s blessing in their pride. To renew the Roman Empire Charlemagne had first to reject the Christian Roman Empire, Romanity, whose capital was in New Rome, the City of the first Christian Roman Emperor, Constantinople. Ideologically this was possible by reviving the pagan or classical Roman system of thought. This meant, in other words, reviving rationalism, the use of the human reason, the syllogism and dialectic, what St Paul calls ‘fleshly wisdom’ (2 Cor. 1, 12). The knowledge and the use of this logic came to Charlemagne’s Court above all from Spain, where it had been learnt from Jewish thinkers who had preserved the legacy of Roman and Greek pagan philosophy. The head of Charlemagne’s school, Alcuin, sums up best the nature of this rationalism in his work on the Holy and Undivided Trinity: ‘Only the subtlety of categories can shed light on the profoundest questions concerning the Holy Trinity’. The uses of such rationalistic techniques eventually led, in the late 11th century, to a new culture, a new way of thinking. They led to:
The rejection of theology in favour of philosophy.
The rejection of monasticism in favour of scholasticism.
The rejection of monasteries in favour of universities.
The rejection of the Gospel in favour of pagan writers.
The rejection of cultivating the heart in favour of cultivating the intellect.
The rejection of ascetically-won grace in favour of intellectually-won learning.
The rejection of the knowledge of the world to come by the Uncreated Light in favour of the despair of the graceless knowledge of the fallen world here and now.
Ultimately it is this graceless and godless rationalism that built the modern world as we know it, from the Atomic Bomb to the IBM computer.
Through this rationalism, wisdom, which is the harmony of knowledge and faith, gave way to godless science. Wisdom, Who rode on the back of an ass, gave way to ‘the pride of life’ (1 John 2, 16), but ‘the foolishness of God is wiser than men’. (1 Cor. 1, 25). For in rationalism, these reasonings of the fallen, human mind, one finds not God, but psychology, a reflection of the self, and all the demonic impulses to which the fallen mind is prone. The theology of the rationalist is only the psychological extension of the self, a god built in one’s own fallen image. Thus, in the Middle Ages, the Western mind saw God as a stern, vengeful, feudal baron. In the Renaissance, Michelangelo portrayed Him as a sensuous, fleshly deity. The 18th century ‘Enlightenment’ depicted Him as a god of Reason, the expression of deism. Today, if the West says that God does not exist, it is simply because He does not exist in the mind of ‘modern’ man. This does not mean His objective non-existence, it simply means that ‘modern’ Western man has succeeded, after centuries of efforts, in chasing God from his mind. Man feels abandoned by God – but this is only because man has abandoned God, not because God has abandoned man.
The rationalism that began at the end of the 8th century with Charlemagne had spread by the 11th century to Rome (which until that time had refuted it) by means of German Popes. From here on the separation of Western Christendom from Eastern Christendom became inevitable. And, unfortunately, the East did not pay great attention to this at the time. Firstly, the West was populated by perhaps only 10 million, whereas the Eastern capital, Constantinople, had itself a population of 1 million. And then also only a minute fraction of the Western population knew anything about philosophy and categories and rationalism. Only a minute fraction had even heard of the new, rationalistic doctrine, called the ‘filioque’. The East, moreover, had little appreciation of rationalism, which the Fathers of the Church had long ago overcome. Viewed from the East, the events of 1054 seemed to be just another barbarian revolt in distant provinces. As soon as a Roman Pope could be appointed, the whole issue would die down and the Roman Christian Commonwealth, Romanitas, could be made whole again. Although it was not understood at the time, in fact the events of 1054 were the beginning of a final struggle between Jerusalem and Babylon, between Christian and Neo-Pagan. It would lead sacral, peasant kingdoms, with their unity of Church, Monarchy and Nation, firstly into feudal tyrannies, lastly into secular, urban demagogueries. Christian Roman architecture would give way to the Gothic masons’ rationalist domination of the world. The squat, Pre-Romanesque, expressing the Incarnation of God on Earth would give way to the Gothic spire yearning skywards in search of God no more on Earth: the appointment of His ‘Vicar’ in Rome was proof of it.
Behind all these changes and the date 1054 itself, lay the culmination of all the consequences of rationalism. This was and is the speculation of the filioque. It was and is the filioque, the statement that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son as well as from the Father, that locked up the Holy Spirit between the Father and the Son. In human terms, it locked up the heart, the receptacle for grace, between the reason and the body. By divorcing man from God in this way, by distancing the Holy Spirit from the Earth and putting Him where the Gothic spires pointed, in the empty sky, the Holy Spirit was put beyond man’s reach. Thus man was deprived of grace, as well as of the principle of authority and unity in the Church. The only solution was to replace the Holy Spirit with a human institution.
The error of giving all power and authority to one individual is that eventually everyone will claim the same. This is exactly what happened in the West with the Reformation, with Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Knox, Henry VIII and umpteen others. In secular terms this dilution of power was reflected in the rule of the masses, democracy; in philosophical terms, this is man-worship, humanism.
Humanism is the religion which states that man is the measure of all things, that he is independent, autonomous of God. Instead of glorifying God, we glorify man and his rational faculties. Man is put in the place of God. But reason is not the source of Truth, merely the receptacle for its expression. And this was precisely the error of the thinkers who had gathered at the Court of Charlemagne. Thus another thinker of the 9th century, Erigena, wrote: ‘For those who seek seriously and strive to discover the reason for all things, all the means of reaching a pious and perfect doctrine reside in the science and discipline of philosophy’. ‘We must only adopt the opinions of the Fathers if with them we need to strengthen our arguments in the eyes of those who reason poorly and thus yield to authority rather than reason’. ‘True reason, since it relies on its own strength, has no need whatsoever to be strengthened by any authority’. Reason, as the philosophers of Charlemagne, did not understand, because of their self-deluding pride of mind, is but the receptacle of Truth. The source of Truth is the Spirit of Truth, the Holy Spirit, ‘Who proceedeth from the Father’ according to the Gospel. But the rationalists, through the filioque, had distanced and removed the Spirit of Truth, fixing Him between the Father and the Son.
scott,
Political.
Faithful.
The political propaganda is all yours.
I have no political agenda.
I vote for the most honest.
I am not infallible.
Politics is negotiable, and “there is no political solution to our troubled evolution” (Sting, “The Police”, 1981).
scott,
You follow a clear political, partisan, racist and nationalistic agenda, whether you recognise it or not.
Whether you recognize it or not, you are slandering me. What you say is simply not true. The partisans in America are pro-Trump. I am pro-truth and anti-racist. Your accusations are based on nothing but your own prejudice.
Wow scott,
I am not talking about Trump, but about your attacks on Franks, Charlemagne, Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, etc.
Water: If you read everything I have said on Blessed Augustine, I have nowhere or ever attacked Augustine. I address Augustine’s opinions, which were just opinions. Just as I have opinions on some things, which may or may not be correct or based on facts. Aquinas and Charlemagne solidified Augustine’s speculations on Filioque into dogma. Something no Ecumenical Council did, for the Church’s faith against Filioque was decided in 381 AD and ratified by Ephesus in 431 AD. It is as simple as that. This is not anti-Frankish nationalism, as there is no Frankish nation)s) anymore. The Franks are long gone, but Charlemagne’s myth that the “Greeks” (sic) deleted the Filioque from the original Nicene Creed remains. On the authority and testimony of Thomas Aquinas, and his philosophy and theology enforced by Pope Leo III, Thomism is the official thought of today’s Roman Papacy, with Filioque. Until that changes, there can be no unity or reunion between the Orthodox Church and the modern Papacy, which is a different papacy from the old Orthodox Popes of Rome, like Saint Gregory I the Great.
scott,
You say: ” Something no Ecumenical Council did”
We differ.
You reject Constantinople I as the final Catholic Ecumenical Council for all Christians for all time and for Eternity, as ratified by Ephesus 431 AD which said no other words can be added to or taken from its Creed. You obviously have also to reject the endorsement of your own popes, and only follow what later popes have said, and not the earlier ones. Why is that? Truth does not change. Facts do not change. The earlier popes were Orthodox. The papacy changed in 1054 AD, and contradicted the earlier papacy.
scott,
Either you have not read my posts or you do not understand them, or you refuse to understand them. You can take a horse to the water, but you cannot make it drink.
Endless repetition is not going to help you.
Your standard myth is that I do not understand what you say.
I have always believed you do not understand Filioque.
Prove this wrong and prove it is not a heresy.
If you really understood Filioque, you would already understand why it is a heresy.
scott,
I cannot prove anything to anyone. I can submit evidence. That is all I can do.
You should already agree from your past statements that you agree with John 15:26. You have not presented any evidence from Jesus Christ for Filioque. You already should know and agree Christ is speaking in John 15:26. Therefore, I do not understand why you cling to Filioque, when Jesus Christ said this is not so by saying only “proceeds from the Father” John 15:26. Do you expect us to believe Christ is hiding something? He said He would lead us into all truth John 16:13; cf. John 14:26. And He is the Truth John 14:6. God bless you.
scott,
As I say, You have been taken out of Protestantism, but Protestantism has not been taken out of you. That is a typical Protestant approach.
My quoting Scripture does not make me a Protestant.
Any more than you quoting some of the Church Fathers but only the passages that make your case for Filioque or you quoting Augustine or a pope of Rome makes you a Roman Catholic. I believe you are misusing and misunderstanding the evidence from the church fathers you cite, but then you would not understand that because you have not read what Saint Photios said about the other church fathers in his “Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit”. And Photios too is a church father. Aquinas has his good points, but he made to much of Filioque and Aristotle.
Oops! The philosophical Filioquist papalist Aristotelian theology of Thomism, Thomas Aquinas, the official doctrine of the theology of modern Roman Catholicism, of Pope Leo XIIII. Not Leo III! My mistake! Leo III is with the Church. Leo III was Orthodox to forbid Filioque. He kept his private opinion for Filioque to himself. Leo III endorsed Constantinople I, 381 AD. Pope Leo XIII said things Pope Leo III never would have said or said. Take care. And thank you LORD for good Pope John VIII, who restored the Orthodox Unity of the Catholic Church, Whole and Undivided, Rome and Constantinople together, Eight Ecumenical Council, Constantinople IV, Rome-Constantinople, 879-880 AD. Holy Pope John VIII, pray for us!
Oops! Pope of Rome Leo XIII. Not Leo XIIII! My mistake. I’m not infallible. Peter’s Faith is infallible. Peter is Pope. Peter is Orthodox, Peter is the Rock. Upon Christ the Rock. The Other Apostles are part of this Rock of Peter. He is the Spokesman for the other 11 Apostles, and Paul. And all the other apostolic leaders, the 70. Vatican I is a sin against St. Peter. Against true Catholicism, which is lost by Filioque.
scott,
Somehow you get lost along the way.
Somehow you have no evidence for what you say, and so you violate the rule of logic and make comments about me.
scott,
You are an interlocutor here you know, and your opinions also have to do with who you are.
When the Pope of Rome was no longer the Pope of Rome but the Pope of Avignon. Saint Peter was never the Pope of Avignon.
The Popes of Avignon: A Century in Exile: Edwin Mullins – Amazon.com
https://www.amazon.com/Popes-Avignon-Century-Exile/dp/1933346329
The Popes of Avignon: A Century in Exile [Edwin Mullins] on Amazon.com. … that caused inspiration, let alone where the famous “Laura” was first sighted.
Avignon Papacy – When the Popes Resided in France – ThoughtCo
https://www.thoughtco.com › … › History & Culture › Medieval & Renaissance History
Jul 18, 2018 – The Avignon Papacy was the period in the 14th century when the popes lived in and operated out of Avignon, France, instead of their traditional …
The Avignon Papacy 1305-1378 | Lectures in Medieval History
http://www.vlib.us/medieval/lectures/avignon.html
The first of the governing elites to lose its power to lead effectively was the Church. … Pope Boniface VIII and Philip IV of France soon clashed over two basic …
The Palace of the Popes in Avignon – a short guide – About France
https://about-france.com › Tourism › Historic monuments
Discover Avignon, the Palace of the Popes, the ramparts, St Benezet’s Bridge … Yet the first thousand years of the Papacy included centuries of strife and turmoil …
How St. Catherine Brought the Pope Back to Rome | Catholic Answers
https://www.catholic.com/magazine/…/how-st-catherine-brought-the-pope-back-to-ro…
Apr 29, 2014 – Catherine took up the mantle of encouraging the pope to return home … of St. Bridget of Sweden (1303–1373), who first exhorted the papal return in … The popes lived in Avignon for the next seventy years, and over that time …
Babylonian Captivity of the Papacy – New World Encyclopedia
http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Babylonian_Captivity_of_the_Papacy
Apr 2, 2008 – On the one hand, the move to Avignon placed the Pope in a safer … a ten percent tax on church property, annates, the income of the first year …
Avignon Papacy (with Max) – Medieval Devotion | Coursera
https://www.coursera.org/lecture/western…200…/avignon-papacy-with-max-dlcd8
Feb 6, 2017 – Video created by Yale University for the course “A Journey through Western Christianity: from Persecuted Faith to Global Religion (200 – 1650) …
Related search
popes
View 3+ more
Pope Boniface VIII
Pope Boniface VIII
Pope Clement V
Pope Clement V
Pope Clement VII
Pope Clement VII
Pope Boniface IX
Pope Boniface IX
Pope Urban VI
Pope Urban VI
Pope John XXII
Pope John XXII
Pope Callixtus III
PRE-FILIOQUE CIVILIZATION AND POST-FILIOQUE CIVILIZATION
Pre-filioque (= Orthodox) Civilization, east and west, north and south, is the Civilization of the nearness of God, of the presence of the Holy Trinity, of the Incarnate Christ, of God become man, of the immediacy of the Holy Spirit, transfiguring daily life and culture. It is Theanthropic Civilization, the Civilization of the God-Man, in simple words, Christian Civilization.
Post-filioque (= Heterodox) Civilization is quite different. The introduction of the filioque into Western European life and culture from the eleventh century on and worldwide in more recent times, means the subjugation of the Holy Spirit to the Father and the Son. It means the subjugation of the spiritual to the material, that the Holy Spirit is no longer a Person, but in the words of the philosopher Aquinas, ‘the mutual relation of the Father and the Son’. It is Anthropic Civilization, the Civilization of sinful man, in simple words, Humanist Civilization.
This was seen clearly in the fourteenth century with St Gregory Palamas (1296-1359). He opposed the Italian humanist philosopher Barlaam, who was a Platonist intellectual and secularist and spoke with the voice of the neo-pagan Renaissance. Objecting to the arid and rigid Aristotelian Scholasticism of Aquinas, which expressed Institutional Roman Catholicism, Barlaam proposed that humanity live by its autonomous reason, for he asserted that God is unknowable. As St Gregory rightly said, in becoming Orthodox Barlaam had received ‘no sanctification whatsoever from our Church’ (1). This was clear in the fact that Barlaam did not preach sanctification, but rather the impossibility of sanctification. In this we see the contrast with an earlier Italian converted to the Orthodox Church, a forerunner of St Gregory, Nicephorus the Hesychast (+ 1260), who had found Christ and preached sanctification.
St Gregory Palamas also opposed Messalianism and the position of Akindynos. The Messalians, known in the east as Bogomils and in the west as Cathars, rejected the Incarnation of Christ, and therefore rejected the Church and the sacraments. Gregory Akindynos was an Orthodox monk and priest who reduced the Church to a conservative, ritualistic State ideology, which supported the Emperor of Constantinople, however heretical or Uniat he might be. St Gregory Palamas, however, in the Tradition of the Church, followed the Holy Spirit, living in the uncreated energies of the Holy Spirit, rejecting all compromises with this world. This is why what he preached was recognized by Church Councils not as some ‘oriental mysticism’, but as the authentic teaching of the Christian Church and Tradition.
Conversely to the Church, without the understanding of the Holy Spirit, the Heterodox world lost the Uncreated Light of the Resurrection, of the Theophany (the Baptism of the Lord) and the Feast of the Transfiguration.
Thus, the Roman Catholic world understood the Holy Trinity as God (a distant and cruel ‘father’), ‘Jesus’ (the crucified man) and the Pope (the voice of God). Without the light of the Resurrection, in which we partake by the Holy Spirit, Who allows us to partake of the uncreated energies of the Holy Trinity, Roman Catholic ‘spiritual life’ was reduced to man-centred, psychic exercises and the cultivation of guilt. Roman Catholic piety, deprived of the light and joy of the Resurrection, was largely reduced to the mournful veneration of the Cross as an instrument of death.
The Protestant world understood the Holy Trinity as God (a distant and cruel ‘father’), ‘Jesus’ (the crucified man) and, instead of the Pope, the Bible (the voice of God interpreted personally). Without the light of the Resurrection, in which we partake by the Holy Spirit, Who allows us to partake of the uncreated energies of the Holy Trinity, Protestant ‘spiritual life’ was reduced to the intellectualism of the decadent upper middle-class and the moralism of the narrow lower middle-class. Protestant piety, rejecting the morbid piety of the Roman Catholic Cross, was largely reduced to the pride and vanity of illusory emotions of personal salvation.
Roman Catholicism worships a distant Sun in an artificial, Pope-made, light. Roman Catholic ‘saints’, unable to access the uncreated energies of the Holy Trinity through the Holy Spirit can only imitate Christ as an external model. Thus, its piety relies on the psychic powers of individuals to imitate the physical sufferings of Christ.
Protestantism worships a distant Sun in an artificial, man-made light. Rejecting the Pope, this man-made light is the light of each individual Protestant. Protestantism, by its own admission, has no saints. Thus, its piety relies on the human powers of individuals and the proud and vain illusory emotions of personal salvation.
The (Orthodox) Church worships the Sun of God in the light that is natural to the Sun. The Orthodox saints, transfigured by the uncreated energies of the Holy Trinity communicated by the Holy Spirit, do not imitate Christ externally, but live in Christ.
Today, it is true, the (Orthodox) Church survives only in fragments that are scattered across the face of the earth. The Orthodox Church has faced persecution by Roman Catholicism from the west and by Islam from the east, by every form of anti-spiritual Western materialism, from Communism to Fascism and Consumerism. As a result, many Orthodox long ago lapsed into nominalism, which caused the Revolution in Russia and decadence in the Balkans, the Middle East and the Diaspora. However, the Church will survive until the end of the world, for when She is no more, then the end of the world will come. For Orthodox Civilization is Pre-Filioque Civilization, whereas Post-Filioque Civilization is the Civilization of the Apocalypse, as we more and more clearly see with every day that passes.
Fr Andrew
15/28 July 2007
Holy Equal-to-the-Apostles Prince Vladimir
Note:
1. Triads 3, 15
to top of page
Partisan.
TRUTH is non-partisan.
It is not partisan, as you suggest, falsely.
scott,
That is exactly what I am saying to you, but you seem to think you are not partisan. I suggest you read your posts.
The Kiev (English) (Kyiv: Ukrainian) Church was founded in 988 AD by Saint Vladimir (Russian) (Volodymyr: Ukrainian).
The modern Kiev is divided between faith Ukrainian Orthodox, and schismatic heretics (Uniats/Catholics, Protestants, Pentecostals), sympathetic to NATO/EU and the West, and they are anti-Orthodox. They hate the holy Orthodox Church, they hate Russia, they are pro-Germany, and much of Germany is still right wing. Germany, like the American South, has not completely suppressed its fascism, right wing. They hate immigrants and minorities.
scott,
When you say “the modern Kiev”, do you mean the modern Ukranian Orthodox? If so, when were they founded and by whom?
F-I-L-I-O-Q-U-E. False-intellectualist-lies-initiating-occult-quite-universal-evils.
scott,
Demonising the opposition.
Christ says “the FATHER” in John 15:26 and not FILIOQUE. It is a sin against the Holy Spirit to say FILIOQUE is not heresy and is the truth. It’s not about defending the Divinity of Christ. Both the Catholics and Orthodox ALREADY DO that, on OTHER grounds, other Scriptures, mainly the key NT versus, “JESUS IS LORD”. Filioque demonizes itself, and the opposition who support Christ demonize those who oppose Filioque. We both support Christ; but the Filioque crowd does not take John 15:26 and Christ AT HIS WORDS, but claims to ADD to Scripture AND Tradition; and they MISQUOTE the Church Fathers, who do not teach Filioque; they are only speaking of the Spirit “from the Father and the Son”, in the sense of “THROUGH” the Son, temporal mssion. If they say some things that are the Spirit coming eternally from the essence of the Son, well, they were human, and capable of error. Just as I myself can err and have erred. The finla authority is not any given Father, but the councils of the Church, and in Orthodoxy, councils have already condemned Filioque many times. Nothing more needs to be said.
Since the East respects and obeys Constantinople I, 381 AD,. and the WEST does not RESPECT it or obey it, it the WEST that needs to CHANGE and to REPENT and reject the DOGMA of FILIOQUE which is FALSE. They just don’t see the Light of Tabor on this yet. God bless all.
scott,
The councils of the Catholic church have declared the filioque a dogma. You can jump up and down all you like, it changes nothing.
Whether you like it or not, Rome is Frankish, not Catholic. You can jump up and down all you like, but the fault with Rome is Charlemagne’s. Their false dogma slanders the LORD Christ Jesus John 15:26. You can jump up and down all you like against God, but John 15:26 is the Holy Gospel.
scott,
Whether you recognise the pope or not changes nothing. He is the vicar of Christ on earth.
They are all heresies and schisms, not Ecumenical Councils. Your belief and dogma changes nothing. Rome has gone its own way,and serves the agendas of this world. The Orthodox Church keeps unchanged and universal the Catholic Faith. (Not every member of the Orthodox Church speaks for the traditions of the Church. There are heretics in every Christian tradition). Catholicism is a Christian traditions, but it adds heresies on top of or alongside many correct truths. Therefore Rome is not completely fallen, just somewhat in error. I pray for the Restoration of Old Rome to the Faith (Eph. 4, Jude 1:3) of the Orthodox Catholic Church, the Orthodox Church. I pray for the Church of Constantinople to reject her neo-Papalist error.
scott,
There is one church that Jesus founded, and he gave Peter his authority, not anyone else, and that authority passes on to Peter’s successors. It’s as simple as that.
Peter did not sack Constantinople. Peter did not authorize Vatican I. Peter did not authorize Filioque. Peter did not cause schisms. Peter did not authorize Ustashe. It’s as simple as that. Peter did not sign a concordat with Hitler. Peter did not teach purgatory. Peter did not change dogmas. Peter did not change calendars and time. Peter did not preach indulgences. It’s as simple as that. You serve error.
scott,
You do not understand that Jesus is the head of the church and always will be, and the Holy Spirit guides it and guards it.
Exactly. Jesus is the Head of the Church.\
Not Roman Catholicism, which is a later schism, and left Peter and the Apostles. Jesus did not give a monarchy of Peter over the other apostles. The Sole Monarch of the Church is Jesus Christ, as you said, the Head of the Church, with each apostle and bishop, not Rome over the rest of the Church, but Christ equally in the Pentarchy, and from their Apostolic succession to other places, like Moscow. There is no apostolic succession of Peter to Avignon. By then, the popes of Rome were in venomous heresy.
scott,
Who should I believe, scott or the church fathers? I wonder.
Water, You believe neither the church fathers nor Scott.
scott,
You certainly make light of their teachings.
You only seem to respect and believe church fathers’ testimony which seems to respect Filioque. I only seem to respect and believe church fathers’ testimony which seems to reject Filioque and explain why it is heresy. For me, it is not any given church father, but the consensus of all of the church fathers of all times and places as having to be in agreement for the final authority in Christ in Christ’s Church, the 318 church fathers, bishops of Constantinople I, 381 AD, 2nd Ecumenical Council. The Church has spoken. The Holy Spirit has spoken. Case closed. Acts 15, It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us, 381 AD, 431 AD. Not knowing or trusting the 7 ecumenical councils to explain what the church fathers mean, you appeal most of all to Augustine as the final word.
The record never as far as I know, records what Augustine said on the council of 381 AD, if he even knew about it.
scott,
I respect all ecumenical councils and all church fathers, not just what you consider ecumenical councils, and the consensus of the early church fathers, whether you like it or not is for an eternal procession of the Holy Spirit through and of the son. This temporal procession idea is novel and heretical.
Prove a temporal procession is heretical from Constantinople I, 381 AD.
scott,
You have been taken out of Protestantism, but Protestantism has not been taken out of you. This is a typical AOG/Evangelical type question: Show me Jesus or the apostles saying so and so, thereby ignoring everything else that is available. But I don’t know whether you can even grasp this kind of concept with your literal, blinkered way of looking at things.
How ridiculous your false accusations are, as the heterodox Popes were the first Protestants, and believed in their own private interpretations over the Ecumenical Council.
Your fallacy, Water, poisoning the wells. This is not a typical AOG/Evangelical question. It came from no AOG source. There is nothing in that from AOG. I did not read it in AOG books. I am not AOG. I attended a few AOG services. I was into AOG for a brief while. I am not longer a fan of AOG. So your poisoning the wells is another fallacy. Nice try, but I’m not buying you false (lack of proper) reasoning.
scott,
You literalist obsession makes you blind.
Your false accusations that I am a literalist makes you a straw man seeker. You develop a false view of what I am saying, and any time I mention any Scripture, you label me “Protestant!”. Your dishonesty is quite unjust. Try actually thinking about what I have written, rather than holding my Protestant background against me. I don’t hold Filioque against you. I just tell you it’s wrong. I was once like you. In bondage to Filioque. I did not deserve to read John 15:26,. for my Lutheranism blinded me to the whole NT. I only read the parts the Lutherans wanted me to read. It is tragic the Christian world has a major schism between Rome and the Orthodox Church.
That’s rather funny, Water. You take Matthew 16 in a quite literal way about Peter. Not knowing in this passage there are different Greek words used for “rock”.
scott,
Typical Protestant argument again, comes out poorly from an Orthodox Christian.
Typical slander from Water. Anything you don’t like you falsely label as Protestant. Your words are dishonest and misguided. You have no evidence for Filioque, so you just attack me and call me a Protestant. If I were a Protestant, I would believe in Filioque. Both Protestantism and Catholicism depend on Augustine, and the part of Augustine they share is Filioque. They disagree on justification, but share the same dogma of Filioque. Your words are shamelessly ad hominem, since you can’t deal with the issues, and do not hear both Orthodox and Catholic views on Filioque. I have read most of the Orthodox writings. I only need to read Anselm on Filioque more carefully. His is the Catholic view, and one of the longest defenses of Filioque from the West. Very philosophical, but lacking citations from the Church Fathers. And the ecumenical councils.
If I really were a Protestant as you falsely say that I am, I would reject everything from all of the many popes, and not hold that some of them are saints. Or at least like Luther I would say the Pope is the Antichrist. And the Orthodox Church does not say that about the Pope or the Papacy. Many of the earlier Roman Popes are Orthodox saints and are revered in the Greek/Russian (etc.) Orthodox Church. My view of Matthew 16 and the Petrine succession is more nuanced and subtle than the typical anti-Catholic Protestant. I am non-Catholic (non Rome after 1054 AD), not anti-Catholic. Since Rome accepted Filioque, Rome today is in schism from earlier Rome, which resisted Filioque. Those are the facts whether you like that or believe that or not. It matters not. The truth is the truth. Even if very few souls believe it and know it.
Not even one of my arguments is Protestant in any way at all, since I do not say the Pope of Rome is Antichrist. That is what distinguishes Protestants from Orthodox and Catholics alike. We both say that Orthodox and Catholics are separated brethren in unfortunate current schism from each other. Due to failure to confess the same Creed.
Dear Water:
If any Catholic is going to ever engage in intelligent meaningful dialogue with an Orthodox Christian (Chalcedonian Eastern Orthodox), he/she must know the major sources of the issue of the Filioque doctrine, and the views of the Western church and the Eastern church. While I recommend any Catholic should know what Anselm of Canterbury says and writes in his work On the Procession of the Holy Spirit, this is, I feel, a secondary work to the works of Aquinas and Lombard. I feel that I should eventually study Anselm’s work, but I have studied Aquinas most of all and Lombard some what. These are the 4 books I feel that if you want to compare the Catholic tradition on Filioque to the Orthodox rejection of Filioque, you need to read these books.
You can get one of the Catholic books, “ENDING THE BYzANTINE GREEK SCHISM” (containing the CONTRA ERRORES GRAECORUM of St. Thomas Aquinas), by James Likoudis from. Catholics United For the Faith, Inc., 85882 Waterworks Road, Hopedale, OH 43976
For another book of Catholic apologetics for Filioque, read Peter Lombard the Sentences, Volume 1, The Trinity, order from Amazon.com.
Peter Lombard. Giulio Silano, translator. The Sentences: Book I: The Mystery of the Trinity (Mediaeval Sources in Translation). 1st edition. PIMS Toronto, ON, Canada: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies. Amazon.com. Paperback. 40.95 ISBN10: 9780888442925.
From Amazon.com on the Orthodox view of the Filioque, these two books are the best Orthodox sources:
Siecienski, A. Edward. (2010). The Filioque: History of a Doctrinal Controversy (Oxford Studies in Historical Theology). New York: Oxford University Press. Hardcover. Amazon.co, 50.94. ISBN10: 0195372042.
Patriarch of Constantinople Photius. (1983). Holy Transfiguration Monastery, translators. On the Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit (English and Ancient Greek Editions). Boston, MASS: Studion Publishers. Amazon.com Hardcover. 36.12.
ISBN10: 0943670004.
God bless you, Water. Scott USA
scott,
Thanks for that. I have read the CONTRA ERRORES GRAECORUM of St. Thomas Aquinas and quite a sampling of the teachings of the early church fathers on the issue. That leaves me satisfied. It is not an issue I particularly want to pursue, and in particular after our discussion.
On this issue of rejecting the Filioque, the Church is right.
Rome once belonged to the Church.
Following Charlemagne, who was the political force which enforced the Filioque in order to secure worldly power and because he envied Byzantium, he intended to cause a division in the Church, that is, to draw people away from the Catholic Church. He succeeded, unfortunately, and Rome capitulated to HRE Frankish Henry II … and thus the later papacy, in schism from earlier Rome, 1009-1014 and Filioque. The rest is history.
Like you yourself said to me, you can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make him drink.
We who have drunk the water of life freely, the Holy Spirit, have no reason to reject our LORD Christ Jesus and betray His gospel in John 15:26 for the FILIOQUE heresy.
I wish you well.
If you want to receive the true Holy Spirit, no one can force this on you against your willingness to understand what the truth is. It is sad you are satisfied with a few out of context patristic quotes which you do not understand. I am sure I cannot reject Constantinople I and remain a Christian or I would lose salvation. Salvation is of the LORD, and the Creed of Christ’s Church without FILIOQUE cannot change.
God bless you.
Was Aquinas a Proto-Protestant?
Francis J. Beckwith
Thursday, December 9, 2010
Catholics are often surprised to learn that there are Evangelical Protestants who claim to be Thomists. When I was a Protestant, I was one of them. What attracts these Evangelicals are Thomas’s views on faith and reason, his philosophy of the human person, command of Scripture, and intellectual rigor. Some of them think that on justification, Thomas is closer to the Protestant Reformers than to the Catholic view (as taught in the 1994 Catechism of the Catholic Church). The late Presbyterian theologian John Gerstner, for instance, claimed that with St. Augustine, St. Thomas “taught the biblical doctrine of justification so that if the Roman Church had followed Aquinas the Reformation would not have been absolutely necessary.” Others have made similar arguments, but they are spectacularly wrong. As usual, it all hinges on understanding faith and works.
For St. Thomas, justification refers not only to entrance into the family of God at Baptism – administered for the remission of sins – but to the infusion of sanctifying grace at Baptism and all the subsequent graces that work to transform the Christian from the inside out. Consider, for instance, Aquinas’s explanation of sanctifying grace as habitual grace: “a double effect of grace, even as of every other form; the first of which is ‘being,’ and the second, ‘operation.’” For example, “the work of heat is to make its subject hot, and to give heat outwardly. And thus habitual grace, inasmuch as it heals and justifies the soul, or makes it pleasing to God, is called operating grace; but inasmuch as it is the principle of meritorious works, which spring from the free-will, it is called cooperating grace.”
Because God is the sole mover in the infusion of habitual grace, it is entirely attributable to Him. In technical language, this is called operating grace. But if habitual grace is supposed to heal and justify the soul, and the soul has by nature certain powers to think and act, then this healing and justification must manifest itself in the activities of the soul. Thus, these acts allow us to cooperate with God for our inward transformation. Aquinas calls this cooperating grace, since any meritorious acts performed by a soul infused with habitual grace by God would lack merit without that grace and thus without God’s cooperation. Writes St. Thomas: “God does not justify us without ourselves, because whilst we are being justified we consent to God’s justification [justitiae] by a movement of our free-will. Nevertheless this movement is not the cause of grace, but the effect; hence the whole operation pertains to grace.”
St. Thomas Dedicating His Works to Christ (Santi di Tito)
For Aquinas, justification and sanctification are not different events, one extrinsic and the other intrinsic, as the Protestant Augusburg (1530) and Westminster (1646) confessions teach. Rather, “sanctification” is the ongoing intrinsic work of justifying, or making the Christian rightly-ordered by means of God’s grace, the same grace that intrinsically changed the believer at the moment of her initial “justification” (i.e., at Baptism) into an adopted child of the Father. Writes Aquinas, “Augustine says (De Gratia et Lib. Arbit. xvii): ‘God by cooperating with us, perfects what He began by operating in us, since He who perfects by cooperation with such as are willing, begins by operating that they may will.’ But the operations of God whereby He moves us to good pertain to grace. Therefore grace is fittingly divided into operating and cooperating.” For Aquinas, justification is as much about getting heaven into us as it is about getting us into heaven.
The 1994 Catechism is of a piece with St. Thomas: “The first work of the grace of the Holy Spirit is conversion, effecting justification in accordance with Jesus’ proclamation at the beginning of the Gospel: ‘Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.’[Matthew 4:17]. Moved by grace, man turns toward God and away from sin, thus accepting forgiveness and righteousness from on high.” And it uses the language of cooperating grace in its account of human merit and the role it plays in justification: “The merit of man before God in the Christian life arises from the fact that God has freely chosen to associate man with the work of his grace. The fatherly action of God is first on his own initiative, and then follows man’s free acting through his collaboration, so that the merit of good works is to be attributed in the first place to the grace of God, then to the faithful. Man’s merit, moreover, itself is due to God, for his good actions proceed in Christ, from the predispositions and assistance given by the Holy Spirit.”
Oddly, several Evangelicals cite part of this as evidence that the Church teaches “grace plus works,” even though that’s not what the Catechism is saying. The Catechism teaches, “The merits of our good works are gifts of the divine goodness.” (Does that sound to you like “grace plus good works”?) Consequently, one’s cooperation does not take away from the fact that justification is a work of God, just as Christ’s human nature does not diminish his divine nature, and just as the Bible being authored by human beings is not inconsistent with it being God’s Word. Thus, St. Thomas was more a proto-Tridentine Catholic than a proto-Protestant.
What then accounts for this misreading of the Angelic Doctor? Love. No serious Christian can read St. Thomas without being impressed by his intellect and philosophical acumen, but also his encyclopedic knowledge of Scripture. This no doubt has enkindled in even in the coolest of Protestant hearts a warm affection for Aquinas. These smitten scholars unconsciously find creative ways to make it seem as if a thirteenth-century Dominican Friar was a lonely beacon in a papist fog destined to be vindicated by a sixteenth-century Augustinian Monk. Unfortunately, or fortunately, it is not so.
© 2018 The Catholic Thing. All rights reserved. For reprint rights, write to: info@frinstitute.org The Catholic Thing is a forum for intelligent Catholic commentary. Opinions expressed by writers are solely their own.
scott,
In my understanding Protestants do not grasp the notion of “good works”. They attribute them (falsely) to men.
The Nature of Good Works.
John 14:10 “10 Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? What I say to you I do not speak of my own accord: it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his works.
Acts 26:20 “20 On the contrary I started preaching, first to the people of Damascus, then to those of Jerusalem and all Judaean territory, and also to the gentiles, urging them to repent and turn to God, proving their change of heart by their deeds.”
1 John 2:3-4 “3 In this way we know that we have come to know him, if we keep his commandments.
4 Whoever says, ‘I know him’ without keeping his commandments, is a liar, and truth has no place in him.’”
Jesus says in Matt 7:22 “22 When the day comes many will say to me, “Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, drive out demons in your name, work many miracles in your name?
23 Then I shall tell them to their faces: I have never known you; away from me, all evil doers!”
The point Jesus is making here is that someone who is cut off from Him by doing evil is not going to be helped if they “prophesy in your name, drive out demons in your name, work many miracles in your name?” Someone who is cut off from God by the evil he does is incapable of doing something truly good and pleasing to God, because his heart has turned away from God. Therefore “driving out demons”, “prophesying”, “working miracles” are not good deeds for him in the first place, because he is an unrepentant sinner.
That tells us a few things. Those who prophecy in Jesus’ name do not necessarily go to heaven. Those who drive out demons in Jesus’ name do not necessarily go to heaven, those who work out miracles in Jesus’ name do not necessarily go to heaven. That is if they do evil. Paul lists a few of these evils, adultery, slander, sodomy, etc, those who practice these things Paul tells us, will not enter the kingdom of heaven. (1 Cor 6:9-10 “9* Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, * 10 nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God.” Some Christians do evil deeds, or fail to do good deeds, which is also evil. Matt 25:41-43, 46 “Go away from me, with your curse upon you, to the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.42 For I was hungry and you never gave me food, I was thirsty and you never gave me anything to drink,
43 I was a stranger and you never made me welcome, lacking clothes and you never clothed me, sick and in prison and you never visited me.”
“46* And they will go away into eternal punishment,”
Paul tells us that we are saved by faith working through love. Gal 5:6 “6* For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision is of any avail, but faith working through love.” Good works are prompted by love. They are not things that we do in our own strength, but God works through us to enable us to do the good works. We are his “co-workers” (1 Cor 3:9 “ 9* For we are God’s co-workers; * you are God’s field, God’s building.”
He has prepared good works for us if we co-operate with His grace. It is impossible for anyone to do a good work pleasing to God if God is not working through that person, otherwise it is done out of duty or philanthropy, but not out of love.
Paul tells us that we can have faith even to move mountains, but that if we have no love, we have nothing. Love is the engine of good works, without love they are empty dead shells. God’s grace, which you respond to, gives you your faith. God’s grace, which you respond to, produces good works. In neither case are you doing something in your own strength.
Phil 2:13 “13 It is God who, for his own generous purpose, puts into you both the will and the action.”
That is what is meant by good works, doing the works that God has prepared for you, through His grace, not in your own strength.
Luke 11:41 “41 Instead, give alms from what you have and, look, everything will be clean for you.”
2 Peter 1:4-7 “4 Through these, the greatest and priceless promises have been lavished on us, that through them you should share the divine nature and escape the corruption rife in the world through disordered passion. 5 With this in view, do your utmost to support your faith with goodness, goodness with understanding, 6 understanding with self-control, self-control with perseverance, perseverance with devotion, 7 devotion with kindness to the brothers, and kindness to the brothers with love.”
Eph 2:10 “10 We are God’s work of art, created in Christ Jesus for the good works which God has already designated to make up our way of life.”
Rev 19:8 “8 His bride (the church) is ready, and she has been able to dress herself in dazzling white linen, because her linen is made of the good deeds of the saints.’”
John 14:11 “11 You must believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at least believe it on the evidence of these works.”
Col 1:24 “24 It makes me happy to be suffering for you now, and in my own body to make up all the hardships that still have to be undergone by Christ for the sake of his body, the Church,”
Col 1:29 “29 And it is for this reason that I labour, striving with his energy which works in me mightily.”
John 3:1-2 “ … Nicodemus … said ‘Rabbi, we know that you have come from God as a teacher; for no one could perform the signs that you do unless God were with him.’”
John 5:19 “Jesus replied: In all truth I tell you, by himself the Son can do nothing; he can do only what he sees the Father doing: and whatever the Father does the Son does too.”
John 5:30 “30 By myself I can do nothing;”
John 14:12 “12 In all truth I tell you, whoever believes in me will perform the same works as I do myself,”
John 14:14 “14 If you ask me anything in my name, I will do it.”
John 15:5 “5 I am the vine, you are the branches.
John 15:16 “16 You did not choose me, no, I chose you; and I commissioned you to go out and to bear fruit, fruit that will last; so that the Father will give you anything you ask him in my name.”
John 15:2, 6 “2 Every branch in me that bears no fruit he cuts away…. 6 These branches are collected and thrown on the fire and are burnt.”
John 15:6 “17 My command to you is to love one another.”
Prayer is a good work.
“Prayer (Gk. euchesthai, Lat. precari, Fr. prier, to plead, to beg, to ask earnestly), an act of the virtue of religion which consists in asking proper gifts or graces from God. In a more general sense it is the application of the mind to Divine things, not merely to acquire a knowledge of them but to make use of such knowledge as a means of union with God. This may be done by acts of praise and thanksgiving, but petition is the principal act of prayer. The words used to express it in Scripture are: to call upon (Gen.4:26); to intercede (Job. 22:10); to meditate (Is. 53:10); to consult (1 Kings. 28:6); to beseech (Ex.32:11); and, very commonly, to cry out to. The Fathers speak of it as the elevation of the mind to God with a view to asking proper things from Him (St. John Damascene, “De fide”, III, xxiv, in P.G., XCIV, 1090); communing and conversing with God (St. Gregory of Nyssa, “De oratione dom.”, in P.G., XLIV, 1125); talking with God (St. John Chrysostorn, “Horn. xxx in Gen.”, n. 5, in P.G., LIII, 280). It is therefore the expression of our desires to God whether for ourselves or others. This expression is not intended to instruct or direct God what to do, but to appeal to His goodness for the things we need; and the appeal is necessary, not because He is ignorant of our needs or sentiments, but to give definite form to our desires, to concentrate our whole attention on what we have to recommend to Him, to help us appreciate our close personal relation with Him. The expression need not be external or vocal; internal or mental is sufficient.
By prayer we acknowledge God’s power and goodness, our own neediness and dependence. It is therefore an act of the virtue of religion implying the deepest reverence for God and habituating us to look to Him for everything, not merely because the thing asked be good in itself, or advantageous to us, but chiefly because we wish it as a gift of God, and not otherwise, no matter how good or desirable it may seem to us. Prayer presupposes faith in God and hope in His goodness. By both, God, to whom we pray, moves us to prayer.” (Para. On prayer: Catholic Answers).
Repentance is a good work
Repentance is a good work. Good works are necessary for salvation. Salvation is not possible without repentance.
Acts 2:38 “38 And Peter said to them, “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.”
1 John 1:8 “8 If we say, ‘We have no sin,’ we are deceiving ourselves, and the truth has no place in us;”
Forgiveness is a good work
Matt 6:15 “15 but if you do not forgive men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses”. Salvation is not possible if we are unforgiving.
Because David is forgiving and forgives Saul, God forgives David. If God had not forgiven David, Heaven would have been closed to him.
Council of Trent; Decree Concerning Justification.
CHAPTER VIII
HOW THE GRATUITOUS JUSTIFICATION OF THE SINNER BY FAITH IS TO BE UNDERSTOOD
But when the Apostle says that man is justified by faith and freely, (Rom 3:24 “24* they are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus,” ; Romans 5:1 “1* Therefore, since we are justified by faith, we * have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.”) these words are to be understood in that sense in which the uninterrupted unanimity of the Catholic Church has held and expressed them, namely, that we are therefore said to be justified by faith, because faith is the beginning of human salvation, the foundation and root of all justification, without which it is impossible to please God (Heb 11:6 “6 And without faith it is impossible to please him. For whoever would draw near to God must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him.”) and to come to the fellowship of His sons; and we are therefore said to be justified gratuitously, because none of those things that precede justification, whether faith or works, merit the grace of justification.” For, if by grace, it is not now by works, otherwise, as the Apostle says, grace is no more grace. (Rom 11:6 “6* But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works; otherwise grace would no longer be grace.).”
Matt 28:19-20 “19* Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20* teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age.”
Which commandments? These are summed up in Matt 22: “37* And he said to him, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind. 38 This is the great and first commandment. 39* And a second is like it, You shall love your neighbour as yourself. 40 On these two commandments depend all the law and the prophets.”
How do we love our neighbour? By good deeds.
1 John 4:20 “19* We love, because he first loved us. 20* If any one says, “I love God,” and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen, cannot * love God whom he has not seen. 21 And this commandment we have from him, that he who loves God should love his brother also.”
James 2 on Faith and Good Deeds.
14 How does it help, my brothers, when someone who has never done a single good act claims to have faith? Will that faith bring salvation?
15 If one of the brothers or one of the sisters is in need of clothes and has not enough food to live on,
16 and one of you says to them, ‘I wish you well; keep yourself warm and eat plenty,’ without giving them these bare necessities of life, then what good is that?
17 In the same way faith, if good deeds do not go with it, is quite dead.
Once.
18 But someone may say: So you have faith and I have good deeds? Show me this faith of yours without deeds, then! It is by my deeds that I will show you my faith.
Twice.
19 You believe in the one God — that is creditable enough, but even the demons have the same belief, and they tremble with fear.
20 Fool! Would you not like to know that faith without deeds is useless?
Three times.
21 Was not Abraham our father justified by his deed, because he offered his son Isaac on the altar?
22 So you can see that his faith was working together with his deeds; his faith became perfect by what he did.
23 In this way the scripture was fulfilled: Abraham put his faith in God, and this was considered as making him upright; and he received the name ‘friend of God’.
Four times.
24 You see now that it is by deeds, and not only by faith alone, that someone is justified.
Five times.
25 There is another example of the same kind: Rahab the prostitute, was she not justified by her deeds because she welcomed the messengers and showed them a different way to leave?
Six times.
26 As a body without a spirit is dead, so is faith without deeds.
Seven times.
James repeats his teaching on Faith and Good deeds seven times in 13 verses.
Romans 2:6-7 “For God will render to every man according to his works: to those who by patience in well doing (good works) seek for glory and honour and immortality, he will give eternal life” – note “by patience in well doing….. he will give eternal life.” Eternal life.
1 Cor 13:13 “13 As it is, these remain: faith, hope and love, the three of them; and the greatest of these is love.”
Rev 3:15 “15 “‘I know your works: you are neither cold nor hot. Would that you were cold or hot! 16 So, because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spew you out of my mouth.”
Rev 20:12 “the dead were judged from what was written in the books, as their deeds deserved.”
Things that build up the Body of Christ.
Worshipping and praising God.
Prayer of praise, thanksgiving and petition.
Reading and meditation on the Word of God.
Proclaiming the Gospel.
Repentance.
Teaching the Word of God.
Love of neighbor.
Forgiving our neighbor.
Feeding the hungry.
Clothing the poor.
Visiting the sick and those in prison.
Reading and meditation on the lives of the saints.
…….
All of these are Good Works. The first effect of a good work is to increase the faith and charity of the one who practices it, as it flows from God’s grace. This in itself builds up the Body of Christ, as the good of one member of the Body of Christ results in the good of the whole Body of Christ, just as the hurt felt by one member of the Body of Christ results in the hurt of the whole Body of Christ.
1 Cor 12:12-27
“12 For as with the human body which is a unity although it has many parts — all the parts of the body, though many, still making up one single body — so it is with Christ.
13 We were baptised into one body in a single Spirit, Jews as well as Greeks, slaves as well as free men, and we were all given the same Spirit to drink.
14 And indeed the body consists not of one member but of many.
15 If the foot were to say, ‘I am not a hand and so I do not belong to the body,’ it does not belong to the body any the less for that.
16 Or if the ear were to say, ‘I am not an eye, and so I do not belong to the body,’ that would not stop its belonging to the body.
17 If the whole body were just an eye, how would there be any hearing? If the whole body were hearing, how would there be any smelling?
18 As it is, God has put all the separate parts into the body as he chose.
19 If they were all the same part, how could it be a body?
20 As it is, the parts are many but the body is one.
21 The eye cannot say to the hand, ‘I have no need of you,’ and nor can the head say to the feet, ‘I have no need of you.’
22 What is more, it is precisely the parts of the body that seem to be the weakest which are the indispensable ones.
23 It is the parts of the body which we consider least dignified that we surround with the greatest dignity; and our less presentable parts are given greater presentability
24 which our presentable parts do not need. God has composed the body so that greater dignity is given to the parts which were without it,
25 and so that there may not be disagreements inside the body but each part may be equally concerned for all the others.
26 If one part is hurt, all the parts share its pain. And if one part is honoured, all the parts share its joy.
27 Now Christ’s body is yourselves, each of you with a part to play in the whole.”
Water, All of that basically is the same as Orthodox theology of “justification by faith which worketh by love”, “by faith and works” Rom. 3:28,Jm. 2:24. Except for the juridical legalistic attitude of the West, the Anselmian notion of satisfaction, the Western notion of merit. Orthodoxy says sin is not breaking the law, but not loving God and neighbor with all of one’s heart.
scott,
We pretty much agree on that.
sted 23 September 2009 – 05:11 AM
St Thomas Aquinas was first and foremost a Christian theologian. He did not hesitate to criticize Aristotle or even turn Aristotle on his head when he believed that the truths of revelation demanded such. I reference, for example, Thomas’s discussion of the creatio ex nihilo and transubstantiation. To describe Aquinas as just an Aristotelian (as if that in itself is a totally bad thing) is a caricature. He drunk deeply from many theological and philosophical wells.
All great theologians work within and break apart the philosophies of their day. This was as true for St Gregory of Nyssa, as it was for St Thomas Aquinas. We are all limited by our worldviews. It is only later generations that are able to identify those points where a given theologian failed to adequately reconstruct his inherited philosophical presuppositions and concepts.
It has become popular, both in the East and West, to denigrate Aquinas and Bonaventure and the other great scholastics, who were first and foremost monks and deep men of prayer, formed by the liturgies, daily offices, and devotions of the communities to which they belonged. While I find myself unsympathetic, as a whole, to scholasticism, that may only be because I am not a deep and sophisticated thinker.
I daresay that Orthodoxy could benefit from a sympathetic and honest engagement with the works of Sts Thomas Aquinas and Bonaventure. I daresay that St John Damascene and perhaps even St Maximos the Confessor would find them to be kindred spirits. They certainly would not dismiss them. And it might be remembered that the Eastern Church itself has a long scholastic tradition. I quote here the brilliant Antiochian Orthodox priest, biblical and patristics scholar, Fr Patrick Reardon:
Quote
What almost always passes for ‘Orthodox theology’ among English-speaking Orthodox these days is actually just a branch of the larger Orthodox picture. Indeed, it tends sometimes to be rather sectarian.
The Orthodox Church is an ancient castle, as it were, of which only two or three rooms have been much in use since about 1920. These two or three rooms were furnished by the Russian émigrés in Paris between the two World Wars. This furniture is heavily neo-Palamite and anti-Scholastic. It relies heavily on the Cappadocians, Maximus, and Gregory Palamas (who are good folks, or course). Anything that does not fit comfortably into that model is dismissed as “Western” and even non-Orthodox.
Consequently, one will look in vain in that theology for any significant contribution from the Alexandrians, chiefly Cyril, and that major Antiochian, Chrysostom. When these are quoted, it is usually some incidental point on which they can afford to be quoted.
Now I submit that any ‘Orthodox’ theology that has so little use for the two major figures from Antioch and Alexandria is giving something less than the whole picture.
Likewise, this popular neo-Palamite brand of Orthodoxy, though it quotes Damascene when it is convenient, never really engages Damascene’s manifestly ‘Scholastic’ approach to theology.
Much less does it have any use for the other early Scholastic theologians, such as Theodore the Studite and Euthymus Zygabenus. There is no recognition that Scholasticism was born in the East, not the West, and that only the rise of the Turk kept it from flourishing in the East.
There is also no explicit recognition that the defining pattern of Orthodox Christology was formulated in the West before Chalcedon. Pope Leo’s distinctions are already very clear in Augustine decades before Chalcedon. Yet, Orthodox treatises on the history of Christology regularly ignore Augustine.
Augustine tends to be classified as a ‘Scholastic,’ which he most certainly was not.
But Western and Scholastic are bad words with these folks.
In fact, however, Augustine and the Scholastics represent only other rooms in the larger castle.
For this reason I urge you, as you can, to read in the Orthodox sources that tend to get skipped in what currently passes for ‘Orthodoxy.’ For my part, I believe the Russian émigré theology from Paris, which seems profoundly reactionary and anti-Western, is an inadequate instrument for the evangelization of this country and the world. I say this while gladly recognizing my own debt to Russian émigré theology.
Unless a person has read deeply in the scholastics, which I have not, he should avoid offering judgments about their work. This would be a good practical rule to adopt. Orthodoxy does not need a “Western” whipping boy in order to be faithfully Orthodox, though I know that the whipping boy sure does come in handy when one is proselytizing and engaging in vigorous apologetical debate. Instead of creating scholastic straw men to knock down, either ignore them or read and understand them.
FROM SCOTT:
NOTE: It seems to me one does not need to be anti-Orthodox, either, and make Photius an Eastern whipping boy. I disagree with Augustine Anselm and Aquinas, but, as I have said, I respect blessed Augustine. I greatly differ with Aquinas, but I make no personal attack on anyone with whom I disagree doctrinally. However, by the Church and her Faith I am obligated to affirm and believe both the AFFIRMATIONS and ANATHEMAS of the Church, and the ANATHEMAS against Filioque. So one must do more than merely be a nice guy, and worry about hurting some one else’s feelings. I hope to not be pushy or triumphalist, or become proud, though I know there is pride in me, as with any sinner. We all struggle against pride and vanity, as I must struggle against lust and laziness. Anyway, when others use ad hominem, I do tend to respond to that. I need to be a bit more courageous and not take everything so personally. And I need to show more love to everyone. Including those who believe Filioque. For I used to follow Filioque myself. I consider myself to be happy that God saved me from Filioque. So I wish the same for all others, naturally. Take care. Scott Harrington
Water: Aquinas argues that if the Father and the Son do not work together to produce the Spirit, then the Son and the Spirit are not distinct persons.
Photius argues that this is not true, but that instead if the Father and Son work together to produce the Spirit, then the Father and the Son are not distinct persons. That is the truth.
Aquinas’s Summa Theologiae: A Critical Guide
https://books.google.com/books?isbn=1108574769
Jeffrey Hause – 2018 – Philosophy
4.1.5 The Filioque Aquinas uses the foregoing to argue for the filioque. Why not … Since (12) and (13) lead to a false conclusion, one of them must be wrong.
Posted byu/BamaHammer
Eastern Orthodox1 year ago
Does the Filioque matter?
I was listening to a podcast in which a priest who converted to Orthodoxy related that he was asked to publicly reject the Filioque during his ordination.
My question to you all is, what does it matter, in practical terms? I understand the theological significance of subjugating the Holy Spirit to the Son, but as a practical matter, is this an “angels on the head of a pin” discussion?
42 comments
100% Upvoted
This thread is archived
New comments cannot be posted and votes cannot be cast
Sort by
level 1
UnderTruth
15 points ·
1 year ago
The Filioque and Papal Primacy both share the same root: a misunderstanding of the Essence-Energies distinction. This is bad for the Church, bad for the soul, and ultimately just bad metaphysics. Here’s one more post I’ve written on the topic.
It matters, because Truth is a Man; Christ.
level 2
Atherum
Eastern Orthodox3 points ·
1 year ago
Always a relevant username 🙂
level 1
deadbutalive02
Eastern Orthodox (Byzantine Rite)8 points ·
1 year ago
You can not remove theology from the everyday life. Of course it matters. If it didn’t we would be Byzantine Catholics or some smattering of Protestant.
The doctrine has been set. It is settled. The Church has spoken, as children we must obey.
This is a question better done face to face. Ask your priest!
level 2
PlayOrGetPlayed
Eastern Orthodox3 points ·
1 year ago
The doctrine has been set. It is settled. The Church has spoken, as children we must obey.
What Ecumenical Council affirmed that the filioque is heresy? Alternatively, what does it mean for The Church to have spoken if not by a council?
level 3
[deleted]
8 points ·
1 year ago
The Fourth Council of Constantinople.
The filioque also has been condemned repeatedly by various saints, including Photios, Gregory Palamas, and Mark of Ephesus — the Pillars of Orthodoxy.
level 4
PlayOrGetPlayed
Eastern Orthodox3 points ·
1 year ago
The Fourth Council of Constantinople.
Which condemned its addition to the Creed, which is not the same as saying the idea itself is heretical.
The filioque also has been condemned repeatedly by various saints, including Photios, Gregory Palamas, and Mark of Ephesus — the Pillars of Orthodoxy.
And yet, ironically, both Photius and Palamas taught the Immaculate Conception, which you think is also heretical. Not that this addressed my point anyway: what does it mean for the Church to have spoken if not by a council?
level 5
[deleted]
2 points ·
1 year ago
Homosexual marriage has never been condemned by an Ecumenical Council, and for the first 300 years of Christianity, no council had condemned Arianism. Does that mean any of those things are okay to believe?
level 6
PlayOrGetPlayed
Eastern Orthodox6 points ·
1 year ago
That didn’t answer the question. I am asking for what it means for the Church to speak if not by a council. You are the one making the claim that the Church has spoken, so surely you should have an answer to this.
level 7
[deleted]
1 point ·
1 year ago
Your question has a misdirected focus. A Church pronouncement doesn’t make something wrong, it just confirms that it is.
level 8
PlayOrGetPlayed
Eastern Orthodox4 points ·
1 year ago
My question’s focus is fine. You claim the Church has spoken on an issue. I want to know how you know that. Surely if you know the Church has spoken, you can explain how you know that.
level 9
[deleted]
0 points ·
1 year ago
The filioque is wrong, just as Arianism was wrong for the first 300 years of Christianity even though the Council of Nicaea had yet to meet.
The Fourth Council of Constantinople condemned alterations to the Creed. That in itself makes filioque heretical, apart from other reasons, by excluding anything other than the Creed.
level 10
rommelsjackson
Eastern Catholic5 points ·
1 year ago
To play devils advocate for that other guy, though, no it doesn’t, because those are two different things.
It can’t be heresy to add unapproved additions to the Creed just because they are additions, even if it is illicit to add anything. What if I added “Christ has a divine will and human will” to the Creed? That isn’t a heretical statement, and its addition to the Creed doesnt make it heretical, though it wouldn’t be an approved addition.
Surely it is more an act of disobedience than an act of heresy.
Continue this thread
level 4
Juan_el_Rey
Eastern Orthodox3 points ·
1 year ago
And the infallible and supreme Pope Leo III.
level 4
UnworthySinner
Roman Catholic (Latin Rite)2 points ·
1 year ago
The Fourth Council of Constantinople.
It’s mostly a political powerplay that used the discrepancy in the Creeds of West from East as a justification of a political break already inherent in the cultural and linguistic divide.
A community with a divided language is apt to have a divided way of thought. The differences in the Creed is just a symptom of this deeper division, which I don’t think can really be healed, as much as the effects of the events at the Tower of Babel could be counteracted.
level 3
aletheia
Eastern Orthodox1 point ·
1 year ago
Even if it is not declared a heresy, having added it to the Creed is a grave error. To even start a dialog on whether it is heresy, the West would need to acknowledge it had no authority to add it, and therefore remove it.
I’m off the opinion it to some extent an ‘angels on the head of a needle’ discussion, but even so, our version is by far to be preferred, if only because it has never been subject to illicit change.
level 4
PlayOrGetPlayed
Eastern Orthodox1 point ·
1 year ago
I agree with everything you said; I was never proposing the change to the Creed was legit.
level 2
mmnaddaf12
Eastern Catholic2 points ·
1 year ago
Greek and Latin Traditions on the procession of the Holy Spirit
level 2
BamaHammer
Eastern Orthodox
1 point ·
1 year ago
He’s coming over for dinner in a couple of days; I plan to.
level 1
hobojoe9127
Eastern Catholic6 points ·
1 year ago
If you are interested in reading up on the subject, I recommend Edward Siecienski’s readable The Filioque: History of a Doctrinal Controversey.
A direct practical effect is that it can muddle one’s grasp of the Trinity. The Cappadocians developed a fine-tuned logic for the way in which we speak about the Trinity. Propositions about God either apply to the Trinity as a whole (pertaining to the essence, e.g., God is Good) or to individual hypostases (e.g., God became man).The Filioque muddles this by introducing a third category–propositions pertaining to two hypostases–since causation must be predicated of the Father and the Son working together. Yes, it was introduced for salutary reasons–namely, to emphasize the Son’s consubstantiality with the Father–but it seems to push too far, equating consubstantiality with co-personality.
Incidentally, I remember reading somewhere that the implicit monism of the Filioque was reflected in Carolingian/Papal centralization, but that feels like a stretch.
level 1
Moonpi314
Eastern Orthodox4 points ·
1 year ago
Yeah, probably, but I would wager 99% of Orthodox and Catholics would not be able to say why or why not, or even be able to accurately describe the Trinity, so I’m not sure how much being able to explain matters for our salvation. I’ll just listen to the Bishops and repeat what they say.
level 1
Comment deleted
1 year ago
level 2
Moonpi314
Eastern Orthodox6 points ·
1 year ago
To what extent it matters, I don’t know. Do you? Are we doomed if we believe anything less than 100% correct?
level 2
BamaHammer
Eastern Orthodox
1 point ·
1 year ago
Yes, of course. This question is really more of a thought exercise. I didn’t want to do it all in my own head, though.
Proceed with the Socratic questioning, kind sir/madam.
level 3
oneofthetwain
Eastern Orthodox4 points ·
1 year ago
Our understanding of God is what shapes our prayer. Consider archery: A prayer formed with right understanding hits the target. A prayer that’s not formed with right understanding misses a little bit. In fact, hamartia, the word that we translate as “sin”, is very descriptive of this, being an archery term.
As a practical example, what’s the point of “O Heavenly King…”? If the Holy Spirit is subjugated below both the Father and the Son, why bother with a prayer directly to the Spirit?
level 4
PlayOrGetPlayed
Eastern Orthodox4 points ·
1 year ago
As a practical example, what’s the point of “O Heavenly King…”? If the Holy Spirit is subjugated below both the Father and the Son, why bother with a prayer directly to the Spirit?
Um, what? If the Son is subjugated below the Father, what is the point of prayer directly to the Son. This is not a line of reasoning you wish to pursue. Furthermore, procession and begetting do not imply subjugation, but that’s a story for another time.
level 5
oneofthetwain
Eastern Orthodox2 points ·
1 year ago
I was using OP’s words, not mine.
My point is that the balance of understanding shapes our prayer life. An imbalance in our understanding imbalances our prayer life. Make sense?
level 6
PlayOrGetPlayed
Eastern Orthodox3 points ·
1 year ago
But your actual point was wrong. Regardless of the filioque we still ought to pray to the Holy Spirit. If we want the Catholics to take us seriously, we have to make arguments that are actually sound.
level 7
oneofthetwain
Eastern Orthodox3 points ·
1 year ago
My point is that the balance of understanding shapes our prayer life. An imbalance in our understanding imbalances our prayer life. Make sense?
Can you agree with this? Ignore my (admittedly hasty and probably not well thought out) initial example.
level 8
PlayOrGetPlayed
Eastern Orthodox2 points ·
1 year ago
Yeah, I suppose. I mean, very minor misunderstandings don’t affect prayer life much as far as I can tell, but sure.
level 9
oneofthetwain
Eastern Orthodox2 points ·
1 year ago
· edited 1 year ago
But isn’t a misunderstanding (in this case a willful misunderstanding because the Orthodox teaching of the Trinity was by this time well understood without the idea of filioque) of the nature of the Godhead more than minor?
You’d asked below which ecumenical council anathematized filioque, and the answer is councils 3 and 8, because changes to the creed were specifically forbidden unless they were done in a conciliar way. Choosing something wrong when you know the correct information is the literal definition of heresy.
EDIT: Added a link to the Orthodox Wiki on filioque, and corrected my assertion that all the councils anathematized changes to the creed.
level 1
[deleted]
6 points ·
1 year ago
I was listening to a podcast in which a priest who converted to Orthodoxy related that he was asked to publicly reject the Filioque during his ordination.
Yet despite Church history, tradition, and practice, there persists the myth that the filioque is a permissible “theologoumenon.”
That alone should answer your question — rejection of the filioque is conveyed to us in the life of the Church, including texts for the reception of converts and the witness of the saints like Photios, Gregory Palamas, and Mark of Ephesus.
My question to you all is, what does it matter, in practical terms?
The implicit principle of your question is that if it doesn’t matter, it’s okay to believe whatever you want about it. That alone bears some examination. How do you know what matters or doesn’t?
The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father. That is what has been revealed to us, and that part of the Creed comes from John 15:26. Interpolation of “filioque” into the Creed is effectively an interpolation into the Gospel of John and thus a rejection of revelation.
Since the Father is the sole origin of the Holy Spirit, the myth that the Spirit proceeds from the Son implies that Father and Son are the same person, but this reprises the ancient heresy of modalism or Sabellianism. It was not the Father that was put upon the cross.
level 1
[deleted]
3 points ·
1 year ago
If I remember right, one major issue was that the original form was intentionally quoting Scripture. The Filioque is not even implied in the scriptures so that’s a problem. The issue is with the Spirits eternal procession and not his sending out by the Son into the world.
level 1
[deleted]
3 points ·
1 year ago
It matters very much. The filioque is saying that Jesus and God have something that the Holy Spirit doesn’t which is a heresy. The Orthodox believe in 3 persons of the trinity in ONE essence, not two essence and something sub par. This was a huge huge huge deal during the time.
level 1
[deleted]
2 points ·
1 year ago
Yes. Read Met. Zizoulas’ Being as Communion. He lays out how the Filioque error results from failing to identify the Father as the source of unity within the Trinity. I think that even Thomas Aquinas identified the Filioque as one of the only two theological issues that divide Greeks and Latins.
level 1
Seer_de_la_Stone
Eastern Orthodox2 points ·
1 year ago
While the Filioque is not officially condemned as a heresy, like arianism, for example, i would argue that it is important, because it undermines the Holy Spirit. Each Member of the Trinity has a specific trait. The Father is neither begotten, nor does He proceed, the Son is begotten of the Father, and the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father. Saying that He proceeds from both makes Him more of a subordinate to the Trinity rather than a member who is equally God.
I’m not saying that people who accept the Filioque are not true Christians, but i would say that it’s definitely a wrong doctrine, and it misleads a lot of people, sadly.
scott,
The tone here is better than before.
I think the following statement above is correct: “It’s mostly a political powerplay that used the discrepancy in the Creeds of West from East as a justification of a political break already inherent in the cultural and linguistic divide.”
I think we also agree that: “Each of the three persons in the godhead possesses the same eternal and infinite divine nature; thus, they are the one, true God in essence or nature.”
Thus the Father is not greater than the Son, who is not greater than the Holy Spirit, but they differ only in being unbegotten, begotten and proceeding.
http://www.puritanboard.com
Is rejecting the filioque reason for assuming the lostness of somebody?
Discussion in ‘Theological Forum’ started by Pergamum, Nov 6, 2012.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Nov 6, 2012 #1
Pergamum
Pergamum
Ordinary Guy (TM)
If someone rejects the filioque phrase from the Creed, should we assume their lost state? If they go from accepting it to rejecting it, rather than merely remaining ignorant of the issues, does this show apostasy from Trinitarian teaching enough that we may label them as heretics?
Spot the Looney! The Looney Lyndon LaRouche, former jail inmate for tax evasion or cult fraud, or some other looney pseudo-political, pseudo-hyper-Western Christianist left wing right wing confused hybrid.
LaRouche and Filioque. Lyndon LaRouche: The Pseudo-American Hyoer-Politicalist Insane Asylum’s New Charlemagne. (I have escaped from the insane asylum, but my anti-ethical psychological sexual problems and heresies are largely from the days when I believed in Filioque and Lutheranism and Antinomianism.
Why the Eastern Rites Reject the {Filioque}
http://www.larouchepub.com/…/eirv10n36-19830920_049-why_the_eastern_rites_reject_th...
Sep 30, 1983 – of the United States, singles out the Filioque doctrine as the principal … ioque clause in the Nicene Creed, and his rejection of the. Book of …
You’ve visited this page 3 times. Last visit: 4/17/18
http://www.tektonics.org
Get the entire Tekton site on CD or zipfile. Get a stripped-down copy of this page.
Figuring Out the Filioque
“Phantaz Sunlyk”
Editor’s Note: The issue of the “filioque” — how Son and Spirit relate — has been of marginal interest to me, since it seems to me that neither position is particularly right or wrong, or that either one held makes a big difference in theology or Christology. Little can be gleaned from the Jewish pre-NT Wisdom theology, where the Spirit had yet to be bifurcated from the Word. That being the case I have requested that guest writer “Phantaz Sunlyk”, who has studied deeply in this area, offer his own take on the issue. Phantaz is our resident Catholic with Protestant leanings. I will insert my own comments now and then.
Prefatory Note
The below is the beginning of my essay on the Filioque, and not the whole, which I hope to complete in the not too distant future. What is contained below, however, will serve as a decent introduction to the issue and the basic points of controversy that surround it. In what I include in this go-around (sections I – V), I simply lay out the evidence, and for this reason citations will be abundant. The final sections (VI – VII), when complete, will consist of my attempt at offering what I think to be a step in the right direction for resolving the issue. Sources
Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC)
Congar, Yves, I Believe in the Holy Spirit, vol. 1 (Con-HS1)
Congar, Yves, I Believe in the Holy Spirit, vol. 2 (Con-HS2)
Congar, Yves, I Believe in the Holy Spirit, vol. 3 (Con-HS3)
Davis, Stephen, et al (ed.), The Trinity: an Interdisciplinary Symposium (TIS)
Fee, Gordon D., God’s Empowering Presence (Fee-GEP)
Hanson, R. P. C., The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God (Han-CDG)
Kelly, J. N. D., Early Christian Doctrines (Kel-ECD)
Kasper, Walter, The God of Jesus Christ (Kas-GJC)
Lossky, Vladimir, The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church (Los-MTEC)
Meerson, Michael, The Trinity of Love in Modern Russian Theology (Mer-TLRT)
Moltmann, Jurgen, The Trinity and the Kingdom (Mol-TAK)
Newman, John Henry Cardinal, The Development of Christian Doctrine (New-EDCD)
O’Collins, Gerald, The Tripersonal God (O’Col-TG)
Pelikan, Jaroslav, The Christian Tradition, vol. 2 (Pel-CT2)
Pelikan, Jaroslav, The Christian Tradition, vol. 3 (Pel-CT3)
Pelikan, Jaroslav, Christianity and Classical Culture (Pel-CCC)
Pelikan, Jaroslav, Development of Christian Doctrine (Pel-DCD)
Writings from the Philokalia on Prayer of the Heart (PHIL)
Quasten, Johannes, Patrology, vol. 1 (Qua-P1)
Quasten, Johannes, Patrology, vol. 2 (Qua-P2)
Quasten, Johannes, Patrology, vol. 3 (Qua-P3)
Quasten, Johannes, Patrology, vol. 4 (Qua-P4)
Rahner, Karl, The Trinity (Rah-TT)
Staniloae, Dumitru, Orthodox Dogmatic Theology, vol. 1 (Sta-ODT1)
Studer, Basil, Trinity and Incarnation (Stu-TAI)
Swinburne, Richard, The Christian God (Swi-CG)
Swinburne, Richard, Revelation: From Metaphor to Analogy (Swi-RMA)
Von Balthasar, Hans urs, Credo (vonB-CC)
Ware, Kallistos, The Orthodox Church (War-OC)
Ware, Kallistos, The Orthodox Way (War-OW)
Zizioulas, John, Being as Communion (Ziz-BC)
I. INTRODUCTION
As a Christian whose mind is almost entirely consumed by the Trinity, there is no single thing that embarrasses and disturbs me so much as the fact that the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches are in a state of schism, partially over the way in which the doctrine of the Trinity itself is articulated in each communion. The point of disagreement is the filioque–the teaching that the Holy Spirit proceeds not from the Father only, but from the Father and the Son. I’m not certain as to the exact stance that the various Protestant communions adopt on this issue, but from my experience, it seems that for the most part, Protestants agree with Catholics. [Ed. note — my experience is that they don’t even know that there are different stances on the issue, but what few know enough would follow with the Catholics here.]
I’ll never forget the sudden sense of perplexity that overcame me when I first read C. S. Lewis’s ‘Mere Christianity’. I was very young at the time, and had little idea that there was any substantial difference between one denomination and the other-this being several years before my conversion to Christianity, and subsequently, to Catholicism-yet one thing caught my eye from the beginning. Lewis’s aim in the work was to show the ‘common ground’ shared by all Christians, and in this respect, I believe he was successful. Yet in the preface (pg. 8), he mentions that, in his desire to ensure that he was presenting what was common to all Christians, he submitted his work to ‘four clergymen-Anglican Methodist, Presbyterian, Roman Catholic-and asking for their criticism.’
Even in my extreme youth, I at once asked myself, but what about the Eastern Orthodox? Another example-in the complete works of Francis Schaeffer (22 books), there is only one reference to the Orthodox Church, and this in passing! So, on the whole, I think that most of us in the West, if the thought hasn’t yet occurred to us, need to ask the same question.
What about the Eastern Orthodox? They share the same Scripture (although, like the Catholic Church, they include the deutero-canonicals, and even some books not included in the Catholic deutero-canon), and the same basic faith; the doctrines of the Trinity, Incarnation, and the first seven ecumenical councils. Certainly they share as much common ground with Catholics and Protestants as Catholics and Protestants share with each other; what’s more, they share more ground with Catholics than Catholics share with Protestants. Why the neglect?
Persons interested in the Eastern Orthodox communion are referred to ‘The Orthodox Church’ by Kallistos Ware-an excellent historical and theological introduction to the Church of the East. One of my aims in this essay is to, in analyzing the Filioque, give a feel for the Orthodox Church. I pray that any Orthodox readers will forgive shortcomings on my part. I have made an honest endeavor to understand the Orthodox way, but at the same time, my experience and learning are unfortunately extremely limited in this regard. At the outset, I confess wholeheartedly that I have a deep love for the East. I adore their mystical approach to theology, pneumatic Christology and Incarnational sacramentalism, and deference to the Fathers of the Church-all of which, among other things, come together and give expression in a beautiful way of Christian worship. To me, the Eastern Orthodox communion seems to be the translation of the believer, and the entire cosmos through the believer, as prayerful response to the God who revealed himself as Love. The Orthodox way is saturated in beauty.
Still, I am Catholic, and it is as a Catholic that I write. And while there certainly are persons who, for whatever reason, rejoice over the present dis-union between the East and the West (in my experience, such people are usually anti-Trinitarians who are only too thankful to be able to say Ahhh ha! Ya see, even Trinitarians can’t agree on what the Trinity is!–as though modern Arians can agree either with themselves, or Christian history prior to the nineteenth century, or as though their theologies can even begin to begin to approach the complex clarity and vitality found in Trinitarian theology), I honestly believe that this disagreement is drastically exaggerated. The goal of this essay is to prove that ‘the walls of separation do not reach as high as heaven!’ (Con-HS3, 89)
II. THE FILIOQUE AS A SUBJECT OF DISPUTE
A. The Problem
I begin with some official declarations of the Roman Catholic Church.
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.” (CCC 246)
The affirmation of the filioque does not appear in the Creed confessed in 381 at Constantinople. But Pope St. Leo I, following ancient Latin and Alexandrian tradition, had already confessed it dogmatically in 447, even before Rome, in 451 at the Council of Chalcedon, came to recognize and receive the Symbol [Council of Constantinople] 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. (CCC 247)
At the outset the Eastern tradition expresses the Father’s character as first origin of the Spirit. By confessing the Spirit as he “who proceeds from the Father,” it affirms that he comes from the Father through the Son. The Western tradition expresses first the consubstantial communion between Father and Son, by saying that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son (filioque). It says this, “legitimately and with good reason,” for the eternal order of the divine persons in their consubstantial communion implies that the Father, as “the principle without principle,” is the first origin of the Spirit, but also that as Father of the only Son, he is, with the Son, the single principle from which the Holy Spirit proceeds. This legitimate complementarity, provided it does not become rigid, does not affect the identity of faith in the reality of the same mystery confessed. (CCC 248)
“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). (CCC 264)
Hence, according to the Catholic Church, the Spirit does not proceed from the Father only, but from the Father and the Son. The procession of the Spirit is described more technically by the word “spiration” (as distinct from the technical term for the procession of the Son, “generation”), and the Spirit’s spiration comes from both the Father and the Son. This fact is recognized by the fathers of the Church, both Eastern and Western. The act of spiration by both the Father and the Son is thus the single manner whereby the Spirit originates within the immanent Trinity, and this spiration must be understood not merely within the category of metaphysics, but of communion.
Now for the Orthodox.
In the Latin West, it is usually held that the Spirit proceeds “from the Father and from the Son”; and the word filioque (“and from the Son”) has been added to the Latin text of the Creed. Orthodoxy not only regards the filioque as an unauthorized addition-for it was inserted into the Creed without the consent of the Christian East-but it also considers that the doctrine of the “double procession”, as commonly expounded, is theologically inexact and spiritually harmful. According to the Greek Fathers of the fourth century, whom the Orthodox Church follows to this day, the Father is the sole source and ground of unity in the Godhead. To make the Son a source as well as the Father, or in combination with him, is to risk confusing the distinctive characteristics of the persons. (War-OW 32)
The Greek Fathers always maintained that the principle of unity in the Trinity is the person of the Father. As Principle of the other two persons, the Father is at the same time the Source of the relations whence the hypostases receive their distinctive characteristics. In causing the persons to proceed, he lays down their relations of origin-generation and procession-in regard to the unique principle of the Godhead. … If, in conformity to the Latin formula, we introduce here a new relation of origin, making the Holy Spirit to proceed from the Father and from the Son; the monarchy of the Father, this personal relation creating the unity at the same time as the trinity, gives place to another conception-that of the once substance in which the relations intervene to establish the distinction of persons, and in which the hypostasis of the Holy Spirit is no more than a reciprocal bond between the Father and the Son … [the Latin formulation] places the common nature above the persons; a doctrine which tends to weaken the hypostases by confounding the persons of Father and Son in the natural act of spiration, and in making the Holy Spirit a connection between the two. (Los-MTEC 60, 62)
Thus we seek to avoid the psychologizing explanations of Catholic theology which has recourse to these only from its desire to find human arguments in favor of the Filioque … By emphasizing the love between the Father and the Son to the point of confusing them into a single principle of the Holy Spirit’s procession, Catholic theology no longer sees them as being distinct persons. But the effect of this is to make impossible even the love between them, for, as in the act of the procession of the Holy Spirit, they no longer exist as two persons, Father and Son can no longer love one another properly speaking. … In this misunderstanding of the Trinity the Holy Spirit is no longer, strictly speaking, the third, but the second. He appears rather as the one who drowns the two within an indistinct unity. And if, in order to be the common cause of the procession of the Holy Spirit, the two are indeed drowned within some indistinct whole, then the Spirit-as one who results from this indistinct whole-cannot be person either. … Orthodox theology has avoided the danger of falling into this kind of impersonalism and has simply received the Son and the Holy Spirit as real persons actually given through generation and procession. (Sta-ODT1 247-248, 271-272, 274)
Thus the Spirit proceeds from the Father only. The Filioque is a doctrine foreign to the Greek fathers of the Church, and it was unjustifiably inserted into the Nicene Creed without the consent of the East. The affirmation of the Filioque necessarily results in a muddled doctrine of the Trinity-an implicit modalism-wherein the persons are robbed of personhood and seen, rather, as mere “manifestations” of a single (impersonal) “divine essence”. All of this is the result of robbing the Father (a person) of his singular property of being the sole cause, source, and fount of the entire godhead, and replacing it with the union of two persons, who, thus united, form a “single principle”, which on that account is impersonal. These, then, are the affirmations of both sides, given in their harshest forms.
scott,
I agree with that: ” given in their harshest forms.”
http://www.tektonics.org
B. Brief History of Polemic
In his now classic work entitled The Orthodox Church, Kallistos Ware relates the key moment in the schism of the East and West thusly-
“One summer afternoon in the year 1054, as a service was about to begin in the Church of the Holy Wisdom at Constantinople, Cardinal Humbert and two other legates of the Pope entered the building and made their way up to the sanctuary. They had not come to pray. They placed a Bull of Excommunication upon the altar and marched out once more. As he passed through the western door, the Cardinal shook the dust from his feet with the words: ‘Let God look and judge.’ A deacon ran out after him in great distress and begged him to take back the Bull. Humbert refused; and it was dropped in the street.” (War-OC 43)
And with this, the longest running schism in the history of the Christianity officially began. Yet this schism did not arise ex nihilo, and as I hope to show, it is actually more the result of distinctive intellectual and cultural climates than of theology. In particular, I will be arguing in what follows that Trinitarian theology, in its Eastern and Western forms, is no grounds whatever for the schism. Kallistos Ware (War-OC 44-46) mentions nine cultural factors which paved the way for the schism.
First, the division of the Roman Empire into two parts towards the end of the third century; second, the founding of Constantinople as a second capital of the Roman Empire; third, the fifth century barbarian invasions, which resulted in destroying the political unity between the East and West; fourth, the Avar and Slav invasions of the Balkan peninsula in the sixth and seventh century forged a barrier that interrupted the possibility of interaction between Byzantium “and the Latin world”; fifth, with the rise of Islam the Mediterranean “passed largely into Arab control”; sixth, the Iconoclast controversy in the eighth century, wherein the Popes of Rome firmly opposed certain Eastern patriarchs who wished to do away with icons; seventh, the growing alliance between Rome and France, which served to distance the relations between Rome and Byzantium; eighth, with the two cultures now being for the most part separate, “they no longer drew upon the same sources nor read the same books”, and thus each developed independent of the influence of the other; and finally, the centralization of Western Christianity around the See of Rome. Thus we see that circumstances were not altogether auspicious for preservation of Church unity, and this for largely cultural and historical (rather than theological) reasons. At the very least it must be admitted that it is not altogether implausible that the distinctive environments of the two could foster distinctive expressions and understandings of the same faith even if the faith remained essentially the same.
Regarding the history of the Filioque, it can be summarized thusly. The patristic testimony, as we shall see, is nowhere near as clear as either side (in an exclusive and rigid form, which is by no means the only, or even the common, form adopted by members of either side) would like to imagine. The ante-Nicenes sometimes give clear evidence of belief in the fact that the Son is, in some sense, involved in the eternal procession of the Spirit; some of the Nicenes do as well, and it is in this era that the West (and some in the East) give more definite affirmation of this fact; and this affirmation was continued in the West in the post-Nicene era, largely under the influence of Augustine. Yves Congar, who is the author of perhaps the finest sustained analysis of this subject available in English, gives several citations of this. (Con-IBHS3 49-56) Since a more detailed evaluation of individual fathers will follow below, I’ll here simply cite a few instances without comment.
Hilary (mid fourth century), Ambrose (late fourth), Augustine (late fourth to early fifth), Leo the Great (fifth century), Eucherius of Lyons, Faustus of Riez (both in the fifth century), and several others, all either affirm, or come close to affirming, the Filioque. The Councils of Toledo (late sixth century through the late seventh), in a context wherein Arianism was being combated (and not the Orthodox East), clearly affirmed the double procession. And, of course, the Athanasian Creed (ca. 440-500 a.d.) affirms the double procession as well. Yet during all of this time, though Rome accepted the Filioque as being true, it was never added to the Creed in any official way. Likewise, the East, being in full communion with the West during this time, raised no formal objection to the Filioque. We do, however, in Maximus Confessor have evidence that the point was disputed by certain in the East, and Maximus took it upon himself to mediate between East and West. He vindicated the Latins by making it clear that it is in accordance with the “unanimous evidence of the Latin Fathers, and also of Cyril of Alexandria”, and that “they know in fact that the Father is the only cause of the Son and Spirit”.
In the late eighth century, Charlemagne convoked a council and attempted to get the Filioque, in no uncertain terms, recognized (exclusively) as being proper to the Nicene Creed. He appealed to Pope Hadrian for support, and Hadrian resisted his requests (though he affirmed that the Filioque was true); the strict adherence to Tradition on the part of the Roman See was made even clearer when, shortly afterwards, the Nicene Creed was hung-in Greek and Latin, side by side-in St. Peter’s in Rome without the Filioque. In the ninth century (808 a.d.), a Greek monk of Mar Sabas noticed the Filioque in a Latin monastery, and appealed to Pope Hadrian regarding the “heresy”. Towards the end of the ninth century, St. Photius was to arise in the East, and it is with him that we get the first clear and sustained denouncement of the Filioque. (Con-IBHS3 57-60; War-OC 52-56)
The argument of Photius, in its basic form, seems to have been grounded on two basic points. First of all, he asserted that the Filioque negated the monarchy of the Father as sole cause of the godhead (aitia). As we’ll see below, Photius is on firm ground in opposing such a notion, while on the other hand, he thereby gives evidence of not perceiving the true Western position. Second, he argued that affirming the procession of the Spirit from the Father and the Son carried with it, as a matter of logical necessity, the belief (atleast at the implicit level) that the Spirit therefore proceeds from something impersonal (since he would be proceeding not from the person of the Father, nor from the person of the Son, but from the two of them together; and since it is maintained that the two are distinct, the Spirit in turn would thus proceed from the divine substance of the two, which they have in common). Hence the theological point of departure for Photius’ rejection of the Filioque were, it seems to me, based on an affirmation of the monarchy of the Father alongside a desire to ensure the personal nature of the three hypostases. As we saw above, these points continue to constitute the force in the East’s theological argument against the West. It is therefore, I think, important to keep this in mind, and allow it to form a major part in forming the context wherein rapprochement should be sought.
Jaroslav Pelikan gives several examples of the typical arguments each side used against the other. (Pel-CT2 183-198) Here it is sufficient to note simply that the whole history of polemic, almost entirely, seems to have consisted of a series of misunderstandings. For example, language served as one such barrier: from the time of Jerome, the Latins translated the Greek term for “proceed”, ekporeusis, with the Latin word procession–a term which was nowhere near as precise in connotation as the Greek. Yves Congar brings out this point succinctly when he states that the “Latin vocabulary cannot adequately convey the important shades of meaning contained in the Greek terminology. Causa is not exactly aitia [“cause”]; principium is wider in its use than arche [principle, arch, source]; procedere does not render ekporeuesthai [“proceed”] very well”, and goes on to state that “This was not always sufficiently taken into account in the past. Each side was so certain of itself and had so little curiosity about the other’s views that it only wanted to reduce those to its own ideas and formulae.” (Con-IBHS3 202) The result of this, of course, is that the two sides would be operating within a context predisposed for misunderstandings. Alongside vocabulary, we can include more substantial points. The Greeks emphasized the fact of the Father’s monarchy-and this is a legitimate move on their part; the Latins emphasized the fact of the persons consubstantiality-and this is a legitimate move on their part. The emphases of both were valid, yet a problem arises when one aspect of the truth is emphasized at the expense of another, and this in fact is what happened.
Attempts at re-union were tried, and foremost among these was the Council of Florence in the 15th century. On July 6, 1439, an agreement was forged, to which thirty-nine representatives of the East agreed. The agreement was fostered by equating “through the Son” (which the Greeks accept) with “and the Son” (which the Greeks have classically rejected). What must be kept in mind here is that, though the East soon recanted (and, in my opinion, rightfully so, given the context of their theological concerns and presuppositions), it is possible for the above conflation to be valid. The problem, however, was that it was advanced and understood in a sense which solely favored the Latin theological template, and failed to emphasize the concerns of the East. (Con-IBHS 186-188)
And thus, even down to our own day, the basic form of the debate remains as such.
C. Conclusion
The Orthodox are no doubt right to emphasize both the monarchy of the Father and (consequently) the personhood of the hypostases. While I disagree that the Catholics have failed to emphasize these points, and reject as being false the idea that the West has either forgotten or abandoned them, it must be conceded that the East is far more successful in its articulation of these two points. On the other hand, though I disagree that the manners of subsistence constitute the sole manner whereby the persons can be individuated, it does seem to me that this classic argument from the West has more force than the East is willing to grant.
That what, precisely, each side wishes to affirm by taking the stance that they take has often been overlooked by both parties must, I think, be admitted. The Catholics, it seems to me, wish more than anything else to affirm the unity and consubstantiability of the persons, and for them, the affirmation that the Spirit proceeds from the Father “and the Son” in no way implies the denial of the Father’s monarchy. Likewise, that the East is willing to grant that the Son is not altogether a non-factor in the eternal existence of the Holy Spirit seems to me to be true. Hence there may, according to their own theological context, be a sense in which the Son is involved in the procession of the Spirit. At the very least, it can be certainly be affirmed that there is nothing that essentially constitutes a barrier to dialogue. Kallistos Ware (War-OC 210-218) gives examples of the various stances taken by Orthodoxy, and Yves Congar (Con-IBHS3 174-216) offers contributions toward agreement from the Catholic side. Sections IV through VII below are intended as a modest step in this direction. Yet before we travel too far abroad and actually engage the issue, a brief introduction to the theological methodology of the Eastern Orthodox and Catholic Churches will be given in order to lay out the epistemic framework wherewith this study will be pursued.
scott,
I agree that the divide arises as “the result of distinctive intellectual and cultural climates than of theology.”
Water:
I disagree strongly that this difference between West and East is the result of culture or intellectual development.
I believe the theology of the West and the theology of the East were not shaped by the differing cultures of the West and the East.
I believe that culture or intellect were not responsible were not responsible for resulting in 2 different views of theology.
I believe that two different views of theology resulted in two different cultures, two different intellectual developments (philosophy), and two different cosmic political systems.
The West resulted in Papal Monarchy and Frankish Feudalism.
The East resulted in Conciliar Egalitarian Pentarchy (Papal Rome was once an Orthodox part, first part, of a Conciliar Pentarchy), and a Democratic Hierarchy of Episcopal Apostolic Succession.
The East’s theology came from the Uncreated Light of Tabor, the Day of Transfiguration, Christ on Mount Tabor, with Saint Peter, Saint John, and Saint James, Three Apostles, who shared this deification theosis experience with the other of the 12 apostles; and Saint Paul had a similar theosis epiphany of Christ on the Road to Damascus.
Christ as True God was revealed at this Transfiguration, and the sacred experience of God (mystical theology) was recorded by Saint John in his epistle, 1 John.
Cf. John 1:1.
The West’s theology came not from a living encounter with Christ, but the pretensions of science falsely so-called, the rudiments of world philosophy, Plato, Aristotle, rationalism, human reason, psychology, gnosticism, Manichaeism, Neo-Platonism, Augustine of Hippo, and then to Origen, and Origenism which plagued part of the East died out in West and East, but Augustine’s rationalist psychological Platonic model came down to influence the West theology of Trinity, Triadology.
The East’s theology came from Mount Tabor and from these 2 hierarchs, Peter, John, James, and to Andrew, Matthew, Mark, Luke, Thomas, Paul, the rest, and to the Cappadocian and Antiochian theologians, Alexandrian theologians, Athanasius, Basil the Great, Gregory the theologian Nazianzus, Gregory of Nyssa, John Chrysostom, Cyril of Alexandria, and on later to John of Damascus and Maximus the Confessor, and later to Photius, Gregory Palamas, Mark of Ephesus, Patriarch Gregory II of Cyprus. God save us all. And bring us into common life in the Spirit through this Light of Tabor restored to the West from the East. May the West come and see Christ in the East in the Light of Tabor from the East. And experience God in this Supernal Light of the Holy Spirit Who proceedeth from the Father alone. Amen.
scott,
Propaganda.
Water: It’s your own delusion and lack of epistemology that anything you do not like, do not believe, do not know, do not understand, do not comprehend you falsely label as “propaganda”. History records that the word “propaganda” is itself a “development of doctrine” and an innovation that comes from the schismatic (Frankish) papal See of Rome. Rome left the See of Rome and became the See of heresy and Propaganda and Frankish Filioque with Papal Obedience to HRE Holy Roman Emperor Henry II in the era of 1009-1014 AD, and left Christ’s Church entirely in 1054 AD.
scott,
You have delusions.
“Think of what you’re saying.
Do I have to talk until I can’t go on?
Think of what I’m saying.
Only time will tell if I am right or I am wrong.
Life is very short
And there’s no time
For fussing and fighting, my friend.
I have always thought that it’s a crime,
So I will ask you once again.
We can work it out.
We can work it out”.
It is no way to say to anyone, “You suffer from delusion”, so when you say that to me, what else can I say that: “I think you suffer from delusion”, too.
I am certain that on Bible doctrine I have no delusions that I am aware of.
I am certain that when it comes to love of woman and love for a friend, a lady, I have had a delusion or too, and have not found love in my life. At least not yet.
Shaffer, Andrew. (2011). Great Philosophers Who Failed at Love. New York: HarperPerennial/HarperCollinsPublishers.
My dilemma: “Love and compassion are dead in you. You’re nothing but intellect!” (Captain James T. Kirk (William Shatner), to the Vyons, in Star Trek: Classic series, 1968-1969, episode, “The Empath”).
Take care.
scott,
“We can work it out.”.
Gb.
Orthodox Church in Italy
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
For the diocese of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, see Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of Italy.
Part of a series on the
Eastern Orthodox Church
Christ Pantocrator (Deesis mosaic detail)
Mosaic of Christ Pantocrator, Hagia Sophia
Overview
Structure Theology (History of theology) Liturgy Church history Holy Mysteries View of salvation View of Mary View of icons
Background
[show]
Organization
[show]
Autocephalous jurisdictions
[show]
Ecumenical councils
[show]
History
[show]
Theology
[show]
Liturgy and worship
[show]
Liturgical calendar
[show]
Major figures
[show]
Other topics
[show]
vte
The Orthodox Church in Italy (Italian: Chiesa Ortodossa in Italia) is an effort to establish a national Orthodox church in Italy,[citation needed] bringing all the Orthodox parishes and missions under an Italian metropolitan bishop, but only some independent groups have adhered to it.
Contents
1 History
1.1 Old Catholic Church in Italy (Nordic Catholic Church vicariate)
2 See also
3 References
4 External links
History
The church was founded in 1983 as a traditional Old Catholic church by Italian Orthodox bishop Antonio De Rosso, a former Roman Catholic priest,[1] who became bishop of Apria and Lazio under the jurisdiction of Metropolitan Kyprianos Koutsoumpas, of the Orthodox Church of Greece (Holy Synod in Resistance). In 1993, the church joined the Bulgarian Orthodox Church and in 1995, De Rosso was enthroned bishop of Ravenna and Italy.[clarify]
After 1997, the church remained linked with Patriarch Pimen Enew (bg; ru)’s Bulgarian Orthodox Church – Alternative synod and De Rosso became Metropolitan of Ravenna and Italy.[clarify] During that year, the church was recognized as an autonomous church and De Rosso became a full member of the Bulgarian alternative synod.[contradictory] De Rosso sought fellowship with Greek Old Calendarists and the Bulgarian alternative synod.[contradictory] The Orthodox Church in Italy was in full communion with the Bulgarian alternative synod, the Ukrainian Orthodox Church – Kiev Patriarchate and some small churches.
After De Rosso died in 2009, the church became an association in memory of him, Associazione “Metropolita Antonio”.[1]
Old Catholic Church in Italy (Nordic Catholic Church vicariate)
Since 2013,[2] the church adopted the alternative name Old Catholic Church in Italy (NCC-COI) and is a vicariate of the Nordic Catholic Church (NCC) since 2015.[3][4] The NCC is a member church of the Union of Scranton.[5]
See also
Eastern Orthodoxy in Italy
Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of Italy
Montenegrin Orthodox Church
References
Zoccatelli, PierLuigi; Introvigne, Massimo (2016-05-02). “La Chiesa Ortodossa in Italia”. cesnur.com (in Italian). Turin, IT: Center for Studies on New Religions. Archived from the original on 2016-05-02. Retrieved 2016-05-02.
“Comunicato stampa” (Press release) (in Italian). Chiesa Ortodossa in Italia, Associazione “Metropolita Antonio”. 2013-11-20. Archived from the original on 2014-02-22 – via comunicati.net.
“Un giorno importante per la Chiesa” [An important day for the church]. http://www.chiesavecchiocattolica.it (in Italian). Rome, IT: Chiesa Vecchio-Cattolica in Italia. 2015-02-28. Archived from the original on 2016-03-10. Retrieved 2016-05-02.
“Clergy directory”. nordiccatholic.com. Nordic Catholic Church. Archived from the original on 2016-03-24.
“The Union of Scranton: a union of churches in communion with the Polish National Catholic Church”. unionofscranton.org. Scranton, PA: Union of Scranton. Archived from the original on 2016-03-21. Retrieved 2016-05-01.
External links
Official website (in Italian) (Nordic Catholic Church vicariate)
Stub icon This Eastern Orthodox Christianity-related article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.
Chiesa Ortodossa in Italia
The Chiesa Ortodossa in Italia (“Orthodox Church in Italy”) is an effort to establish a national Orthodox church in Italy. It was originally a part of the Holy Synod in Resistance, but then joined Patriarch Pimen’s Alternative Synod of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church and adopted the Revised Julian Calendar. It is currently out of communion with the mainstream Orthodox Church.
It is not to be confused with the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of Italy, the primary presence of mainstream Orthodoxy in Italy.
History
The Orthodox Church in Italy was founded in 1991 by Antonio (de Rosso), bishop of Aprilia and Latium, under the jurisdiction of Metr. Cyprian. Bp. Antonio was a former Roman Catholic priest.
In 1993, the church joined Patriarch Pimen’s Alternative Synod of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church, and in 1995 Bp. Antonio was enthroned as Bishop of Ravenna and Italy. After 1997, Bp. Antonio was elevated to Metropolitan of Ravenna and Italy. During that year, the group was recognized by the Alternative Synod as an autonomous church, and Metr. Antonio became a full member of Pimen’s Holy Synod. The Chiesa Ortodossa in Italia is in full communion with the Bulgarian Alternative Synod, the Church of Ukraine (Kiev Patriarchate), and some other small churches.
After Metropolitan Antonio’s death, the Church become an association in memory of his deceased Primate (obtaining the exclusive use of the “Chiesa Ortodossa in Italia” denomination) and during 2011 it joined the Metropolis of Milan and of Aquileia. After 2013, it became part of the Nordic Catholic Church, member of the Western Orthodox/Traditional Old Catholic Union of Scranton.
External links
Orthodox Church in Italy – Official site
Orthodox Church in Italy (Wikipedia)
Wikipedia: History of the Orthodox Church in Italy
An Eastern Orthodox response to Calvinism.
Studies
Books
rmmahoney
Mar ’12
Reconsidering Tulip
By Alexander Renault
A biblical, philosophical, and historical response to the Reformed doctrines of predestination. This book is an Eastern Orthodox assessment of TULIP, bringing to the table 1,500 years of theology and thinking which is usually absent in the typical Calvinist vs. Arminian debates.
amazon.com/Reconsidering-Tul … 418&sr=8-1 3
Excerpt
Orthodox Problems with Penal Substitution
The penal substitution view was completely absent from the church for over 1,000 years. It was only in the 11th century that Anselm of Canterbury began to introduce the groundwork for this kind of theology to the West. Nor was it fully developed into the doctrine we now know as penal substitution until the 16th-century Reformers came along. To this day it has never been accepted in the east (nor has it ever been fully accepted by the Roman Catholics).
1. Penal substitution compromises the deity of Christ and puts a rift in the Trinity.
If Christ died for, and is our solution to, our sins against God the Father, then what about our sins against Christ? He’s just as God as the Father is. Or our sins against the Holy Spirit? With penal substitution, God is pitted against God, either dividing God (and thus destroying the Trinity) or saying that Christ isn’t fully god.
2. With penal substitution, God is bound by necessity.
If god’s justice demands that He punish sin, then there is a higher force than god—necessity—which determines what God can and cannot do. Calvinists will be quick to argue,
“No, justice is an aspect of God’s nature. There is no necessity laid on Him from outside His nature.”
The problem, though, is that if I do “A” then God must do “B.” If I sin, God must punish. He does not have the freedom to do otherwise. Thus God’s actions are bound and controlled by some-thing outside of Himself, i.e. my actions. This becomes even more confusing if we add in the Calvinistic notion that God foreordained my sinful actions in the first place, thus forcing Him to respond to them. Furthermore, it is often argued by the Reformed that God is sovereign and doesn’t have to save anyone if He chooses not to. On the other hand, He does have to punish sin. So God has to punish sin, but He doesn’t have to save sinners. It’s very interesting that justice (or at least what the Reformed see as justice) becomes the defining characteristic of God rather than love. Justice forces God to respond to our actions, but love does not.
3. Penal substitution misunderstands the Old Testament sacrifices.
The Old Testament sacrificial system was not a picture of penal substitution. God was not pouring out His wrath on the animals in place of the Israelites. He didn’t vent His righteous judgment on the animals, sending them to hell in place of the Israelites. On the contrary, they were killed honorably and as painlessly as possible. Their life (i.e. their blood) was offered to God as a sweet smelling aroma. The resulting meat was good and holy—not just worthless carrion fit for dogs and vultures. Such is also the case with Christ’s sacrifice: it is a holy offering of blood to the Father, not a means whereby god can vent His wrath.
4. Penal substitution misunderstands the word “justice.”
A quick perusal of the psalms and prophets will reveal that the word “justice” is usually coupled with “mercy.” Justice really means to show kindness and deliverance to the oppressed, and to right the wrongs done to them. True justice is destroying our oppressors—sin, death, and Satan—not punishing us for the sins to which we are in bondage.
5. Penal substitution misunderstands the word “propitiation.”
Propitiation should not be thought of in the classical pagan sense, as if our god were some angry deity who needed appeasing and could only be satisfied through a penal sacrifice. It’s really quite different. Propitiation (Greek hilasterion) is also translated “mercy seat.” The mercy seat covered the ark of the covenant, which contained a copy of the ten commandments—the law. While the law cried out against us and demanded perfection and showed us our shortcomings, the mercy seat covered those demands and our failure to live up to them. Was the mercy seat punished for our sins? of course not. Likewise, Christ’s blood was not the punishment demanded by justice, but rather the ultimate mercy seat, covering and forgiving our sins. This is why “propitiation” is sometimes more accurately translated as “expiation” in some versions of the Bible. (“expiation” implies the removal of our sins, while “propitiation” implies appeasing an angry deity.)
6. With penal substitution, God does not show unconditional love.
With penal substitution, God Himself does not show the unconditional love that He commands us to show one another. There is a big condition attached: God must have an “outlet” to vent His wrath. His “self-giving” love is only made possible by His “self- satisfying” justice.
7. With penal substitution, God does not truly forgive.
With penal substitution, the debt is not really forgiven; it’s just transferred. But we are commanded to forgive as God forgave us. If my brother offends me, should I demand justice and vent my wrath on someone else? Should I beat myself up? No, obviously we are to simply let it go and graciously accept the offense.
8. With penal substitution, God changes.
According to penal substitution, god is angry with us because of our sins. But once He expresses His wrath in His Son, He is no longer angry with us. Now He loves us as He loves His own Son. In other words, He changes. First He’s angry with us, then He changes His mind and decides to love us. But how can this be if God is love? How can a God who is infinite, self-giving love ever vary in His degree of love towards us? Besides, not only is God love (1 Jn 4:8, 16), but He’s also unchanging (Mal 3:6) and doesn’t change His mind (Num 23:19).
9. Penal substitution makes the resurrection unnecessary.
According to penal substitution, salvation is made possible only by a legal exchange. We are counted “just” and “forgiven” only because God’s wrath has been poured out on Christ instead. Since hell is said to be a punishment for sins, and since our sins have already been punished in Christ, we are free to go to heaven. The resurrection then becomes simply a nice bonus, nothing more than a “proof” that Christ is divine.
10. Penal substitution makes the incarnation unnecessary.
Was it Christ’s physical suffering or spiritual suffering which atoned for our sins (according to penal substitution)? If physical, then anyone who has suffered physically more than Christ (and there have been plenty in the history of our race), is exempt from hell, since they already paid for their own sins. If it was Christ’s spiritual suffering that counts, then He didn’t need to be incarnate. (After all, the demons will be punished without needing bodies.) The incarnation becomes just an “add-on” to help us out a little more.
11. One person cannot be punished for another
Contra penal substitution, the Bible tells us that one person can not be punished for another. each one shall die for his own sins:
In those days they shall say no more: “The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children’s teeth are set on edge.”
But every one shall die for his own iniquity. (Jer 31:29-30)
Fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor shall children be put to death for their fathers; a person shall be put to death for his own sin. (Deut 24:16) The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not bear the guilt of the father, nor the father bear the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself. (Ezek 18:20)
12. Penal substitution makes death a punishment rather than a result.
God said,
“In the day you eat the fruit, you will surely die” (Gen 2:17).
He did not say “I will kill you” but rather “you will die.” To walk away from God (i.e. to sin) is by definition, death. death is the realm of “Not God.” likewise, if I pull the plug on my own life support system, the result is death. No one else is killing me. If I jump off the roof, after being warned by my mother not to, and I end up breaking my leg, does that mean that my mother broke my leg? No, that was simply the result of my own choice. Christ gave Himself up to death. If death is an active punishment from God, then Christ was punished by His Father (per penal substitution). But if death is the result of sin, then it is an outside enemy, and not God’s own wrath.
13. Penal substitution undermines union with Christ
If death is a punishment for sin rather than a result of sin (continuing with the last point), then it makes little sense to speak of being united with Christ. St. Paul says that we were united together in the likeness of His death (Rom 6:5). He also says
“I have been crucified with Christ” (Gal 2:20).
If death is a punishment, then St. Paul is saying
“Christ and I have been punished together.”
But again, why would two people be punished for one person’s sins? Perhaps it makes more sense to say that Christ, in union with our humanity, experienced the consequence of death, and through His death, defeated death for all of us. Besides, if we really believe that Christ defeated death, then we certainly can’t say that death is a punishment sent from god, or else we’d be forced to say that Christ defeated something that god willed for us. But Christ and His Father are not at war with each other. On the other hand, I will certainly confess that there is a substitution as well. Christ experienced the consequence of sin (i.e. death), as a substitute for us, so that we don’t have to experience the ultimate consequence sin (i.e. eternal death). But note that Christ is taking on the consequence of sin in our place, rather than the punishment for sin in our place.
14. Penal substitution was absent from the entire Church (both east and west) for at least 1,000 years
To quote from the Theogeek blogsite,
“If the apostles taught penal substitution as a central part of their gospel, then it seems almost entirely inconceivable that the generations that came after them and spoke the same language had, worldwide, managed to universally forget the major and central part of the gospel and replace it with something else entirely.”
So what was Christ’s death for, if not to satisfy God’s justice? The purpose of Christ’s atonement was to defeat death and forgive us of our sins. It was the presenting of Christ’s blood, His humanity, to the Father to restore the unity that we had broken. It was a sweet-smelling aroma, a sacrifice acceptable to God.
The depth and purpose of His sacrifice is far beyond the scope of this little book, but one thing is for sure: it was not about punishment. And when punishment is taken out of the equation, things look much different. We can no longer say that Christ was punished in place of John but not in place of, say, Judas. But we can say that Christ defeated death for both John and Judas, both of whom will be resurrected regardless of their acceptance or rejection of Christ…
The Greatest Writer of the 19th Century » Brownson’s Writings » Etudes De Theologie
Etudes De Theologie
{from Brownson’s Quarterly Review for April, 1860}
There is another periodical, Le Correspondant, published at Paris, under the auspices of the illustrious Count de Montalembert, that has rendered and still is rendering valuable services to the Catholic cause, and which has strong claims on the gratitude of the Catholic public. It has battled nobly against the Oscuranti, or old folgies, as we say in Hiberno-Engllish, and has labored, not without success, in preventing Catholic interests from being identified in the public mind with those of despotism, for which, as a matter of course, it has received the anathemas of that lay pope, and recent idol of unthinking Catholics, Louis Veuillot. But it is devoted, principally, to the external interests of Catholicity, and to the consideration of its political, social, and literary relations; and however able, useful, and indispensable, it leaves ample margin to the good Jesuit fathers for their quarterly, devoted to the same general cause indeed, but more especially under its theological, philosophical, and historical relations, and, being so devoted, perhaps less likely to fall under the censure of the government. Le Correspondant is conducted, chiefly, for seculars; the Etudes is conducted by religious and theologians by profession, and is addressed to the primarily to the religious and theological mind, though with liberal feelings, in a philosophical spirit, and popular style and manner. If the succeeding numbers correspond, in learning, intelligence, life, and freedom, to those already used, it can hardly fail to supply a real want in Catholic periodical literature.
This periodical commands our attention, because it is fully up to the highest level of contemporary polemics. Its conductors are well aware that controversy has changed its ground, and that loose statements, calumnious charges, and unscientific objections urged by no-popery writers in our English-speaking world, and which some of us Catholics are busy refuting with statements hardly less loose, and arguments hardly less unscientific, are not now the grave things for the Catholic controversialist. The real chiefs of the non-Catholic world scorn these petty cavils, coarse calumnies, and miserable sophistries of the Brownless, Sparrys, Dowlings, and Beechers, and even shrink from contact with those who call the pope “Anti-christ,” and the church, “the Whore of Babylon,” or “the Mystery of Iniquity;” they, at least, affect to be liberal, fair, candid, and impartial. In some respects, some of them really are so. We owe to Protestant writers the explosion of the scandalous fable, not invented by Protestants, of a female pope, and the best vindication we have of that much calumniated pope, St. Gregory VII. ; and the Protestant Leo has been surpassed, in the fair and just defense of the popes, in their relations with the German emperors of the middle ages, by no Catholic author we happen to be acquainted with. The higher class of non-Catholic writers of the day may have no more love for the church than have the vulgar no-popery writers, but they have more self-respect, and more regard for their own reputation. They are men who really stand, in their several departments, at the head of the modern world. They draw their objections from philosophy, science, and history, and aim to present only objections of real weight and solidity. These are not men to be turned off with a joke, nor are their objections such as can be refuted by a sneer, or dismissed with a majestic wave of the hand. Their objections, no doubt, are, in reality, as unfounded, and their arguments as inconclusive, as those insisted on by the small fry of no-popery writers, but they are evidently drawn from a high order of thought, and are far less discreditable to the understanding of those who urge them and of those against whom they are urged.
The Catholic who aspires to meet the real issues now before the educated and scientific public, has to prepare himself to meet not only the old theological objections, but objects drawn from philosophy, philology, ethnology, geology, history, the sciences, naturalism, and natural-supernaturalism, or natural mysticism. If we look beyond the flashy no-popery literature of the day, penetrate beneath the surface and go to the root of the matter, we shall find that it is simply, as we have often asserted, Christianity no only as a supernatural revelation, but also as a supernatural order of life, we have now to defend, and to defend against men who are up to the level of their age in science and erudition, and who admit, at best, only the natural-supernatural order, and seek to explain all the phenomena of man’s religious life by means of what may justly be termed natural, as distinguished from Christian, mysticism. In dong this, both charity and policy require us to begin with endeavors to recall to the unity of the church all those who are churchmen in principle, and really retain, though outside of the Catholic communion, a real belief in Christianity as a supernatural order of life, flowing, not merely from the eternal Word, but from the eternal Word made flesh. Individuals among Protestants there may be found, who retain this belief, but no Protestant sect or communion, as such, retains it. The Protestant world has broken with Christianity itself, and refuses to recognize or accept its fundamental and essential principle. But such is not the case with the Russian or Greek Church. The Russian church is schismatic, but not heretical. It retains the great body of Christian doctrine in a Catholic sense, unless we accept its view of the papacy. It does not deny the primacy of Peter, it only denies that it is of faith that the successor of Peter in the see of Rome is the supreme head and governor of the church; yet even here it concedes his right to preside in oecumenical councils, and that there can be no oecumenical council in which he does not preside, either in his person or by his legates. While the Russians maintain that the supremacy of the pope is not of faith, they acknowledge, as we gather from Pere Gagarin, himself a Russian, and brought up in the Russian church, that they do not say that it is against faith, or that there has ever been a decision of the universal church against it. We are glad, therefore, that the Etudes treats the Russian question as a primary question in our day, and regards the reconciliation of Russia with the Holy See as a matter that should engage the thoughts and the prayers of Christians throughout the world. Fathers Gagarin, Verdiere, and Buck, give us most interesting and valuable essays on the Russian church, and dissipate many prejudices long entertained by the Latins against the Greeks. They take up the question of the Russian church in an earnest and hopeful spirit, and with a full knowledge of its character and history. They place the church in its true light, learnedly and ably defend its substantial orthodoxy, and refute the popular charges brought against it by Catholics who speak from ignorance and prejudice, rather than from knowledge and charity. They show, however inexcusable is the eastern schism, and however fatal it may be, that all the blame is not on the side of the orientals. The popes have always been just to the Greeks, but many of the Latin princes, bishops, and writers have always seemed to us, when we were reading the history of the unhappy schism, to have treated the orientals with a passion and bitterness, with a haughtiness and contempt, which but little comport with the Christian character.
It is sometimes assumed that the Christians never were Catholics, that they were converted by missionaries from Constantinople after the schism had been effected. We heard even many Catholics maintaining this during the Crimean war. But this is a mistake, and Father Verdiere has proved that they were converted while the Greeks remained in communion with the Holy See, and that they were not only Catholics, but very good and zealous Catholics. In point of fact, they did not separate from the apostolic see when the patriarch of Constantinople did, nor till long afterwards. Indeed, the schism in Russia was hardly complete before the reign of Ivan the Terrible, and probably would have been healed near the close of the seventeenth century, but for the revolution, gotten up chiefly by the protestantizing archbishop of Moscow, that placed Peter the Great on the throne instead of the rightful heir. Peter completed the subjection of the spiritual power, by establishing the Holy Synod of St. Petersburg, with a lay head, and did what he could to protestantize the Russian clergy, as Catherine II did what she could to infidelize and corrupt the Russian nobility, thinking thus to enlighten her people, advance civilization, and enhance the glory of her empire. Still the mass of the Russian people have always held, and still hold fast the doctrine they received from their Catholic ancestors. Even on the procession of the Holy Ghost they are orthodox, and agree with the Latins. For they maintain that in denying that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and from the Son, they maintain that he only proceeds from a single principle, or by a single act or spiration of the divine being. They are intent on asserting the singleness or unity of the Divinity, whose spiration is the Holy Ghost; the Latins agreeing with them in this seek, more especially, to mark the consubstantiality of the Son to the Father, and therefore that the divine nature form which the Holy Ghost proceeds is common to the Father and the Son, unbegotten in the Father, begotten in the Son. It is not unlikely that the supposed differences of doctrine on the procession of the Holy Ghost, between the Greeks and the Latins, grew out of mutual misunderstanding. The Latins were less philosophical than the Greeks, and when they heard the Greeks saying the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father alone, they concluded that the Greeks denied that the Son had any agency in his production; and the Greek, when he heard the Latin say the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and the Son, concluded that he meant to assert that he proceeded from the Son as a distinct principle from the Father, which would have been a heresy. Still, the great controversy on this subject was occasioned by the insertion in the Symbol as left by the fathers of Constantinople, of the words Filioque. These words seem to have been added primarily by officious Spanish and Gallican bishops, without the papal authority, in order to condemn the supposed error of the Greeks. Pope St. Leo III refused to sanction their insertion by the Council of Frankfort, not on the ground that the doctrine was false, for he declared that to be true, but on the ground that the fathers of Constantinople for good reasons had omitted them, and to insert them would only give occasion to the clamors of the Greeks, and perhaps lead to a schism. Subsequently, the insertion received the papal sanction, because circumstances had made it necessary, in order to avoid scandal and to save the true Catholic doctrine in the West.
The Etudes shows very conclusively that the doctrine of the Russian church on purgatory, the future life, and other points on which it has by some been supposed to err, can very easily, by a little explanation, be reconciled with the Catholic doctrine, and indeed, that whatever differences there may be between the Russians and Catholics, aside from differences of communion, are differences not between the teaching of the Catholic Church and the official teaching of the Russian church, but rather differences between the opinions outside of faith held respectively by Catholics and the Russians. Doubtless, among both Greeks and Latins, there are floating about many opinions, in regard to which they differ very greatly from each other. We often insist on the distinction between Catholic tradition and the traditions of Catholics. Among the Latins there are various notions about purgatory which are not of faith, and which the Greeks do not accept. The Greeks do not believe that either the fire of purgatory or the fire of hell is material fire, and because they do not, many Latins imagine that they are unsound in the faith; but the Catholic Church nowhere teaches that the fire in either is material fire. Prescind from both Latin and Greeks the differences there may be between them not of faith; restrict the question to what the church really and officially teaches, and it will be found that there is no difference between them but a difference of communion, or a hierarchical difference. They are separated only by a simple schism, and all that is needed to reestablish union and restore unity is simply for the orientals to recognize the supremacy of Peter, and the authority of his successors in the see of Rome to feed, rule, and govern the church.
There are, no doubt, many obstacles to the reunion of the Russian church, but there are none that we need regard as insuperable. The first step towards their removal will, however, be to disabuse the Latins of their prejudices against the Greeks, and to convince them that the reunion is not to be despaired of. How much or how little influence the writings of our learned fathers in the Etudes will have on the disunited Russians we have no means of determining; but we think they cannot fail to have a great and salutary influence on the Latins, in correcting many false notions they have imbibed against the Russians and the Greeks generally, and in producing more liberal, generous, and charitable feelings toward them. The orientals, and especially the Russians, are more disposed to be religious, have more religious susceptibility, and are further removed from that chilling indifference and cold-hearted sceoticism of the West than are the populations of western Europe and America; and it would be difficult to find a Catholic sovereign so truly observant of his religion as was the late emperor Nicholas I. Aside from the sin of schism, in which he persisted, he was, under the religious point of view, as under many others, a model prince. The Russian clergy are by no means that low and degraded class that ignorant and prejudiced travellers are too fond of representing them; and the Russian people have, as was proved in the Crimean war, most excellent dispositions. Reunite them to the centre of unity, emancipate the Russian clergy from their subjection to the civil power, and give to the people a reasonable liberty, obtained not by destroying, but by developing their old institutions, and the Russians would be the finest and noblest people in Europe.
The reunion of Russia, under a simply political point of view, is a most desirable measure. It is necessary to preserve the proper balance of power in Europe, and to secure the recognition and maintenance of legitimate authority, and international law. Great Britain has never been very scrupulous in regard to the rights of other nations, especially if feeble nations, and France is still less so. The present imperial government makes war for an “idea” on whom it sees proper, shows no respect for international or any other right, and lends all its power and influence to sustain filibusterism on a grand scale. The war against Austria, the wresting from her of the rich province Lombardy, the march of Prince Napoleon, with the fifth corps d’armee, through the duchies, and their annexation, perhaps, to Sardinia, the stirring up of the revolution in Romagna, and the advice recently given to the Holy Father, by the emperor of the French, to give up to the rebels the Aemilian province are only so many examples of sublime filibustering. The principle on which they all rest for their justification is precisely the principle on which our own filibusters rest their justification for invading Cuba and Nicaragua, and the only difference we can discover between Louis Napoleon and William Walker is in the difference of the sphere in which they respectively operate, and the forces they have or have had respectively at their command. William Walker, as well as the emperor of the French, made war for an “idea” and a genuine “Napoleonic idea” into the bargain. Austria has been humbled, and is weakened by internal distractions; Germany is little more than a geographical expression. With the adoption by France and Great Britain of the principle of Yankee filibusterism as the principle of their international policy, there is left no power but Russia with sufficient material force to readjust the balance, and to defend the rights either of sovereigns or nations. Russia no longer in schism, uniting her material force to the power of the Holy See, would be able to restore order to demoralized Europe, reestablish the reign of law, and suppress the now gigantic filibustering or buccaneering carried on by the emperor of the French, and acquiesced in, if not aided, by Palmerston and Lord John Russell of England, and save European civilization from the barbarism which now threatens to engulf it.
It is, moreover, only through Russia that we can hope for the final extinction of the Ottoman empire, and the rivival of the Christian East. France, for the time being at least, has deserted the cause of Christian civilization, which she so nobly sustained in the earlier crusades. She has become the ally of the Turks, and she and Great Britain, with the culpable connivance of Austria, for which Austria is now receiving merited chastisement, waged an anti-Christian and wholly unprovoked war against Russia for the support of the chief against Islam, Ottoman barbarism, and the oppression of the Christian populations of the East, and to prevent those populations from aspiring to their rightful national freedom and independence. Russia alone continues the crusades, and defends the cross against the crescent, and against the policy and frequently armed opposition of nearly all the Catholic and Protestant powers of Europe, ready always to postpone the spiritual for the temporal. Russia is a power Christendom cannot spare, and her support of the Christian cause in the East against the Turk and the policy of the West, will yet, we hope, avail her the grace of reunion with the Holy See. Even as a schismatic power she is a grand support of Christian civilization in the East, always betrayed by imperial France, though never by really Catholic France, whose liberal contributions and heroic missionaries keep alive and sustain the hopes of eastern Christendom and religion. But when she is once reconciled to the Holy See, no power could prevent her from taking possession of the throne of Constantinople, expelling the Turks, and reviving the eastern Christian empired, to which she has some legitimate claims as heir of the Byzantine emperors, recognized in former times as such by the sovereign pontiffs, who on that ground urged her to join in the war against the Ottoman power. History shows us that in the steady march of Russia upon Constantinople, if following her ambition, she has also been following a policy marked out and urged by the spiritual chief of Christendom. If her establishment at Constantinople, as a schismatic power there, in the view of the sovereign pontiff, were a benefit to Christendom, what would not her establishment then be as a Christian power? It would, humanly speaking, be of the greatest conceivable service to the cause of religion and civilization. It would not only balance the West, providing so widely false to the church of God and the civilization she has fostered, but it would open the way to the conversion and civilization of the whole Asiatic world. We are strong in our convictions that this is in the designs of Providence. As one nation proves false to its mission, Providence usually rejects it and gives its mission to another. As the West fails, the East will come to its rescue. The Russians have been prejudiced against the Latins, but these prejudices are not invincible, and the true interests of Russia as a leading political power, as well as of Christendom, require her union with the Holy See. The mass of the Russian people, we think it fair to presume, are only materially, not formally schismatics; and we saw in the Crimean war that the Russian soldiers, wounded and prisoners in the hands of the allies, did not hesitate to receive the last sacrament from Catholic priests. There would be little opposition, on their part, to the reunion, if consented to by the tsar and the Russian clergy. The clergy ought not to oppose it, for it is the only way in which they can secure the spiritual independence of their church, now oppressed by the civil power; and the tsar himself, though he might be reluctant to resign the spiritual power usurped by his predecessors, would yet find his interest in it, for it probably would be the most effectual means of preventing the revolution which is now preparing in his empire, and must soon break out with remorseless fury. As soon as the party struggling for the independence of the church,- and they are very numerous in the bosom of the church herself, as well as outside of her communion, – once make common cause with the Jacobinical secret societies, with which the whole land is all covered over, a revolution not less radical nor less destructive than the old French revolution will be sure to break out, and put an end to the Romanoffs. The surest way for the tsar to arrest this catastrophe, alike fatal to the throne and to the altar, is reconciliation with Rome, which would secure the spiritual independence of the church, and bring to his support the blessing of Heaven. It is better for him to give up his spiritual power than it is to lose both it and his temporal power.
The great objection the Russian clergy and the people appear to have to this reconciliation, is their fear that it would be only a prelude to the substitution of the Latin rite for their present Greek rite. But this fear, created in past times by the Poles, is unfounded. The Greek rite is as old, as legitimate, and as sacred as the Latin; and the popes give every possible assurance that it shall not be disturbed. The Greek rite is more gorgeous, and in several respects more beautiful than the Latin, and far better suited to the oriental mind. Nor is any change in discipline, save the restoration of the old discipline of the Greek Church, broken down by the interference of the civil power, to be apprehended. The terms of reunion were foxed by the Council of Florence, and will not be departed from, at least to the prejudice of the Russians. Most of the fear of the Russians on this point are due to the efforts of the Poles, when they had the ascendency in Russia, to force them not only to accept a reunion with Rome, but also to adapt the Latin rite. The poles have much to answer for in the continuance of the Russian schism, and they still do much to prevent the reconciliation. We do not wish to speak harshly of unhappy Poland, and by no means of the Polish Catholics. We in no sense whatever defend or excuse Russia, Austria, and Prussia in blotting out the kingdom of Poland from the map of Europe; but if Poland has suffered gross injustice from Russia, Russia had previously received grievous wrongs from her, and it is never through Polish influence that Russia can be reconciled to the Holy See. The less the Poles, save by their prayers, mingle in the matter, the better. There are too many old and deep national animosities on both sides for them to be able to mingle in the question with advantage. The influences that will weigh with the Russians must come from other quarters. The Poles have done too much, and are still doing too much, to blacken the Russian character, and to render it odious to the civilized world, to be able to exert any influence on the Russians favorable to Catholicity. The movement for reunion cannot commence in Poland, but must commence in the bosom of the Russian church herself, aided by the prayers and sympathies of the Latins,- with the tsar and the Russian clergy. All that we Latins can do, aside from our prayers, is to dissipate prejudices, to direct the Catholic mind to the true issues between the Latins and the Greeks, and to assure the Russian schismatics that we understand truly their case, and are disposed to treat it with justice, candor, and Christian charity.
ASSEMBLY OF CANONICAL ORTHODOX BISHOPS
AUSTRALIA AND OCEANIA
Map of churches
Sydney
Melbourne
Brisbane
Adelaide
Canberra
Perth
Cairns
Darwin
Hobart
New Zealand
Fiji
Orthodox Oceania
Churches with services in English
Monasteries in Australia and Oceania
Orthodox Churches of New Zealand
Canonical Hierarchs of Oceania
Greek Archdiocese
Antiochian Archdiocese
Russian Church
Serbian Metropolitanate
Ukrainian Consistory
Bulgarian Diocese
Romanian Episcopate
Our Community
Photos
News
News Archive
Bible study groups
Pilgrimages and camps
About and contact
Join the project
Privacy Policy
Feasts and Events
Episcopal Assembly
Documents
Communiqués
Communiqué 2010
Communiqué 2011
Communiqué 2012
Communiqué 2014
Communiqué 2015
Communiqué 2016
Holy and Great Council 2016
Chambesy Conference
Chambesy Communiqué
Decision
Rules of operation
Ethical Directives
Organ and tissue donation
Other Assembies
Hospital Chaplaincies
University Chaplaincies
Links
Our Faith
Nicean Creed
Holy Trinity
Holy Tradition
Apostolic succession
Apologetics – defending Christianity
Holy Icons
Panagia Pantanassa (Queen of All)
Home
Orthodox Oceania
Russian Church
Russian Orthodox Church
Russian Orthodox Church in Australia has a long history.
1810 First known Orthodox (Russian) permanent resident arrives in Australia. Wife of a British Military officer freshly arrived from the Peninsular War.
1820 April: First Orthodox service in Australia. Held at Kirribilli Point (Sydney) by Fr. Dionisii, a Russian Orthodox caplain.
1926 The first Russian parish established in Australia and New Zealand was St. Nicholas Church (now Cathedral), Brisbane, in 1926.
1948 The first ROCOR bishop of Australia and New Zealand – Bp Theodore (Rafalsky), 1948-55.
Most of Russian Orthodox Church parishes and monasteries in Australia belongs to The Diocese of Australia and New Zealand within the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia (ROCOR). Metropolitan Hilarion is currently the head and sole bishop, there are various deans who are in charge of one or more geographic areas. There are approx. 62 parishes, missions and communities in the diocese, including 17 monasteries and sketes: with 28 parishes and missions across Australia, 26 in Indonesia, 4 in New Zealand, 4 in Pakistan, one parish (along with one monastic skete) in South Korea, and one parish in India.
Parishes outside Australia and New Zealand are not represented on this website.
There are also 2 parishes governed by the Moscow Patriarchate.
Eastern Orthodoxy: Primacy and Reunion
by James Likoudis
Description
An article about the obstacles to unity between the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church.
Larger Work
The American Ecclesiastical Review
Pages
104-116
Publisher & Date
The Catholic University of America Press, February 1966
This is the sacred mystery of the unity of the Church, in Christ and through Christ, the Holy Spirit energizing its various functions. It is a mystery that finds its highest exemplar and source in the unity of the Persons of the Trinity: the Father and the Son in the Holy Spirit, one God. (II Vatican Council’s Decree on Ecumenism)1
It has become now commonplace to assert that the dogma of the Apostolic primacy is the only real barrier to the recomposition of unity long desired by Catholics and Eastern Orthodox. Catholics, moreover, have expressed the hope that one of the major fruits of the II Vatican Council’s Constitution on the Church and its Decree on Ecumenism will be a further reassessment by our Orthodox brethren of the role of the papacy in the Church.
The writings of Fathers George Florovsky, John Meyendorff, Alexander Schmemann, Nicholas Afanassieff, Mr. Timothy Ware, and Professor Nikos Nissiotes already bear witness to a growing understanding of, at least, the historical basis of the “diakonia” of the Cathedra Petri toward the universal episcopate. As Father Meyendorff writes in his The Orthodox Church:
Curiously enough, the ecclesiological problem was never posed as a real issue in the medieval debate between Constantinople and Rome. . . . only in 1204 . . . after the sack of Constantinople did Byzantine theologians begin to discuss seriously the origin of the power which the popes claimed to have.2
And again, Mr. Ware writes:
. . . Orthodoxy does not deny to the Holy and Apostolic See of Rome a primacy of honour, together with the right (under certain conditions) to hear appeals from all parts of Christendom . . . Rome’s mistake—so Orthodox believe—has been to turn the primacy or “presidency of love” into a supremacy of external power and jurisdiction.3
In articles containing irenic criticisms of the ecumenicity of the II Vatican Council and its Constitution on the Church, Professor Nissiotes attributes the Catholic distortion of the primacy to “the Roman misinterpretation of the role of the Spirit” and to the lack of a “pneumatological ecclesiology.”4
What is clear from the above quotations (and others could be easily supplied) is the impact of modern historical research demonstrating the Roman bishops’ actual early exercise of a supremacy of jurisdiction over the Universal Church, but also the continued resistance by Orthodox theologians to such a primacy of jurisdiction “de jure divino” in the name of an “ecclesiology based on love and mutual obedience without juridical primacy” (Prof. Nissiotes’ phrase) that (as we shall see) has its profoundest roots in the Orthodox concept of the eternal relations which exist between the persons of the All Holy Trinity.
It would appear, therefore, that since the mystery of the Church in the patristic East has always been understood and “lived in narrow dependence upon the mystery of the Trinity,”5 the dogma of the Apostolic Primacy of the successor of St. Peter would be correspondingly clarified by further study of the Trinitarian-ecclesiological relationship indispensable to a true understanding of the Church Christ founded.
St. Thomas Aquinas, long ago, in his famous Contra Errores Graecorum (1264 A.D.) had pointed out, “To say that the Vicar of Christ, the Roman Pontiff, does not hold the primacy in the universal Church is an error analogous to that which denies that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Son.”6 The contemporary Dominican theologian, Father Yves Congar, has drawn attention to the decisive significance of the Angelic Doctor’s sagacious observation :
It has often been observed that a theology which denies the eternal procession of the Holy Spirit from the Word tends to minimize the part played by definite forms of authority in actual life, and this leaves the way more open to a kind of independent inspiration. The ecclesiology of the Orthodox Churches has a distinctly “pneumatic” tendency and declines to accept Catholic ideas of authority which seem to savour of legalism.7
In a study (that hopefully will soon be published), “The Teaching of St. Thomas in Respect to the Trinitarian-Ecclesiological Relationship in Eastern Orthodox Theology,” Father Dismas Purcell, S.A., has analyzed how St. Thomas exposed the trinitarian error responsible for the truncated ecclesiology of the dissident Pan-Orthodox churches:
Saint Thomas perceived that since the rejection . . . of the Filioque implicitly was a disclaiming of the real distinction between the processions, then such a rejection could only lead to a confusion of the two processions, so that in theory, one would tend to be absorbed within the other. Moreover, as the Saint, with piercing insight, remarks, since in this instance, as throughout all Christian history, errors in faith “seem to tend principally to this, that they derogate from the dignity of Christ” (Contra Errores Graecorum) it is to be expected that the procession of the Son in Eastern Orthodox theology be absorbed, so to speak, within the procession of the Holy Spirit. This absorption becomes most evident in Orthodox ecclesiology in reference to the divine missions which, in essence, include the eternal processions with a temporal effect. Saint Thomas, therefore, is not surprised to find that in Eastern Orthodox ecclesiology the extension of the visible messianic mission of Christ in his visible Vicar is absorbed entirely within the invisible mission of the Holy Spirit as unifying principle of the Church.8 (Emphasis mine)
In view, therefore, of their continued rejection of the “Filioque,” Professor Nissiotes and other modern Orthodox theologians are understandably consistent in criticizing Catholic theology for its “subordination of the work of the Spirit to that of Christ in the realm of ecclesiology,”9 and in progressively proceeding to abandon the traditional teaching of the East concerning the infallibility of Ecumenical Councils ex sese. The protestantizing theology of the nineteenth century Slavophile theologians has wrought ecclesiological havoc among Orthodox thinkers, culminating in their growing rejection of any functional infallibility in the Church. For some of these theologians the traditional dogmatic teaching concerning the “collegiality of bishops” has been replaced by the innovation of the “collegiality of the whole Christian people”! Father Purcell rightly views this tragic departure from the ancient tradition of Councils as the inevitable consequence of an “ecclesiological apollinarianism wherein any supreme, divinely established authority is replaced altogether by the invisible authority of the Spirit dwelling within the whole Church.”10
The modernist proponents of this more advanced Sobornost school, however, have not been exempt from a certain “malaise” at advancing such theological innovations. Professor Nissiotes candidly admits, “When Orthodox criticize the absence of a consistent pneumatology in Roman ecclesiology, they should not forget that for some centuries now, after the schism of 1054 and the Reformation, in Orthodox countries dogmatics has been taught without pneumatology in the majority of theological schools and facilities.”11
Moreover, we can expect increasing embarrassment on the part of Orthodox theologians engaged in dialogue as the radically contradictory nature of the ecclesiological theses held by traditionalists and modernists become increasingly apprehended by the simple faithful. Perhaps Catholic observers have not sufficiently emphasized that a veritable ecclesiological crisis actually exists in the Pan-Orthodox world. Nevertheless, it is precisely the doctrine (common to both Orthodox and Catholics) that the undivided unity of the Church is derived from the undivided unity of the Holy Trinity that offers a most fruitful approach for settlement of the apparently insurmountable obstacle of the dogma of the papacy. It is most instructive to note how Orthodox theologians apply trinitarian theology to the unity of the Church. Timothy Ware has emphasized what may be termed the most common explanation.
This conception of the Church as an icon of the Trinity has many further applications. “Unity in diversity”—just as each person of the Trinity is autonomous, so the Church is autonomous, so the Church is made up of a number of independent Autocephalous Churches; and just as in the Trinity the three persons are equal, so in the Church no one bishop can claim to wield an absolute power over all the rest.12
Father Alexander Schmemann, following the same line of reasoning, agrees that “One is able to apply to the Church by analogy, Trinitarian theology. As the Three Persons of the Holy Trinity do not divide the divine nature, each of them living and possessing it entirely, likewise the nature of the Mystical Body of Christ is not divided by the multiplicity of churches.”13 But, Father Schmemann continues, “as there is a certain order among the Divine Persons, so there is a certain order (a hierarchy) among the churches. In this hierarchy there is a first Church and a first Bishop.”14 Of course, Father Schmemann goes on to deny that the “first Church” has any power over its sister Churches and opines for an eucharistic ecclesiology where “unity is not maintained from without by the authority of a Supreme Pontiff, but created from within by the celebration of the Eucharist.”15 But the principle that traditional trinitarian theology logically necessitates the positing of a “first Church” is a truly remarkable admission, and (as we shall see later) can well serve as the basis for more profound reflection on the nature of what St. Theodore the Studite (+826) termed the theia protarchia (“divine primacy”) of the See of Rome (Epistle 1, 33).
It is thus evident from the writings of the Angelic Doctor and present day Orthodox theologians that a rejection of the “Filioque” inevitably leads to the logical rejection of the primacy of jurisdiction “de jure divino” of the See of Peter. Likewise, the dogma of the procession of the Holy Spirit from both the Father and the Son admittedly leads to the “emphasis on papal authority.”16 Now, it is precisely this belief in the dual procession of the Holy Spirit from both the Father and the Son as from one principle that Orthodox writers increasingly grant was common throughout the Western Church since the days of the great St. Augustine, and, therefore, long before the Schism. Indeed, the explicit doctrine of the greatest of the Latin Fathers, St. Augustine, has proved an insuperable obstacle to those who would defend the novel opinion of the Patriarch Photius who so tragically misunderstood even the teaching of the Eastern Fathers. In his Homilies on the Gospel of St. John XCIX, 6 f., St. Augustine exposed the Catholic dogma on the procession of the Holy Spirit with the utmost clarity.
There are yet many other proofs by which it is clearly shown that He who in the Trinity is called the Holy Ghost is the Spirit of both the Father and the Son. But from the one from whom the Son has his divinity—for He is God of God—from the same one He also has it that the Holy Ghost proceeds from Him also. Hence the Holy Ghost has it from the Father that He also proceeds from the Son as He proceeds from the Father.17
In a fine review of Father Gill’s The Council of Florence, Miss Helle Georgiades has remarked that
It is characteristic that the argument used by Bessarion [at the Council of Florence]—that the Latin saints who taught the “Filioque” could not be heretics since it was the same Spirit who spoke in all the saints as witness the harmony of their writings—finally prevailed with the Orthodox. “Till now,” the Greeks declared after months of lengthy debate, “we never knew the Latin saints nor read them; now however, we have come to know them, have read them and approve them” . . . For Catholics the voice of the Popes and Councils since Florence as well as before are of course authoritative. But for those who do not yet accept this authority, the writing’s of individual saints and doctors of the Church are more compelling. The Orthodox in particular are very open to listening to such witnesses.18 (Emphasis mine)
In fact, the witness of such saints before the Schism is as decisive on the prerogatives of the Apostolic See of Peter as it is on the procession of the Holy Spirit. It would be easy to multiply well-known passages from Popes such as Pope St. Leo the Great (+461) and other Latin saints to corroborate the celebrated Vladimir Soloviev’s brilliant intuition of the Papacy as “that miraculous ikon of universal Christianity.” But the most eminent Greek Doctors write in no different vein when they have occasion to treat of the relationship of their sister churches in the East to the Cathedra Petri. St. Maximus the Confessor’s (+662) dogmatic teaching concerning the Roman Church is definite enough: “The Apostolic See . . . from the very Incarnate Word of God and from all the holy synods of all the churches throughout the world in their sacred canons and definitions has received and possesses, in and for every thing, dominion, authority, and power to bind and to loose. With it the Word, set at the head of heavenly powers, binds and looses in heaven.”19
Moreover, the Patriarch Photius, himself, clearly acknowledged the Roman See’s primacy of jurisdiction. In Photius’ Greek version of the letter of Pope John VIII to the Emperor read in the Acts of the Council of 879-80, the Pope’s words were recorded with no objection.
One can ask from what master you have learned to act in that way? First of all, certainly from the coryphaeus of the Apostles, Peter, whom the Lord had constituted head of all churches when he said [to him]: “Feed my sheep.” (John 21:17). Not only [from Him] but also from the holy synods and constitutions. And also from the holy and orthodox decrees and constitutions of the fathers, as it is testified by your divine and pious letters.20
What is most striking in the above testimonies—and more have been produced by Catholic theologians from the writings of St. Theodore the Studite (+826), the Patriarchs of Constantinople, St. Nicephore (+828), and St. Ignatius (+878), and the Apostle of the Slavs St. Methodius (+885)—is that they simply cannot be reconciled with the blind assertion that the Roman Church possesses a mere primacy of honor or a simple priority among equals. These texts from the tradition of the Church (which Father George Florovsky has aptly called “the witness of the Spirit”) affirm for the Roman Church a true Primacy of Jurisdiction in and over the Universal Church, sanctioned by saints, local synods and ecumenical councils, but essentially derived from the words of the Lord Himself to the Prince of His Apostles, Peter. As the Patriarch of Constantinople, St. Ignatius (+878), wrote to one of the greatest of the Roman Pontiffs, St. Nicholas I,
. . . saying to Peter, the greatest of the Apostles: “Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” And again “I will give thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be bound in heaven.” For such blessed words He did not circumscribe and define to the Prince of the Apostles alone by a kind of chance, but through him he transmitted them to all who, after him as his successors, were to be made chief pastors, and divine and sacred pontiffs of elder Rome. (Mansi XVI, 47)21
The teaching of modern Orthodox theologians that there is no visible Apostolic head and center of unity in the Teaching Episcopate sharply impugns the teaching of the “ancient undivided Church of the seven Ecumenical Councils.” To speak but of the Latin Fathers, no amount of historical minimization can obscure the doctrinal teaching of Popes St. Damasus, St. Innocent I, St. Leo I, St. Gelasius I, St. Hormisdas, St. Gregory I, St. Martin I, and St. Nicholas I concerning the divinely established prerogatives of their Sees. It is unfortunate that Orthodox theologians such as Father Meyendorff who rightly stress the truth that the Church “sees unity in a communion of faith, of which the Church itself, or rather the Holy Spirit always dwelling in the Church, is the unique judge,”22 have not sufficiently grasped the import of the fact that the pre-Schism Church was in communion with these same holy Bishops of Rome, and that this, in itself, constitutes for adherents of a “theology of communion” an incontrovertible proof the Church approved the Popes’ reiterated teaching that “the universal ordering of the Church at its birth took its origin from the office of Blessed Peter, in which is found both its directing power and its supreme authority” (Pope St. Boniface I [+422] Ep. 14).23
The above quotations from saints of the “ancient undivided Church,” to which Orthodox and Anglicans are fond of appealing, also throw powerful light upon the famous Petrine texts whose meaning has similarly been minimized by opponents. Catholic theology has always held that to preserve unity among the Apostles (and, thereby, the entire “congregatio fidelium”), one Apostle was made the Rock, the Holder of the Keys, the Confirmer of his Brethren, the Chief Shepherd of the Lord’s Flock. An Apostolic Primacy involving such unique and universal doctrinal functions, instituted by the Risen Lord Himself, can only be a real Primacy of jurisdiction. And indeed, only an Apostolic Primacy or real power is compatible with the many testimonies of the Fathers who saw in the Lord’s founding on Peter the origin and source and visible principle of the Church’s hierarchical and social unity. The cogent reasoning of the nineteenth-century Yankee convert-philosopher Orestes Brownson remains unassailable.
There is a logic in language as well as in the human mind, of which it is the expression, and there is a reason for every symbolical locution that gains currency. If the Fathers and the Church had not held Peter to be the prince of the Apostles and his see the centre and source of apostolic authority, would they or could they have made his see or his chair the symbol of apostolic authority, or Peter himself the symbol, “the sign and type of apostolic unity”? Why the see of Peter rather than that of Andrew, James or John? or Peter rather than any other Apostle? The fact, then, that St. Peter and his see or chair were taken as symbolic, the sign and type, the one of apostolic unity, and the other of apostolic authority, is a very conclusive proof that [a] primacy [of jurisdiction] was given to him and his see by our Lord, and by succession to the . . . Roman Pontiffs, as the Fathers of Florence [defined]. . .24
It is an amazing phenomenon (and one easily appreciated by discerning Orthodox) that ecclesiastical tradition knows of only one bishop in the Catholic Church as the successor of an individual Apostle—the Bishop of Rome as the successor of Peter. All other bishops, even those of sees of apostolic origin, have always been considered as having a limited jurisdiction, and as being successors of the Apostolic College only in general, and as linked to their head as centre who alone of all bishops of the College was held to possess a truly universal jurisdiction. This consideration is particularly efficacious in promoting Orthodox comprehension of why the Catholic Church has termed the Primacy of her Chief Bishop the Apostolic Primacy. Indeed, no fact is more calculated to impress the mind of a pious Orthodox than the realization that it has been only the existence of an Apostolic Primacy in the See of Rome, communicating the divine mark of visible unity to the fellow bishops of its Communion, that prevents the concept of the “undivided episcopate” (still upheld by most Orthodox theologians) from being anything more than what many secular historians would be only too pleased to term an historic myth! An “undivided episcopate” is simply unintelligible unless it means that the Bishops who succeed to the episcopal powers of the Chosen Twelve are solidified into one indissoluble communion by one, sole, genuinely Apostolic (i.e., universal) centre of unity. This Apostolic centre or supreme teaching authority through which the Divine Head of the Church Jesus Christ keeps His Teaching Episcopate visibly one and apostolic can only mean the Papacy. The II Vatican Council has but faithfully reproduced the teaching of ancient Fathers and Councils when it solemnly asserted “in order that the episcopate itself might be one and undivided, He placed Blessed Peter over the other Apostles, and instituted in him a permanent and visible source and foundation of unity of faith and communion.”25
Let us now resume our theme of the ecclesiological significance of the “Filioque”—and how the relationship between papacy and episcopacy splendidly mirrors the very hierarchy of persons in the Triune God.
As pointed out earlier, the great merit of Father Schmemann’s article was to have acutely perceived that the unity of the Church of Christ as a visible extension and manifestation of the eternal unity of the Three persons of the All Holy Trinity demands the existence among a multiplicity of local churches of a “first Church and a first bishop.” With other Orthodox theologians, however, he refuses to this “first Church and first bishop” the Apostolic Primacy essential to the office of visible head of the Church Militant and, thereby, voids the episcopate’s ontological dependence upon the Primate of the Church in whom the Lord of the Church has focused the visible unity of His own Mystical Body.
It is apparent that Father Schmemann has not sufficiently comprehended the Trinitarian Doctrine of the Fathers who taught that the Son is one with the Father in being the eternal principle and source of the Holy Spirit; and that it is the dogma of the procession “ab utroque” which reveals in all its wondrous splendor the truth that from all eternity it is the Son who remains the centre of union between the Father and the Holy Spirit.26 The conclusion, therefore, is inescapable. If their hierarchical unity is to reflect this central, mediating position of the Son in the Trinity, the communion of sister churches which make up the One Body of Christ— the Universal Church—must have a centre of communion. And this visible centre of communion, through which the God-man Himself continues to invisibly teach, govern, and sanctify the members of His Mystical Body, can only be the central organ that Father Schmemann’s “theologie triadologique” dimly perceived as the “first Church and first Bishop”—the Papacy.
It is evident that the doctrine of the procession “ab utroque” has a conspicuous ontological relationship to the doctrine of the papacy. Catholic dogma, indeed, reveals an astonishing coherence that can only be the result of the Divine Wisdom. The theologians of the autocephalous Churches, themselves, cannot but be impressed by the profound coinherence of the trinitarian dogma that identifies the Son also as the eternal principle and source and origin of the Holy Spirit, and the dogma that views the Papacy as the visible principle and source and origin of the visible unity of the Church. Both dogmas in the light of faith are seen to reinforce and illuminate one another in a sublime manner.
In the Catholic Church, alone, is found that perfectly harmonious synthesis of those principal elements, marvellously complementing one another, by which the Divine Head of the Church effects the visible unity of His Body:
the Eucharist: the bond of unity which makes the Church one sacramental and liturgical communion;
the Papacy: the bond of unity which makes the Church one hierarchical community-communion; and
the Holy Spirit: the bond of unity as Soul of the Church who makes the Church one supernatural organism and spiritual communion.
The resultant wondrous unity of faith, hope, charity and Petro-centric hierarchical communion uniquely characterizing the Catholic Church constitutes for the unbelieving world Christ’s perpetual sign witnessing to the truth of His own Divine Mission.
In the growing dialogue with our Orthodox brethren already given impetus by the far-ranging decrees of the II Vatican Council concerning “collegialitas” and “a more conciliatory policy with regard to communicatio in sacris,” the theology of the Angelic Doctor remains an indispensable guide in fathoming the words of Our Lord:
Yet not for these only do I pray, but for those also who through their word are to believe in me, that all may be one, even as thou. Father, in me and I in thee; that they also may be one in us, that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. And the glory that thou hast given me, I have given to them, that they may be one, even as we are one: I in them and thou in me; that they may be perfected in unity, and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and that thou hast loved them even as thou hast loved me. (St. John 17:20-23)
The Father and Son are one because of their unity in the Holy Spirit who proceeds from Both. The Church is one because of the unity of its faithful in the Holy Spirit whose mission is to unite the faithful to Christ, and, in Christ, to one another by incorporating them in one visible communion governed in love by the Apostles and their successors—the bishops with the successor of Peter as their head. There can be absolutely no schism in the Church between the role of the Spirit and that of the Apostolic hierarchy of Pope and bishops, or “separation between the Church as pneumatic community and as a juridical constitution,”27 because the mission of the Spirit is always exercised under the influence of Christ the Head; and the fundamental reason why the rule of the Spirit in the Church is under the influence of Christ is to be found in the eternal procession, the outpouring of the Spirit from the Father and the Son.
Sadly, Eastern Orthodox misconceptions of Catholic doctrine yet prevent the full realization of the successor of Peter’s ecumenical exhortation at Grottaferrata on August 19, 1963, to “Let Fall the Barriers” and restore full communion with the Apostolic See. That is why the attention of competent theologians should be profitably directed toward meditating upon, and, perhaps, developing the teaching of St. Thomas on the Trinitarian-ecclesiological relationship briefly touched upon in this article, and summed up with penetrating insight by Father Purcell.
As an immediate refutation of [the Oxford] absorption and confusion in regard to the distinct missions, the Angelic Doctor explains that just as the Holy Spirit performs His invisible mission in the Church—a mission proper to Himself—so Christ perpetuates His visible mission in the Church preeminently through His visible Vicar, the Pope, by bestowing upon His Vicar a jurisdictional power which is the Pope’s own power. As the Saint declares: “For Christ Himself, the Son of God, consecrates His Church and consigns it to Himself by means of His Holy Spirit, as if by His own character and seal. . . And similarly, the Vicar of Christ, as a faithful minister, by his primacy and rule keeps the universal Church subjected to Christ.” Thus it can be seen that in the mind of the Angelic Doctor, the Mystical Body of Christ, the Catholic Church, embodies within itself the divine missions of redemption, and indeed exists in order to perpetuate and extend these same divine missions for all time to all men. Moreover, because She does embody within Herself the divine missions, the Church likewise mirrors the divine processions in the One God to men. In the vision of Saint Thomas Aquinas, the Church is, so to speak, the prism by which God continuously manifests to man the divine missions and hence reveals the very spectrum of the eternal processions which occur in the inner life of the Holy Trinity. God has conformed His Church to His own inner life inasmuch as the divine missions of salvation present in the Church, which supply the very origin of Her existence have as their exemplar, and indeed include, the everlasting processions of the Divine Persons.28
Endnotes
1 As translated in School Justice Review (June 1965), p. 155.
2 John Meyendorff, The Orthodox Church (New York: Pantheon Books, 1962), p. 209.
3 Timothy Ware, The Orthodox Church (Baltimore: Penguin Books, 1963), p. 35.
4 Cf. Nikos Nissiotes, “The Main Ecclesiological Problem of the 2nd Vatican Council,” Journal of Ecumenical Studies, Vol. 2, No. I, p. 55.
5 Cardinal G. Lercaro, “La signification du Decret ‘De Oecumenismo’ pour le dialogue avec les Eglises Orientales non Catholiques,” Irenikon 1964, No. 4, p. 469. See also: Piet Fransen, S.J., “The Church and the Trinity,” Thought, Spring, 1963, p. 84. Father Fransen’s article is a fine example of a study showing how Catholic ecclesiology can be made more comprehensible to our Orthodox brethren. However, in justly dismissing the exaggerations of Orthodox theologians V. Lossky and P. Sherrard, the ecclesiological significance of the “Filioque” is treated too cursorily.
6 Quoted in Yves Congar, The Mystery of the Church (Baltimore: Helicon Press, 1960), p. 153.
7 Ibid., p. 153.
8 I am indebted to Father Purcell for permission to quote from his manuscript.
9 N. Nissiotes, op. cit., p. 50.
10 D. Purcell, “The Church in Eastern Orthodox Teaching,” Atonement, Vol. VI, 1964, p. 98.
11 N. Nissiotes, op. cit., p. 61.
12 T. Ware, op. cit., p. 244.
13 A. Schmemann in N. Afanassieff, etc.. La Primaute de Pierre dans l’Eglise orthodoxe (Paris, 1960), p. 143. Bernard Schultze, S.J., has severely criticized Father Schmemann’s methodology. “Schmemann tries in vain to base his ecclesiology on the dogma of the most Holy Trinity, wishing to deduce from the fact that since in the hierarchy of the three Divine Persons there is no subordination, so also among the local Churches there is absence of subordination. Such a deduction is impossible because in the order of the Trinity there is absolute necessity whereas in the ecclesiastical order all depends on the free disposition of Our Lord.” (Emphasis mine) (Bernard Schultze, S.J., “Universal or Eucharistic Ecclesiology?” Unitas, Vol. XVII, Summer 1965, pp. 98-99.) Father Schultze is, of course, quite correct in arguing it is a fallacy to determine the visible structure of the Church from purely a priori considerations concerning the Trinity. However, in this a priori context, where both parties, on the whole, concord concerning the doctrine of the Trinity, and agree that Christ founded but One Visible Church, only one ecclesiological doctrine will be found to harmonize with the explicit teaching (axiomatic with the Fathers, and commonly accepted by both Orthodox and Catholics) that the Unity of the ecclesiastical order was freely willed by Christ to be derived from the Unity of the Trinity.
14 Ibid., p. 143.
15 T. Ware, op. cit., p. 250.
16 Ibid., p. 223.
17 quoted in K. Algermissen, Christian Denominations (St. Louis: B. Herder Book Co., 1945), p. 391.
18 Eastern Churches Quarterly, Autumn and Winter 1958, p. 164.
19 Quoted in St. Maximus the Confessor: Ancient Christian Writers Series, ed. Polycarp Sherwood, O.S.B. (Westminster, Md.: The Newman Press, 1955), p. 76.
20 Quoted in F. Dvornik’s “The Patriarch Photius and Roman Primacy,” Chicago Studies, Vol. 2, No. 1, Spring, 1963.
21 Quoted in M. Jugie, A.A„ Le schisme byzantin (Paris: P. Lethielleux, 1941), p. 90.
22 J. Meyendorff, op. cit., p. 225.
23 Quoted in T. G. Jalland, The Church and the Papacy (London: SPCK, 1946), p. 276.
24 The Works of Orestes A. Brownson (Detroit, 1882-1887), Vol. 8, pp. 487-488.
25 Constitution on the Church, Chapter III, no. 18, p. 20 (NCWC edition).
26 Cf. St. Basil: “By the Son who is one, the Spirit is joined to the Father who is one.”—quoted in Dom B. Capelle’s article, “The Procession of the Holy Spirit according to the Greek Liturgy of St. Basil,” Eastern Churches Quarterly, Spring 1962, pp. 283-290. Abbot Capelle comments on the force of St. Basil’s expression and other Trinitarian formulae in the writings of St. Athanasius and St. Gregory of Nyssa specifying that “it is by the Son’s mediation that the Spirit proceeds from the Father” (p. 289).
27 P. Fransen, op. cit., p. 87.
28 D. Purcell’s Manuscript: See Note 8.
© The American Ecclesiastical Review, The Catholic University of America Press, Washington, D.C.
This item 1092 digitally provided courtesy of CatholicCulture.org
Stay in Touch!
Subscribe to Insights
Stay on top of the latest Catholic news and analysis from CatholicCulture.org.
Visit Amazon: We receive 5% of most Amazon purchases.
Rembrand van Rijn: The Return of the Prodigal Son, c. 1668
About This Site | Terms and Conditions | Privacy | User Conduct | Advertise | Help/FAQ | Contact Us
Copyright © 2018 Trinity Communications. All rights reserved.
scott,
Music to my ears.
Peter Damian (AD 1007-1072) noted that almost all the Greeks and some Latins maintain that the Holy Spirit does not proceed from the Son but only from the Father.” In point 8 of a letter to the Patriarch of Constantinople Peter Damian gives the clearest reasons
not
to support the filioque
[Latin, “and the Son”]:
“Citing these texts, therefore, and the like, not only from the Gospels but from other scriptural evidence as well, [it is asserted] that the Holy Spirit in no way proceeds from the Son, but only from the Father. Some such statement which seems to agree with this opinion is often found even in the doctors who use the Latin language. Clearly blessed Jerome, in his explanation of the faith sent to the bishops Alippius and Augustine, says among other things, “We believe also in the Holy Spirit, true God, Who Proceeds from the Father, equal in all things to the Father and to the Son.” Augustine also, inveighing against Maximus the heretic, says, “The Son is from the Father, the Holy Spirit is from the Father.” Even Pope St. Leo, on the silver plaque erected before the most sacred body of St. Paul the Apostle, says among other formulations of his faith, “And [we believe] in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of life, Who Proceeds from the Father [and is] with the Father and the Son to be jointly adored and glorified.” In the Creed of the Council of Nicea, moreover, it says, “We also believe in the Holy Spirit, Who Proceeds properly from the Father, and who just as the Son is true God”; and a littler further on, “And that the Holy Spirit is also true God we find in Scripture, and that He Proceeds properly from the Father, and that He always exists with the Father and the Son.” And again it says, “The Son is from the Father, and the Holy Spirit proceeds properly and truly from the Father.
scott,
It is a no brainer to assert that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father.
What needs to be shown is early church fathers asserting that the Holy Spirit does not proceed from the son.
What is needed to solve this FILIOQUE matter
is not a “brainer” or rationality or intellect,
but to trust God in the heart (“the heart has its reasons, which reason does not know” Pascal) and soul according to hearing the Word of God: Scripture (John 15:26, Acts 2:33) and Tradition (Photius, Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit; Tomus of the Synod of Blachernae) and keep it. “Blessed, rather, are those who hear the Word of God, and keep it”. (Jesus Christ, circa April, 30 AD).
scott,
Thanks for your opinion.
Más allá de la inquisición española.
“¡Nadie espera la inquisición española!” (Michael Palin, “Circo Volador de Monty Python”).
En los primeros años de la Iglesia Católica y sus santos y sus obispos, eran ortodoxos y los antiguos papas de Roma estaban en armonía y en perfecta unidad, ortodoxia y catolicidad con el Este.
Cuando Occidente y Oriente eran como uno, y todas las personas y los papas hablaron juntos durante siete concilios ecuménicos, en el año de nuestro SEÑOR 325 a través de 787.
Poco a poco, la filosofía psicológica especulativa de san Agustín de Filioque pasó de un intento inocente, benigno e inocuo de defender la divinidad de Cristo, a un “desarrollo de doctrina” que con fiereza y política, bajo Carlomagno, defendió lo que se convirtió en una terrible herejía fratricida en el oeste.
Filioque se convirtió en un dogma político herético (de los francos), una herejía de la falsa tradición, en un cáncer del dogma herético Filioque de Thomas Aquinas y Peter Lombard y Peter Damian y Anselm de Canterbury.
Pero el propio San Agustín nunca previó ni pretendió lo que su especulación y experimento de Filioque se convirtió en: un dogma católico fijo. Agustín nunca vio que esto tenía la intención de ser un dogma necesario, sino solo una filosofía especulativa utilizada por Agustín en apoyo de la plena divinidad de Jesucristo.
El motivo detrás del Filioque en Agustín era bueno, pero la doctrina misma no era un dogma católico.
Los cristianos hispanohablantes en Occidente necesitan aprender dónde Carlomagno y la Roma papal se extraviaron y se perdieron, y se convirtieron en un cautiverio franco de la filosofía racionalista humana.
Se convirtieron en una falsa hegemonía de Carlomagno y los francos.
Carlomagno y los francos promovieron la mentira de que los “griegos” (sic) supuestamente habían eliminado el Filioque del Credo de Nicea original de la iglesia católica de 381 dC.
Nada en absoluto podría estar más lejos de la verdad del asunto.
Beyond the Spanish inquisition.
“Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!” (Michael Palin, “Monty Python’s Flying Circus”).
In the earliest years of the Catholic Church and her saints and her bishops, they were Orthodox and the ancient popes of Rome were in harmony and in perfect unity, orthodoxy, and catholicity with the East.
When the West and the East were as one, and all of the people and the popes spoke together for seven ecumenical councils, in the year of our LORD 325 through 787.
Only gradually did the speculative psychological philosophy of Saint Augustine of the Filioque go from a benign and innocuous innocent attempt to defend the divinity of Christ, to a “development of doctrine” which fiercely and politically, under Charlemagne, defend what became a terrible fratricidal heresy in the West.
Filioque developed into a political heretical dogma (of the Franks), a heresy of false tradition, into a cancer of the heretical Filioque dogma of Thomas Aquinas and Peter Lombard and Peter Damian and Anselm of Canterbury.
But Saint Augustine himself never foresaw or intended what his Filioque speculation and experiment became: a fixed Catholic dogma. Augustine never saw this nore intended this to be necessary dogma, but only a speculative philosophy used by Augustine in support of the full divinity of Jesus Christ.
The motive behind the Filioque in Augustine was good, but the doctrine itself was not catholic dogma.
Spanish-speaking Christians in the West need to learn where Charlemagne and papal Rome went astray and became lost, and became a Frankish captivity of human rationalist philosophy.
They became a false hegemony of Charlemagne and the Franks.
Charlemagne and the Franks promoted the lie that the “Greeks” (sic) had supposedly deleted the Filioque from the original Nicene Creed of the catholic church of 381 AD.
Nothing at all could be any further away from the truth of the matter.
scott,
Racist nonsense.
There is no racism in me. I admire all cultures.
I suffer from mental illness.
When any bad thought passes my way, even a racist one, I immediately reject it.
Just saying the word “Spanish” does not make me a racist.
I believe Water is too easily critical of me.
scott,
Not Spanish, but you obsession with Franks, Charlemagne, Germans, etc.
Hey, it’s an historical fact, not an obsession, and Charlemagne is the historical cause of the disunity in Christendom in Western unity, its schism from the Church in the East, and the Germans are the historical purveyors of Nazi racism. Fact, not obsession. To ignore it is a delusion. Do you ignore it? Why?
scott,
The Russians of communism? Where do we stop?
The Russians of communism? That sounds like Russophobic anti-Russia racism to me.
Charlemagne? Karl Marx was a German devil-worshiper who grew on German Charlemagne’s soil, and Luther’s rebellion was anti-semitic and Anti-Jewish, and Marx apostasized from Judaism for Lutheranism, and from Lutheranism for Satanism and atheism and ommunism. I am not suggesting that Charlemagne was a communist or a Satanist, just a schismatic who used papal Rome in his ambitious self-serving quest for temporal “French-German” (“Frankish”) feudalist power. This is why you remain in ignorance when you slander me for referring to my antipathy and war against Charlemagne as an “obsession” rather than a principle of Catholic Christian warfare against the Filioque schism of the book “Franks, Romans, Feudalism, and Dogma: An Interplay of Theology and Society”. (1982). Masschusetts.
scott,
People who live in glass houses should not throw stones.
Water: God bless you.
Here’s a prayer. God bless.
Annwyl Ddewi Sant Cymru, Gweddïwch at Grist ein Duw trwy weddïau ei Fam fwyaf Pur am aduniad Rhufain y Pabol gyda’r Eglwys Uniongred, ac Undod Ddiamod yr Eglwys Gatholig, yr Eglwys Gatholig Uniongred, a gyfaddefodd Rhufain a’r papadaidd gyda’r sanctaidd Saint Leo III o Rwmania, 806 AD, a bendith Sant Ioan VIII Rhufain, 880 OC. Amen,
Dear Saint David of Wales, Pray to Christ our God through the prayers of His Most Pure Mother for the Reunion of Papal Rome with the Catholic Church, the Orthodox Catholic Church, as the Undivided Church was with blessed Saint Leo III of Rome, 806 AD, and blessed Saint John VIII of ROme, 880 AD. Amen.
scott,
Begins well.
scott,
Holy Mary mother of God, Virgin most Pure, Ark of the New Covenant, Sts Gregory Nazianzus, Basil the Great, Gregory of Nyssa, Cyril of Alexandria, St Maximos the Confessor, St Methodius, St Augustine, St Dydimus the Blind, St Athansius, St Epithanius of Salamis,St John Damascene, St Fulgence of Ruspe, pray to Christ our God for the Reunion of the Church of the East and the Church of the West into your Most Holy, One, Catholic and Apostolic Church. We make this prayer through the intercession of Mary our Mother, through Christ our Lord who, with the Holy Spirit,
in the glory of God the Father, is one God for ever and ever, amen.
This is silly of both of us! Prayer wars? Our Most Lady Theotokos and Ever-Virgin Mary, save us. Through the prayers of Thy Most Pure Mother, LORD Jesus Christ, Son of GOD, save us. Hail Mary, full of grace; the LORD is with thee. Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death. No ecumenical council has endorsed the Filioque of Saint Augustine. Augustine was simply mistaken on this, and long before Augustine died in 430 AD, the Catholic Church in 380 AD ruled and decided infallibly, along with the Pope of Rome, that the Holy Spirit “proceedeth from the Father”. God bless you, Water.
Blessed Augustine, you are with the LORD and the LORD is with you. You never wrote to contradict the Council of 381 AD, and you are innocent of teaching an eternal procession of Filioque as a dogma “necessary to salvation” as Aquinas said. You never said this.
scott,
The prayer I suggest is void of partisanship.
If that is true why did you not include Pope Gregory I, Pope Leo I, Pope Leo III, Pope John VIII, Saint Photius, Saint Gregory Palamas, and Saint Mark of Ephesus. But you are right you left out Thomas Aquinas, who was partisan. The East does not consider Photius to be partisan. The East considers Nicholas I the cause of a schism.
scott,
I included the early church fathers. A fairly wide distribution, and Mary our mother, the common link between us, a model of humility, and the one who leads us to Jesus.
I believe union with the Pope of Rome will be possible if the Pope of Rome acknowledges Pope Leo III and Pope John VIII as Catholic, and acknowledges as schismatic Pope Nicholas I, Pope Innocent III, Pope Boniface VIII, Pope Pius IX, Pope Eugene IV, Pope Benedict VIII, and any of the Popes whom the Orthodox Church considers to be schismatic and not Catholic. And if Rome follows Pope Leo III and Pope John VIII and anathematizes and condemns Filioque as heresy.
scott,
I believe that the Holy Spirit will lead us to unity if we only listen, rather than set preconditions.
Water: The only precondition to full Christian unity is the repentance of all Christians from whatever heresies they follow. If there are a few Christians who do not follow heresies, these Christians have the unity already, and do not need to repent of any false doctrines. But the Bible reveals all humans have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God, so all Christians need to repent of all of their sins and immorality. Orthodoxy, since 1054, has only had 2 major schism, those Greek bishops who betrayed Christ and signed union with Rome and Filioque, for which God Almighty punished Constantinople by the fall of her Orthodox Emperor. Some of the Patriarchs of Constantinople have been heretics, some of the Emperors of Constantinople have been heretics, Charlemagne was a heretic, and some of the Popes of Rome have been heretics. Anyone who believes in Filioque is a heretic. There can be no unity with heretics. There is currently a beginning of schism between Constantinople and Moscow, but Moscow is trying to prevent this. The Patriarch of Constantnople is violating the love of Christ and is trying to become a Byzantine Pope of Eastern Orthodoxy. Rome will have to give up Filioque, azymes, purgatory, immaculate conception of Mary, mandatory priestly celibacy, indulgences, works of supererogation, merits, papal infallibility, covering up sexual crimes, Scholasticism, rationalism, and any other errors. And Vatican I, Vatican II, Florence, Lyons, and her other false councils and traditions. This is obedience to the Holy Spirit. Who tells this to Rome from Christ.
scott,
In your fallible opinion that is.
Water, In your fallible opinion that my opinion is fallible, that is!
scott,
You are claiming infallibility for yourself?
Water. Your question is a straw man. False inference.
I am not infallible. I make plenty of mistakes. But infallible opinions can be held by fallible men.
Don’t you know that.
You claim papal infallibility, so what are you talking about.
I claim only the Church is infallible, and her Seven Ecumenical Councils and the Bible, the Creed of Constantinople I, 381 AD, and the consensus of all of the Church Fathers, East and West.
My opinion that Christian reunion depends on everyone giving up all heresies and doctrinal errors is self-evident. It cannot not be true. Even if the men are sinners and have immorality. But that’s impeccability. You said as much yourself. No member of the Church has ever been impeccable, not even St. Peter, St. Paul,St. Matthew Mark Luke John or St. Andrew.
scott,
Read your post: “Water, In your fallible opinion that my opinion is fallible, that is!”
Your words are clearly claiming that your opinion is infallible. No amount of obsfuscation is going to change that.
Your dodge. You claim the Pope of Rome has infallible opinions. That means your opinion that the Pope of Rome has infallible opinions must also be an infallible opinion. But then you question me for claiming to have an infallible opinion, as well. You do not play fair.
scott,
Ducking and diving is not going to help you. Besides you continue to display your ignorance of what papal infallibility by saying things like the pope having “infallible opinions”.
Water: Your words are clearly claiming that the Pope of Rome is infallible. No amount of obfuscation is going to change that fact. If you claim that the Pope of Rome is infallible, your claim that the Pope of Rome is infallible must be your infallible claim about that, too. No amount of your obfuscation is going to change that fact!
scott,
Ducking and diving.
The ducking and diving is yours. You have repeatedly dodged the question of how you know papal infallibility is true, unless your knowledge that the papacy is infallible is infallible knowledge in yourself. I have dodged nothing. I have already said I am not infallible. You have dodged my claim that knowing 2 plus 2 equal 4 as an infallible opinion does not require me to be personally infallible and incapable of error in other matters. The infallible opinion of all men who are not deluded is that no human being is infallible except Jesus Christ. And that the Virgin Mary was saved of her original sin by Christ, and was then saved by Christ and became immaculate and without personal sin. This is the tradition of the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church, which were the same Church until Rome followed the Franks and became Frankish with Filioque, a heresy, and falsely claimed that it alone is the Catholic Church. You can call yourself or the Church anything you want, but that does not prove Rome today is the Catholic Church and that Rome is Catholic for believing the Filioque. From the very fact that Rome once accepted Constantinople I without Filioque and Rome now rejects Constantinople I and adds Filioque proves Rome has changed and “Developed Doctrine” and therefore Rome is Frankish and Rome is Charlemagne and is there not Catholic; Rome today is neither Roman nor Catholic nor the Church, but is the heretical Frankish schism and heresy of Filioque of Charlemagne.
scott,
Mmm, your Protestant side showing up again.
Water. Your naked shameless bigotry violates the rules of speaking the truth in love and sharing one’s belief in peace and civility. This cannot be accepted and your words are slander. You told a lie when you said I am Protestant. You owe me an apology. If you can’t behave yourself, you should stop writing to me altogether with your lies and hatred. The internet is a place to discuss ideas rationally and without animosity toward anyone. I have no ill will toward you. You need to tone down the sectarian rhetoric a bit, dear brother. God bless you.
scott,
Animosity?
“The goal”.
“The goal of all goals
Is to fulfill a goal which fulfills all goals:
Which is to have a goal which fulfills all goals!”.
“Le but”.
«L’objectif de tous les objectifs
Est-ce pour atteindre un objectif qui remplit tous les objectifs:
Ce qui est d’avoir un objectif qui remplit tous les objectifs! ”.
Your obsession with labeling my repeated reference to Charlemagne, Franks, Germans as an “obsession” (sic), and your failure to see my repetition of this pivotal issue is the hermeneutic and epistemological key, the metaphysical key, to understand the origin and nature of schism, even the worst of all schism in Christian Church history. Your failure to understand my motive, which is to get at the truth behind the rebellion of the Pope of Rome from the Catholic Church in the name of the Franks and Germanization of early mediaeval Christendom and old Western Europe. I am no racist, and appreciate all the good things in the Orthodox Saints of the West, Germans, Saint Boniface, my ancestry, Germans 46 percent, British Isles, British, Irish, 26 percent, Scandinavians, Norway, Sweden, Finland, 11 percent, but I know “that which is of the flesh is flesh” (ancestors, endless genealogies, disputes about the “law”, and the “divine right” of “papal Rome”, but that which is of the Holy Spirit is Spirit. In our parish, we have converts from all “races”, ethnicity, culture, we are all just Americans and a few people from other nations, Indians, Eritreans, Russians, American Catholics and Protestants, people of German and Irish background, people who don’t care where their ancestors came to America from. Our priest had Russian ancestors, and he does not feel ashamed of that, but his mind is clear and he is rational and he says, “So what. This is not a “Russian” thing. Orthodoxy is not an ethnic, Greeks and Russians only club. It is Catholic, Catholicity, universality, adaptable to all languages and nations and cultures. The Russians went to Japan, and they adapted the liturgy in Japanese to Japanese culture, and prayed for the Japanese in the Russo-Japanese war of 1905.
scott,
A spade is a spade, no matter what you call it.
http://www.tektonics.org
III. ORTHODOX AND CATHOLIC THEOLOGICAL METHODOLOGY
A. Scripture and Tradition
I realize that the majority of those who will be reading this are neither Catholic nor Orthodox, yet due to the specific nature of the theological problem at hand, along with the parties who are chiefly involved in the dispute, my manner of dealing with it will necessarily require more than the simple analysis of Scripture. In order for this approach to make any sense at all, a word needs to be said regarding Scripture and Tradition, and the manner of authority which these two have, in light of eachother, in Catholicism and Orthodoxy. While it is my prayer that none will take offence, and it is my hope that the brief analysis below will bear fruit for Protestants even while remaining in their own Tradition, it must be confessed at the outset that the very state of the evidence itself is-it seems to me, and many others as well-so absolutely clear in this area, that it cannot be helped that I will sound as though I’m advancing an apologetic, though this is not directly my intention. I ask the reader to bear in mind that the only reason I bring this up is to place the Filioque within a context wherein it can be both understood and, if it is possible at all, settled.
According to the Catholic Church, the books of Scripture ‘present God’s own word in an unalterable form, and they make the voice of the holy Spirit sound again and again in the words of the prophets and apostles. It follows that all the preaching of the church, as indeed the entire Christian religion, should be nourished and ruled by sacred scripture.’ (DV, 21) Likewise, the Orthodox, for their part, affirm that the ‘Christian Church is a Scriptural Church: Orthodoxy believes this just as firmly, if not more firmly, than Protestantism. The Bible is the supreme expression of God’s revelation to the human race, and Christians must always be a “People of the Book”.’ (War-OC, 199) The fact that Catholics and Orthodox actually affirm this needs to be emphasized if for no other reason than the fact that it is often assumed, atleast implicitly, that we either ‘don’t go by the Bible’ or that we feel that we have some sort of right to go over it. Neither of these widespread assumptions is even close to the truth. Protestants, Catholic, and Orthodox all agree that Scripture is the authoritative word of God; that it cannot be gone against, and that all doctrine must come from Scripture. Insofar as all agree on this, we are on common ground.
A common distinction, which I accept, is made between formal sufficiency and material sufficiency. Catholics and Orthodox both maintain that Scripture is materially sufficient, yet deny that it is formally sufficient. The difference between the two can be thought of thusly: if a man wishes to build a house, and he has all of the brick, lumber, concrete, etc., that he needs in order to build it, he has all of the material he needs. Yet something is still lacking. He needs to know how to put it all together. That which is required for ‘putting it all together’ can be called formal sufficiency. The analogy isn’t perfect, but I think it gets the basic point across with sufficient clarity. And I don’t believe it is true that Protestants, at this point, wish to part company with us. Tekton has in no uncertain terms spoken out against those of the KJV-only mentality, showing that going by ‘the Bible alone’ can often be counter-productive, and this due to the fact that the Bible cannot be understood if it is taken out of context, which exaggerated forms of Sola Scriptura invite, albeit with the best intentions.
The Bible cannot be understood if it is taken out of context. At this point, I think it is safe to say that Catholics, Orthodox, and Protestants all agree. The question that arises is what constitutes the context within which Scripture must be read if it is to be understood properly? This, I believe, is where the parting of the ways occurs (though the distance between us should not be exaggerated regarding this point, and an attempt should be made to see how close we can come to one another without compromise or the forsaking what we believe to be essential-I believe that in this regard concord is not so far away as is often imagined). A very common and very sane answer, insofar as it goes, is to claim that we must go back to the original historical context of Scripture, and then we will be able to determine what, for example, ‘Saint Paul really said’. The Catholic Church, in claiming that ‘in order to discover the sacred authors’ intention, the reader must take into account the conditions of their time and culture, the literary genres in use at that time, and the modes of feeling, speaking, and narrating then current’ (CCC-110), shows its agreement with this principle. And while ‘hitherto Orthodox scholars have not been prominent in this field’, the Orthodox Church does not ‘forbid the critical and historical study of the Bible’. (War-OC, 201) Hence the historio-critical method of exegesis, which is without doubt the prime method of exegesis and doctrinal formulation employed, and employed very well, by Tekton, can be regarded as the common property of Protestants, Orthodox, and Catholics. The difference, however, is this-whereas (it seems) Protestants feel that this is, in toto, the whole of the context in which Scripture must be placed in order to properly understand it, Catholics and Orthodox believe that Scripture must be viewed within a Traditional-Ecclesial context, and that the historio-critical context is not enough by itself. [Ed. note: — Correct. My own view would say that such traditions may indeed be part of the interpretive context; whether they are indeed must be determined by formal analysis.]
Thus the Catholic Church claims that ‘the church does not draw its certainty about all revealed truths from the holy scriptures alone. Hence, both scripture and tradition must be accepted and honored with equal devotion and reverence.’ (DV, 9) Likewise, the Orthodox believe that ‘in the ocean of meanings which belong to the Spirit beyond the literal sense, no navigator can avoid going astray without the guidance of the same Spirit who hands down the understanding of them in the Church from generation to generation’, and therefore, ‘Scripture requires a tradition which is unchanged from the apostles. It represents another form of preserving and making use in its continuous effectiveness of that integral revelation fulfilled in Christ. … Tradition keeps this dynamism of the Scripture contemporary without changing it, for tradition represents an application and a continuous deepening of the content of Scripture.’ (Sta-ODT1, 45) So there isn’t a dichotomy between Scripture and Tradition according to the Catholic and Orthodox churches. Indeed, according to us ‘”Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, then, are bound closely together and communicate one with the other. For both of them, flowing out from the same divine well-spring, come together in some fashion to form one thing and move towards the same goal.” Each of them makes present and fruitful in the Church the mystery of Christ, who promised to remain with his own “always, to the close of the age.”‘ (CCC, 80)
C. The Mystical Word and Way
Before moving on, it seems appropriate to include a brief word regarding prayer and Scripture in the East and West. First of all, it must be stated that the meaning of Scripture is not confined simply to the historio-literal level (by “historio-literal” I understand “only the sense intended by the human author at the time when he wrote it”). In saying this, I don’t simply mean to affirm that we accept Tradition as an intrinsic to the hermeneutic of Christian epistemology; I mean to affirm that we recognize a mystical sense within Scripture. Classically, Scripture has been understood as containing four “senses”: the literal, the moral, the allegorical, and the anagogical.
The “literal” sense isn’t to be confused with what we mean when we accuse a KJV-onlyist of being a “literalist”; rather, “literal” in this context refers to the meaning intended by the human author at the time he wrote it. N. T. Wright and Ben Witherington are thus prime exemplars of exegetes who excel at finding and expounding the “literal” sense of Scripture. The “moral” sense, of course, refers to the practical application of Scripture. This is the sense of Scripture we are most likely to encounter at sermons on Sunday. The “allegorical” sense refers to the especially Christian sense which lies “underneath” the letter. Paul employs the allegorical method in Galatians 4:21-31 when he expounds the two covenants in light of Hagar and Sarah. Finally, the “anagogical” sense refers to eschatology. This doesn’t simply mean “the end times”, but rather, the illustration of eternal realities with reference to this-worldly happenings. An example of this would be the “theophany of the Trinity” at the baptism of Jesus, or the cross as the revelation of the love of God.
It seems to me that many Protestants think the literal sense (as defined above) to be sufficient for the formulation of doctrine, and with this I would strongly disagree. Though the literal sense cannot be overlooked or ignored (and it must be admitted that Christians have, in the past, been prone to commit this error), the literal sense does not exhaust the intent, nor the content, of Scripture. Hence it must be kept in mind that, for us, the mystical sense of Scripture (being the moral, allegorical, and anagogical) isn’t something that simply “may have bearing”, while lacking objective merit and, thus, belonging properly outside the domain of our theological hermeneutic. Rather, it is essential to it. A good introduction to this theme, for those interested in this topic (alongside those interested in knowing how Scripture was interpreted in the patristic and middle ages), is Henri De Lubac’s Scripture in the Tradition. This method of interpretation will be the primary means I employ when, in section VII, I use Scripture to explore the Trinity. Only the literal method, however, will be employed in section IV below. [Ed. note — Protestants have their own “allergorical” use of Scripture, only they tend to call it “homiletics”. In other words, they take a passage out of literal context and use it in a way that the literal sense could never intend. I find both methods questionable and open to abuse myself, but anyone who objects need to see if their own house is in order first. ]
Secondly, the importance of prayer in Catholic and Orthodox theology cannot be emphasized enough. By “prayer” I don’t simply mean “the act of asking God for things”, but rather, I understand an entire way of life, which is grounded in communion with God. As St. Gregory of Sinai says, “He who seeks to understand commandments without fulfilling commandments, and to acquire such understanding through learning and reading, is like a man who takes a shadow for truth. For the understanding of truth is given to those who have become participants in truth (who have tasted it through living). Those who are not participants in truth and are not initiated therein, when they seek this understanding, draw it from a distorted wisdom.” (PHIL 42) The important thing to grasp here is that knowing is equated with participation. And it is certainly to the point that St. Gregory states that the “final end of Orthodoxy is pure knowledge of [and therefore, “participation in”] the two dogmas of faith-the Trinity and the Duality”. (ibid., 43) [Ed. note — This actually is much closer to the purpose of prayer among the NT-era Jews.]
This point is crucial. It basically affirms that there is a one-one correspondence between “the life in Christ” and theology. Indeed, it is no accident that nearly the whole of great theological figures in the past were monks (people who lived, insofar as possible, exclusively toward God). It would miss the point to think that the only reason monks were theologians was because monks were, by and large, the only people educated enough to have the chance-the reason they were in such a position in the first place was due to their desire to renounce “the world” and give their entire self to God, and this is why they were great theologians. Any reading of the works of figures such as Origen, Gregory of Nyssa, Augustine, Maximus Confessor, Benedict, Symeon the New Theologian, Richard of St. Victor, Bonaventure, the Philokalia, or John of the Cross cannot but bring home this point with almost staggering force. These men were possessed by the Spirit of God, and their writings shine forth with a radiance that, when read in the same Spirit in which they were written, dazzles the heart. Athanasius was an ascetic and a follower of Antony of Egypt, who was the founder of monasticism, and it was to the monks that Athanasius constantly went when he was forced into exile. All of the Cappadocians were, in one way or another, partakers of the monastic life, as was Augustine. The genius of Thomas Aquinas emerged within the cloister and was formed within the solitude of prayer, and the theology of Hans urs von Balthasar is primarily a “theology from the knees”.
The life of prayer is thus a constant communion with God. As mentioned above, it isn’t simply “asking for things”, it is also a “listening”, a “seeking”, a “contemplating”. Scripture, within this context, is read slowly and meditated upon. The Word of God falls into the heart as a seed upon soil, and the Christian focuses upon it, and in surrendering to the Word we thereby perceive it to ever greater degrees-Scripture is not a still-shot that we are called to take account of, but rather the Word of God; a living garden we are invited to explore and participate in. Thus the reading of Scripture is itself a Trintarian event in the full sense of the phrase. And so too for everything in life. The life of prayer is centered, a life that begins and ends with surrendering to, openness toward, and participation in, God. It is a life consciously lived from the Spirit, in the Son, and toward the Father. For those interested, the Philokalia is an excellent source on this theme.
scott,
Great article.
I certainly disagree with: ” Christians must always be a “People of the Book”, in the sense that the following is true: ” the Catholic Church claims that ‘the church does not draw its certainty about all revealed truths from the holy scriptures alone. Hence, both scripture and tradition must be accepted and honored with equal devotion and reverence.’
the Orthodox believe that ‘in the ocean of meanings which belong to the Spirit beyond the literal sense, no navigator can avoid going astray without the guidance of the same Spirit who hands down the understanding of them in the Church from generation to generation’, and therefore, ‘Scripture requires a tradition which is unchanged from the apostles. It represents another form of preserving and making use in its continuous effectiveness of that integral revelation fulfilled in Christ. … Tradition keeps this dynamism of the Scripture contemporary without changing it, for tradition represents an application and a continuous deepening of the content of Scripture.’ ”
and also: ”
So there isn’t a dichotomy between Scripture and Tradition according to the Catholic and Orthodox churches. Indeed, according to us ‘”Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, then, are bound closely together and communicate one with the other. For both of them, flowing out from the same divine well-spring, come together in some fashion to form one thing and move towards the same goal.” Each of them makes present and fruitful in the Church the mystery of Christ, who promised to remain with his own “always, to the close of the age.”‘ (CCC, 80)”
as well as: “St. Gregory of Sinai says, “He who seeks to understand commandments without fulfilling commandments, and to acquire such understanding through learning and reading, is like a man who takes a shadow for truth. For the understanding of truth is given to those who have become participants in truth (who have tasted it through living). “
Recommended reading.
Bush, William. (1999). The Mystery of the Church. Salisbury, Massachusetts: Regina Orthodox Press.
http://www.tektonics.org
This “power” exists not in a vacuum, but in reality, and thus must be understood in light of the effects it brings about. Therefore, as evident in the economy of salvation, I recommend that the Spirit be thought of as characterized primarily as one who effects communion.
Before moving on, the personal nature of the Holy Spirit must be brought to the fore. The Spirit “leads” (Rom. 8:14) and “gives witness with our spirit”. (Rom. 8:16) Just as Christ “intercedes” for us (Rom. 8:34), so too the Spirit “helps us in our weakness” and “makes intercession for us with groanings that cannot be expressed”. (Rom. 8:26) The Spirit “scrutinizes” (2 Cor. 2:10) and “knows what lies at the depths of God” (2 Cor. 2:11), and therefore the Spirit can “teach” (2 Cor. 2:13) us “spiritual things in spiritual terms”. Just as the Father (2 Cor. 12:6) “accomplishes all”, so too the Spirit (2 Cor. 12:11) “produces all” as “he wills”; and just as the Father (Rom. 8:11) “gives life”, so to the Spirit (2 Cor. 3:6) “gives life”. We are to do nothing to “sadden” the Spirit (Eph. 4:30), and we are to receive the “joy that comes from” the Spirit. (1 Thess. 1:6)
A point which serves the double emphasis of highlighting the personhood of the Spirit, alongside leading us to an examination of the way the Spirit is related to the Son, is the close parallelism between the two. Yves Congar (Con-IBHS1 37-38) gives a list of such passages. “Righteousness”: Christ (2 Cor. 5:21), Spirit (Rom. 14:17); “Justified in”: Christ (Gal. 2:17), Spirit (1 Cor. 6:11); “In”: Christ (Rom. 8:1, 10), Spirit (Rom. 8:9); “Joy in”: Christ (Phil. 3:1), Spirit (Rom. 14:17); “Peace in”: Christ (Phil. 4:7), Spirit (Rom. 14:17); “Sanctified”: Christ (1 Cor. 1:2, 30), Spirit (Rom. 15:16; 2 Thess. 2:13); “Speaking from”: Christ (2 Cor. 2:17), Spirit (1 Cor. 12:3); “Fullness of”: Christ (Col. 2:10), Spirit (Eph. 5:18); “Dwelling place”: Christ (Eph. 2:21), Spirit (Eph. 2:22). This lists not only argues against imagining that the “functional” aspect of the Spirit automatically entails the negation of his personhood, it also suggests that the Son of God and the Spirit of God both share a similar relation to God, therefore mirroring each other regarding their origin therefrom (as opposed to the Filioque, which introduces a notable distinction). This, I suggest, is the strongest argument we have in the New Testament against the Filioque, and while Paul is quite capable of speaking of the Spirit as being the Spirit “of” the Son (Rom. 8:9, Gal. 4:6; Phil. 1:19), it would be an extreme anachronism to regard this as a “vindication” of the Filioque, since, first of all, Paul doesn’t specify how, exactly the Spirit is “of” the Son, and second, because “this fluid use of language most likely results from the fact that Paul’s concern with both Christ and the Spirit is not ontological (= the nature of their being God), but soteriological (= their role in salvation)”. (Fee-GEP 838)
The theme of the parallelism in function between the Son and Spirit is further born out by John (Con-IBHS1 55-56). “Given by the Father”: Son (3:16), Spirit (14:16); “With the disciples”: Son (3:22; 13:33; 14:20; 14:26), Spirit (14:16ff.); “World cannot receive”: Son (1:11; 5:53), Spirit (14:17); “World does not know, only believers know”: Son (14:19; 16:16ff.), Spirit (14:17); “Sent by the Father”: Son (5:37), Spirit (14:26); “Teaches”: Son (7:14ff.; 8:20; 18:37), Spirit (14:26); “Comes from the Father”: Son (16:28; 18:37), Spirit (15:26; 16:13, 7); “Bears witness”: Son (5:31ff.; 8:13ff.; 7:7), Spirit (15:26); “Speaks only what he has heard”: Son (7:17; 8:26, 28, 38; 12:49ff.; 14:10), Spirit (16:13); “Glorifies”: Son (17:1, 4), Spirit (16:14); “Unveils, communicates”: Son (4:25, 16:25), Spirit (16:13ff.); “Guides into truth”: Son (1:17; 5:33; 18:37; 14:6), Spirit (16:13). The list is impressive, and might seem to confirm what was suggested above regarding the Filioque, but there are a few factors that militate against immediately arriving at this conclusion.
First of all, John is the New Testament witness par excellence of Wisdom theology (see Ben Witherington’s John’s Wisdom for a comprehensive evaluation of this theme), and therefore we must take into account the theological motif of expression, whereby the person who comes from the other images his activity. (cf. Jn. 14:9-13) It cannot be denied that the Spirit is described as, in some manner, “coming from” the Son in John’s gospel. It is indeed worth pointing out that the “water”, which is the Spirit (Jn. 7:37), given by Jesus (Jn. 4:14), comes from the very heart of the Son (Jn. 19:34, cf. 19:30). Hence rather than suggesting that the parallel functions imply a symmetrical relation to the Father between the Spirit and the Son, the Johannine theological template of expression and image actually suggests the opposite.
Yet does John go so far as to suggest that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son “as from one principle”, in the (hardened and polemical) sense affirmed by those who argue for the Filioque. It seems to me that this conclusion has no warrant whatsoever within the gospel itself. In a series of passages, John states that the Spirit is “given” by the Father (Jn. 14:16) “in the name of” the Son (Jn. 14:26). The Spirit, in fact, “comes from” (“proceeds from”) the Father, and is “sent” by the Son “from the Father” (Jn. 15:26). It is worth mentioning at this point that this text is the key text used by the Orthodox for the refutation of the Filioque. In it, they see not only the affirmation of the fact that it is the Father (only) from whom the Spirit proceeds, but also an explanation of the texts that speak of the Spirit being “of” Christ and “sent” by Christ-the Spirit is sent by the Son in the economy, which is (clearly) distinguished from the Trinity ad intra. Against this two things can be said. First, whence the dichotomy between theology and economy? Does not Jn. 1:1,18, atleast in principle, suggest we adopt the opposite methodology? And second, the fact that the passage in question speaks of “the Spirit of truth” who proceeds from the Father suggests, in conjunction with the fact that this procession is expressly stated as being for “bearing witness” on behalf of the Son, that John is not here speaking at the level of “theology” (granting even that he would have recognized, still less accepted, such a dichotomy). I therefore conclude that John offers no evidence either for (in the sense which the East rejects it or against (in the sense which the West affirms it the Filioque. The real doctrine regarding the Son’s eternal relationship to the Spirit seems to me to be more subtle. We will give this a fuller exploration in section VII.
http://www.tektonics.org
C. Conclusion
After our brief overview of Scripture, I think that it must be affirmed that Scripture is not precise enough to either affirm or reject either the East or West’s doctrine of the procession of the Holy Spirit. What we have seen, however is the following. First, that the Spirit is the Spirit of God (the Father) in an absolutely primary sense. Hence the notion that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as from a single principle, if understood as meaning “in an absolutely identical manner”, must be regarded as without Scriptural warrant. This fact, however, avails our difficulty but little, for the simple reason that the West does, and always has, affirmed that the Spirit proceeds from the Father “principally”. Second, and this is, I think, the theme that must receive a stronghold on our attention in what follows, the Spirit is revealed as being essentially unitive. The import of this will become clearer in section VII. Finally, the New Testament suggests that the Son, in some manner, plays a role in the procession of the Spirit. At the very least it must be said that, while we can’t affirm this in any precise manner with certainty, we can certainly reject the negation of it. And this too is of little avail in resolving the issue for the reason that the East does not deny that the Son is absolutely foreign to the eternal origin of the Spirit. The Filioque, then, is an issue that cannot be settled on the basis of the testimony of Scripture-in fact, I think it is safe to say that the testimony of Scripture is fully compatible with both the East and the West, and that it rejects the doctrine of neither party. We now turn to the testimony of the fathers.
V. TRADITION AND THE FILIOQUE
A. Procession Primarily from the Father
That the procession of the Spirit is, in an unequaled and primary sense, from the Father, is a fact more born out at the implicit than explicit level within the testimony of the earliest fathers. The theological context for this claim can be found in J. P.’s article on the Holy Spirit, and since I have, in my article on Nicene Christology, gone some distance in illustrating this fact already, only a brief summary is necessary. The “Spirit of” is, in Scripture, almost always the Spirit “of God” (= “the Father”), with very few exceptions. Hence by implication alone we are bound to view the origin of the Spirit primarily in reference to the Father. In the Apologists (Justin Martyr, Second Apology 6; Athenegoras of Athens, Supplication for the Christians 10, etc.) this primacy of the Father is absolutely clear as well.
With Tertullian (Against Praxeas, 8), Hippolytus (Against Noetus, 10-11), and Novatian (The Trinity, 31), a more explicit teaching comes into view, and as we’ll see below, it is affirmed that the Son plays some role in the procession of the Spirit. At the same time, the monarchy of the Father is also a theological given. The primacy of the Father is even more clearly emphasized by Origen (On First Principles, 4:4), and the form given by him to this core datum of Christian theology passed into the teaching of the Nicenes, especially Athanasius (Orations Against the Arians, 3:3), and the Cappadocians (Gregory of Nazianzus, Oration 20:6-7; Basil of Caesarea, Epistolae 125:3), not to mention Hilary (The Trinity, 2:6), Didymus (The Trinity, 1:31), and Ambrose (The Faith, 1:2:16). Marius Victorinus (Against the Arians, 1:13-14), though it seems he operated in a theological context less dependant on Tradition (and more dependant on his own speculative power) also clearly affirms the monarchy of the Father. Following Ambrose and the faith of the Church, Augustine (The Trinity, 4:20:28) teaches the same. John Damascene (An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, 1:8-13) is, in my opinion, the most successful exponent of this fact (along with the father of the finest exposition of Trinitarian faith to be found in the patristic era, in my opinion), and I recommend that those who wish to enquire further read his An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, especially book I. Hence the monarchy of the Father is a fundamental affirmation of patristic Trinitarian theology in both the East and West. This affirmation must be kept in mind as we examine the evidence offered below regarding the Son’s role in the origin of the Spirit, along with being maintained by any who wish to be orthodox in their Trinitarian faith.
B. The Son’s Relation to the Origin of the Spirit
That the Father, then, is the sole principle of the Godhead–the Origin behind which nothing more can be sought (vonB-CC, 32)-is absolutely clear. Any tampering with this rock bottom foundation of Trinitarian theology is bound to lead to ‘shipwreck in the faith’. (1 Tim. 1:19) And let it be granted that the Western Tradition has articulated the doctrine of the Trinity in such a way that, even though never losing sight of this fact, it has obscured it to a point that, especially within the context of dialogue with the East, rapprochement has been burdened (see section VI. B below). On the other hand, as will be shown below, the Fathers of the Church also taught that the Son was, in some sense, involved in the procession of the Spirit. And as the West has tended to obscure the fact of the Father’s primacy, so too, I think it can be said that the East has failed to do justice to this fact.
The following texts are nothing new to Orthodox readers. Although he considers it something of an overstatement, Pelikan’s citation of Brehier, that ‘nothing can surpass the monotony of these erudite treatises on the Procession of the Holy Ghost … which repeat over and over again the same arguments and appeal continually to the same authorities’, (Pel-CT2, 184) does give voice to a somewhat commonplace sentiment. Hopefully my manner of utilizing these (see section VII.) will free me of the charge of monotony. At any rate, the passages oughtn’t be ignored, and deserve consideration as an element that is certain to play a role in unity, if unity is to be achieved. In citing these passages, I in no way use them as ‘proof-texts’ against Orthodoxy, imagining that their existence in itself ‘vidicates’ the Catholic Church.
All these promises find their confirmation when we believe in Christ, for it is he himself who summons us, through his Holy Spirit, with the words, ‘Come my children …’ St. Clement of Rome, 1 Clem. 22
… whose appointment with him is approved by Jesus Christ, and confirmed and ratified, according to his will, by his Holy Spirit. St. Ignatius of Antioch, Ep. Phil. salutation
The above passages from the two earliest post-Apostolic Fathers say nothing explicitly at the level of theology, and it is extremely dubious that any ‘unpacking of the texts’ would yield anything definite. On the other hand-and this fact must be kept in mind throughout our overview of the ante-Nicene fathers, an explicit distinction between theology and economy was not recognized, much less a dichotomy between the two. As with the New Testament, we are here merely granted that the Spirit of the Father is, in some sense, the Spirit of the Son.
(The Father) is ministered to in all things by his own Offspring, and by the latter’s Likeness: that is, by the Son and by the Holy Spirit, by the Word and by the Wisdom, whom all the angels serve and to whom they are subject. St. Irenaeus, Ag. Her. 4:7:4 The situation is different here. If we are willing to grant that Irenaeus speaks knowingly of the Son as Logos in anything like the Trinitarian theological sense of the term-and we ought to do this, since he speaks of the Logos as the ‘Offspring’ of the Father-it would also seem that talk of the Spirit as the Son’s ‘Likeness’ carries something by way of implication for the present issue. In saying this, again, I reiterate that I’m not trying to vindicate the Catholic side. I’m merely trying to point to common ground from which a solution might be sought after.
I believe that the Spirit proceeds not otherwise than from the Father through the Son. Tertullian, Ag. Prax. 4:1 Another helpful verse, but not definitive.
Anything which proceeds from another must necessarily be a second to that from which it proceeds; but it is not on that account separated from it. Where there is a second, however, there are two; and where there is a third, there are three. The Spirit, then, is third from God and the Son, just as the third from the root is the fruit from the stem, and third from the fountain is the stream from the river, and third from the sun is the apex of the ray. ibid. 8:7
Those of us who accept the Filioque readily welcome such passages as the above, but I would caution reading more into the above series of analogies (and the ‘and the Son’ phrase) than we need to. That Tertullian taught that the Son is intrinsic to the procession of the Spirit cannot be denied. Neither the East nor the West disagree. Equally certain is the fact that Tertullian did not leave any evidence that he believed in the Filioque in the form in which the East rejects it.
Thus the connection of the Father in the Son, and of the Son in the Paraclete, produces three who, though coherent, are distinct one from another. Tertullian, ibid. 25:1 Helpful, but not definitive.
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 the Holy Spirit is the most excellent and the first in order of all that was produced by the Father through Christ. Origen, Co. Joh. 2:6
First of all, Origen’s mode of expression needs a bit of explanation. ‘That he teaches subordinationism has been both affirmed and denied; St. Jerome does not hesitate to accuse him of doing so, while Gregory Thaumaturgos and St. Athanasius clear him of all suspicion. Modern authors like Regnon and Prat also acquit him.’ (Qua-P2, 77) I side with Ss. Athanasius and Thaumaturgos on this issue, for the reason that the assumption of Origen’s orthodoxy (on this issue) can cohere with his ‘subordinationist’ passages, whereas the assumption of his heterodox subordinationism cannot cohere with his orthodox passages. For example-
Third, they handed it down that the Holy Spirit is associated in honor and dignity with the Father and the Son. Origen, De. Pr. 1:4
For these very words ‘when’ and ‘never’ are terms of temporal significance, while whatever is said of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, is to be understood as transcending all time, all ages, and all eternity. For it is the Trinity alone which exceeds every sense in which not only ‘temporal’ but even ‘eternal’ may be understood. It is all other things, indeed, which are outside the Trinity, which are to be measured by times and ages. De. Pr. 4:4:1 In light of my conclusions in my essay on Nicene Christology-namely, that only if it is affirmed either that the Son was a contingent creation created ex nihilo, or that the Son is of a substance other than the Father, can an ante-Nicene Father be accused of heretical Christology-Origen’s Trinitarian theology is orthodox. His stating that the Spirit is ‘the most excellent and the first in order of all that was produced by the Father through Christ’ in no way means that he regarded the Spirit as a ‘creature’. Origen places the Spirit on the divine side of the divine/creature dichotomy.
But does such talk throw any light on the Filioque? The context of the passage seems to make it clear that Origen is speaking at the level of theology. Hence it seems fair to say that Origen speaks of ‘the eternal procession of the Spirit through the Son.’ (Con-HS3, 21) As such, the passage is helpful, but not definitive. As with Tertullian, Origen definitely teaches that the Son is intrinsic to the being of the hypostases of the Holy Spirit who proceeds from the Father. Any conclusions beyond this fact in favor of the Filioque would, however, be severely anachronistic.
And one Holy Spirit, having substance from God, and who is manifested-to men, that is-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. St. Gregory Thaumaturgus, Cr. The talk of being manifest to men through the Son seems to relegate the Son’s role to the level of economy, yet there seems no reason why we should take talk of ‘Image of the Son’ in any sense other than theological. A helpful passage, but not definitive.
Wherefore there is nothing either created or subservient in the Trinity, nor anything caused to be brought about, as if formerly it did not exist and was afterwards introduced.
Wherefore neither was the Son ever lacking to the Father, nor the Spirit to the Son; but without variation and without change, the same Trinity forever. ibid. Same as above. The fact that the Son intrinsically ‘has’ the Spirit doesn’t get to the bottom of the issue. Helpful, but not definitive.
Now we enter the Nicene era, and the passages therefore gain more force due to the context in which they were written. Yet is there anything therein to definitively settle the issue?
The peculiar relationship of the Son to the Father, such as we know it-we will find that the Spirit has this to the Son. And since the Son says, ‘everything whatsoever that the Father has is mine,’ we will discover all these things also in the Spirit, through the Son.
St. Athanasius, Ep. Ser. 3:1 — A substantial passage. The context at first glance seems to indicate that Athanasius is speaking at the level of theology. Can we conclude from his citation of Jn. 16:15, in relation to the Son, that Athanasius therefore believed that the Spirit ‘proceeds from the Father and Son as from a single principle’? I don’t think so, for in Ep. Ser. 1:11, when Athanasius was confronted with the objection that if the Spirit also proceeds from the Father, then the Spirit would therefore simply be another Son, Athanasius was given a prime opportunity to, if he believed in the Filioque, put the objection to rest. Yet instead he simply responds that it-
is enough to know that the Spirit is not a creature and is not listed along with created things, for nothing alien is associated with the Trinity, but it is inseparable and consistent in itself. This doctrine is enough for believers. Beyond that the cherubim cover with their wings.
http://www.tektonics.org
This would seem to indicate that Athanasius’ theological reflection on the Spirit is confined to the level of economy, and that he had not yet come to a definitive conclusion regarding the distinct mode of the Spirit’s subsistence in eternity. This is, of course, not to say that if the Church, upon further theological reflection, came to a definite conclusion regarding the procession of the Spirit that Athanasius would therefore be at odds with it. Yet I wonder at the soundness of posing such a dichotomy in the theological thought of the Nicenes. At the very least I think it is certain that they denied that the missions in the economy were totally unrelated to the manner of the hypostases subsistence in eternity.
Indeed, if the Trinity is eternal, the Spirit is not a creature, because he co-exists eternally with the Word and in him. St. Athanasius, Ep. Ser. 3:6
Again, helpful, but not definitive. From St. Athanasius we learn that the Son and Spirit are eternally related, and, I think it is safe to say, that the Son is involved-in some sense-in the origin of the Spirit. Yet it seems to me that Athanasius need not be seen as affirming anything more than that the Spirit proceeds through the Son. Certainly anything beyond this would lack justification from the texts.
The Father gives to the Son, and the Son shares with the Holy Spirit. For it is Jesus himself, not I, who says, ‘Everything is delivered to me by my Father,’ and of the Holy Spirit, he says, ‘When he, the Spirit of Truth shall come,’ and so forth, ‘he shall glorify me, for he shall receive of what is mine, and shall announce it to you.’ The Father through the Son with the Holy Spirit gives every gift. St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Ca. Lec. 16:24 It would seem a stretch to see more than a discussion at the economic level here.
Concerning the Holy Spirit, however, I ought not remain silent nor yet is it necessary to speak. Still, on account of those who do not know him, it is not possible for me to be silent. However, it is not necessary to speak of him who must be acknowledged, who is from the Father and the Son, his sources. St. Hilary of Poitiers, ibid. 2:29
He receives, therefore, from the Son, by whom also he is sent; and he proceeds from the Father. Now I ask you, is it the same to receive from the Son as it is to proceed from the Father? But even if it be believed that there is a difference between receiving from the Son and proceeding from the Father, certainly it will be admitted that to receive from the Son is one and the same as to receive from the Father. St. Hilary of Poitiers, ibid. 8:19
In the fact that before times eternal your Only-Begotten 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.
St. Hilary of Poitiers, De. Tr. 12:56 — Hilary’s doctrinal proximity, if not identity, with the Filioque is well documented. In fact, that ‘only the doctrine of the Filioque can make sense of the theology in Books II and VIII of Hilary’s On the Trinity’ (Pel-DCD, 126f.) shouldn’t even be contested. Yet on the other hand, it also needs to be kept in mind that Hilary did not displace the monarchy of God the Father in his affirmation of the Filioque-
The Father is he to whom all that exists owes its origin. He is in Christ, and through Christ he is the source of all things. Moreover, his existence is existence in itself, and he does not derive his existence from anywhere else. Rather, from himself and in himself he possesses the actuality of his being. … This is the truth of the mystery of God, and of the impenetrable nature which this name ‘Father’ expresses. St. Hilary of Poitiers, ibid. 2:6
Those properties, therefore, which are in the Son, are from those properties in the Father. … That which is in the Father is in the Son also; that which is in the Unbegotten is in the Only-Begotten also; one from the other, and both are one; not one made up of two, but one in the other … The Father is in the Son, because the Son is from him. The Son is in the Father, because his sonship has no other source-the Only-Begotten is in the Unbegotten, because the Only-Begotten is from the Unbegotten. St. Hilary of Poitiers, ibid. 3:4
It is important to note that in Hilary, we have the monarchy of the Father, procession through the Son, and the Filioque. The principle of perichoresis–the mutual indwelling of the divine persons-articulated in the last citation of Hilary is worth bearing in mind here. For now, I merely wish to reiterate that the manner in which Hilary affirmed the Filioque did not entail the denial of the essential monarchy of the Father within the Godhead.
The only-begotten Holy Spirit has neither the name of Son nor the appellation of Father, but is called “Holy Spirit”, and is not foreign to the Father. For the Only-begotten himself calls him “the Spirit of the Father,” and “will receive of mine,” so that he is reckoned 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 the Father and Son, of the Father and of the Son, a third by appellation.
St. Epiphanius of Salamis, Anch., 8 — As with Marius Victorinus below, Epiphanius speaks of the Spirit as being “begotten”, yet this doesn’t at all imply that he thought the Spirit therefore to be another “Son” (cf. ibid., 7: “The Holy Spirit is … not begotten … not a brother …”), rather, he simply means “generated”. Hanson says of Epiphanius that “if any ancient writer can be thought to support the Filioque it is he. The Spirit, he says, ‘is believed (to be) from Christ or from both’ (Father and Son), and he speaks of ‘the Holy Spirit from both, out of spirit’ (i.e., what God is), and of ‘the Son from whom he (the Spirit) receives, and the Father for whom he proceeds … (the Spirit) who is from the Father, who is from the Son’, and of the Spirit ‘proceeding from the Father and the Son … from Father and Son, with Father and Son.’ (Han-CDG, 788-789) Yet, as Hanson goes on to note, even with all of this, we cannot assign to Epiphanius a belief in the Filioque in the sense in which the East rejects it. There is no reason to believe-indeed, there is reason to disbelieve–that Epiphanius vocabulary operated within as nuanced a context as would arise in later years. Hence, as with most of the above, we can only conclude with confidence that for Epiphanius, the Son is intrinsic to the procession of the Spirit.
To live, then, is Christ; and to understand is the Spirit. Therefore the Spirit receives from Christ, Christ himself is from the Father-and in this way the Spirit too is from the Father. All, therefore, are one, but from the Father.
Marius Victorinus, Ag. Ar. 1:13-14 — The Spirit as receiving from the Son is from the Father, and the monarchy of the Father is clearly affirmed. Marius’s point is not, however, elaborated at great enough length to derive any substantial conclusions, but in my view, this is the most auspicious formulation we’ve seen yet. Unfortunately, Marius was, it might be said, too audaciously bold as a speculative theologian, hence his theological views cannot be taken for granted as reflecting the views of the entire Church. That said, given the fact that pneumatological reflection was, at this stage, still in its infancy, it seems fair to say that Marius’ reflections certainly seem within the bounds of what we’ve seen so far.
Know, then, that 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’, because where the Spirit is, there is life; and where there is life, there too the Holy Spirit. St. Ambrose of Milan, De Spirit. Sanct., 1:15:152
And when he (the Son) comes out from the Father he does not move from a place nor is he as if he were a body separating from a body, nor when he is in the Father is he as if he were a body contained in a body. The Holy Spirit, too, when he proceeds from the Father and from the Son is not separated. He is not separated from the Father, he is not separated from the Son.
St. Ambrose of Milan, ibid., 1:2:120 — Here it seems we actually do have a clear affirmation of the Filioque, yet we must qualify this with the same caution as with Epiphanius. Keeping that in mind, it must be admitted that to take Ambrose as affirming the Filioque in the sense defined by the Roman Catholic Church would be no difficult task; certainly he is the closest we have seen so far. Still, it must be maintained that Ambrose doesn’t obviously affirm the Filioque in the sense rejected by the East. At last we arrive at the Cappadocian Fathers, three of my favorite theologians. For those of us in the West, it is St. Augustine who has had the greatest influence on the Christian Tradition as we have received it, but ‘his place in Western Christian history has its counterpart in the joint achievement of three Eastern Christian thinkers belonging to the generation immediately following that of Nicea and preceding Augustine: Basil of Caesarea … his brother Gregory of Nyssa … and Gregory of Nazianzus’. (Pel-CCC, 6) Cappadocian theology is truly a thing of beauty, and to be joined to their prayer when reading their works has for me something like the effect of being mentally danced upon by a diamond studded rainbow, with flashes of light wrapping themselves around bewildering colors as they fall from the sky-one is left with the impression that they have been immersed in the rhythm of God. If it is St. Clement of Alexandria who told us that Christ is ‘the New Song’ (Ex. Gr. 1:7:3), it would seem that the Cappadocians teach us that God is also Eternal Dance. It truly is a blessing, of the highest order, that the Church was granted three such as these at the moment when Nicene Trinitarian theology was being given its definite shape. An aesthetic overtone accompanies the mind who seeks God on the path that they have cleared, wherein ‘our thought must be in continuous motion, pursuing now the one, now the three, and returning again to the unity; it must swing ceaselessly between the two poles of the antinomy, in order to attain to the contemplation’ of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. (Los-MTEC, 46) And I think that it is this above all else, this theology of motion–an ontological aesthetic-that can lead us back home. More on that later. As for the issue of the Filioque, can our search be settled with recourse to the Cappadocians?
Basil of Caesarea, the brother of Gregory of Nyssa, composed an important work entitled On the Holy Spirit sometime around the year 375 in which he defends the deity of the Holy Spirit against the pneumatomachoi, or ‘Spirit-fighters’, who were something like the last vestige of Arianism before its downfall six years later. Interestingly, the pneumatomachoi argued that the Spirit was a creature as opposed to claiming that he was an impersonal power, which is the stance advocated by modern Arians. In passing, it is also worth mentioning that in this work, Basil never once calls the Spirit ‘God’, choosing rather to elucidate on his functions and properties so as to perceive the person of the Spirit as he is encountered in Scripture, salvation history, and Tradition. This theological method, so distinct from the arid deductionism of heretics, no doubt finds its explanation in the fact that Basil was a monk (the founder of Eastern cenobitic monasticism) and therefore a mystical theologian. Theology is not a matter of deduction, it is a matter of perception–a series of footnotes appended to the experience of God in the worship of the Church.
Since, therefore, the Holy Spirit, from whom the whole abundance of good things is poured out upon creation, is linked with the Son, with whom he is inseparably joined, and has his existence from the Father as from a source, whence also he proceeds, he has this as the characteristic mark of the individuality of his person: that he was made known after the Son and with him, and that he subsists from the Father. …anyone who perceives the Father both perceives him by himself and likewise includes the Son in that perception. And anyone who perceives the Son does not separate him from the Spirit but, sequentially in order and conjointly in nature, expresses the faith so commingled in himself in the three together. And anyone who makes mention of the Spirit alone, does also embrace in this confession him of whom he is the Spirit. And since the Spirit is of Christ and of God, as Paul says, just as a man who grasps one end of a chain at the same time draws the other end to himself, so too, anyone who draws the Spirit, as the Prophet says thereby draws also the Son and the Father. … It is quite impossible to conceive of any sort of separation or division by which the Son could be thought of apart from the Father, or the Spirit disjoined from the Son; rather, the communion and the distinction apprehended in them, are, in a certain sense, inexpressible and unimaginable, since the continuity of their nature is never broken by the distinction of persons, nor are their notes of proper distinction ever confessed in their community of essence.
St. Basil of Caesarea, Ltr. Gr., 38:4 — Basil seems to make it clear that the Father is the sole source of the Spirit-his speaking of the Spirit as being “of Christ” cannot be taken as modifying the fact of the Father’s primacy in this regard. At the same time, it must be noted that for Basil each of the persons entails the other two and is presupposed by them as well. In other words, as with all of the above fathers, the Son is intrinsic to the being of the Spirit. But in what way does this tie into the procession of the Spirit? And if no clear answer is forthcoming to this question, what can be inferred given Basil’s ontology of communion?
The words of baptism are the same, and they declare that the relation of the Spirit to the Son equals that of the Son with the Father. If the Spirit is ranked with the Son, and the Son with the Father, then the Spirit is obviously ranked with the Father also.
St. Basil of Caesarea, De Spirit. Sanct., 17:43 — Without doubt Basil is speaking here at the level of theology. What, then, of the Spirit’s “relation to the Son” equaling that of the Son with the Father? The only thing that follows is that the Spirit is of the same essence as the Father and the Son, and not that the Spirit is in any sense “caused by” the Son in the same way that the Son is caused by the Father. It is wrong to use this passage as a direct support of the Filioque. However, as the next passages will show, there is something implicit in the order of the persons.
This is not our only proof that the Holy Spirit partakes of the fullness of divinity; the Spirit is described to be ‘of God’, not in the sense that all things are of God, but because he proceeds from the mouth of the Father, and is not begotten like the Son. … He is also called the Spirit ‘of Christ’, since he is naturally related to him. … Only the Spirit can adequately glorify the Lord: ‘He will glorify me,’ not as a creature, but as the Spirit of truth, since he himself is truth shining brightly. He is the Spirit of Wisdom, revealing Christ, the power of God and the Wisdom of God, in his own greatness. … The Spirit is glorified by his communion with the Father and the Son, and by the testimony of the Only-begotten: ‘every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven.’ Basil of Caesarea, ibid., 18:46
The way to divine knowledge ascends from one Spirit through the one Son to the one Father. Likewise, natural goodness, inherent holiness and royal dignity reaches from the Father through the Only-begotten to the Spirit. Thus we do not lose the true doctrine of one God by confessing the persons. Basil of Caesarea, ibid., 18:47
Here Basil undeniably describes the Son as intrinsic to the hypostasis of the Spirit at the level of ontology, and yet at the same time the monarchy of the Father is definitely affirmed. And it is worth mentioning that even though the Cappadocians distinguished between theology and economy, as we see here, there is a direct correlation between the two. From this I propose that it follows that we have the right to draw inferences-albeit cautiously-from the Trinity ad extra to the Trinity ad intra. Here we have the basic elements that, I believe, should serve as the foundation stones for readdressing the doctrine of the Filioque. First, the fact of communion, whereby each of the persons is intrinsic to the other two (albeit, necessarily, in absolutely distinct ways) at the level of ontology; second, the monarchy of the Father, who as Father (which, alongside denoting the Father as being the fontalis is also here a relational predication) is the source of both the Son and the Spirit (though he is not the Father of the Spirit); third, recognition of the fact that the Son is in some sense involved in the procession (“coming to be”, source, though not “cause”, at the ontological level) of the Spirit; and finally, that there is a correlation between the Trinity ad extra and the Trinity ad intra. But more on this in section VII.
Though Gregory of Nazianzus was capable of using analogies that seem to imply an order of sorts amongst the three persons, we would do better to emphasize the fact that he regarded the manner of subsistence as a mystery in the strict sense.
http://www.tektonics.org
The Father is the begetter and producer, but I mean without passion, timelessly and incorporeally. The Son is the offspring, and the Spirit the product. I do not know how to name them, altogether removing visible things. We will not dare to mention an overflow of goodness, which a certain Greek philosopher had the audacity to say, as if a certain bowl overflows. … Then let us not introduce the generation as involuntary, as some natural superfluity, hard to hold, least appropriate for opinions about deity. Thus stopping at our limits, we introduce the unbegotten and the begotten and the one which proceeds from the Father, as somewhere God himself, also the Word, says. St. Gregory Nazianzus, Orat. 3:2
What, then, is procession? Tell me first what is the unbegottness of the Father, and then I will physiologize for you on the generation of the Son and the procession of the Spirit, and we will both be stricken mad for prying into God’s mysteries. St. Gregory Nazianzus, Orat. 5:31:8
Keeping that in mind, Gregory of Nazianzus does seem to hold to a specific doctrine which may be relevant to our topic-that the persons are, in some sense, defined by their relations of opposition.
And when did the Father come into existence? There was not when he was not. And this is the case with the Son and the Holy Spirit. Ask me, again, and again I will answer you. When was the Son begotten? When the Father was not begotten. When did the Spirit proceed? When the Son was not proceeding but was timelessly begotten beyond reason. St. Gregory Nazianzus, ibid., 3
Therefore he did not later become a Father, for he has no beginning. Rightfully he is Father because he is not also Son. Just as rightfully he is Son because he is not also Father. St. Gregory Nazianzus, ibid., 4
… the Father is a name neither of a substance, O most clever ones, nor of an action, but that the Father is the name of the relation in which the Father is to the Son or the Son to the Father. St. Gregory of Nazianzus, ibid., 16
This theme will receive more attention when we come to Augustine, yet it should be noted that, for Gregory of Nazianzus, the force of this fact should not be exaggerated. As shown in the first passage above, Gregory believes in no “source” other than the Father. Were it to be argued that he believed the Son to be “directly” involved in the procession of the Spirit, it should be replied that we fail to gain this notion from any explicit statement in his writings themselves. That said, to think that his thought on this issue is capable of being developed in accordance with the principle of relations of opposition cannot, and should not, be rejected outright.
The first thing that should be noted regarding Gregory of Nyssa’s Trinitarian theology is that, as with Basil and the ante-Nicenes, he does not posit a dichotomy between theology and economy, but rather, “we see Gregory reading the ‘economic Trinity’ back into the ‘immanent Trinity’, by virtue of the thesis that all our terms for the latter are based on terms for the former.” (William Alston, Substance and the Trinity, in TIS, pg. 192)
But in reference to divine nature … every activity which pervades from God to creation and is named according to our manifold designs starts off from the Father, proceeds through the Son, and is completed by the Holy Spirit. St. Gregory of Nyssa, To Abl.
Therefore, when we ask from where this good thing came to us, we find through the guidance of the Scriptures that it is from the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. But though we presuppose that there are three persons and names, we do not reason that three lives have been given to us-individually one from each of them. It is the same life, activated by the Holy Spirit, prepared by the Son, and produced by the Father’s will. St. Gregory of Nyssa, ibid.
Thus also in reference to the word for deity, Christ is the power of God and the Wisdom of God. The power of oversight and beholding-which we say is deity, the Father, the God doing all things in Wisdom-effects through the Only-begotten, the Son who perfects all power in the Holy Spirit and judges. St. Gregory of Nyssa, ibid.
For, as it has been stated above, the principle of the power of oversight and beholding in Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is one. It starts off from the Father as from a spring; it is effected by the Son, and by the power of the Spirit completes its grace. … No postponement occurs, or is thought of, in the movement of divine will from the Father through the Son to the Spirit. But deity is one of the good names and thoughts, and not reasonably is the name to be used in the plural, since the unity of activity prevents a plural counting. St. Gregory of Nyssa, ibid.
Here we see clearly that for Gregory of Nyssa the unity of the operations ad extra serves as the basis for the perception of the Trinity ad intra.
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 before any vague and unfounded concept interposes between them, the Holy Spirit is also perceived conjointly. … since the Spirit is from the God of all things, he has for the cause of his being that from which the Only-begotten is light, through which True Light he shines forth. Neither on grounds of duration nor by reason of an alien nature can he be separated from the Father or from the Only-begotten. St. Gregory of Nyssa, Ag. Eun., 1
Hence I suggest that it is because of his adherence to the correlation of the economic and immanent Trinity that Gregory “not only teaches the divinity and consubstantiality of the Holy Spirit and his proceeding from the Father, but he also makes a deeper study of his relation to the Son than the two other Cappadocians.” (Qua-P3, 287)
And now we arrive at Augustine, who alongside being the most important witness amongst the fathers on this issue, is probably the greatest theologian in the patristic era. I won’t exaggerate this fact-indeed, I personally feel the allure of the Eastern fathers to be far more powerful than the Western, and am certainly more indebted to the influence of Origen, Athanasius, and Basil than to Tertullian, Ambrose, and Augustine. The Eastern fathers, it seems to me, show evidence of a theological vitality that is foreign to the West; what Pelikan calls ‘the “theological lag” of the West behind the East’. (Pel-CT2, 184) Let it not be assumed that I here wish to degrade the doctors and fathers of the West; it has far more to do with my own particular manner of thinking, which is (like that of the East) more “image-based” than analytic. In other words, for me, to say that the Son is the “radiance of the Father, who is the Source without source and the fountain of all being” is more intuitive and meaningful than to say that “the Father is God unbegotten, and the Son is God begotten; the two being alike in all things except for their distinct manners of subsistence”, however complimentary the two statements may be. That said, the greatness of Augustine-his Trinitarian theology included-cannot be emphasized enough. I won’t here offer a full analysis of Augustine’s Trinitarian theology, as I plan on doing this in the future.
Regarding the methodology of Augustine, it must be firmly stated that he does not allow Platonism, or “dry abstract philosophy”, to dominate his Trinitarian thought; in point of fact, the opposite is the truth. Augustine begins with Scripture (“first we must establish by the authority of the holy scriptures”, De Trin., 1:1:4), Tradition (“the purpose of all the Catholic commentators I have been able to read on the divine books”, ibid., 1:1:7), and the faith of the Church (“this also is my faith inasmuch as it is the Catholic faith”, ibid., 1:1:7), and only then does he turn to philosophical speculation, and this for the double purpose of refuting the heretics (who, it should be noted, don’t fail to philosophize, but fail to do it well, and further investigating the deposit of faith. Indeed, the very lay-out of his work on the Trinity makes this evident. Books 1 through 4 deal with Scriptural arguments, books 5 through 8 with logical coherence, and most of the remainder with speculation grounded on that which preceded. In other words, the theological method of Augustine is absolutely sound.
… Father and Son are one and the same being, seeing that the Father’s very “is” has reference not to himself, but to the Son, and that he has begotten this being, and by this being is whatever he is. So neither of them is with reference to himself, and each is said with reference to the other.
So we are left with the position that the Son is called being by way of relationship, with reference to the Father. And this leads us to the most unexpected conclusion that being is not being, or at least when you say “being” you point not to being but to relationship … St. Augustine, ibid., 7:1:2
So the Father and the Son are together one being and one greatness and one truth and one wisdom. But the Father and the Son are not both together one Word, because they are not both together one Son. Just as Son is referred to Father and is not said with reference to self, so too Word is referred to him whose Word it is when it is called “Word”. St. Augustine, ibid., 7:1:3
Here we see in Augustine the same doctrine expounded which we saw above in Gregory Nazianzus (and which was also present in the other Cappadocians as well)-that the persons are distinguished by the way they are related to each other. Yet there does seem to be a difference between the two, in that for Augustine, the relations by themselves served as the only possible distinction between the persons, whereas for the Cappadocians the relations do not, by themselves, constitute the sole distinction between the persons. In other words, for Augustine it would seem that the Father is not the Son because the Son is begotten; for the Cappadocians the Son who is begotten is the Son and because he is the Son (and not “because he is begotten”) he is not the Father.
At this point I think it should be said that the two doctrines of relationship are not mutually exclusive. It rather seems to me that Augustine has failed to fully develop the communion aspect of relationality-yet there doesn’t seem to be anything in such a development that would contradict or undermine what he wished to affirm regarding the divine unity. Also, it could, I think, be argued that the Cappadocians failed to draw all the conclusions which follow from the affirmation that the Father, Son, and Spirit are of one substance. Again, it doesn’t seem to me that such an endeavor would contradict what they wished to affirm regarding the real distinctions between the persons. For now it is sufficient to note that if the doctrine of relational identity is strictly adhered to, the doctrine of the Filioque follows as a matter of logical necessity. In other words, if the Spirit simply proceeds from the Father, then it would follow that he must be identical with the Son. The only way the Spirit can, if he proceeds from the Father, be distinct from the Son, is if he proceeds from the Son as well. In this case, the persons could be identified thusly: the Father is God-original, unbegotten and not proceeding; the Son is God-begotten, not unbegotten and not proceeding; the Spirit is God proceeding, not unbegotten and not begotten.
The major objections I have to such a schema are the following. It defines the Father by what he is not rather than what he is; in static rather than dynamic terms. Second, and as a result of the above, the personal relationship in communion seems to be relegated to the background. This is the exact opposite of what I think we need to affirm-we need to, I think, make personal communion intrinsic to the processions. But more on this in section VII below.
Augustine’s point of departure for affirming the Filioque is not the philosophical schema outlined above, but rather the testimony of Scripture.
Thus he says of the Holy Spirit, “When I have gone I shall send him to you.” Not “we shall send” but as though only the Son would send him, and not the Father too; while elsewhere he says, “These things have I spoken to you while remaining among you; but the advocate, the Holy Spirit whom the Father will send in my name, he will make all things clear to you.” Here again it sounds as if the Son is not going to send him, but only the Father. As in this case then, so with those words of his, “but it is for those it has been prepared for by my Father,” he wished himself to be understood together with the Father as preparing thrones of glory for whom he would. St. Augustine, ibid., 1:4:25
And just as for the Holy Spirit his being the gift of God means his proceeding from the Father, so his being sent means his being known to proceed from him. Nor, by the way, can we say that the Holy Spirit does not proceed from the Son as well; it is not without point that the same Spirit is called the Spirit of the Father and of the Son. And I cannot see what else he intended to signify when he breathed and said “Receive the Holy Spirit.” … By saying then, “Whom I will send you from the Father,” the Lord showed that the Spirit is both the Father’s and the Son’s. Elsewhere too, when he said, “whom the Father will send,” he added, “in my name.” He did not however say, “whom the Father will send from me” as he had said “whom I will send from the Father,” and thereby he indicated that the source of all godhead, or if you prefer it, of all deity, is the Father. So the Spirit who proceeds from the Father and the Son is traced back, on both counts, to him of whom the Son is born. St. Augustine, ibid., 4:5:29 Hence the double procession of the Spirit is, for Augustine, affirmed because it is biblical. This theological affirmation in no way entails the denial of the fact that the Father only is the “source of all godhead”. Only after the Scriptural evidence is affirmed can philosophical speculation serve the purposes of theology.
So because Father and Son and Holy Spirit are one God, and because God of course is holy and “God is spirit”, the triad can be called both holy and spirit. And yet that Holy Spirit whom we understand as being not the triad but in the triad, insofar as he is properly or peculiarly called the Holy Spirit, is so called relationship-wise, being referred to both Father and Son, since the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of the Father and of the Son. St. Augustine, ibid., 5:3:12
And with reason being used in order to defend what faith has already affirmed, the joint conclusion is subsumed under Augustine’s dominating theological template-that “God is Love”.
So the Holy Spirit is something common to Father and Son, whatever it is, or is their very commonness or communion, consubstantial and coeternal. Call this friendship, if it helps, but a better word for it is “Love”. And this too is substance because God is substance, and “God is Love”. St. Augustine, ibid., 6:1:7
Yet once again we must emphasize that the affirmation of the Filioque does not, for Augustine, entail the denial of the Father’s monarchy.
But the Son is born of the Father and the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father principally, and by the Father’s wholly timeless gift from both of them jointly. St. Augustine, ibid., 15:6:47
scott,
Tastes of honey.
http://www.tektonics.org
In bringing our analysis of Augustine to a close, I first wish to reaffirm the greatness of his achievement. His theological method is perfect, and should serve as an example for those of us who follow him. His relational ontology, though valid to a point, seems to me to be underdeveloped, and this both stunted the development of Trinitarian doctrine in the Latin West in later centuries (Ever wonder why an extremely muddled understanding of the Trinity which tends toward modalism is commonplace amongst fellow believers? This undoubtedly is part of the reason, though this statement must be qualified by mentioning that it is not true to the spirit of Augustine.), and made rapprochement with the East more difficult. That said, if we take personhood rather than substance as our theological point of departure for Trinitarian speculation, Augustine provides us with the ideal theological template within which to operate, and for this reason his relational ontology should, in my opinion, be affirmed and developed rather than rejected.
Finally, we come to John Damascene, who will be the last father we will be investigating. First, it must be pointed out that John explicitly rejects the Filioque, or at the very least materially so.
Further, it should be understood that we do not speak of the Father as derived from any one, but we speak of Him as the Father of the Son. And we do not speak of the Son as Cause or Father, but we speak of Him both as from the Father, and as the Son of the Father. And we speak likewise of the Holy Spirit as from the Father, and call Him the Spirit of the Father. And we do not speak of the Spirit as from the Son, but yet we call Him the Spirit of the Son. St. John Damascene, De Fide 1:8
The Father is the source and cause of the Son and the Holy Spirit: Father of the Son alone and producer of the Holy Spirit. The Son is Son, Word, Wisdom, Power, Image, Effulgence, Impress of the Father and derived from the Father. But the Holy Spirit is not the Son of the Father but the Spirit of the Father as proceeding from the Father. For there is no impulse without Spirit. And we speak also of the Spirit of the Son, not as through proceeding from Him … St. John Damascene, ibid., 1:12
It also must be kept in mind that John, in accordance with the Tradition of the Eastern fathers, confesses a strict agnosticism regarding what, exactly, constitutes “procession”, or the difference between procession and “generation” (the Son’s being “begotten”).
For no other generation is like to the generation of the Son of God, since no other is Son of God. For though the Holy Spirit proceedeth from the Father, yet this is not generative in character but processional. This is a different mode of existence, alike incomprehensible and unknown, just as is the generation of the Son. Wherefore all the qualities the Father has are the Son’s, save that the Father is unbegotten, and this exception involves no difference in essence nor dignity, but only a different mode of coming into existence. St. John Damascene, ibid., 1:8
Hence if, as I argued above, in such language as “the Spirit of the Son”, there is nothing to stop us from thinking that the Filioque may be entailed at the implicit level, here we have unambiguous evidence that there is no reason to imagine that the author in question is operating under such assumptions. Yet it would be false to simply take this as an absolute exclusion of the Son in the eternal subsistence of the Spirit.
And when I think of the relation of the three subsistences to each other, I perceive that the Father is super-essential Sun, source of goodness, fathomless sea of essence, reason, wisdom, power, light, divinity: the generating and productive source of good hidden in it. He Himself then is mind, the depth of reason, begetter of the Word, and through the Word the Producer of the revealing Spirit. And to put it shortly, the Father has no reason, wisdom, power, will, save the Son Who is the only power of the Father the immediate cause of the creation of the universe: as perfect subsistence begotten of perfect subsistence in a manner known to Himself, Who is and is named the Son. 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. St. John Damascene, ibid., 1:12
The Son is the Father’s image, and the Spirit the Son’s, through which Christ dwelling in man makes him after his own image. The Holy Spirit is God, being between the unbegotten and the begotten, and united to the Father through the Son. St. John Damascene, ibid., 1:13
And thus we arrive at the heart of John Damascene’s Trinitarian theology, which is perichoresis–the mutual indwelling of the persons within one another. I consider this theme to be so important, and so necessary for rapprochement, that I here offer a lengthy passage from John Damascene.
For there is one essence, one goodness, one power, one will, one energy, one authority, one and the same, I repeat, not three resembling each other. But the three subsistences have one and the same movement. For each one of them is related as closely to the other as to itself: that is to say that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are one in all respects, save those of not being begotten, of birth and of procession. But it is by thought that the difference is perceived. For we recognise one God: but only in the attributes of Fatherhood, Sonship, and Procession, both in respect of cause and effect and perfection of subsistence, that is, manner of existence, do we perceive difference. For with reference to the uncircumscribed Deity we cannot speak of separation in space, as we can in our own case. For the subsistences dwell in one another, in no wise confused but cleaving together, according to the word of the Lord, “I am in the father, and the father in Me,” nor can one admit difference in will or judgment or energy or power or anything else whatsoever which may produce actual and absolute separation in our case. Wherefore we do not speak of three Gods, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, but rather of one God, the holy Trinity, the Son and Spirit being referred to one cause, and not compounded or coalesced according to the synaeresis of Sabellius. For, as we said, they are made one not so as to commingle, but so as to cleave to each other, and they have their being in each other without any coalescence or commingling. St. John Damascene, ibid., 1:8
So, what can be said about John’s stance regarding the Filioque? That John believed that the Father alone is the source, cause, and fount of godhead cannot be denied, and the force with which he advances this point makes it necessary to recognize this as a dominating theme of his Trinitarian theology which establishes a context within which to interpret the whole of his work. On the other hand, John seems clearly to advocate that each of the persons exists, in some sense, essentially in reference to the other two. In other words, there is an ontological entailment that obtains between all three of them; to speak of one implies the other two just as to speak of “left” implies something that is to the “right” of left. Within this logic of co-entailment, there is a clear distinction between the senses in which one entails the other two. The Father only is the fountain and cause in the active sense, and behind him there can be, in this sense, no hypostatic or ontological ground other than himself. The Son is begotten of the Father, thus finding his source in the Father. The Son constitutes the person of the Father (as the necessary object of his essential relationship), but it must be kept in mind that it is the Father who causes the Son, and therefore, the Father constitutes himself in the ultimate sense. The Son is related to the Spirit in a way that the Spirit is not related to the Son-” Further we do not speak of the Son of the Spirit, or of the Son as derived from the Spirit.” (St. John Damascene, ibid., 1:8) Though this relationship cannot be described in terms of causation, I think we can, without doing an injustice to John, claim that it is a relationship of constitution. For these reasons, I think that John Damascene offers us a Trinitarian theology that can and must serve as an essential point of departure for dialogue between the East and the West.
D. Conclusion
Hence it is my conclusion that, just as with Scripture, there is no sustained explicit pre post-Nicene evidence either for or against the Filioque. With Augustine, it cannot be claimed that his Trinitarian theology necessarily entails an affirmation of the Filioque in the sense in which the East rejects it; with Damascene, it cannot be claimed that his Trinitarian theology necessarily rejects the Filioque in the sense which the West affirms it. Perhaps it would be safer to claim that there seems to be a way of articulating the procession of the Spirit that can affirm the thrust of both the East and West’s Trinitarian theology. As was shown above (section II), both the East and West can develop the patristic statements to an extreme. Yet I believe that the evidence offered above proves unambiguously that such developments are the result of exaggerating certain of the patristic claims while obscuring others.
If a Catholic wishes to advance the claim that the Spirit proceeds from the Son in the exact same manner as the Spirit proceeds from the Father-causally, ontologically, and hypostatically, rather than constitutively-it can be, I think, clearly affirmed that the patristic testimony will not warrant such a claim. Even the fathers who offer (material) statements that do affirm the filioque either do so within a theological context wherein the monarchy of the Father is assumed, or offer qualifying statements that explicitly affirm the monarchy of the Father.
On the other hand, if an Orthodox wishes to advance the claim that the Son plays no part whatever in the procession of the Spirit or the constitution of the hypostasis of the Spirit, likewise, it can be countered that the patristic testimony will not accord with them. As was shown above, to simply relegate all talk of the Son’s involvement in the procession of the Spirit to the level of “economy” (as opposed to “theology”), as Lossky is wont to do when he claims that such patristic statements “usually refer to the mission of the Holy Spirit in the world [and by implication, not in eternity] through the mediation of the Son” (Los-MTEC, 55-56), is absolutely unwarranted. The fathers, though distinguishing between theology and economy, clearly affirmed the correlation between the two such that the activity of the Trinity in the economy depends on the manner in which the persons subsist in eternity, and therefore, according to the logic of patristic thought, theology can be inferred from economy and economy serves as the point of departure for theological speculation. What the situation requires from both sides is not the mere repetition of the fathers, but rather the adoption of the spirit of the fathers. To simply “repeat” the testimony of the ages that preceded us would be absolutely contrary to this spirit. And if, to this the Orthodox point out the content agnosticism of certain of the fathers (Gregory of Nazianzus, Damascene) regarding the procession of the Spirit and claim that to advance beyond this agnosticism is unwarranted, it is sufficient to point out that Irenaeus claimed that, with regards to the generation of the Son, “If anyone says to us ‘how then was the Son produced by the Father?’, we reply to him that no man understands that production or generation or calling or by whatever name one may describe his generation, which is in fact altogether indescribable”, (Ag. Her. 2:28:6), and yet this did not stop Alexander, Athanasius, Gregory of Nyssa and others from forming more definite and exact statements, in accord with the deposit of faith and worship of the Church, when the situation called for it. And, with regards to the procession of the Spirit, the situation certainly calls for a similar effort on our part today. A simple repetition of the fathers’ words therefore is a departure from the fathers’ spirit, and had the fathers contented themselves with such an attitude in their day, Christianity would not only lack the vitality that is intrinsic to the life of the Church, but would probably either not exist at all, or never have gotten beyond the borders of Palestine.
As said above, within the context of the doctrine of the Filioque, the patristic era offers no clear testimony; what testimony it does offer excludes the extremes of both parties. All of the fathers agree that the Father only is the source, cause, and fount of the godhead. This is just as clear in Tertullian as it is in Origen, in Hilary as in Athanasius, in Ambrose as in Basil, in Augustine as in Damascene-it was a constitutive element in the Trinitarian theology of the entire patristic era. There is also a clear affirmation that the Son is involved in the procession of the Spirit, a teaching found in Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen, Gregory Thaumaturgus, Athanasius, Hilary, Didymus, Epiphanius, Basil, Gregory of Nyssa, Ambrose, Augustine, John Damascene, and others. There is no clear affirmation that the Son plays no part at all in the procession of the Spirit, and there is likewise no clear affirmation that the Son’s role in the procession of the Spirit entails his being, in any sense, “font”, “origin”, “source”, or “cause” in the same sense as the Father. What is needed is for, in accordance with the testimony of the fathers and worship of the Church, this doctrine to be developed. Who, then, is willing to, in submitting to the same Spirit, become a new father of the Church in our day?
VI. RE-EXAMINATION OF POINTS OF CONCORD
A. Father as Sole Principle
B. The Son as Not Un-related to the Procession of the Spirit
VII. TOWARDS UNITY
A. Firm Rejection of Placing the Substance before the Persons
B. Firm Rejection of the Photian Disjunct
C. Causation
D. Answers to Zizioulas’ Questions
E. Tentative Conclusions
scott,
Written by someone after my own heart.
Augustine’s method is not perfect. What we need is epistemology and experience and faith in action, not limit to orthodox reading or patristics, as necessary as those are for Orthodox Catholics, but sacramental life in the Church. And humility. What matters is not Augustine’s speculation and philosophy, which you prize and honor too much, his Filioque, but his humility, which also shows in the fact that he never pontificated about Filioque or made anyone anathema for not believing in Filioque as dogma, or a part of soteriology and ecclesiology.
Augustine’s theological method is not perfect.
Augustine’s theological humility is perfect.
Humility is more important than intellect and pride of philosophy. Or knowledge of Plato and Aristotle.
George Orwell’s Six Rules For Great Writing
How to write clearly and effectively
Anselm of Canterbury. On the Procession of the Holy Spirit. De processione Spiritus Sancti.
THE PROCESSION OF THE
HOLY SPIRIT
1
(De Processione Spiritus Sancti)
I
That the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son, as we Latins con-
fess, is denied by the Greeks. They also reject our Latin teachers
whom we follow with respect to this [doctrine]. But together with
us they revere the Gospels; and in other regards they believe about
the trine and one God exactly the same thing as do we, who are
firmly established in this very doctrine. Therefore, if they prefer
to assent to a solid truth rather than to contend for a hollow vic-
tory, I hope that on the basis of what they confess without hesi-
tation and by the help of this same Holy Spirit they can be led
rationally to what they do not yet accept. There are many men
who are capable of accomplishing this task better than I. Never-
theless, since it is imposed upon me by many whose request I dare
not resist
—
not only because of the obligation to love the truth
but especially because of their love and religious desire
—
I call
upon this same Holy Spirit to deign to guide me to this end. In
this hope, then, I shall undertake what these men request; and I
shall use the faith of the Greeks, together with the doctrines which
the Greeks both believe and confess unhesitatingly, as the most
certain premises for proving what they do not believe. And on ac-
count of the lowliness of my knowledge I shall leave deeper mat-
ters to the more learned.
Indeed, the Greeks believe that God is one and unique and per-
fect, that He has no parts, and that He is as a whole whatever He
is. They also confess that He is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in the
following way: Whether He is spoken of as Father or Son or Holy
Spirit (one at a time), or spoken of (two at a time) as Father and
Son or as Father and Holy Spirit or as Son and Holy Spirit, or
(three at a time) as Father and Son and Holy Spirit, the same
whole and perfect God is designated
—
even though the name “Fa-
ther” or the name “Son” does not signify the same thing as does
466
1
Completed in England no later than the summer of 1102. The Nicene Creed
(i.e., the Nicene-Constantinople Creed of 381) is under discussion throughout
this treatise. To this creed the Latin Church added the word “
filioque
”.
the name “God.” For it is not the same thing to be God as it is to
be Father or Son. Now, the name “Holy Spirit” is construed as a
relational name, because the Holy Spirit is understood to be
some-
one’s
spirit. Although the Father is a spirit and is holy, and al-
though the Son is a spirit and is holy, nevertheless the Father is
not anyone’s spirit and the Son is not anyone’s spirit
—
as the Holy
Spirit is someone’s spirit. For He is the spirit of God and the spir-
it of the Father and the Son. For although the Greeks deny that
the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son, they do not deny that He
is the spirit of the Son.
The Greeks also believe and confess that God exists from God
by being begotten and that God exists from God by proceeding;
for God the Son exists from God the Father by being begotten,
and God the Holy Spirit exists from God the Father by proceed-
ing. They do not think that the one who is begotten is a different
God from the one from whom He is begotten, or that the one who
proceeds [is a different God from the one from whom He pro-
ceeds]
—
even though God admits of plurality in accordance with
the names signifying that there is one from whom someone is be-
gotten and that there is one who is begotten from someone and
one who proceeds from someone. In accordance with this plural-
ity the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are plural and are dis-
tinct from one another. For when God is said to be Father, He is
signified to be the one from whom someone is begotten. And
when God is called Son, He is understood to be the one who is
begotten from someone. And when God is called Holy Spirit, then
because we mean thereby not simply spirit but the spirit-of-God,
God is shown to be the one who proceeds from someone.
Matthew 28 says all authority in heaven and earth is given to Christ alone. Christ says in the gospels apostolic succession is given equally to all of His Apostles, not to Peter above the Apostles. Peter was rebuked by Paul, but in your view, that couldn’t happen, since Peter is the authority. Peter has authority. But not the authority the Popes of Rome have stolen for themselves in the name of Peter. They are usurpers and heretics. There is heresy everywhere. I repented of heresy. I was heretical. Then Christ saved me of the Filioque heresy. Catholicism is in schism and heresy from Christ’s Church. Vatican I is false. There is no Saint Peter in Vatican I.
scott,
Spoken like a true Protestant.
Christ gave Peter the authority to say what Christ said, and Christ said “Who proceedeth from the Father” John 15:26 and Peter never said “Filioque”. Some of the Popes of Rome said “Filioque”, therefore these Popes of Rome do not have the authority of Peter. Succession from Peter depends upon Catholicity and Orthodoxy, and since 1054 AD Rome has lost its authority. It is that simple. Christ warned apostasy was possible; Christ promised the Church would endure, and the Church has endured. No member is sinless, but the Church Herself continues in Orthodoxy, and Orthodoxy has preserved the Original Catholic Church and Catholic Faith. Because of Filioque and other errors, Peter continues in Orthodoxy, but not in those who say Filioque, as Orthodoxy does not say Filioque. God judged those at Florence who said Filioque, and the wrath of God fell. Constantinople fell. But the Church remained in Mark of Ephesus, so God spared those Orthodox who did not bend to Rome’s Filioque heresy.
scott,
Propaganda.
Water: What you call propaganda is Scripture John 15:26.
What you call truth Filioque is propaganda (*Florence, council of propaganda, false council).
Florence contradicts Constantinople I 381 and Ephesus 431 AD.
Your ignorance of Church history is why you believe your own self-made Filioquist Frankish propaganda.
Holy Orthodox Popes of Rome, pray for us!
Deliver the later popes of Rome from their propaganda, their Filioque!
Peter’s successors never said Filioque. I once said Filioque. I was sinful. I am sinful. I have had sinful thoughts. I struggle against these. I ask the LORD to forgive me. And help me. The fact remains, some of the Popes of Rome defended Orthodoxy and forbad Filioque. These popes were Peter’s successors. Whoever follows Rome before the schism has Peter. After 1054, Rome went astray. Rome must return to Saint Peter and be what she once was. Catholic., She is now Frankish. It is that simple. If I fall away, I will be lost. Filioque is falling away. Rome must return to what she once was. She is in schism. She must repudiate her errors. She must recant Vatican I, Florence, Lyons, and other false traditions of men.
scott,
You are deluded.
Water: Your words “You are deluded” is a lie.
Here is proof for you that what I said was the truth. No delusion in me about this. Only when I sin do I suffer from delusion. I know the difference between delusion and truth. There is no delusion in denying Filioque. There is delusion in false dreams of the flesh. In these, I know I have a history of delusion. I reject these delusions and move on. Much of Christianity has a problem of delusions of the flesh. Blessed Saint Augustine struggled against these. His classic “Confessions”: shows he was wild for a time, but Christ saved him.
Truth about Saint Peter and Rome, Orthodox popes.
Return to Home Page
The Holy Orthodox Popes of Rome
In this present short work it is our aim to present a full list of the holy popes of Rome, a work which to our knowledge has never been carried out before in its Orthodox context. We feel that this task is particularly valuable at the present time for two reasons:
Firstly, Rome remains the historic centre of the Western Patriarchate and remains a holy place of Orthodox pilgrimage after that Patriarchate ceased to confess Orthodoxy. Indeed, the very word ‘pope’ is Greek, meaning ‘father’ and to this day the official title of the Patriarch of Alexandria remains ‘Pope of Alexandria’. Some fifteen popes were Greek and another six Syrian and the first Latin pope was St Victor (+ 198).
Secondly, although Rome has not been an Orthodox centre for a thousand years and has often ferociously attacked the Orthodox Church since then, it has nevertheless conserved important vestiges of Orthodoxy. However, with the passing of time, it seems to be losing these vestiges, abandoning even its saints. Some Roman Catholics themselves today doubt the survival of what for us are vestiges of Orthodoxy much into the third millennium. It would seem to us therefore that the following list would be useful for all.
Let us ask the prayers of these holy Orthodox popes of Rome of the first millennium, asking that, through their prayers, Rome and all it once represented and all that remains there of Orthodoxy may, with the third millennium, yet return to the Orthodox Faith of the first millennium. Let us pray that papal supremacy may one day become again papal primacy in its Orthodox sense. In praying to the past, we pray for the future, in calling on these Western Patriarchs, we pray for the salvation of the West, we pray for a West with saints, not a West without saints. And who will pray, if not we Orthodox?
We would remind readers that St. Peter was never a pope of Rome, indeed he was not a bishop at all, but an Apostle. This is the early tradition of the Church of Rome itself and therefore remains the tradition of the rest of the Orthodox Church today. Moreover St. Peter founded not the Church of Rome, but the Church of Antioch. The Church in Rome was founded by St. Paul. This is clear to any reader of the Acts of the Apostles and the Epistle of St. Paul to the Romans. In the following list, popes who already appear in all Eastern Orthodox calendars are marked with an asterisk.
St. Linus (+ c. 78), first pope, Martyr. A disciple of the Apostle Paul, he was consecrated by him. One of the Seventy Apostles, he is mentioned in 2 Timothy 4,21. He was pope for about twelve years and may have been martyred. Feast: 23 September (In the East 4 January and 5 November). *
St. Anacletus (Cletus) (+ c. 91), by origin a Greek from Athens and possibly a martyr. His name, correctly Anencletus, means ‘blameless’ (see Titus 1,7) and he may originally have been a slave. Feast: 26 April.
St. Clement of Rome (+ c. 101), martyr. One of the Seventy Apostles and a Church Father, he was consecrated by the Apostle Peter. He is mentioned in Philippians 4,3 and his letter to the Church of Corinth still exists. He was much venerated in the West in the early centuries and still today in the East. The church of San Clemente in Rome probably stands on the site of his house. According to tradition, he was banished to the Crimea and there martyred. Feast: 23 November (in the East 4 January, 22 April, 10 September and 25 November). *
St. Evaristus (+ c. 109), perhaps a martyr and almost certainly of Hellenic/Jewish origin. Feast: 26 October.
St. Alexander I (+ c. 116), the fifth pope and possible a martyr and by tradition a Roman. Feast: 3 March (in the East 16 March).*
St. Sixtus (Xystus) I (+ c. 125), possibly a martyr. A Roman of Greek origin. Feast: 3 April. *
St Telesphorus (+ c. 136), a martyr, Greek by origin. Feast: 5 January (in the East 22 February). *
St. Hyginus (+ c. 142), by origin a Greek philosopher from Athens. Also perhaps a martyr. Feast: 11 January.
St. Pius I (+ c. 155), from Aquilea, probably born a slave and perhaps the brother of Hermas who wrote ‘The Shepherd’. He defended the Church against Gnosticism. Possibly a martyr. Feast: 11 July.
St. Anicetus (+ 166) the tenth pope and of Syrian origin, he fixed the date of Easter, opposed the Gnostics, perhaps martyred. Feast: 17 April.
St. Soter (+ 174), of Greek descent, he may have been martyred. Feast: 22 April.
St. Eleutherius (+ 189), Greek, possibly martyred. Feast: 26 May.
St. Victor (+ 198), an African and the first Latin pope. A forceful character, he fought for Orthodoxy and against Gnosticism. He may have been martyred. Feast: 28 July. *
St. Zephyrinus (+ 217), of Greek descent. Although not a strong character, he still fought for Orthodoxy against Adoptionism and Modalism and may have been martyred for it. Feast: 26 August.
St. Callistus I (+ 222), the fifteenth pope and originally a slave. Pope Callistus, with his Greek name, was known for his mercifulness and defended married clergy against fanatics. He condemned modalism. Probably martyred. Feast: 14 October.
St. Urban I (+ 230), Roman, possibly martyred. Feast: 25 May.
St. Pontian (+ 235), Roman, he was persecuted for the faith and deported to Sardinia, where he died as a confessor. Feast: 19 November.
St. Antherus (+ 236), Greek and perhaps martyred. Feast: 3 January (5 August in East). *
St. Fabian (+ 250), Roman martyr. Described as an incomparable man, ‘his death matched the purity and goodness of his life’, he did much to help the poor. Feast: 20 January (5 August in the East). *
St. Cornelius (+ 253), the twentieth pope and a Roman, he was greatly helped by St Cyprian of Carthage in the struggle against novatian fanaticism. He was renowned for his mercifulness and died as a result of persecution. Feast: 16 September.
St. Lucius (+ 254), a Roman he was exiled as soon as he was elected in a persecution. Supported by St Cyprian, he was certainly a confessor and perhaps was martyred. Feast: 4 March.
St. Stephen I (+ 257), a Roman and a strong character, perhaps a martyr, he is well known for his argument with St Cyprian of Carthage about the baptism of heretics. St Stephen defended the view of economy, that invalid baptism outside the Church was made valid by entry into the Church, and there was no need to repeat the actual rite. Feast: 2 August. *
St. Sixtus II (+ 258), an Athenian. He was ‘a good and peace-loving man’ who was much helped by Dionysius, Bishop of Alexandria. He was martyred by beheading, together with his seven deacons, one of whom was St Lawrence. He was and is greatly venerated in the Orthodox Church, West and also East. Feast: 7 August (10 August in the East). *
St. Dionysius (Denis) (+ 268), one of the most important Roman popes of the third century. He was a learned Greek, who opposed several heresies, helped the persecuted and also reorganized the Church in Rome. Feast: 26 December.
St. Felix I (+ 274), the twenty-fifth pope. A Roman, he opposed the adoptianist heresy. Feast: 30 May.
St. Eutychian (+ 283), a native of Tuscany. Feast: 7 December.
St. Gaius (+ 296), possibly from Dalmatia. It seems that he was martyred together with his brother, a priest, and his children. Feast: 22 April (11 August in the East). *
St. Marcellinus (+ 304), possibly a martyr, and certainly a penitent for previous errors and apostasy. Feast: 2 June (7 June in the East). *
St. Marcellus I (+ 309), a confessor who died as a result of persecution. Feast: 16 January (7 June in the East). *
St. Eusebius (+ 310), the thirtieth pope and a Greek by origin. He was deported to Sicily by the Emperor and died there as a confessor. Feast: 17 August.
St. Miltiades (+ 314), probably from Rome, although he had a Greek name. The Emperor Constantine gave him a palace on the Lateran as his residence. He condemned Donatism. Feast: 10 December.
St. Sylvester I (+ 335), Roman. Feast: 31 December (2 January in the East). *
St. Mark (+ 336), Roman. Feast: 7 October.
St. Julius I (+ 352), Roman. A defender of St. Athanasius, this most Orthodox Pope condemned arianism. Feast: 12 April.
St. Liberius (+ 366). The thirty-fifth pope, he was not of strong character and even compromised the Faith at one point in his life, confessing arianism. However, like St Marcellinus, he then repented, atoned and is recognised as a saint of God. Feast: 27 August. *
St. Damasus (+ 384). Of Spanish origin, he was born in Rome in c. 305, the son of a priest. He fought for Orthodoxy and opposed several heresies. He did much to establish the Latin text of the Bible, developed the liturgy and the veneration of the Roman martyrs. Although as a new pope, he made several arrogant errors, he repented for these and was recognized as a saint at the end. Feast: 11 December.
St. Siricius (+ 399), Roman. An imperious man like St Damasus, he nevertheless forbade the harsh treatment of heretics and supported ascetics. He received the support of St Ambrose of Milan and opposed those who slandered the Mother of God. Feast: 26 November.
St. Anastasius I (+ 401). A man of poverty and apostolic mind, he did much to stop the spread of origenism. Feast: 19 December.
St Innocent I (+ 417). The son of St Anastasius I, he had an imperious character and thirty-six letters of his survive. He supported St John Chrysostom and condemned pelagianism. Feast: 28 July.
St Zosimus (+ 418), the fortieth Pope, by origin a Greek. Although initially he made many errors of tact and judgement, he was anti-pelagian. Feast: 26 December.
St Boniface I (+ 422), a Roman and son of a priest. He was kind, humble and fought for Orthodoxy. Feast: 4 September.
St Celestine I (+ 432). A strong character, he was active against pelagianism, he sent St. Germanus of Auxerre to Britain and St. Palladius to Ireland. He also strongly opposed nestorianism and supported St Cyril of Alexandria. Feast: 6 April (8 April in the East). *
St Sixtus III (+ 440), Roman. He vigorously opposed the heresies of both Pelagius and Nestorius. Feast: 28 March.
St. Leo I, ‘the Great’ (+ 461). He was born in Rome at the end of the fourth century. He was very energetic, opposed many heresies and protected Rome from the barbarian Huns and Vandals. His teaching on Christ was acclaimed by all the Orthodox at the Council of Chalcedon in 451. Feast: 11 April (In the East 18 February) *.
St. Hilary (+ 468), the forty-fifth pope and by origin Sardinian, he actively opposed many heresies. Feast: 28 February.
St. Simplicius (+ 483), he supported the Orthodox in the East against monophysitism. Feast: 10 March.
St. Felix II (+ 492), the son of a priest, he was also the grandfather of St. Gregory the Great. He sternly opposed monophysitism. Feast: 1 March.
St. Gelasius I (+ 496), African, but born in Rome. He helped the poor and was sternly opposed monophysitism. Of imperious character, he put the authority of the Pope on the same level as that of the Emperor. We have from him over a hundred letters or fragments and six theological works. He was the greatest Pope of the fifth century after St Leo. Feast: 21 November.
St. Anastasius II (+ 498), Roman and the son of a priest, he had a conciliatory character. Feast: 8 September/19 November.
St. Symmachus (+ 514), the fiftieth pope and by origin Sardinian, he was very active and a builder of churches. Feast: 19 July.
St. Hormisdas (+ 523), from Italy and father of St. Silverius (see below), he helped end the monophysite schism. Feast: 6 August.
St. John I (+ 526), Tuscan. A confessor, he suffered much from the Arian Goth Theodoric, King of Italy. He was immediately revered as a saint on his repose. Feast: 18 May.
St. Felix III (+ 530), the fifty-third pope and saint in succession, he was greatly loved for his simplicity and almsgiving. He was succeeded by Boniface II, who was the first pope of Germanic origin, and John II, neither of whom is considered a saint. John II was the first pope to change names on assuming that office. Feast: 22 September.
St. Agapitus I (+ 536), the son of a priest, he opposed monophysitism and reposed in Constantinople. Feast: 22 April and 20 September (In the East 17 April). *
St. Silverius (+ 537), he was exiled to Asia Minor as a result of political intrigues. He later died in exile from starvation and various hardships and injustices. He was venerated as a martyr for Orthodoxy. He was succeeded by five popes who are not saints. Feast: 20 June.
St. Gregory I, ‘the Great’ (in the East ‘the Dialogist’) (+ 604). One of only two popes to be called ‘the Great’ (with St. Leo), this able and energetic saint was possibly the greatest of all Roman popes. Known as ‘the Apostle of the English’, he also did much to convert the Lombards and the Goths. A true monk and ascetic, he wrote much about the monastic life, and was greatly concerned for liturgical life and the poor. Some 850 of his letters survive as well as other extremely important patristic and pastoral works, especially his Dialogues. Notably, he condemned as ‘antichrist’ any bishop who claimed universal jurisdiction and supremacy. Feast: 12 March. *
Boniface IV (+ 615). A follower of St Gregory the Great, he was also a true monk. Preceded by two popes who are not saints. Feast: 25 May.
Deusdedit I (+ 618), Roman. ‘Simple, devout, wise and shrewd’, he loved ordinary priests and did much for those then suffering from the plague. He was succeeded by five popes who are not saints. Feast: 8 November.
St. Martin I (+ 655), from Umbria. Condemning the monothelite heresy, he was arrested in Constantinople and starved to death. He was the last Pope of Rome to be martyred. He is widely venerated in the East. Feast: 12 November (In the East 14 April). *
St. Eugene I (+ 657), Roman. Famed for his mildness and kindness to the poor, this saintly man resisted threats to his life from the Emperor in Constantinople. Feast: 2 June.
St. Vitalian (+ 672), opposed monothelitism and appointed the first Greek Archbishop of Canterbury, St Theodore. Feast: 27 January (In the East 23 July). *
St. Agatho (+ 681), Sicilian of Greek origin. Preceded by two popes who are not saints, he was a kindly and generous man, who also helped call the Sixth Oecumenical Council and helped end monotheletism. Feast: 10 January (20 February in the East). *
St. Leo II (+ 683), Sicilian, possibly of Greek descent. He confirmed the condemnation of a predecessor, the heretical Pope Honorius I (+ 638), who had fallen into the monothelite heresy. He loved the poor and was also much concerned with church music. Feast: 3 July.
St. Benedict II (+ 685), Roman. He loved the poor and was humble-minded and gentle. Feast: 7 May.
St. Sergius I (+ 701), born in Palermo, he was a Syrian. Able and energetic, he did much for missionary work in England and northern Europe. He loved the liturgy and church singing and introduced the feast of the Exaltation of the Cross into the West. He was preceded by two popes who are not saints and succeeded by four other non-saints, two Greeks and two Syrians. Feast: 8 September.
St. Gregory II (+ 731), the most outstanding Roman pope of the eighth century An able leader, he condemned iconoclasm as a heresy and did much to encourage missionary work, like that of St Boniface among the German tribes. He restored churches and fostered the monastic life. Feast: 11 February.
St. Gregory III (+ 741), Syrian. He was acclaimed Pope by the crowds at his predecessor’s funeral. He vigorously opposed iconoclasm, built churches and had them adorned with frescos, and also encouraged the monastic life and fostered missionary work in northern Europe. Feast: 28 November.
St Zacharias (+ 752), a Greek and the last Orthodox saint in this see, he opposed iconoclasm, adorned churches with frescos, and did much for missionary work and peace all over western Europe. Feast: 15 March.
Readers will notice that information on many of the early popes is lacking. Many of these are also traditionally held to be martyrs, but there is some uncertainty about this. It should be added that many of the popes were opposed by antipopes, often heretics. This became more and more the case in the Middle Ages when the Orthodox period of the papacy is over and the institution becomes more political and worldly than religious and spiritual.
The reader will no doubt be struck by the fact so many of the early popes are revered as saints, indeed, the first fifty-three in continuous succession. If we take the period up till St Zacharias inclusive, of 90 popes, 68 are revered as saints. Perhaps even more striking is the fact that since St Zacharias, the last Orthodox Roman pope to be a saint, there have been no fewer than 173 popes. Of these only seven are today considered to be saints by the Vatican: one of these was Nicholas I, the notorious filioquist who condemned St Photius of Constantinople, another was Leo IX, the pope ultimately responsible for excommunicating Patriarch Michael of Constantinople in 1054.
Thus with our thoughts on the holy Orthodox popes of Rome, let us pray with one mind and one soul for the salvation of the once Orthodox lands of the West and their salvation in this new millennium.
Holy Orthodox Popes of Rome, pray to God for us!
Fr Andrew, 1999, revised and expanded 2005.
to top of page
scott,
There is plenty of evidence from the church fathers that Peter was the first bishop of Rome.
Paul did not found the church in Rome as is clear from the new testament, as when he got there the Roman church was already established.
American Vision. Gary DeMar. Powder Springs, GA.
http://www.americanvision.org
More fake news on Bible prophecy and the “rapture”
Oct 18, 2018 by Gary DeMar
According to a recent popular video on the rapture, “Evangelist Greg Laurie has suggested that a massive Jesus revival in America could lead to Christians being snatched from Earth, removing the U.S. from the End Times conflict.” But why couldn’t a massive Jesus revival in America instead lead to Christians changing America?
In his interview with PureFlix, Laurie “recalled that one of the earmarks of the Jesus movement of the 1960s and 1970s was that people believed Jesus was coming soon.” He went on to say, “we’ve never been closer to the return of Jesus than right now.” This means that for nearly 60 years millions of Christians have been preoccupied with the return of Jesus. It’s no wonder that our nation has lost much of its Christian foundation.
Let’s not forget that books by Hal Lindsey and Chuck Smith predicted that the “rapture” would take place before 1988. That was 30 years ago. The Bible passages that were used in the 1970s to “prove” that the “rapture” would take place 40 years from 1948 (=1988) are the same passages Laurie and others are using today to claim the rapture is near.
He went on to speculate on why the United States and North Korea are not mentioned in end-time prophecy. The answer is simple: the prophetic material in the New Testament is about events that were to happen to that first-century generation leading up to the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. Jesus was clear on this point: “This generation will not pass away until all these things take place” (Matt. 24:34). “This generation” always refers to the generation to whom Jesus was speaking (23:36; 10:23; 11:16; 12:39, 41, 42; 45; Luke 11:50, 51; 17:25).
In “America, Antichrist, and the End of Days,” a talk he gave earlier this year, Laurie focused on the antichrist. He began by claiming that there are over 100 passages in the Bible that talk about the antichrist.
“In fact, he will be a very charismatic world leader. A great orator, very convincing, probably very handsome.
“He is going to do things that no world leader has ever done before. He is going to solve the Middle East conflict, and is going to rid the world at least temporarily of terrorism. He is going to be hailed as the greatest peace talker that ever lived.”
The antichrist, he said, will even “get the Jewish nations and the Arab nations to sign a peace treaty that will pave the way for the long-awaited Third Temple [of which the New Testament says nothing]. The antichrist will be a satanic superman. But it’s all a mask hiding who he really is, [namely] the most evil man that ever lived.”
“The dominant force of the end times is going to be a confederation of ten nations led by an individual called the antichrist.”
What the Bible really says about antichrist
There are only four passages in the Bible that use the word ‘antichrist’ and Laurie does not mention any of them. Curiously, the book of Revelation does not use the word antichrist. Not one of these passages mentions anything that Laurie says about his version of antichrist. Read the passages for yourselves:
“Children, it is the last hour; and just as you heard that antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have appeared; from this we know that it is the last hour” (1 John 2:18). (“Now” refers to John’s day and audience.)
“Who is the liar but the one who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, the one who denies the Father and the Son” (1 John 2:22). (Notice that it’s not a political personage.)
“By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God; and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God; this is the spirit of the antichrist, of which you have heard that it is coming, and now it is already in the world” (1 John 4:2-3). (The antichrist was alive and well in John’s day: “now it is already in the world.”)
“For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is the deceiver and the antichrist” (2 John 7). (Past tense. There were many antichrists.)
Notice that there were “now many antichrists” (1 John 2:18). “Now” refers to John’s day. In 1 John 2:22, we find, “Who is the liar but the one who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, the one who denies the Father and the Son.” In 2 John 7, we find the biblical definition that compliments what we read in 1 John 2:22: “For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is the deceiver and the antichrist.” “Have gone out.” This is a “when” passage. John’s describing his day.
In his latest interview, Laurie speculated, “We know that the players of the last days will be the forces united under the anti-Christ going into a great battle in the battle of Armageddon with the kings of the East.” Really? Where does John say this? He doesn’t.
John’s definition of antichrist is exclusively theological. Nothing is said about a charismatic leader, solving the Middle East conflict, ridding the world temporarily of terrorism, getting the Jewish nations and the Arab nations to sign a peace treaty that will pave the way for the long-awaited Third Temple, a satanic superman, namely, “the most evil man that ever lived.” Nowhere do we find John describing a ten-nation confederation led by an or the antichrist.
John was describing antichrists (plural) in his day as evidence that “it is the last hour” (1 John 2:18). What did John mean by “the last hour”? It’s a reference to the prophecy Jesus made in the Olivet Discourse (Matt. 24; Mark 13; Luke 21) and other places (Luke 11:46-52; 13:34-35; 17:22-37; 19:41-44) that a prophetic event was going to take place before their generation passed away. When John wrote his first epistle, the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 was very near. For a verse-by-verse study of Matthew 24, see my books Last Days Madness1 , Wars and Rumors of Wars, and my shorter study Is Jesus Coming Soon?
Conclusion
The definition of an antichrist is self-evident: It’s someone who denies that Jesus had come in the flesh and thereby “denies the Father and the Son” (1 John 2:22). Who does John have in mind? The antichrists were most likely the unbelieving Jews of Jesus’ day. The early adversaries of Jesus and the gospel message were Jews as were the earlier believers. Jews denied Jesus as the true temple and lamb of God (John 1:29; 2:19; 8:59; Matt. 12:14; John 10:31; 11:8).
Laurie also believes in something called “the rapture” when the church (Christian believers) will be taken to heaven prior to a seven-year period that encompasses a period of Great Tribulation when billions of people will be slaughtered, including millions of Jews, God’s “chosen people.” He writes, “there are perhaps 50 million legitimate Christians in America today.”
If this is true, and those 50 million Christians acted as a block in every area of life, including politics, wouldn’t this mean a radical transformation of the United States? Instead, Laurie is looking for an escape hatch known as the “rapture.”
Notes:
Laurie mentions the Man of Lawlessness (2 Thess. 2). Last Days Madness includes two chapters on the Man of Lawlessness.(↩)
F
Is America becoming a fascist state? | The Tylt
https://thetylt.com/politics/america-becoming-fascist-state
President Trump has many worried that fascism is rising in America. From praising authoritarian dictators, calling the free press “the enemy of the people,” …
The Roman Catholic Church: Its Evils, and Why It Must Be Rejected
An Exposition of the Heresies and Innovations of Rome
and Anathemas and Condemnations Under Which She Falls
Pope Paul VI (1963-1978) wearing one of the Papal triple-tiaras, symbolizing his authority over heaven, earth, and the underworld.Pope Paul VI, born aloft on his throne as he arrives at the Vatican to open a session of the “20th Ecumenical Council”, Vatican II.
ABOVE LEFT: Pope Paul VI (1963-1978) wearing one of the Papal triple-tiaras, symbolizing his authority over heaven, earth, and the underworld, which each Pope receives with the words: “Receive the tiara adorned with three crowns, and know that thou art the Father of Princes and Kings, the Ruler of the World; the Vicar of Our Savior Jesus Christ…”
ABOVE RIGHT: Pope Paul VI, born aloft on his throne as he arrives at the Vatican to open a session of the “20th Ecumenical Council”, Vatican II.
Introductory Page
“The Pope is of so great dignity and so exalted that he is not mere man, but as it were God, and the vicar of God…Hence the Pope is crowned with a triple crown, as king of heaven and of earth and of the lower regions…As to papal authority, the Pope is as it were God on earth, Sole sovereign of all the faithful of Christ, chief king of kings, having a plentitude of unbroken power, entrusted by the omnipotent God to govern the earthly and heavenly kingdoms…The Pope is of so great authority and power, that he is able to modify, declare, or interpret even Divine laws.”
– Summary of the Papal definitions concerning the office of the Pope; From a Papally-endorsed encyclopedia, Lucius Ferraris, Prompta Bibliotheca Canonica, Juridica, Moralis, Theologica, Ascetica, Polemica, Rubristica, Historica (“Handy Canonical, Juridical, Moral, Theological, Ascetical, Polemical, Rubrical, Historical Library”), vol. 5, “Papa (Pope)” article 2 [see also J. P. Migne, 1858 edition, column 1823, Latin] (#1, 13, 18, & 30).
A detail of the current official seal of Pope John Paul II, including the triple-tiara symbolizing his supposed three kingdoms (heaven, earth, and the underworld) and the keys of the kingdom of heaven, supposedly entrusted to the Roman Pontiffs.
ABOVE: A detail of the current official seal of Pope John Paul II, including the triple-tiara symbolizing his supposed three kingdoms (heaven, earth, and the underworld) and the keys of the kingdom of heaven, supposedly entrusted to the Roman Pontiffs.
“The Pope is…the man on earth who represents the Son of God, who ‘takes the place’ of the Second Person of the omnipotent God of the Trinity.”-Pope John Paul II, Crossing the Threshold of Hope, p. 3
1. The Roman Catholic Church teaches that the Pope is “Christ on Earth” and all that follows from this: the claims of the Popes to Universal Sovereignty, Authority, and Doctrinal Infallibility
A. The Audacious Papal Claims
“We hold upon this earth the place of God Almighty.” – Pope Leo XIII, Praeclara Gratulationis Publicae, or “Reunion of Christendom” (June 20, 1894)
“… Therefore, of the one and only Church there is one Body and one Head, not two Heads like a monster; that is, Christ and the Vicar [Substitute] of Christ…. Therefore, if the Greeks or others should say that they are not confided to Peter and to his successors, they must confess not being the sheep of Christ, since Our Lord says in John “there is one sheepfold and one shepherd”… Thus is accomplished the prophecy of Jeremias…: “Behold today I have placed you over nations, and over kingdoms and the rest”… This authority, however, is not human but rather Divine, granted to Peter by a Divine word…, the Lord saying to Peter himself, “Whatsoever you shall bind on earth, shall be bound also in Heaven” etc., (Mt 16:19). Therefore whoever resists this power thus ordained by God, resists the ordinance of God (Rom 13:2)….Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” – Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam, November 18, 1302
“The pope is not only the representative of Jesus Christ, but he is Jesus Christ Himself hidden under the veil of the flesh. Does the pope speak? It is Jesus Christ who speaks. Does the pope accord a favour or pronounce an anathema? It is Jesus Christ who accords the favour or pronounces that anathema. So that when the pope speaks we have no business to examine.” – Pope ‘St.’ Pius X (interview quoted in the July 13, 1895 issue of “The Catholic National (Catholique Nationale)”, Paris, France, Benziger Brothers Publishing.).
“Therefore,… we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman Pontiff speaks from his throne (ex cathedra), that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, he possesses… infallibility… Therefore, such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church, irreformable. So then, should anyone… have the temerity to reject this definition of ours: let him be anathema.” – Papal ‘Ecumenical Council’ Vatican I, Decree of the Council (1870)
The audacious and blasphemous claims, such as those above, constitute reason #1 why no Christian can be associated with Roman Catholicism.
B. A Rebuttal of Roman Catholic Claims Concerning the Pope
“There is no one superior to God, or even like to Him, among all the beings that exist, nor is there any one in the Church greater than the bishop… Let all things therefore be done by you with good order in Christ. Let the laity be subject to the deacons; the deacons to the presbyters; the presbyters to the bishop; the bishop to Christ, even as He is to the Father.” – St. Ignatius of Antioch (+107 A.D.), Epistle to the Smyrneans
“To Pope Honorius, the heretic, anathema!” – 6th Ecumenical Council (681 A.D.), Session 16
“…this Synod by a vote of piety condemned those who taught their laities outright the heretical doctrine of a single will and of a single energy inherent in our one Lord and God Jesus Christ, among whom we cite by name Theodore the Bishop of Faran, Cyrus (the Patriarch) of Alexandria, Honorius Pope of Rome,… rejecting and anathematizing them, on the ground that its authors were enemies of the truth, and snorting and raving, had uttered blasphemous things against God and made unrighteousness the highest object of their study and meditation.” – 6th Ecumenical Council, reassembled at Trullo (692 A.D.), Canon 1.
2. The Addition of the Filioque to the Creed and the False Roman Catholic Theology of the Trinity, Especially the Dual Origin of the Holy Spirit from the Father and from the Son
“We declare that the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son, not as from two principles (principiis), but from one cause, not by two spirations (spirationibus) but by a single spiration… this is the unchangeable and true understanding of the orthodox Fathers and Doctors, Latin as well as Greek… we… condemn and reprobate those who presume to deny that the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son, as well as those who with rash boldness presume to affirm that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as from two principles (principiis) and not as from one.” – 2nd (Papal) ‘Ecumenical’ Council of Lyons (1274 A.D.), Decree for the Greeks
“… what the Holy Fathers and Doctors say, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son, tends to this understanding that by this is meant that the Son is also, according to the Greeks the cause, and according to the Latins the principle, of subsistence of the Holy Spirit, as is also the Father… We define also that the explication in the expression Filioque, [effected] in order to clarify the truth at a time of pressing need, was added to the Creed licitly and reasonably”. – (Papal) ‘Ecumenical’ Council of Ferrara-Florence (1439 A.D.), Decree for the Greeks
The Papacy contradicts the teaching of the Lord in the Gospel and of the ancient Church that the Father is the sole cause of the Holy Spirit, introducing instead the Son as cause as well as the Father; consequently, she has added this doctrine to the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, contrary to the prohibition of this by the Ecumenical Councils. The doctrinal innovation implies either that the Holy Spirit is compound and posterior in time to the Father and Son, or that the Father and the Son are not real or distinct persons, as will be shown in the rebuttal of papal claims below. For this cause she comes under the anathemas laid by the Apostles and Fathers on all who introduce another Gospel or heresy. Her addition to the Creed or “Symbol of Faith”, even if it were doctrinally orthodox, would still subject her to the anathema of the Church, which prohibited this explicitly. We shall discuss and prove this as well in the following document. This is reason #2 why no Christian can be associated with Roman Catholicism.
A. Rebuttal of Roman Catholic Theological Claims Concerning the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed and the Holy Trinity, Especially With Regard to the Origin of the Holy Spirit
“The Fathers defined everything perfectly; he who goes against this Symbol is anathema; no one adds, no one takes away” – 4th Ecumenical Council, gathered at Chalcedon (451 A.D.), Acta Concilia, II:1
“Nevertheless, even if we did not cite all these and other innovations of the Church of Rome, the mere citing of their addition of the Filioque to the Nicene Creed would be enough to subject them to a thousand anathemas. This innovation blasphemes the Holy Spirit, or more accurately, the entire Holy Trinity.” – St. Photios the Great, Pre-Conciliar Encyclical to the Eastern Patriarchs (867 A.D.)
“The Father is the sole Cause within the superessential Godhead.” – St. Dionysius the Areopagite (+119 A.D.), On the Divine Names 2.5 (PG 3:641D)
“All that the Father has is the Son’s except the being a cause” – St. Gregory the Theologian, who wrote the Creed (+4th Century A.D.)(P.G. 36, 252A)
“The Son is not called a Cause (in the Holy Trinity)…the Father is the single Cause of the Son and of the Spirit, of One by generation and of the Other by procession (ekporeusis) – but… the Latter is sent forth (proienai) through the Son, and in this way is shown the conjunction of essence and Their existing together unchangeable…” – St. Maximos the Confessor (+ 7th Century A.D.), Letter to Marinos of Cyprus (P.G. 91, 136A-B)
“All the terms, then, that are appropriate to the Father, such as Cause, Source, Begetter, are to be ascribed to the Father alone… And we speak also of the Spirit of the Son, not as though proceeding from Him, but as proceeding through Him from the Father. For the Father alone is a Cause.” “We speak of the Son neither as a Cause (aition) nor Father, but we speak of Him, both as being from the Father and as the Son of the Father. And we speak likewise of the Holy Spirit as being from the Father, and call Him the Spirit of the Father. We do not speak of the Spirit as being from the Son, but yet we call Him the Spirit of the Son (ek tou hyiou de to pneuma ou legomen, pneuma de hyiou onomazomen)… for we confess that the Spirit is manifested and imparted to us through the Son.” – St. John of Damascus (+ 8th century A.D.), The Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Book I, Ch. 12 & 8
scott,
“The doctrinal innovation implies either that the Holy Spirit is compound and posterior in time to the Father and Son, or that the Father and the Son are not real or distinct persons,”
Neither of these is true.
“For Athanasius says in his letter to Serapion: “In accord with the command of the Apostle (Tit. 3:10): After a first and second correction avoid a heretic, even those you might see flying through the air with Elijah or walking dry shod on the water like Peter and Moses; unless they profess just as we profess that the Holy Spirit is God naturally existing from God the Son, as the son also is naturally God begotten eternally and existing of God and Father, you are not to receive them.” And again: “Have no communion with those who blaspheme and deny that the Holy Spirit is God from the nature of God the Son.”
Likewise Cyril in his Thesaurus says: “It is necessary for our salvation to confess that the Holy Spirit exists of the essence of the Son, as existing of him by nature.” So, too, Epiphanius in his book on the Trinity: “You cut yourself off from the grace of God when you do not admit the Son to be from the Father or say that the Holy Spirit is not from the Father and the Son.”
It is, therefore, clear that in no way are they to be tolerated who deny the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son.”
The Greek fathers say as much:
““It is also shown that the Vicar of Christ has universal jurisdiction over the entire Church of Christ. For it is recorded of the Council of Chalcedon how the whole synod acclaimed Pope Leo: “Long live Leo, the most holy, apostolic, and ecumenical, that is, universal patriarch.”
And Chrysostom commenting on Matthew says: “The power which is of the Father and of the Son himself the Son conferred worldwide on Peter and gave a mortal man authority over all things in heaven, giving him the keys in order that he might extend the Church throughout the world.” And in homily 85 on John: “He allocated James a determined territory, but he appointed Peter master and teacher of the whole world.” Again, commenting on the Acts of the Apostles: “Not like Moses over one people, but throughout the whole world Peter received from the Son power over all those who are His sons.”
This is also taught on the authority of Holy Scripture. For Christ entrusted hi sheep to the care of Peter without restriction, when he said in the last chapter of John (21:15): Feed my sheep; and in John 10:16: That there might be one fold and one shepherd.
It is also established from the texts of the aforesaid Doctors that the Roman Pontiff possesses a fullness of power in the Church. For Cyril, the Patriarch of Alexandria, says in his Thesaurus: “As Christ coming forth from Israel as leader and sceptre of the Church of the Gentiles was granted by the Father the fullest power over every principality and power and whatever is that all might bend the knee to him, so he entrusted most fully the fullest power to Peter and his successors.” And again: “To no one else but Peter and to him alone Christ gave what is his fully.” And further on: “The feet of Christ are his humanity, that is, the man himself, to whom the whole Trinity gave the fullest power, whom one of the Three assumed in the unity of his person and lifted up on high to the Father above every principality and power, so that all the angels of God might adore him (Heb. 1:6); which whole and entire he has left in sacrament and power to Peter and to his Church.”
And Chrysostom says to the Bulgarian delegation speaking in the person of Christ: “Three times I ask you whether you love me, because you denied me three times out of fear and trepidation. Now restored, however, lest the brethren believe you to have lost the grace and authority of the keys, I now confirm in you that which is fully mine, because you love me in their presence.”
This is also taught on the authority of Scripture. For in Matthew 16: 19 the Lord said to Peter without restriction: Whatsoever you shall bind upon earth shall be bound in heaven.
It is also shown that Peter is the Vicar of Christ and the Roman Pontiff is Peter’s successor enjoying the same power conferred on Peter by Christ. For the canon of the Council of Chalcedon says: “If any bishop is sentenced as guilty of infamy, he is free to appeal the sentence to the blessed bishop of old Rome, whom we have as Peter the rock of refuge, and to him alone, in the place of God, with unlimited power, is granted the authority to hear the appeal of a bishop accused of infamy in virtue of the keys given him by the Lord.” And further on: “And whatever has been decreed by him is to be held as from the vicar of the apostolic throne.”
Likewise, Cyril, the Patriarch of Jerusalem, says, speaking in the person of Christ” “You for a while, but I without end will be fully and perfectly in sacrament and authority with all those whom I shall put in your place, just as I am with you.” And Cyril of Alexandria in his Thesaurus says that the Apostles “in the Gospels and Epistles have affirmed in all their teaching that Peter and his Church are in the place of the Lord, granting him participation in every chapter and assembly, in every election and proclamation of doctrine.” And further on: “To him, that is, to Peter, all by divine ordinance bow the head and the rulers of the world obey him as the Lord himself.” And Chrysostom, speaking in the person of Christ, says: “Feed my sheep (John 21:17), that is, in my place be in charge of your brethren.”
It is also demonstrated that to the aforesaid Pontiff belongs the right of deciding what pertains to faith. For Cyril in his Thesaurus says: “Let us remain as members in our head on the apostolic throne of the Roman Pontiffs, from whom it is our duty to seek what we must believe and what we must hold.” And Maximus in the letter addressed to the Orientals says: “All the ends of the earth which have sincerely received the Lord and Catholics everywhere professing the true faith look to the Church of the Romans as to the sun, and receive from it the light of the Catholic and Apostolic Faith.” Rightly so, for Peter is recorded as the first to have, while the Lord was enlightening him, confessed the faith perfectly when he said to him (Matt. 16:16): You are the Christ, the Son of the living God. And hence the Lord also said to him (Lk. 22:32): I have prayed for you, Peter, that your faith may not fail.”
It is also clear that he is the superior of the other patriarchs from this statement of Cyril: “It is his”, namely, of the Roman Pontiffs of the apostolic throne, “exclusive right to reprove, correct, enact, resolve, dispose and bind in the name of Him who established it.” And Chrysostom commenting on the Acts of the Apostles says that “Peter is the most holy summit of the blessed apostolic choir, the good shepherd.”
And this also is manifest on the authority of the Lord, in Luke 22:32 saying: “You, once converted, confirm your brethren.”
It is also shown that to be subject to the Roman Pontiff is necessary for salvation. For Cyril says in his Thesaurus: “Therefore, brethren, if you imitate Christ so as to hear his voice remaining in the Church of Peter and so as not be puffed up by the wind of pride, lest perhaps because of our quarrelling the wily serpent drive us from paradise as once he did Eve.” And Maximus in the letter addressed to the Orientals says: “The Church united and established upon the rock of Peter’s confession we call according to the decree of the Savior the universal Church, wherein we must remain for the salvation of our souls and wherein loyal to his faith and confession we must obey him.” ”
Where did Saint John Chrysostom say Saint Peter is “master” of the whole world? To be a teacher is one thing. And good. A master? Not one of the 12 apostles or Paul were masters. Christ alone is the only Master in His Church. The basis of the Church: Jesus Christ Himself is “The Christ, the Son of the Living God”, and this the FAITH of PETER is the basis of the Church. Not on the person of Peter, but his CONFESSION of CHRIST.
Peter, the master of the world?
Therefore, the Pope of Rome is Peter?
If that is true:
Did Saint Peter sack Constantinople in 1204 AD?
Did Saint Peter add “And the Son” to Saint John 15:26?
Did Saint Peter write the Summa Theologica of Aquinas and endorse PAGAN Aristotle as “THE Philosopher”.
Did Saint Peter sign a AGREEMENT with ADOLF HITLER as Pope Piux XII did?
Did Saint Peter authorize Pope Pius XII’s command of the Croatian Fascist Nazi Ustashe collaboraters with Hitler and Germans, and the death of about 500,000 Orthodox Serb Christians? Where did Saint Peter authorize that? Where is that Saint Peter’s infallible teaching authority?
We all teach by everything we say, think or do.
The record is clear: as a teacher, no man on earth except Jesus Christ is “infallible” and “irreformable”. Versus Vatican I, which says some of the pope’s doctrines are irreformable. Does this include the immaculate conception of Mary? There is no consensus on this among the Church Fathers or the Scholastics; Aquinas against, Scotus for. Even Gregory Palamas and Mark of Ephesus were for this for the Virgin Mary, but as I go wherever the truth leads, I accept the view of Aquinas on this, and reject the view of our fellow Orthodox fathers, who must have meant well, but there is no virtue or humility of holiness in Mary, if she had no sin to overcome, not virtue or faith or struggle: She is holy, because Christ SAVED her. She is good; she overcame original sin by faith. She was faithful to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and was redeemed by the BLOOD of her Son, not by herself in her own moral strength. As with all humans. Titus 3:5. Christ saved Mary because of His love for His Mother.
scott,
The church never claimed that Mary did anything “by herself in her own moral strength.”
Mary is saved by Jesus, but not like every other human being. That is because she bore Jesus, God, in her womb.
In the old testament, the ark of the covenant could not be touched under pain of death. Why? Because God himself was present in it at times.
Read Ezekiel 44: 1-3. It is a prophecy about Mary.
All of that is true. But since 1009-1014, 1054 AD, Rome, papal Rome, is in schism from the Church, just like the Monophysites did after 451 AD and Chalcedon. It took a long time for Rome to fall away from the Catholic Faith, but fall she did. And each passing century, Rome falls farther and farther away from the
Truth, and still has not rejected the dogma of Filioque.
scott,
It depends which side of the fence you are on.
Acolyte4236 said…
Josephus,
If I may take some time to suggest a different way of looking at the post.
First, our blog is no more anti-Catholic than the near legion of Catholics blogs are anti-Orthodox. Second, I strive to be an equal opportunity offender and so I rotate those posts that argue against other theological positions. If you look through the past posts I think you will notice this. I don’t single out Rome.
Third, I am responding to actual arguments given by Catholics against Orthodoxy. If my argument in this case is to no real effect, then it seems to follow that the Catholic argument is equally a bad one. Is that what you wish to imply? Fourth, I am commenting on current and continuing Roman policy. Rome still imposes the Filioque as dogma and in the Creed with respect to specific rites. And the impermanent status of the creed with or without the Filioque is also current Roman policy. Fifth and while there are lots of books that discuss the matter, there are lots of books, which Catholic apologists never seem to read, which discuss Catholic objections to Orthodoxy. Yet there is no shortage of Catholic blogs, forums, textbooks, etc. that continue to deploy them, even in cases where they have been proven factually false by Catholic scholars, as in the case of Dr. Blosser and the supposed 2nd excommunication of Saint Photios. Furthermore, many people haven’t read these materials and so part of my purpose is didactic. Sixth, the non-recitation of the Filioque in the presence of Eastern Catholic figures depends on the rite I believe so it isn’t uniform and in any case leaves untouched the point I made, that even if true, this is not a situation that is beyond revision by Rome. As a consequence, I am not cherry picking. I fully acknowledge practical problems among the Orthodox, but what I pointed out above was in response to a Catholic argument and concerned doctrine.
I know it is hard for some to believe, but I am no Romaphobe and anyone who knows me knows that this has never been the way I have been disposed. I have gone out of my way to defend Rome from Protestant or secular critics when their criticisms were based on caricature or were just bad arguments. I simply try to see things as they are, rather than as I would like them to be.
6/14/2009 7:32 PM
scott,
Good to hear.
Founded by defrocked schismatics sadly. Read the wiki (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrainian_Orthodox_Church_%E2%80%93_Kiev_Patriarchate)
A literal Nazi collaborator was their first “patriarch” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mstyslav_(Skrypnyk)
At first glance I was pro-Ukrainian simply because people ahve a right of national expression, but once you scratch beneath the surface one can see they are obviously trouble.
Thanks for that Craig.
I do not seem to find much that is damning of him as a Nazi collaborator? He seems to have been imprisoned by them and banned from performing religious services, not evidence of collaboration with the Nazis I would have thought.
Granted that they were held as schismatic before, but from what I can tell, only the Russian and Serb Orthodox and Czech, and maybe a couple of others seem to have objected to their recognition as autocephalous?
His church initially enjoyed nazi support. It appears that there was some split whether to support the UPA and perhaps this had to do with his arrest.
I may be wrong on this, as I am new to Christ and to R. Orthodoxy. But current MP Moscow seems morally, ethically, doctrinally competent, and all Orthodox and Catholic; I don’t know about politics, but Ukraine should respect Moscow and it doesn’t matter the ethnic difference of languages, Ukrainian or Russian. It’s the same undivided Orthodox Church. Each local church rules itself, even if Ukraine out of respect defers at times to MP, even as the Catholics, Rome is the center of Catholicism, in Slavic Orthodoxy, Third Rome, Moscow, is the center of Russian Orthodoxy (with the other brother Orthodox nations, Serbian, Ukrainian, Macedonian, Bulgarian, Belarusian, etc.).
You said “Your strain of Orthodoxy does not like Augustine because he does not agree with you”.
First of all, I like Augustine. I do not like Augustine’s Filioque.
Second of all, almost all of Augustine agrees with Orthodoxy, and therefore I like Augustine for that precise reason.
Thirdly, there are no strains of Orthodoxy. There is only Orthodoxy, and heterodoxy. Some Orthodox have sins, but that is another matter. The Church gives us time to repent and nurtures us like a kind Mother and a loving Heavenly Father, the Fathers of the Church, the bishops, are images of God the Father. We all have problems, who have a non-Orthodox backgrounds, of becoming fully Orthodox and adjusting to Orthodox traditions, especially fasting traditions, I do. I do as much as I can; I need to start doing more? AOG? Not any more. As for my illness, I don’t understand it. I have asked God to help me with this aberration and take it away from me. I do not consider it something I have full control over. It is something I blame on no one, and it is a fault of mine. I wish I did not do this babbling. It is a nuisance and irrational, and I do not like irrationalism or receiving anything in my mouth that is not Orthodox. I have sinned with what I have done in this, and my sinful past shows in what I have done. May the loving LORD Jesus Christ save me and cleanse me from the sins of the flesh and this glossolalia that I have come to view as non-Orthodox. God save all of us, all of you from whatever problem or sins you had, or have had. God keep us from sinning today and no more of that sin tomorrow. LORD have mercy.
LORD bless us all. Amen.
scott,
We all need repentance don’t we?Day by day is the answer. Ask God’s help in the morning, thank him for his help at night. He can work wonders.
Philip says: You really don’t know what an Ad Hominem is do you? And then you speak to me of abject ignorance? Ah what? Just say, “ Yah, you’re right I see the distinction now.” It’s that easy.
The Church says:
1. Constantinople I, 381 AD, “who proceeds from the Father”.
Christ says: “who proceeds from the Father” John 15:26.
Saint Luke said: received “from the Father” Acts 2:33.
The Church says:
Epitomes, Synodicon On the Holy Spirit, Affirmations and Anathemas, Condemnation of the Writings of John Beccos, The Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit, holy Patriarch Photios of Constantinople (820-895 AD).
I say: You really don’t know that Filioque is a heresy, do you?
The Church says:
1. Constantinople I, 381 AD, “who proceeds from the Father”.
Christ says: “who proceeds from the Father” John 15:26.
Saint Luke said: received “from the Father” Acts 2:33.
The Church says:
Epitomes, Synodicon On the Holy Spirit, Affirmations and Anathemas, Condemnation of the Writings of John Beccos, The Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit, holy Patriarch Photios of Constantinople (820-895 AD).
Eastern Orthodox Bishop Kallistos Ware states: “The filioque controversy which has separated us for so many centuries is more than a mere technicality, “
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 g.asp 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]).
Philip: If you want to know what “through” the Son means, and to understand rightly that it does not at all mean “Filioque” “and (from) the Son”, then read:
Farrell, Dr. Joseph P., Ph.D., translator. (1987). Saint Photios. The Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit. Brookline, MASS: Holy Cross Orthodox Press.
Azkoul, Rev. Fr. Dr. Michael, Ph.D., & Holy Transfiguration Monastery, Boston, MASS, translators. (1983). Saint Photios. On the Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit. Boston, MASS: Studion Publishers, Inc.
Ostroumoff, Ivan N. (1971). The History of the Council of Florence. Translated from the Russian by Basil Popoff. Boston, MASS: Holy Transfiguration Monastery.
Papadakis, Aristeidis. Crisis in Byzantium: The Filioque in the Patriarchate of Gregory II of Cyprus. Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press.
Bush, William. The Mystery of the Church. Salisbury, MASS: Regina Orthodox Press.
I have no more to say to you, Philip, and no more discussion from me on Filioque until and unless you read all of these books intelligently and without presuppositions, and then get back to me and quote from all of these books and ask me any questions at all on any of these books, and what these books mean.
God bless you.
Out of context quotes from the Church Fathers do not prove AND the Son but only THROUGH the Son, and these two phrases do NOT mean the same thing.
Take care.
No thanks, why would I read anything from bias sources, unless I can give you a reading list from sources of bias that I choose to quell your pomposity, as everything is written with bias. It’s silly for you throw down a reading list and claim because these books have been written and they agree with me—they are right! The idea that I have to read them without presuppositions when you couldn’t do it yourself, or anyone, is absurd and anti intellectual.
Furthermore, You’ve taken everyone out context even Christ, so I’m glad you will say nothing more.
Good Riddance.
To each his own.
It’s good that Christ loves us both equally.
God bless you.
Hey Scott, do you write a lot of blogs? I write time to time on an ecumenical blog but at the time period it’s more dominated by Catholics. Three Catholics, Anglican, and Evangelical. Now, the blog pulls no punches and I like that about you my friend, I didn’t know if you’d be interested, the blog is ran by an Anglican, I can see if they’ll send you an invite to be an author?
God bless you brother Philip! I thank God you have put back on your cool head again, and settled down to the rationality and fairness I know you are capable of! We all get angry at times, and there is nothing at all wrong at anger in-itself. It all depends on what one does with it, and if one doesn’t cross a line. Anyway. No more on that.
Anyway, yes, if you like send me a link to whatever place I can dialogue with anyone. If you ask me, even with all of the sex abuse problems in Catholic priests in Pennsylvania, for which I have no sympathy, I am certain very few men go through such a fallen world as ours without becoming sexually troubled by some passion of the flesh, and it is difficult to keep or have a clean heart and clean spirit, the spirit of the age has temptations of pornography adultery and fornication, and ours is the age of sex abuse against women, and abortion, Roe v. Wade.
This is not limited to Catholic priests, but in my opinion, IMHO, as my theologoumenon, my view is the law of Catholic priests needing to be celibate does not guarantee celibacy and this leaves no escape path for sexual desires and frustration and may come out in some of these most perverse fallen twisted sexuality, and I do not at all understand how anyone can let his passions be directed at underage humans or either gender. It is problem enough when unmarried persons engage in sexual adventures at any legal age with each other, except for lawful marriage (which is marriage is honorable in all persons (Hebrews)).
Anyway, to wrap this up.
See my wordpress.com website scottrobertharrington.WordPress.com Saint Andrew of Valaam Association. Sign my blog if interested. God bless you. God bless us everyone, and forgive me for all of my many sins which I lived with in the past. Christ is rich in mercy. As Pope Francis says, this is another year of Mercy. The Year of the Blessing of the LORD, all years after Christ’s Ascension, 30 AD to present. Even with Charlemagne, false council of Aachen, 809 AD. Take care.
I was never mad or angry. Scott, are you a basketball fan? I always tell folks when I debate or have a conversation, I do so in the same manner as Kevin Garnett plays basketball. All honesty, I think we simply disagree on the historiography of said periods due to the bias of our faiths and we naturally due to our confirmation bias see our position reflected in sources, see John 15. However, if you quote Kung again to me I might go back to Garnett mode. I feel that only when one is held to the fire does the core of the foundation of our faith and beliefs come to the surface much like the ring of power in Lord of the Rings.
The more you fought the more I liked you. The problem with logic too is that you can bend the game in any manner depending on your understanding of logic. Most of all how people argue falls into fallacy it’s just whether one wants to call it out or not. The problem in our discussion is probably the genetic fallacy more than anything, Our historiography is so different that we’re reduced to calling each other liars when are intent is probably not to lie.
You may find this surprising and my traditional brothers and sisters yell when I say it but I think the discipline of celibacy for the priesthood needs to go as a requirement. I think the Eastern Rite and the Orthodox do have a better sense on the matter.
In regards to the councils and their validity, I suppose it stems from the perspective of your view on Pope’s primacy. However, I will say that there must be a separation of infallibility and impeccability.
Philip. Kung? Okay? Don’t you even agree with me that Prof. Kung has never said or written (or possibly even done) anything as radical and bad as some of the things Crossan has written or said? Does anything Kung published come even close at all in any way whatsoever as Crossan’s “scholarly” “Jesus” Seminary comments as “Christ’s body was devoured by dogs”, not “CHRIST IS RISEN FROM THE DEAD, TRAMPLING DOWN DEATH BY DEATH, AND UPON THOSE IN THE TOMBS BESTOWING LIFE”? Cross seems to be at least an atheist if not an agnostic. Many Irish people seem to be that today, at least in Ireland. I feel bad for Ireland. Some of my ancestors were Irish. I think most Irish are quite believing fine people. Most Germans too. In spite of the past thing with some of them with Hitler. I digress God bless you. Write anytime more if you like.
Well, naturally, yes, I would not agree with someone who denies the resurrection, but that is extreme too. Kung more or less wants the Catholic Church to be the mirror image of the Anglican Church, which their women ordination, their acceptance of contraceptives, etc. He wrote in one instance for the the laity to seize control from their “clerical masters.” How does he want to solve the celibacy issue? Have parish priests get married and the laity protect them from the Bishops! Lubac a fellow progressive even corrected Kung for his arrogance.
Everything he writes is an axe to grind against Ratzinger or Wojyla. A man who was censured for denying Catholic dogma, whether you agree or not with the dogma, it’s fairly common sense that you have to agree to teach it.
Naturally, this is just a short little summary of the problems with Kung with orthodox Catholicism.
I never speak of anyone else’s arrogance, except for the 3 justified historical instances when arrogance is precisely the correct and morally justified word and sound faithful judgment of the impartial Catholic Christian for Charlemagne, Pope Nicholas I, and Donald J. Trump. I have enough of my own arrogance from my immoral past to deal with. I sinned a whole lot. I need to seek Christ from now on and do what is necessary, as He calls me: “Go. Do not sin any more”. God save us all. Amen.
Also funny thing is that Karl Barth repudiated Kung for not teaching authentic Catholic doctrine!
” Barth acknowledged that his thought was faithfully rendered in the manuscript Küng sent him. If Küng was equally faithful to the Roman Catholic side of the argument, Barth said he might well need to go to the site of the Counter Reformation Council of Trent and make a contrite apology to the bishops who had assembled there.”
Karl Barth was a Calvinist.
Calvinism is heresy.
Karl Barth believed in Filioque.
Filioque is a heresy.
Karl Barth, a good case can, I believe, be made that his view was for Universalism.
Universalism is a heresy.
But 2 Peter 3:9 and 1 Tm. 2:4 are Gospel, but do not in themselves imply Universalism.
scott,
Stop blaming Charlemagne and St. Augustine when there are dozens of church fathers who support the filioque.
You have to have an answer to that before you get on your high horse about later theologians like Photius, Palamas, etc.
All of those Fathers say from the Father THROUGH the Son.
Only perhaps Augustine, Ambrose, and Jerome say FILIOQUE AND the Son.
All of the rest merely say THROUGH the Son. You need to KNOW the DIFFERENCE!
“The Synodicon on the Holy Spirit: The epitomes.
1. “If the Spirit is indeed simple but proceeds from the Father and the Son, then those 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 of the Father be?”.
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”.
Saint Photius the Great. Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit.
“Concerning statements in the sacred teachings which state that as the Son is
begotten of the Father alone, so likewise the proper theology concerning the Holy
Spirit is that He proceeds from one and the same cause; and also concerning the
saying that because He is of one essence with the Son, He therefore proceeds from
Him as well.
Part 1. “There are various arguments, scattered throughout many lengthy dissertations, which confute the arrogance of those contentious men who hold fast to unrighteousness and strive against the truth. Since your great zeal and love for God has requested that those corrective arguments, furnished by divine providence, be gathered into a general overview and outline, this goal is indeed not unworthy of your desire and godly love. Above all else, there is a saying of the Lord which opposes them like a sharp, inescapable arrow, striking down and destroying every wild animal and fox as though with a thunderbolt. What saying? That which the Son Himself delivers; that whichstates that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father.
Rejecting this compact garment, do you still seek for the divine clothing? Would you propagate the fable that the Spirit proceeds from the Son?
If you do not cower when seizing the dogmas of our common Saviour, Creator, and Lawgiver with a violence that yields only to your insanity, then what other things could one find by which utterly to confute 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 wounds not caused by the word of the Saviour, but by your own self-made sickness, which out of disobedience stubbornly strives to transform the medicine of the Lord’s doctrine into a noxious poison? The Saviour’s doctrine does not simply touch these wounds, but digs deeply into them and cures the whole body of sores with care and concern. We have not laid the two-edged sword of the Spirit [the Holy Scriptures] against you too often, nevertheless because of the affection of our common Master we will make a prompt and willing proof of our sacred conceptions, and arm ourselves completely, preparing a strategy and drawing up an order of battle”.
Archimandrite Vassilios Bakoyannis: “The Filioque: “The Filioque was introduced at the third local Synod of Toledo (589 AD) and confirmed by the fourth local Synod which met in the same city in 633 AD”. “The Filioque is heretical. “The Western Church believes that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. The Eastern Church believes that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and is sent into the world by the Son. Either the Western Church is confusing the “procession” with the “mission” or is deliberately closing its eyes to the difference. “We would ask just one question: Where does it say in Scripture that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son? Nowhere! On the contrary, it says clearly and bluntly (John 15:26) that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father”. [One Lord, One Faith: An introduction to comparative Christian doctrine.].
Saint Mark of Ephesus: “The Latins are not only schismatics but heretics . . . “The Latins are not only schismatics but heretics… we did not separate from them for any other reason other than the fact that they are heretics. This is precisely why we must not unite with them unless they dismiss the addition from the creed Filioque and confess the creed as we do”.
Saint Mark of Ephesus: .” . . flee those who uphold other doctrines …. All the teachers of the Church, all the Councils, and all the Divine Scriptures, exhort us to flee those who uphold other doctrines and to separate from communion with them.” — Saint Mark of Ephesus, Confession of Faith, XII, 304.
The holy traditions of the holy apostles of the holy Church which was founded by the LORD God and Saviour Christ Jesus have always, everywhere, and with everyone (Saint Vincent of Lerins, Commonitories) taught the Monopatrism that the Holy Spirit, the “promise from the Father” (Acts 2:33) eternally “proceeds from the Father” (John 15:26). Scott R. Harrington, February, 2018.
“The Trinity reinterpreted.
“For many years Augustine worked indefatigably on a great work of his old age, without being prompted to it by a heresy but rather out of an inner need for clarification: he was concerned to present a deeper, more convincing reinterpretation of the doctrine of the Trinity. His interpretation would come to command such a following in the Latin West that people would hardly be aware of any other. But to the present day it is resolutely rejected by the Greeks. Why?
“The Greek church fathers always began from the one God and Father, who for them, as for the New Testament, was “the God” (ho theos). They defined the relationship of God the Father to the Son and Spirit in the light of this one God and Father. It is as if we have a star which gives its light to a second star (“light of light, God of God”) and finally to a third. But to our human eye, all three stars appear one after the other only as one star.
“Augustine differed completely; instead of beginning from one God and Father he began from the one nature of God, or divine substance, which was common to Father, Son, and Spirit. For the Latin theologians the principle of unity was not the Father but the one divine nature, or substance. To develop the illustration given earlier: three stars do not shine one after the other but side by side in a triangle at the same level; here the first and the second stars together give light to the third.
“To explain more precisely, Augustine used psychological categories in a new way: he saw a similarity between the threefold God and the three-dimensional human spirit: between the Father and the memory, between the Son and the intelligence, and between the Spirit and the will. In the light of this analogy the Trinity could be interpreted as follows:
“The Son is “begotten” from the Father “according to the intellect”. The Father knows and begets in the Son his own word and image. But the Spirit “proceeds” from the Father (as the lover) and the Son (as the beloved) “according to the will”. The Spirit is the love between Father and Son become person: it has proceeded from both the Father and the Son. [It was the Latin term denoting this proceeding also from the Son, Filioque, which proved to be the great stumbling block for the Greeks. Their view was that the Spirit proceeded only from the Father.).
“Thus Augustine had made an intellectual construction of the Trinity with philosophical and psychological categories in an extremely subtle way as a self-unfolding of God. Here the “and the Son” seemed so essential that in the West from the sixth/seventh century it was gradually inserted into the creed. Time and again it was required by the German emperors after Charlemagne, and in 1014 it was definitively inserted by Rome into the ancient creed. But 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.].
I thought you will say anything more? I mean I can copy and paste my proof text again, if needed?
Anyway, Mark of Ephesus is a nobody to me. No authority whatsoever on the matter.
Sorry, dear brother.
But in Christ there are NO nobodies. Not even the least of us brethren, neither you, nor me, nor I, none of us are nobodies. Christ LOVES us ALL (John 3:16), isn’t THAT Good News (Gospel!) Praise God!
When we were ALL unlovely, abject sinners, Christ died for all of us.
Remembering that, only Judas of many possible nobodies, was finally lost in the end.
God give us hope and have none of that.
Peter himself was lost for a while, but Christ forgave him and Peter repented, with tears.
Judas cried, but showed no repentance.
As for abject ignorance, that does not quite apply to anyone here. Except for me before I read John 15:26. Then Christ rescued me when Christ spoke to me in John 15:26 and Acts 2:33. And it is impossible for Jesus Christ to lie, or to omit the truth from His words. And it is clear: Christ did not say FILIOQUE AND THE SON. So I set free from my hopeless Lutheranism and antinomianism and pride and sinfulness and lust and pride of life and lust of the eyes and the lust of the flesh, and then, St. Paul, THE RUDDER, and Jesus Christ sets Scott free: 2003-2009; and the seed Christ planted in my heart through Fr. Gillquist, 1989-1995. Many years of wandering, 1996-2002.
And the most lost years of wandering, 1978-1986, approximately.
God abundantly bless and save you, Philip.
Lord have mercy on me and give me peace.
God make us all care-free and happy and holy in this age of ignorance and anxiety and hatred and Trump. Divisiveness and LIES.
Again, Hans King’s theology is a free for all. He makes concessions on every doctrine to create some hippy loving Church, should we examine his entire theology to see if it’s congenial with Orthodoxy, so we can understand his motives for his theology on any other subject. His teaching authority was revoked by Wojtyla, the man is one of no authority.
That all more nonsense pointless ad hominem against Kung. If you want to save your vehemence for true heretics, like Origen, Tertullian, and Nestorius, Arius, Sabellius, Macedonius, Eutyches, your time would be better spent that focusing any “wrath” against an ecumenist and irenic liberal like Kung. The real dog of a hero (yes, I know, that’s ad hominem, but in this case my objection is perfectly just), the real dog false “theologian” is John Dominic Crossan, who blasphemed and “believed” (if he really believed anything at all!) that Christ was not resurrected, but that Christ’s body (holy body!) was devoured by dog! Could we not, dear brother AGREE that THAT deserves an ANATHEMA! Kung has said no such blasphemous thing! (As far as I KNOW, anyway).
Yes, as Orthodox theologians have said through the Son and from the Father and Son are two different wordings of the same meaning. Surely, you’ve come across their work?
Philip. Every Orthodox theologian I have read has always said THROUGH and AND do NOT mean the same thing.
Perhaps you have not read Photius, Gregory Palamas, and Mark of Ephesus.
I suggest that you start your reading of Orthodox theologians there. Basil the Great also agrees with this. He is one of the more clear Orthodox Catholic Fathers on the Holy Spirit. And he never said, “The Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Person of the Father AND from the Person of the Son”.
All we like sheep have gone astray, every one of us to his own way; and the LORD has laid upon HIM (CHRIST JESUS) the iniquity (sins, many sins) of us all.
Kyrie eleison.
Gospodi pomiloi.
LORD have mercy.
DOMINUS vobiscum.
Non sequitur Philip. Your facts are non coordinated. Your words are spurious and not coordinated with the Greek NT. The New Testament was in Greek, not Aramaic. If you the truth, and you need it, you will read: Auer, Rev. Fr. (1992). The Myth of Papal Infallibility. Buffalo, NY: The Cenacle/ Liberty, TN: St. John of Kronstadt Press. God bless you now. You can go your own way if you like. Shaking the dust off of my shoes. God rescue your soul from error and Filioque.
Did Jesus speak Greek or Aramaic? First off, the Greek word has to be masculine in accord to Peter’s name and should be read as the other renderings in the Bible. So, the feminine has no affect on the matter, I don’t need to read others research, my scholarly background with Classical languages is sufficient on the topic. But thanks.
So it does follow… did you take a logical class once, so now ever countering argument you retort with some made up fallacy?
Where is the logic behind assuming without proof or logic that it is necessary for anyone to take a logic class before one can begin reasoning logically? Yes, I know something about logic. I never claimed to be infallible, or incapable of illogic or error. It’s just that no one has proven any error in me for having rejected Filioque.
First of all, you have not proven Augustine said that. Second, Augustine also acknowledges the Spirit “proceeds from the Father”. Thirdly, if Augustine said it, so what? Most of the Fathers say “proceeds from the Father” and do not say “proceeds from the Father and the Son”. Christ puts this all to rest Himself, and Christ says “proceeds from the Father”. Augustine does not deny this. Christ is the authority on the procession of the Spirit. Making too much of Augustine’s words leads to schism. This was not blessed Augustine’s intention. Do you commit the sin of Ham, and do not cover the nakedness of the father Noah? But leave Augustine uncovered, and reveal his weakness? Better to forgive Augustine for his Filioque mistake, and move on.
You again are distorted what I’ve presented on Augustine, furthermore, is Augustine is presents the evidence so there is nothing for me to prove…
I figure it better to be inside the one true Church founded with Kepha and his successors where there is salvation and not outside where there is wailing and gnashing of teeth.
One true Church? Can a true Church have such sex abuse scandals and such pedophile priests? Can a Pope and Papacy which covers up this sin be a Church founded by Christ?
False. I did not distort anything you said about Augustine. You made a false accusation. Straw man. You owe me an apology. God bless you.
I apologize if I miss read your unclear arguments. But no strawman was committed as you seemed to indicate that I was stating that Augustine and myself were merely arguing for a procession from strictly the father. Again, I apologize if I misread your poorly written prose.
Hey no problem brother. God bless. I merely stated Augustine himself never made Filioque into a dogma which must be believed under penalty of anathema, necessary for salvation. For Augustine, it was not catholic dogma, but philosophical theologoumenon because he was motivated only to defend the Divinity of Christ, which is good motivation, and there is no fault in Augustine in this. His fault was adding “and the Son” to John 15:26 and not accepting Christ at His words here. Aquinas is in schism because he made Filioque necessary catholic dogma under penalty of damnation. Augustine did not do that.
I believe all Christians should read:
Cox, William E. (n.d.). Why I Left Scofieldism. Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian & Reformed Publishing Company.
Available in pdf, online article websites, on GOOGLE. The book is a booklet and is very very short.
It critiques dispensationalism in a very brief concise way but does not deal directly with the pretribulation rapture theory.
It should be used by all who desire the truth about dispensationalism’s distorted view of “Israel” 1948 and so called contemporary evangelical bible prophecy end times last days theories. God bless.
Have you read Augustine’s explanation on the procession of the Trinity in his treatise On the Trinity?
As a Catholic, in a simple and insufficient summary, after reading his explanation on Christ breathing the spirit and how it in fact points toward his Divinity, there’s no doubt in my mind that The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and Son. And furthermore, as Augustine is such a towering theologian—the most quoted in the Catechism—I just don’t see that Catholicism will every claim otherwise.
I have read Augustine’s work. And Photius, Basil, John of Damascus, John Chrysostom, Ambrose, Mark of Ephesus, Gregory Palamas, Maximus the Confessor, John Scotus Eriugena, and post-schism sources like Anselm of Canterbury, Peter Lombard, Peter Damian, Thomas Aquinas, Bonaventure.
None of these changed my mind, not even Photius. Photius merely helped me believe John 15:26.
Have you read the words of our Saviour Christ Jesus in John 15:26 and of the Apostle and Evangelist Luke in Acts 2:33?
The Holy Spirit in these words changed me, and dropped the Filioque from my belief.
“The Trinity reinterpreted.
“For many years Augustine worked indefatigably on a great work of his old age, without being prompted to it by a heresy but rather out of an inner need for clarification: he was concerned to present a deeper, more convincing reinterpretation of the doctrine of the Trinity. His interpretation would come to command such a following in the Latin West that people would hardly be aware of any other. But to the present day it is resolutely rejected by the Greeks. Why?
“The Greek church fathers always began from the one God and Father, who for them, as for the New Testament, was “the God” (ho theos). They defined the relationship of God the Father to the Son and Spirit in the light of this one God and Father. It is as if we have a star which gives its light to a second star (“light of light, God of God”) and finally to a third. But to our human eye, all three stars appear one after the other only as one star.
“Augustine differed completely; instead of beginning from one God and Father he began from the one nature of God, or divine substance, which was common to Father, Son, and Spirit. For the Latin theologians the principle of unity was not the Father but the one divine nature, or substance. To develop the illustration given earlier: three stars do not shine one after the other but side by side in a triangle at the same level; here the first and the second stars together give light to the third.
“To explain more precisely, Augustine used psychological categories in a new way: he saw a similarity between the threefold God and the three-dimensional human spirit: between the Father and the memory, between the Son and the intelligence, and between the Spirit and the will. In the light of this analogy the Trinity could be interpreted as follows:
“The Son is “begotten” from the Father “according to the intellect”. The Father knows and begets in the Son his own word and image. But the Spirit “proceeds” from the Father (as the lover) and the Son (as the beloved) “according to the will”. The Spirit is the love between Father and Son become person: it has proceeded from both the Father and the Son. [It was the Latin term denoting this proceeding also from the Son, Filioque, which proved to be the great stumbling block for the Greeks. Their view was that the Spirit proceeded only from the Father.).
“Thus Augustine had made an intellectual construction of the Trinity with philosophical and psychological categories in an extremely subtle way as a self-unfolding of God. Here the “and the Son” seemed so essential that in the West from the sixth/seventh century it was gradually inserted into the creed. Time and again it was required by the German emperors after Charlemagne, and in 1014 it was definitively inserted by Rome into the ancient creed. But 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.].
“The Synodicon on the Holy Spirit: The epitomes.
1. “If the Spirit is indeed simple but proceeds from the Father and the Son, then those 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 of the Father be?”.
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”.
Saint Photius the Great. Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit.
“Concerning statements in the sacred teachings which state that as the Son is
begotten of the Father alone, so likewise the proper theology concerning the Holy
Spirit is that He proceeds from one and the same cause; and also concerning the
saying that because He is of one essence with the Son, He therefore proceeds from
Him as well.
Part 1. “There are various arguments, scattered throughout many lengthy dissertations, which confute the arrogance of those contentious men who hold fast to unrighteousness and strive against the truth. Since your great zeal and love for God has requested that those corrective arguments, furnished by divine providence, be gathered into a general overview and outline, this goal is indeed not unworthy of your desire and godly love. Above all else, there is a saying of the Lord which opposes them like a sharp, inescapable arrow, striking down and destroying every wild animal and fox as though with a thunderbolt. What saying? That which the Son Himself delivers; that whichstates that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father.
Rejecting this compact garment, do you still seek for the divine clothing? Would you propagate the fable that the Spirit proceeds from the Son?
If you do not cower when seizing the dogmas of our common Saviour, Creator, and Lawgiver with a violence that yields only to your insanity, then what other things could one find by which utterly to confute 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 wounds not caused by the word of the Saviour, but by your own self-made sickness, which out of disobedience stubbornly strives to transform the medicine of the Lord’s doctrine into a noxious poison? The Saviour’s doctrine does not simply touch these wounds, but digs deeply into them and cures the whole body of sores with care and concern. We have not laid the two-edged sword of the Spirit [the Holy Scriptures] against you too often, nevertheless because of the affection of our common Master we will make a prompt and willing proof of our sacred conceptions, and arm ourselves completely, preparing a strategy and drawing up an order of battle”.
Archimandrite Vassilios Bakoyannis: “The Filioque: “The Filioque was introduced at the third local Synod of Toledo (589 AD) and confirmed by the fourth local Synod which met in the same city in 633 AD”. “The Filioque is heretical. “The Western Church believes that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. The Eastern Church believes that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and is sent into the world by the Son. Either the Western Church is confusing the “procession” with the “mission” or is deliberately closing its eyes to the difference. “We would ask just one question: Where does it say in Scripture that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son? Nowhere! On the contrary, it says clearly and bluntly (John 15:26) that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father”. [One Lord, One Faith: An introduction to comparative Christian doctrine.].
Saint Mark of Ephesus: “The Latins are not only schismatics but heretics . . . “The Latins are not only schismatics but heretics… we did not separate from them for any other reason other than the fact that they are heretics. This is precisely why we must not unite with them unless they dismiss the addition from the creed Filioque and confess the creed as we do”.
Well, I simply asked whether you read Augustine’s remarks on the topic, to focus on his particular argument on the matter. In reply, I got a list of many other different people… odd. It also appears I’ve received a reply from Hans Kung, unfortunately Hans, I’m with Ratzinger with thinking your theology is absolute trash.
Furthermore, looks like I’ve received some other quotations from other folks as well spewing the ultra anti-ecumenical Orthodoxy, very similar to rhetoric that I roll my eyes at from Catholic circles.
I suppose I could reply lengthy comment of rebuttals from a great many other folks… but as I can little afford to read all of your shotgun approach and it seems you’re little interested in having a conversation mono to mono, it looks to be a waste of both our time.
I have read Augustine. He said the Holy Spirit “proceeds from the Father and the Son” He also quoted John 15:26 and admits the Holy Spirit “proceeds from the Father”. He does not explain where Christ says the Spirit “proceed from the Son”. He offers philosophy and speculation, idea, no Scriptures, and no exegesis of John 15:26 and Acts 2:33. He also does not say that to believe the Holy Spirit eternally “proceeds from the Father and the Son” is “necessary for salvation”. Aquinas says to “believe the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son” is “necessary to salvation”, and therefore Aquinas is not following Augustine as an authority, for Augustine no where requires Filioque. Augustine is merely thinking about Filioque, not saying it is gospel dogma which must be believed under penalty of anathema. Augustine did not write that.
Dear Philip. No need for your hostile accusative words. Jesus Christ told me (John 15) I would be hated for standing up for the procession of the Spirit from the Father alone (John 15:26). My theology is the Christian faith. The words you wrote to me fall short of speaking the truth with love. I was interested in having a conversation with you, but to fail to repent of Augustine’s errors and of Filioque is a mistake. The West has a serious problem in believing doctrines that are not true. There is no way to say the truth that makes them feel good about their error. I was glad when they said to me I was a heretic. The Gospel delivered me from my darkness and saved me, saved me from Filioque. Zeal for God’s house has consumed me. I am not ashamed of the gospel. Christ warns me if I am ashamed of His words, His words that the Spirit “proceeds from the Father” alone, He will be ashamed of me before me. I cannot but preach the truth. The West is lost in the errors it is in, and they deny the blood of Christ to Catholics. They have communion in one kind. I will say no more on this matter. I must attend to myself from now on and must come to further repentance. I still fall short of Orthodoxy and must learn how to fast. I have many problems and sins still. But I hope God rescues you from Augustine’s error of Filioque. It was a great burden on me, along with Luther’s “be a sinner. Sin boldly”. God have mercy on us all. When I have been at Catholic services, they don’t give the laity any wine. Only unleavened wafers.
It appears that you oddly rely on some form of personal revelation, at the very least of interpreting scripture… … anyway…
Again, I’m not talking about Aquinas; I didn’t ask you about Aquinas…So I’m at a loss why we’re talking about his particular argument when I specified Augustine’s work “On the Trinity?”
In Book 4 of the On the Trinity, Augustine makes the argument from John 20:22 that when Christ breathes the Holy Spirit on his disciples, he sends the Holy Spirit to enlighten their minds. He sends the Spirit through the father proceeding from Him. In fact, it’s through the Platonic argument that Augustine makes from Platonism’ forms of “the form of God” and “the form of servant” in regards to Christ’s incarnation. Christ embodies “the form of God” when he spirates the Spirit.
Also, later on, Augustine makes the argument of actuality to distinguish God from other beings quoting Exodus 3 in Book 5 stating that God’s being is infinite, so again, you previous comments made to Water in regards to Aquinas making no differences in being is simply wrong by the actuality argument. In accord with Platonism, Augustine makes the argument in Book 7 that the Father and Son are distinguished by the relation of origin in the communication of divine substance. The Trinity is a triad of Lover, Beloved, and love. Naturally, in Book 15, the conclusion of Augustine is that how can The Holy Spirit be known properly as love? Augustines states by being sent forth from the Lover and the Beloved.
Also, the vast majority of Catholic Masses give the laity the cup, the only ones that do not are using the Extraordinary form of the Mass in it’s Latin Tridentine form, so again, you’re simply distorting the truth, which naturally by as a two- edged sword I will cleave any sort of distortion of the truth.
My loyalties will always remain with the Church founded on Kepha, the same Church of St. Augustine, the true Bride of Christ.
Duh. Plato was a pagan not a Christian. Plato is no authority for Biblical Christian metaphysics. We need Scripture and the undivided Church Fathers, Latin and Greek, and not “Augustine Alone” as “Pope of the Church Fathers”. No one Church Father has all of the answers; only the 7 ecumenical councils are the basis of Church unity, and the consensus of the fathers, all of them, not isolated in any given father in Augustinianism, nor in John Chrysostom alone, or Jerome alone, and not in Photius alone, either. Christ alone tells the truth on this procession controversy, corroborated by Luke John 15:26, Acts 2:33.
A Pagan, And? So what? Are not righteous pagans honored in scripture? Anyone, including the bushman, can observe the laws of God and write truth about their observations. It’s almost laughable, Augustine makes a claim, he presents an argument for claim, any sort of disagreement needs a reasoned argument with proof against his argument.
Christ praises a pagan, Centurion, Cornelius. So what? The Gospels don’t endorse Platonic philsophy. That’s the point. There is some good in Plato and Aristotle, but this has been adequate addressed by a scholar more learned than me, Constantine Cavarnos, Orthodoxy and Philosophy, if you want to learn the truth about Plato. And yes there is some good in pagan thinkers, that wasn’t my point. Some truths, but not authority over theology, over Scripture.
Have you read the Gospel of John and the letters of John? Regardless of whether they say Plato or not they’re written in a manner congenial with Platonism. Furthermore, as St. Justin Martyr argues with great truth even the pagans have “seeds of truth.”
And more important look to what the letter is Hebrews says on the matter of Pagans.
I’m not distorting the truth? Is Christ divided? If any one parish does not have the wine, they are in schism from the Catholic Church. If Rome is ordering this in some parishes, then Rome is heretical. A tree is known by its fruit. Rome stepped away from Catholic Unity in 1014 AD with Benedict VIII and Filioque and HRE Henry II of the Franks. Frankly, the modern popes don’t give a damn about John 15:26 and Acts 2:33 and Photius and John of Damascus and the Greek and Latin Fathers, most of them, and Gregory Palamas and Mark of Ephesus, and they follow the error of Augustine and Anselm and Aquinas and Lombard and Damian and Lyons and Florence. If they fail to repent, they will never see the light, and will be in the darkness of the crown of evils, the wild animal and fox of Charlemagne, Filioque. Pray for them, Blessed Andrew and Holy Mother of God, that they may be saved. Holy Spirit of Truth, save them from Filioque. LORD Jesus Christ, Son of God, pray for us sinners, save us, and save them and unite them back with Thy Orthodox Catholic Apostolic Church. Amen.
Mais C’est Impossible.
There is one Church founded by Christ by giving authority to Kepha and his successor is found in Rome. You are outside of this communion.
I’m praying for the day when the Ecumenical Patriach, after he recognizes the Ukranian Church as it’s own Church, he brings both into the fold of the one true Universal Church–the Catholic Church.
And leave the Russians to repent of their Soviet/KGB/Putin ways.
It seems to me that Protestants splinter for doctrinal differences and Orthodox for political ones.
Do Catholics splinter? Why can’t we all start talking only about the things that divide us as Orthodox Catholic and Protestant? And talk on what unites us? We all say the same thing on Nicene Creed (except for Filioque) Apostles Creed, and Athanasian Creed (except for Filioque). Can we start reading these together and discussing them intelligently? Leave out discussions and Filioque and how the Holy Spirit proceeds (which we don’t agree on), and talk on what we all say the same things on?
scott,
A balm for the soul.
Craig: Kind of weird, odd, Coptic something or other. Like Chalcedonian Orthodox, they reject Filioque; but that’s not enough in itself; they also reject Chalcedon council, and much of Egypt maybe some Copts, Egypt, Alexandria, some Gnostic tendencies, some Gnostic pseudo-gospels found, 20th century along with DSSB, Nag Hammadi, and so on. Oh well. Life is short! Good grief! (Charlie Brown). God bless. Scott.
Craig. About my last post. Here’s a link to article, chat from Coptic writer, Mor something. Kind of strange. Stuff.
Okay. Take care!
God bless. Scott.
Offline Mor Ephrem
Ο προκαθήμενος της Ορθοδοξίας – The President of Orthodoxy
Section Moderator
Hypatos
*****
Posts: 34,474
Two half-eggs
OrthodoxChristianity.net
Faith: Mercenary Freudianism
Jurisdiction: Texas Feminist Coptic
Re: The Creed and the Filioque
« Reply #98 on: September 29, 2016, 10:11:46 AM »
Quote from: Rohzek on September 29, 2016, 12:06:58 AM
Alright in terms of Latin theologians claiming that the Spirit proceeds from the Divine Essence, here is one example. Please note, I am fully aware that the present-day Catholic Church denies this.
Ratramnus of Corbie:
Quote
The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father because he flows from his substance [Procedit Spiritus sanctus a Patre, illius quia de substantia manat] … 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 [sic et de utroque procedendo Spiritus sanctus accepit consubstantialitatis existentiam].
Ratramnus of Corbie, Contra Graecorum Opposita Romanam Ecclesiam Infamantium (PL 121, 225–346) As translated in Siecienski
Since the Spirit receives the same divine substance as the Father and the Son, does the Spirit also proceed from himself?
Logged
Quote from: Asteriktos on August 30, 2018, 12:44:06 PM
My body is ready.
Quote from: WPM on September 24, 2017, 09:53:31 AM
Yes, I do real Theology
Quote from: WPM on August 04, 2018, 05:54:26 PM
I am the Antichrist LOL just kidding
Quote from: Antonis on July 29, 2014, 12:58:16 PM
Eis polla eti, Mor Ephrem.
Craig: Ratramnus of Corbie on Filioque. My last post to you, I also intended for Water to see. I don’t know if we can see all of each other’s posts. Take care.
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
Right. Exactly. That’s exactly my point. You simply believe Augustine.
I believe Christ John 15:26, Luke St. Luke Acts 2:33, Constantinople I, 381 AD, and Photius, Gregory Palamas, Mark of Ephesus, and the Orthodox Church, and the Tomus of the Synod Council of Blachernae.
Oh Please, it’s not like Augustine doesn’t quote scripture to make his case. John 20:22 is far more convincing than any of your proof text. I’m merely saying I believe Augustine over you on this particular matter.
So you are saying that John is more convincing than John, and you are pitting Saint John 20:22 against Saint John 15:26? A house divided against itself cannot stand. You are using a subjective criterion of freely appealing to the Gospel Scriptures, Sola Scriptura, but you must reject as the FInal Authority Constantinople I, 381 AD, which says, “WHO PROCEEDETH FROM THE FATHER”. And Christ has the FINAL WORD in this HOLY COUNCIL of the UNDIVIDED HOLY ROMAN LATIN AND ROMAN GREEK CATHOLIC CHURCH. 381 AD. The Final Word for Christian Unity. Orthodoxy and Catholicity. AMEN. If any man say otherwise, he is none of Christ’s.
Exactly, so my interpretation of John 15:26 agrees with Augustine’s On John 20:22. Your view agrees with neither, but thanks for trying again.
Philip. Neither what you think say or write of John 15:26 or John 20:22 or what I say or think on them matters.
The Church has spoken.
The CHURCH has DECIDED this already.
I listen to the CHURCH.
The Church has the HOLY SPIRIT.
The HOLY SPIRIT in the CHURCH said “Who proceedeth from the Father”.
If you have any objection to this, whatever Scripture you try to quote at me as a proof text or your own pretext, it matters not.
I just happen to think what the holy Church said in 381 AD matters more than any thing I can say to you. Or read from John myself.
God bless you.
Thanks, I do listen to the Church whose Bishop is in Rome founded by Christ and is the successor of Kepha.
Hypocrisy. You don’t listen to the Bishop who were in Rome Leo III and John VIII. Who settled this matter around 806-809 and 879-880, if you even knew or cared about your ancient Catholic Church papal history. See: Meijer, Johan A. (1975). A Successful Council of Union. Thessalonica, Greece: Analecta Vlatadon. Available in Amazon.com In English, includes the Papal letters of good Pope, blessed Roman Catholic Pope John VIII. 880 AD. 8th ecumenical Council of the Roman Catholic Church. Against FILIOQUE.
You misrepresent what their accordance to the dogma of the Church. For example, Leo III agreed that it was dogma, that is willful and the full definition of a lie! Quit lying! The Orthodox have always maneuvered out of political expediency, it agreed to the reunification with Rome in the 15th century when it thought t would save them from the Muslim horde only to renege when the Muslim hordes were their master’s.
Philip. That is a bold-faced, shameless lie against Christ’s Orthodox Church. The Elijah of that day, blessed Mark of Ephesus, speaking for the Catholic Church, the Orthodox Catholic Church (and Christ is known and delivered unto us in the faith of the saints (Eph. 4; Jude 1:3), Saint Mark, speaking boldly in the all-Holy Spirit said:
No to union with schismatic-heretical Rome:
Saint Mark of Ephesus: “The Latins are not only schismatics but heretics . . . “The Latins are not only schismatics but heretics… we did not separate from them for any other reason other than the fact that they are heretics. This is precisely why we must not unite with them unless they dismiss the addition from the creed Filioque and confess the creed as we do”.
Saint Mark of Ephesus: .” . . flee those who uphold other doctrines …. All the teachers of the Church, all the Councils, and all the Divine Scriptures, exhort us to flee those who uphold other doctrines and to separate from communion with them.” — Saint Mark of Ephesus, Confession of Faith, XII, 304.
Again, just mirroring my assertions. A philosophical question, If I copied and pasted your comments with Augustine’s name would you then say they’re wrong?
Again, only one Bishop dissented historically this is fact. And it was repudiated until much later in the century. But I suppose since modern history and philosophy is all Western, it explains why there’s a disconnect here…
Right. One bishop. Mark of Ephesus. One witness. Daniel in the lion’s den.
One Church. Matt. 16. Eph. 4. 1 Tm. 3:15;
One Gospel Matthew Mark Luke and John (and testimony to them, Acts).
The Apostles (all the Rest of the NT; with Apocalypse as Seal).
One bishop. Rome. Leo III. Actually two bishops. John VIII.
(Poisoned at Rome, assassinated, because he spoke for Christ and for union with the East, Constantinople blessed Photius, who is slandered by some).
But let’s forget the rest of the story? The Rad Ortho way !
And scriptures says sent (proceed being a synonym) by Christ. Much like Luther, pick and choose what is convenient.
Philip: Much like Charlemagne, Aquinas, and Luther, you pick and choose what is convenient for you. Just like you pick and choose what is convenient for you in Augustine of Hippo, and you you act like Ham did toward Noah, and you fail to cover and blanket his exposure: the fault is with you, and not with blessed Augustine, who said no such naked faced shameless blasphemy as later exposed against Christ and Saint John 15 and Saint Luke 2, and subject the whole Catholic Church in the vain rationalism and pride of Anselm of Canterbury Thomas Aquinas Peter Lombard Peter Damian Ratramnus of Corbie and Alcuin of York and above all Charlemagne.
This is truly laughable! Do you just mirror my assertions back to me? None of your proof texts work; they all agree with the Catholic Church—the universal faith—not your ethnic church.
And let’s face your strain of Orthodoxy does not like Augustine either because he does not agree with you. What a sad political sort of tribalism.
Water said:
scott,
I certainly do not reject John 15:26, nor any other verse of scripture. You seem to ignore anything that goes against what you believe. AOG to the core.
Water: You seem to ignore anything that goes against Filioque which you believe. Protestant to the core.
Stop excusing Charlemagne. Start blaming Charlemagne.
Stop accusing Augustine of Hippo. Augustine of Hippo is not to blame for your Filioque error. You are to blame for using Augustine in a way that Augustine did not attend. Augustine intended to defend the Divinity of Christ against Arianism with the Filioque. Nothing more. In putting Augustine to such public shame, you expose him to public ridicule like Ham left Noah uncovered. You follow the rationalism of Aquinas in Contra Errores Graecorum. It would be better to drop Filioque now and have done with your folly. I cannot say this enough, the papacy stepped away from Roman Catholic unity 1009-1014, and entered the realm of the Franks and Charlemange.
Water said:
And let’s face your strain of Orthodoxy does not like Augustine either because he does not agree with you. What a sad political sort of tribalism.
Water: Incorrect. I dislike Augustine’s errors. I have no animosity toward him personally. He was a great soul.
I dislike what the West and the Franks did to Augustine. They lifted him up to a high level that humble Augustine himself would have despised and rejected.
The sad political tribalism is yours, since you ignore the ongoing authority of Charlemagne in Western Christendom. The Dark Ages started because of Charlemagne’s FILIOQUE. It is the hidden key to all of the evil in the world, and the occult world of demonic powers. It is the Luciferian shibboleth. FILIOQUE.
F-I-L-I-O-Q-U-E. False-intellectualist-lies-initiating-occult-universal-evils.
Peter’s successors have not done or taught what some of the Popes of Rome have done.
Catholicism misuses the name of Peter, and sins against Saint Peter.
Peter has successors at Antioch as well as at Rome. The Ancient Church authorized Rome, Constantinople, Antioch, Alexandria, and Jerusalem. Moscow has apostolic succession from Andrew through Constantinople. There is no apostolic succession for any apostle of Christ for Avignon. Rome went into schism and transferred to Avignon. This was not authorized by an Ecumenical Council. Scripture authorizes the Ecumenical Council as final authority in Acts 15. Not Peter above the other Apostles. Not the other Apostles above Peter. The Council of all of the Equal Apostles of Christ. There is no Monarchy, King or Prince, in the Catholic Church. Rome changed that, and said the Pope is King of the Earth. This is sin.
You are here: Home / Sermon Resources / Orthodox Problems with Penal Substitution
Orthodox Problems with Penal Substitution
June 2, 2011 By admin
by Alexander Renault
Reconsidering Tulipfrom his book “Reconsidering Tulip”
The penal substitution view was completely absent from the church for over 1,000 years. It was only in the 11th century that Anselm of Canterbury began to introduce the groundwork for this kind of theology to the West. Nor was it fully developed into the doctrine we now know as penal substitution until the 16th-century Reformers came along. To this day it has never been accepted in the east (nor has it ever been fully accepted by the Roman Catholics).
1. Penal substitution compromises the deity of Christ and puts a rift in the Trinity
If Christ died for, and is our solution to, our sins against god the Father, then what about our sins against Christ? He’s just as god as the Father is. or our sins against the Holy Spirit? With penal substitution, God is pitted against God, either dividing God (and thus destroying the Trinity) or saying that Christ isn’t fully god.
2. With penal substitution, God is bound by necessity
If god’s justice demands that He punish sin, then there is a higher force than God—necessity—which determines what God can and cannot do. Calvinists will be quick to argue,
“No, justice is an aspect of God’s nature. There is no necessity laid on Him from outside His nature.”
The problem, though, is that if I do “A” then God must do “B.” If I sin, God must punish. He does not have the freedom to do otherwise. Thus God’s actions are bound and controlled by some- thing outside of Himself, i.e. my actions. This becomes even more confusing if we add in the Calvinistic notion that God foreordained my sinful actions in the first place, thus forcing Him to respond to them. Furthermore, it is often argued by the Reformed that God is sovereign and doesn’t have to save anyone if He chooses not to. On the other hand, He does have to punish sin. So God has to punish sin, but He doesn’t have to save sinners. It’s very interesting that justice (or at least what the Reformed see as justice) becomes the defining characteristic of God rather than love. Justice forces God to respond to our actions, but love does not.
3. Penal substitution misunderstands the Old Testament sacrifices
The Old Testament sacrificial system was not a picture of penal substitution. God was not pouring out His wrath on the animals in place of the Israelites. He didn’t vent His righteous judgment on the animals, sending them to hell in place of the Israelites. On the contrary, they were killed honorably and as painlessly as possible. Their life (i.e. their blood) was offered to God as a sweet smelling aroma. The resulting meat was good and holy—not just worthless carrion fit for dogs and vultures. Such is also the case with Christ’s sacrifice: it is a holy offering of blood to the Father, not a means whereby God can vent His wrath.
RELATED Through the Lens of St. Paul
4. Penal substitution misunderstands the word “justice”
A quick perusal of the psalms and prophets will reveal that the word “justice” is usually coupled with “mercy.” Justice really means to show kindness and deliverance to the oppressed, and to right the wrongs done to them. True justice is destroying our oppressors—sin, death, and Satan—not punishing us for the sins to which we are in bondage.
5. Penal substitution misunderstands the word “propitiation”
Propitiation should not be thought of in the classical pagan sense, as if our god were some angry deity who needed appeasing and could only be satisfied through a penal sacrifice. It’s really quite different. Propitiation (Greek hilasterion) is also translated “mercy seat.” The mercy seat covered the ark of the covenant, which contained a copy of the ten commandments—the law. While the law cried out against us and demanded perfection and showed us our shortcomings, the mercy seat covered those demands and our failure to live up to them. Was the mercy seat punished for our sins? of course not. Likewise, Christ’s blood was not the punishment demanded by justice, but rather the ultimate mercy seat, covering and forgiving our sins. This is why “propitiation” is sometimes more accurately translated as “expiation” in some versions of the Bible. (“expiation” implies the removal of our sins, while “propitiation” implies appeasing an angry deity.)
6. With penal substitution, God does not show unconditional love
With penal substitution, god Himself does not show the unconditional love that He commands us to show one another. There is a big condition attached: god must have an “outlet” to vent His wrath. His “self-giving” love is only made possible by His “self- satisfying” justice.
7. With penal substitution, God does not truly forgive
With penal substitution, the debt is not really forgiven; it’s just transferred. But we are commanded to forgive as God forgave us. If my brother offends me, should I demand justice and vent my wrath on someone else? Should I beat myself up? No, obviously we are to simply let it go and graciously accept the offense.
8. With penal substitution, God changes
According to penal substitution, God is angry with us because of our sins. But once He expresses His wrath in His Son, He is no longer angry with us. Now He loves us as He loves His own Son. In other words, He changes. First He’s angry with us, then He changes His mind and decides to love us. But how can this be if God is love? How can a God who is infinite, self-giving love ever vary in His degree of love towards us? Besides, not only is God love (1 Jn 4:8, 16), but He’s also unchanging (Mal 3:6) and doesn’t change His mind (Num 23:19).
RELATED Turning On the Lights: Your Christmas Sermon
9. Penal substitution makes the resurrection unnecessary
According to penal substitution, salvation is made possible only by a legal exchange. We are counted “just” and “forgiven” only because god’s wrath has been poured out on Christ instead. Since hell is said to be a punishment for sins, and since our sins have already been punished in Christ, we are free to go to heaven. The resurrection then becomes simply a nice bonus, nothing more than a “proof” that Christ is divine.
10. Penal substitution makes the incarnation unnecessary
Was it Christ’s physical suffering or spiritual suffering which atoned for our sins (according to penal substitution)? If physical, then anyone who has suffered physically more than Christ (and there have been plenty in the history of our race), is exempt from hell, since they already paid for their own sins. If it was Christ’s spiritual suffering that counts, then He didn’t need to be incarnate. (After all, the demons will be punished without needing bodies.) The incarnation becomes just an “add-on” to help us out a little more.
11. One person cannot be punished for another
Contra penal substitution, the Bible tells us that one person can- not be punished for another. each one shall die for his own sins:
In those days they shall say no more:
“The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children’s teeth are set on edge.”
But every one shall die for his own iniquity. (Jer 31:29-30) Fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor shall children be put to death for their fathers; a person shall be put to death for his own sin. (Deut 24:16) The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not bear the guilt of the father, nor the father bear the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself. (Ezek 18:20)
12. Penal substitution makes death a punishment rather than a result
God said,
“In the day you eat the fruit, you will surely die” (Gen 2:17).
He did not say “I will kill you” but rather “you will die.” To walk away from God (i.e. to sin) is by definition, death. death is the realm of “Not God.” likewise, if I pull the plug on my own life support system, the result is death. No one else is killing me. If I jump off the roof, after being warned by my mother not to, and I end up breaking my leg, does that mean that my mother broke my leg? No, that was simply the result of my own choice. Christ gave Himself up to death. If death is an active punishment from God, then Christ was punished by His Father (per penal substitution). But if death is the result of sin, then it is an outside enemy, and not God’s own wrath.
RELATED The Self-Liquidation of Christianity
13. Penal substitution undermines union with Christ
If death is a punishment for sin rather than a result of sin (continuing with the last point), then it makes little sense to speak of being united with Christ. St. Paul says that we were united together in the likeness of His death (Rom 6:5). He also says
“I have been crucified with Christ” (Gal 2:20).
If death is a punishment, then St. Paul is saying
“Christ and I have been punished together.”
But again, why would two people be punished for one person’s sins? Perhaps it makes more sense to say that Christ, in union with our humanity, experienced the consequence of death, and through His death, defeated death for all of us. Besides, if we really believe that Christ defeated death, then we certainly can’t say that death is a punishment sent from god, or else we’d be forced to say that Christ defeated something that god willed for us. But Christ and His Father are not at war with each other. on the other hand, I will certainly confess that there is a substitution as well. Christ experienced the consequence of sin (i.e. death), as a substitute for us, so that we don’t have to experience the ultimate consequence sin (i.e. eternal death). But note that Christ is taking on the consequence of sin in our place, rather than the punishment for sin in our place.
14. Penal substitution was absent from the entire Church (both east and west) for at least 1,000 years
To quote from the Theogeek blogsite,
“If the apostles taught penal substitution as a central part of their gospel, then it seems almost entirely inconceivable that the generations that came after them and spoke the same language had, worldwide, managed to universally forget the major and central part of the gospel and replace it with something else entirely.”
So what was Christ’s death for, if not to satisfy God’s justice? The purpose of Christ’s atonement was to defeat death and forgive us of our sins. It was the presenting of Christ’s blood, His humanity, to the Father to restore the unity that we had broken. It was a sweet-smelling aroma, a sacrifice acceptable to God.
The depth and purpose of His sacrifice is far beyond the scope of this little book, but one thing is for sure: it was not about punishment. And when punishment is taken out of the equation, things look much different. We can no longer say that Christ was punished in place of John but not in place of, say, Judas. But we can say that Christ defeated death for both John and Judas, both of whom will be resurrected regardless of their acceptance or rejection of Christ…
HT: Orthodox Christian Faith
Orthodoxy in Australia
This article forms part of the series
Orthodoxy in Australia
Australasia.gif
History
Orthodoxy in Australia Timeline
Statistics of Orthodoxy in Australia
Antiochian Orthodox
Gk Orthodox Archd. of ANZ
Jurisdictions
GOA Aus – Abp Stylianos
Antiochian – Met Basilios
ROCOR – Met Hilarion
Serbian – Bp Siluan
Romanian – Bp Michael
Without local bishop
Pan-Orthodox Synaxes
Episcopal Assembly SCCOCA
Institutions
Antiochian Orthodox
Greek Orthodox (Aus)
Notable Monasteries
St Anna
Holy Cross
Gorgoepikoos
O.L. of Kazan
Presentation Proph. Elias
St John Mtn
Pantanassa
St Sava (Elaine)
Transfiguration
Complete List
Edit this box
From the first Divine Liturgy celebrated at Kirribilli Point (Sydney) in 1820, the first Exarch in 1913, and Australia and New Zealand’s first bishop in 1924, right to the present day, Orthodoxy in Australia has a short history that is extremely undocumented and, therefore, largely unseen.
This article seeks to be a clearinghouse of information and links regarding the history and state of Orthodox Christianity in Australia.
Contents
1 History
2 Jurisdictions
2.1 With Local Bishop
2.2 Without Local Bishop
2.3 With an irregular status
2.4 Previously in Australia
3 People
3.1 Current Hierarchs
3.2 Other major figures
4 Organizations and Institutions
4.1 Pan-Jurisdictional
5 Lists
6 See also
7 External links
History
Timeline of Orthodoxy in Australia
Statistics of Orthodoxy in Australia
History of Antiochian Orthodoxy in Australasia
Jurisdictions
With Local Bishop
Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of Australia
Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of Australia and New Zealand
Diocese of Australia and New Zealand – Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia
Serbian Orthodox Church – Metropolitanate of Australia and New Zealand
Romanian Orthodox Episcopate of Australia and New Zealand.
Without Local Bishop
Moscow Patriarchate in Australia; with parishes in Sydney and Melbourne.
Bulgarian Eastern Orthodox Diocese of the USA, Canada and Australia. There is one parish in Sydney, one in Melbourne and one in Adelaide.
Consistory of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church in Australia and New Zealand (under Constantinople), with 10 parishes and missions in Melbourne, Geelong, Newborough, Sydney, Schofields, Canberra, Adelaide, Brisbane and Perth (in addition to one in Auckland, New Zealand).
Ukrainian Orthodox Church in Australia – Kyivan Patriarchate: Part of the Kyivan Patriarchate, with 5 parishes in Sydney, Newcastle, Adelaide and Brisbane. With the Decision of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople 11/10/18 starting from Patriarch Philaret and Metropolitan Makary all anathemas, defrokments & excommunication were uplifted and all clergy under them restored to canonical status. Autocephaly and Tomos to the Ukrainian church is being finalised.
With an irregular status
Note: All of the below entities are not in communion with any of the mainstream Orthodox Churches. Entities are, where possible, sorted by size.
Macedonian Orthodox Diocese of Australia and New Zealand: As part of the Macedonian Orthodox Church.
Church of the Genuine Orthodox Christians of Greece – Parishes in Australia (Kallinikos): The current locum tenens of this entity is Bp Ambrose of Methone, who administers eight parishes (including parishes of the ‘Free Serbian Orthodox Church’). This number includes is a ‘metochion’ mission under Metr. Photios of Demetrias.
Autocephalic Greek Orthodox Church of America and Australia: Formed out of a schism with the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of Australia with the Greek Orthodox Community of South Australia (GOCSA). The parishes affiliated with the ‘Greek Orthodox Communities of South Australia’ (GOCSA) are in this church.
Russian True Orthodox Church – Diocese of Australia: Four parishes in Australia, headed by Archbishop Tikhon.
Russian Orthodox Church Abroad – Provisional Supreme Church Authority – Two parishes and one monastic community, headed by Metropolitan Agafangel.
Macedonian True Orthodox Diocese for Australia & New Zealand: Two parishes are in this group, which is affiliated with the True Orthodox Church in America (headed by Nicholas (Iuhoş)).
Russian Orthodox Church Abroad (the Diaspora District of the Russian Orthodox Church) – Diocese of Australia (ROCA – Diaspora District): includes two parishes under Archbishop Andronik.
Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church Abroad in Australia: part of the UAOC-Abroad (Lavrentios Synod), and with two bishops in Australia. [1]
Holy Orthodox Metropolis of Australia & Oceania (Serapheimite): Originally parishes who went into schism from the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of Australia. In Australia, this entity currently contains one parish, in Clayton.
Previously in Australia
Orthodox Church in America – Parishes in Australia.
Polish Orthodox Church in Australia.
Church of Jerusalem.
People
Current Hierarchs
His Eminence Stylianos, Archbishop of Australia (Greek Orthodox).
His Grace Ezekiel (Kefalas) of Dervis, auxiliary bishop to Archbishop Stylianos in Melbourne, Victoria.
His Grace Seraphim (Ginis) of Apollonias, auxiliary bishop to Archbishop Stylianos in Sydney, NSW.
His Grace Nikandros (Palyvos) of Dorileou, auxiliary bishop to Archbishop Stylianos in Adelaide, SA, Darwin, NT, and for Perth, WA.
His Grace Iakovos (Tsigounis) of Miletoupolis, auxiliary bishop to Archbishop Stylianos in Melbourne, Victoria.
His Eminence Basilios, Metropolitan Archbishop of Australia, New Zealand and the Philippines (Antiochian Orthodox).
His Eminence Hilarion, Archbishop of Sydney, Australia and New Zealand, Metropolitan and First Hierarch of ROCOR.
His Grace George, vicar bishop to Metropolitan Hilarion in Australia and New Zealand.
His Grace Siluan, Bishop of Australia and New Zealand (Serbian Orthodox).
His Grace Mihail, Bishop of Australia and New Zealand (Romanian Orthodox)
Other major figures
Archbishop Anthony (Medvedev) of San Francisco, formerly bishop of Melbourne in the 1950s-1960s.
Archbishop Gabriel (Chemodakov) of Montreal, former Bishop of Brisbane and first Australian-born bishop.
His Eminence Paul, Metropolitan Archbishop of Australia, New Zealand and the Philippines (Antiochian Orthodox).
Bishop Nektarios (Kellis) of Madagascar, former priest at the Holy Monastery of St Nektarios, Adelaide; then missionary to Madagascar, and first bishop thereof.
Bishop John (Bērziņš) of Caracas, second Australian-born bishop.
Archimandrite Antonious (Mobayed), exarch of the Church of Antioch to the Church of Russia, then first parish priest and exarch in Melbourne, Australia.
Archimandrite Nabil (Kachab), Vicar-General of the Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of Australia and New Zealand since 2003.
Archimandrite Stephanos (Pantanassiotis), former Vicar-General of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of Australia, founding abbot of the Holy Monastery of Pantanassa.
Archimandrite Themistocles (Adamopoulo), former lecturer at St Andrew’s Greek Orthodox Theological College, then vice-dean of the Orthodox Patriarchal School in Kenya and now head of the Diocese of Sierra Leone.
V. Rev. Fr Michael Shehadie, second exarch of the Church of Antioch in Sydney.
V. Rev. Protopresbyter Mitko Machevski, parish priest of St Nicholas Orthodox Church, Bankstown.
V. Rev. Fr Nicholas Shehadie, first exarch in Australia of the Church of Antioch.
Rev. Fr Dimitri Tsakas, Archdiocesan Vicar-General of the Fourth Archdiocesan District of Queensland and New Guinea, Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of Australia.
Igumen Dimitry (Obuhoff), founding superior of St John the Baptist Skete.
Igumen Joachim (Ross), superior of St. John the Baptist Skete.
Monk Guri (Demidov), hermit-monk at St. John the Baptist Skete.
Other Clergy in the Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of Australia and New Zealand, including three exarchs (Frs Malatius Hussney, Anthony Woolf and Nicolas Mansour), Fr Stephen Godley (co-author of The Eastern Orthodox in Australia, Fr Nicholas Manovitch (first priest in New Zealand, served in Queensland) and two other parish priests (Frs John Shehadie and Malatius (Essam) Hussney).
(Only major figures with articles are listed)
Organizations and Institutions
Australasia.gif
Logo of Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of Australia.jpg
Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of Australia
Archdiocesan Organisations
Educational Institutions
St. Andrew’s Greek Orthodox Theological College
Philanthropic Institutions
St. Basil’s Homes | Estia Foundation | ProviCare Foundation
St. Andrew’s Orthodox Press
Phronema | TO VEMA | The Voice of Orthodoxy
Byzantine Music
Byzantine Music School | Australian Byzantine Choir, NSW
Saint John of Damascus, SA | David the Psalmist, Vic.
Australasia.gif
Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of Australia, New Zealand and the Philippines
Archdiocesan Organisations
Administrative Divisions
Deanery of New Zealand
Educational Institutions
Melbourne Institute of Orthodox Christian Studies
St. Paul’s Theological Course of Studies
Pan-Jurisdictional
Eastern Hierarchs
Standing Conference of Canonical Orthodox Churches in Australia
Lists
Monasteries in Australia
Parishes in Australia with English as a liturgical language
Parishes in Australasia celebrating the Western Rite
Complete list of bishops in Australasia, past and present (includes auxiliary bishops).
Parishes in Australasia and Oceania Flag of the United States
States and Territories of Australia Australian Capital Territory | New South Wales | Northern Territory |
Queensland | South Australia | Tasmania | Victoria | Western Australia
Islands and Territories of New Zealand North Island | South Island | Stewart Island | Tokelau
Countries in Melanesia East Timor | Fiji | New Caledonia | Papua New Guinea | Solomon Islands | Vanuatu
Countries in Micronesia Guam | Kiribati | Marshall Islands | Federated States of Micronesia | Nauru | Northern Mariana Islands | Palau
Countries in Polynesia American Samoa | Cook Islands | French Polynesia | Niue | Pitcairn | Samoa | Tonga | Tuvalu | Wallis and Futuna Islands
Australasia.gif
Orthodoxy in Australia: Monasteries