www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Question Concerning Fillioque's Dogmatic Status

dstan51,

Let me quote from Treaty Of Brest (1595) [ewtn.com] :

I believe this is precisely what Dstan is arguing for, actually. What is described in the portion you highlighted of the Treaty of Brest is the Catholic understanding of the filioque; what is permitted is that the term itself, and therefore the modified Creed, is not at all binding on non-Latins.

Peace and God bless!

Since the Council of Florence is not a valid ecumenical council, it follows that what it anathematized is ultimately irrelevant.

That said, as an Eastern Catholic Christian I do not believe in the Western "filioque" theory; instead, I embrace the doctrinal, spiritual, and liturgical tradition of the Byzantine Church in connection with the procession (ekporeusis) of origin of the Holy Spirit as person (hypostasis).

God bless,
Todd

Yet you apparently hold the local council of Blachernae as universally binding for all Orthodoxy when it comes to your teaching that the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of the Son, is spirated as energies and not as the Third Person of the Trinity.

One wonders at the double standard.

Mary

It seems here that you are saying that the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of the Son is energy, and not person.

In other words, the Spirit of the Son is the energy of the Holy Spirit, Third Person of the Trinity, flowing from the Son, and the Spirit of the Son is not the person of the Holy Spirit coming into the world.

Is this correct?

If this is the case, how then, does the person of the Holy Spirit come into the world? Or does the person of the Holy Spirit not come into the world?

If this is so can this be said to be universal Orthodox teaching?

Mary

Mary,

As a Byzantine Christian I do hold that I am bound by the Blachernae Council's decrees, and that I am even more so bound to accept the teaching of the Synodikon of Orthodoxy, but the hypostatic procession of origin of the Holy Spirit from the Father alone is not simply the teaching of a conciliar decree; instead, it is the doctrine of the faith as revealed in Sacred Scripture and the consensus of the Fathers. Thus, I reject Augustine's opinion on the procession of the Spirit because his views do not coincide with divine revelation (cf. John 15:26), because, as Christ clearly taught, the ekporeusis of the Spirit is from the Father alone (it is important to note that Christ never used the term ekporeusis in connection with own His "sending" of the Spirit energetically and economically), and the Bishop of Hippo's views also disagree with the doctrinal teaching of St. Athanasios, St. Basil, St. Gregory of Nyssa, St. Gregory of Nazianzen, St. Cyril of Alexandria, St. Maximos the Confessor, St. John Damascene, and St. Gregory Palamas, all of whom distinguish between the Spirit's origin from the Father, and His sending by the Son.

Sadly, the confusion of the economic and immanent Trinity by Augustine later influenced the Scholastic philosophers of the medieval period in the West, and the uncritical introduction of Aristotelian categories of thought into the theology of the West caused further theological decay within the Latin tradition. In my opinion, the only thing that can serve the cause of ecumenism is a renewal of Patristic theology in the Latin Church, which should be focused in particular upon incorporating the views (not read in an Augustinian fashion) of the Great Fathers of the fourth to the eighth centuries, men like St. Athanasios, the Cappadocians, St. Maximos, and St. John Damascene.

Now, it is pretty clear to me (and I am sure you would agree) that our views on the Trinity are substantially different, and that we are not likely to come to an amicable agreement. Nevertheless, I do not say any of this in order to demean your character, nor do I say it out of any feelings of anger; instead, I simply think that it is important that we recognize the true nature of our disagreement. That said, I want to emphasize the fact that I hold the position I do on these issues as a matter of divine faith; thus, it follows that I cannot change my position -- not even for the sake of a pretended unity -- because to do that would involve my falling into heresy, and convicting myself of sin within my own conscience.

May God bless you,
Todd

No, that is not correct (see my fuller response below).

The divine energies are the personalized activites of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and that is how God enters into the world. Neither the divine essence, nor any one of the three divine hypostaseis can be communicated to an existing human hypostasis, because that would not bring about salvation; instead, that would involve the annihilation of the human subject.

It is the teaching of the universal Church based upon the decrees (horoi) of the Seven Ecumenical Councils, and in particular upon the teaching of Chalcedon and Constantinople III.

Now, let me answer one of your earlier questions more fully. Your question at the beginning of your post sadly evinces a certain ignorance of the teaching of St. John Chrysostom, St. Maximos, and St. Gregory Palamas on the energies of the Spirit.

These Fathes all teach that the divine energy, which is common to the three hypostaseis of the Holy Trinity, can be called "spirit" because it has a special connection to the gifts of the Spirit (i.e., the uncreated charismata) mentioned in Isaiah.

Now, the fullest formula for expressing the energetic manifestation of the divine energy (i.e., the Spirit as energy) is as follows: The Spirit as energy is manifest or shines forth from the Father, through the Son, and in the power of the Holy Spirit. In other words, the divine energies are the common powers of the tri-hypostatic Godhead, but because of the real distinction between the persons (i.e., their distinct tropos hyparxeos), we can speak of the divine energies as the "energies of the Spirit," and can even call them the "Spirit as energy."

Now, I hope this helps clarify things for you. Palamas himself covers this in both the Capita Physica and in his treatise entitled Dialogue Between an Orthodox and a Barlaamite, St. Maximos talks about this in the Ambigua, and St. John Chrysostom touches on this in his Homilies on John.

God bless,
Todd

P.S. - A helpful book to read on this topic is the one I mentioned earlier, which is written by Duncan Reid, and is entitled, "Energies of the Spirit."

More accurately it evinces disagreement with some of the interpretations that you and others have given their teachings. I also disagree that these interpretations are universally accepted in Orthodoxy.

No one else in this thread has stooped to this kind of condescension with you.

Mary

What do you mean when you speak of energies being "personalized" activities? Can you offer examples?

Mary

An Interesting Lutheran approach on the Fillioque.
http://www.angelfire.com/ny4/djw/lutherantheology.filioque.html

Forgive me for taking so long on some of these things. I know that they are available, but I don't always have the precise Orthodox texts immediately at hand to refute some of these assertions and must go looking in my books for them. There is no point in using any other but reputable Orthodox sources in these instances of friendly rivalry, or oneupmanship.

Apparently "schools" of thought were patristic terminology and not a "modern innovation of the second millennium."

Mary

From Metropolitan Hierotheos Nafpaktos in his book The Person in Orthodox Tradition:

Elijahmaria,

These are not different "schools of thought;" Metropolitan Nafpaktos makes it clear that these two (terminological) "schools" differed only with respect to the terminology they used to express the exact same theological truth or revelatory content. This quotation does not contradict Kaster in the least.

IF you pay very very strict attention to what is said below it will appear to your eyes, eventually, the fact that the Metropolitan is comparing the terms used by pagan philosophers and Christians at first and says that they were the same terms.

If you read further in the quote it is clear that one school made ousia and hypostasis a unified whole, while the other separated them and made them quite distinct. There was also discussion of the differences between existance and being, substance and essence, properties and energies in one school that was totally lacking in the other.

Apparently there is more than a change in "terminology" here. There is a whole alteration in the content of the relationships of concepts, and a change in emphasis as well.

Besides, Todd was not arguing content, he was arguing that there was nothing like "schools" of thought in Orthodoxy. In that he was clearly wrong.

We are allowed to be mistaken, you know. It is not a sin.

Mary

Wait. Florence is not a valid ecumenical council? Well the Church taught that it was for centuries. Does that mean that Church is not infallible? Then, there is no Church of Jesus Christ on earth anymore and we may as well all become either Eastern Orthodox or pagans. Why would you stay in communion with a Church (the Latin Church) that you believe to be in error, when the Eastern Orthodox Church believes everything you believe?

I am quite certain it was not your intent to place the Orthodox and pagans on the same level, however this sentance lends to that understanding. You might consider making it clear that this was not your point before someone takes serious offense.

Jason