www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Ecumenical Dialogue and Faith

I certainly won't disagree that there are differences of opinion on these matters within the Catholic communion, but I would hasten to point out that the Catholic Church is still coming to grips with the implications of several V-II teachings, not the least of which is the concept of "divisions within the Church," upon which all "ecumenical" activity is predicated. Some interpret this very narrowly, while others interpret it so broadly as to include almost anyone "within the Church."

My point is, though, that there is good reason to believe that what appear to be "mixed messages" from an Eastern perspective are, for the most part, neither deliberate nor an attempt to obstruct ecumenical dialogue.

FWIW, I agree that it is unfair to blame "divisions within Eastern Orthodoxy" for slowing down the restoration of communion.


Peace,
Deacon Richard

And I believe that the "filioque," and even the "per filium" as understood by the Latins, does do violence to the creed, because the Spirit does not receive His subsistent being either from or through the Son, but only from the Father, who alone is the font of divinity.

In the Eastern Christian tradition the "per filium" concerns the eternal and temporal manifestation of the graces of the Spirit, but not His eternal hypostatic origin, which is only from the Father.

God is beyond being and His essence can never be defined, participated in, nor seen in any sense, but when we are talking about the eternal origin of the Son by generation and the Spirit by procession from the Father alone, we are dealing with what has been revealed. I do not claim to know what generation or procession are, for as St. Gregory of Nazianzus said, a person who tries to do that would most certainly be driven mad. That generation and procession are caused by the Father alone is revealed, and that these two things are distinct is also revealed, but what they are in themselves, I do not pretend to know.

The following is from the letter issued by Cardinal Ratzinger - as head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith - in response to the so-called Zoghby Initiative of the Melkite Catholic Holy Synod:

"With respect to communion with the Bishops of Rome, one must not forget that doctrine relating to the primacy of the Roman Pontiff has been the subject of some development within the elaboration of the Church's faith through the ages, and that it must thus be upheld in its entirety from its origins all the way to the present day. One need only reflect on what the First Vatican Council affirms and on what has been declared at the Second Vatican Council, particularly in NN. 22 and 23 of the Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium and in N. 2 of the Decree on Ecumenism Unitatis Redintegratio."

Todd, I think you are right to point toward the temporal manifestation of the persons ad extra as the locus of the priority drawn between the persons. However, the point I would add is that the Latin idea of a sort of sequence within the immanent Trinity might really amount to an insistence on the correspondence between the two. That basic insistence is strongly shared by some of the eastern Fathers.

First off, I did not simply point to the "temporal" manifestation of the Spirit's energies, but to both the temporal and eternal manifestation of the divine energies that flow out from the Tri-hypostatic Godhead.

That said, the problem with the Western approach - as I see it - is that it fails to really grasp the nature of the monarchy of the Father, which is why it can be said that the Latin approach falls either into a form of Sabellianism, by confusing the personal properties of the Father and the Son, and thus confusing their distinct hypostaseis; or if one realizes the danger of Sabellianism inherent to the notion that the Father and the Son together act as a type of "single principle" in the spiration of the Spirit, a Westerner may err by trying to avoid that heresy by instead affirming that the Father and the Son are two principles of divinity, and thus fall into ditheism. Another difficulty with the Western approach is that if one posits the false notion that the Son can share a hypostatic property that rightly belongs only to the Father he establishes a distinction between the Father and the Son (taken as a single cause) that separates them from the Holy Spirit, and thus makes the Spirit essentially less than the other two persons of the Trinity, and once again there are two gods instead of one God. **

To better understand my position on this issue I would recommend that you read my brief paper on the filioque controversy. Click the link below to peruse my paper:

The Filioque Controversy [sites.google.com]


For the sake of clarity I am also cutting and pasting a text into this post that I wrote some time ago, but which better explains the position I enunciated above:


Eastern Triadology and the Filioque

Eastern Triadology, unlike the Scholastic philosophical theology of the West, is focused first and foremost upon the monarchy of the Father, Who is seen as the sole principle (ἀρχή), source (πηγή), and cause (αιτία) of divinity. Now, it follows from the doctrine of the monarchy of the Father that both the Son and the Holy Spirit receive their subsistence solely from Him, i.e., that He is their sole source and origin; and so, they are — as a consequence — one in essence (ὁμοούσιος) with Him. Moreover, it is important to remember that the word ὁμοούσιος itself, which was used by the First Ecumenical Council of Nicaea in order to describe the eternal communion of nature that exists between the Father and the Son, is a term that indicates a relation of dependence. In other words, the use of the term ὁμοούσιος by the Church Fathers involves recognition of the fact that the Son receives His existence as person (ὑπόστᾰσις) from God the Father alone by generation (γέννησιν), and that He is dependent upon the Father for His co-essential nature. That being said, it follows that the Son comes forth from the Father’s person (ὑπόστᾰσις), and not from the divine essence (οὐσία), which is always absolutely common to the three divine persons. The same also holds with the hypostatic procession (ἐκπόρευσιν) of origin of the Holy Spirit, as opposed to His progression (προϊέναι), because He also receives His existence from the Father alone, i.e., from the Father’s person (ὑπόστᾰσις), and not from the divine essence (οὐσία), which — as I already indicated — is absolutely common to the three divine persons [see St. Gregory Palamas, "Logos Apodeiktikos," I, 6]. Thus, it is from the Father Himself personally that the other two persons of the Holy Trinity derive their eternal subsistence and their co-essential nature.

Now, with the foregoing information in mind, it is clear that the Eastern Churches (both Orthodox and Catholic) must reject any theological system or theory that tries to elevate the Son to a co-principle of origin in connection with the existential procession (ἐκπόρευσις) of the Holy Spirit as person (ὑπόστᾰσις), because within Byzantine Triadology a theological proposition of that kind entails either the sin of ditheism, which involves positing the false idea that there are two principles or causes of divinity (i.e., the Father and the Son); or the heresy of Sabellian Modalism, which involves proposing the false notion that the Holy Spirit as person (ὑπόστᾰσις) proceeds from Father and the Son "as from one principle," thus causing an unintentional blending of the persons of the Father and the Son by giving the Son a personal characteristic (i.e., the power to spirate the Holy Spirit as person) that is proper only to the Father.


Postscript: ** At the Council of Florence John de Montenero's proposed solution to this problem involved emphasizing the unity of essence between the Father and the Son that allows them to co-spirate the Holy Spirit, or to put it another way because the Father and the Son have a common nature they can spirate the Spirit together as one principe (or cause), but the problem with that solution is that the Holy Spirit is also one in essence with the Father and the Son, and so He could actually spirate Himself, and thus be the cause of His own eternal subsistent being, which is utter nonsense. This "solution" also has the added problem - as I indicated in an earlier paragraph - of distinguishing the essence of the Father and the Son from the essence of the Holy Spirit, and so you again have two gods instead of one.

I'm OK with that!

Alex

Dear Peter the Rock,

Could you elaborate on this? When did the Latin Church make such a distinction between Ecumenical and General Councils following the estrangement of East and West?

Fascinating!

Alex

Dear Todd,

Not bad for a high school teacher!

Everything of real value I ever learned was from my high school teachers anyway . . .

Alex

See for example:


http://www.legionofmarytidewater.com/faith/ECUM16.HTM#9

Interesting. I know it sounds funny but I have no better way of expressing it than: To whom is/are (the graces/energies of) the Spirit manifested eternally, i.e. apart from creation just considering the Trinity in "itself"? Do you have some good pointers for the Eastern fathers talking about the eternal (not the temporal) manifestation / progression? (Such as those in your thorough paper citing St. John Damascene). Thanks!

Todd has put his finger on the crux of the problem (or what is behind the problem) when he states that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Person of the Father and not from the Divine Essence which is common to all three Persons.

Another problematic Western formulation is to assert that the Spirit is the "Love" between the Father and the Son - when in reality all Three Divine Persons are characterized by Divine Love.

The West came to its conclusions precisely because of its emphasis on the Divine Essence. So it could affirm that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son since both Father and Son share the same Divine Essence.

From the Eastern point of view, this doesn't work since the Spirit also has the Divine Essence as does the Son and the Father. The tendency toward Sabellianism is made abundantly clear here, and Todd (that high school teacher - and I should be so lucky! ) has demonstrated this most thoroughly.

In any event, the fact is that both Churches have always agreed that the Holy Spirit's Procession from the Father is different from the Son's being Begotten of the Father. How - no one can know, but the distinction between the Son and the Spirit is ALREADY ESTABLISHED by the way They proceed from the Father.

IF that is true, (which it is), there is no reason for the Latin Church to affirm anything further in Triadology i.e. the "necessity" of the Filioque to distingush the Son from the Holy Spirit. That we cannot know how the Son's being Begotten of the Father is different/distinct from the Spirit's Procession from the Father - there are many mysteries of the Faith that we cannot delve into using our human reason.

There is also no reason, then, for the separation of the Churches.

Alex

Dear Peter the Rock,

Well, certainly what you have presented can be the cornerstone for renewed theological reflection on this matter by both Churches!

Congratulations sir!

Alex

May be interesting to cite Gregory of Palamas here:

"The Spirit of the most high Word is like an ineffable Love of the Father for this Word ineffably generated. A Love which this same Word and beloved Son of the Father entertains (chretai) towards the Father: but insofar as He (the Son) has the Spirit coming with Him (sunproelthonta) from the Father and reposing connaturally in Him." (Capita physica XXXVI, PG 150, 1144, D-1145 A)

Hm..

Very good! I've no problem with that, especially since it comes from such a great Orthodox Saint!

The Orthodox, by way of another example, are against the devotion to the Sacred Heart of Jesus (as asserted and explained by Fr. Michael Pomazansky in his "Orthodox Dogmatic Theology").

However, the book by St Nicholas Cabasilas on the Divine Liturgy does go into the veneration of the "Heart of Christ."

A preface to that St Vladimir's Seminary Press publication "bends over backwards" to bring home the "real difference" between the Western devotion to the "Heart of Jesus" and the Eastern veneration of the "Heart of Christ."

I've no doubt there must be a difference. I just don't see the difference - do you see the difference?

Also, the website "www.akafist.narod.ru" in their journal section has the Slavonic Akathist to the Immaculate Conception.

Comments on that talk about the publication of "heresy, heresy, heresy."

The fact is that not only did Orthodox Saints understand - and accepted - the Western notion of Original Sin AND the Immaculate Conception, they venerated it highly in their special Orthodox Brotherhoods dedicated to the same, taking the bloody vow to defend to the death the IC and even wearing a medal that resembles today's Miraculous Medal.

Alex