Greek Orthodox relations question

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Revprodeji' post='980415' date='May 13 2006, 01:25 PM']
That link was very helpful, thank you sir.

I have a quick question. At some moments the dialogue makes it appear as if Mr.Todd is not catholic, but more of a greek orthodox. I know L_D is catholic, just reads alot of eastern stuff. (and Miles is british so we can pray for him later) What exactly is Byzenntine Catholic and how is it in communion or not in communion with the church? My work is in evangelical/catholic relations so this is the other side of the boat for me. Thanks for putting up with my laymanish tone here. Im really not that dumb(*), this just isnt my field
[/quote]
The only real difference between a Byzantine Catholic and an Eastern Orthodox Christian is that the Byzantine Catholic recognizes the primacy of the Pope and is in communion with Rome.

As a Melkite Catholic friend of mine is fond of saying, "Byzantine Catholics (i.e., Ruthenians, Melkites, Ukrainians, etc.) are Eastern Orthodox Christians in communion with Rome."

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Revprodeji' post='980415' date='May 13 2006, 02:25 PM']
That link was very helpful, thank you sir.

I have a quick question. At some moments the dialogue makes it appear as if Mr.Todd is not catholic, but more of a greek orthodox. I know L_D is catholic, just reads alot of eastern stuff. (and Miles is british so we can pray for him later) What exactly is Byzenntine Catholic and how is it in communion or not in communion with the church? My work is in evangelical/catholic relations so this is the other side of the boat for me. Thanks for putting up with my laymanish tone here. Im really not that dumb(*), this just isnt my field
[/quote]
and IMHO its a good thing that Todd seems Orthodox. And the theological differences are a good thing in a way.. I kind of see like east and west broke up for a while and didn't really talk and now they're working on getting back together but they need to work on their communication, and maybe there is still some resentment and misunderstanding, but its something that needs to be dealt with. We need Dr. Phil.

[N/A Gone]

Not to sound like an idiot. I want to express my humble lack of knowledge in this issue. This is not my arena, but how are you an eastern orthodox christian if you are in full communion with Rome and recognizes the primacy of the Pope?

Also, what is your summary on this issue. If I just want to ask you in (less than 500 words..hehe) what is your conclusion on this issue? Do you think this is a major barrier towards ecumenism? Do you think that we will either not think its important allowing both, or saying it is too mysterious? I dont believe it is simple verbage after reading what you and my boy Sean wrote. I think it started as that in misunderstanding. Similar to the problem with evangelicals and catholics right now, but after we understand each others verbage we still have major differences.

thank you for your time sir. It is not wasted I promise. I thirst for this knowledge.

Dr. phil is a cartoon...what kind of relationship expert is divorced...

or is seen in an acting dialogue with Shaq?

[N/A Gone]

A problem of mine here is that I am still thinking very pro-filioque in this because it still makes the most sense. To me the first time I read about an explaination of the procession of the spirit was from Frank Sheed.

[quote]Frank Sheed in his book Theology and Sanity. We start with an understanding and development of the Son, the logos, proceeding from the Father by way of knowledge. Where as the Spirit is from love as the other primary operation of the trinity. I will summarize the logos development here, but that is not what our focus is so it will stay brief. The argument that Sheed develops in the previous chapters of the novel is that God's attributes are one with God himself and so with one another. God's knowledge and love are not in themselves different principles. But their reality and power and productivity are not lessened. Because God can produce a perfect act of knowledge and a perfect act of love.
To a degree the two progressions are parallel. It is determined that the first person, the Father, knows himself and in that knowledge he produces an idea, a Logos, a Word. In its perfection he is personified as the father is in order to be the perfect idea, the perfect image of Himself. It is this Idea that is the second person. In this the first person and the second person combine in love, a true and perfect love for one another and for the Godhead which it belongs to. Similar to how the act of knowing produces an Idea within the divine nature, the act of loving produces the state of lovingness in that same nature. In this lovingness the Father and Son put themselves entirely into the third party. Absolutely nothing is held back from the Spirit. In this utter equality it too is Eternal, Infinite, Living, a Someone, a Person, and God. All of this happens within the Divine Nature, the love is fully within the lover. In summary, “this love wholly contains the Divine Nature, because God puts the whole of himself into love.1”
In this we come to a truth, that the Spirit proceeds from the father and the Son as from one principle of love. The word Filioque means and from the son, it was not part of the original Creed as it was drawn up, but was added later to give a fullness and precision to the doctrine against heresies of that time. The council of Florence defined that “the Holy Spirit is from the Father and the Son eternally, and has His essence and substance from Father and Son together, proceeds eternally from both as one principle and one single spiration”.[/quote]

But, Mr. Todd, I am sure you would strongly disagree with this, correct?

[N/A Gone]

[quote]The Holy Father(jpII), in the homily he gave in St Peter Basilica on 29 June in the presence of the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I, expressed a desire that "the traditional doctrine of the Filioque, present in the liturgical version of the Latin Credo, [be clarified] in order to highlight its full harmony with what the Ecumenical Council of Constantinople of 381 confesses in its creed: the Father as the source of the whole Trinity, the one origin both of the Son and of the Holy Spirit". [/quote]


what about this? Sounds interesting. He is not claiming them to be different from each other, just that the filioque is a more clear understanding of the issue. But we are saying the same thing. hmm

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Revprodeji' post='980492' date='May 13 2006, 03:20 PM']
A problem of mine here is that I am still thinking very pro-filioque in this because it still makes the most sense. To me the first time I read about an explaination of the procession of the spirit was from Frank Sheed.
But, Mr. Todd, I am sure you would strongly disagree with this, correct?
[/quote]
I like it. Sheed is cool.

[N/A Gone]

I hope you like it, Im rather sure you recommended me to read it..

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='980194' date='May 13 2006, 11:00 AM']
The East rejects the notion that the [i]hypostaseis[/i] of the Trinity are mere "relations of opposition" within the divine essence, and it does so: first because it is not possible to know anything about the divine essence, and second because this reduces the [i]hypostaseis[/i] to relations, but they are more than that. In fact the "relations" that the West speaks of are the logical consequence of the different "modes of origin" ([i]tropos hyparxeos[/i]) of the three divine [i]hypostaseis[/i], and so they cannot be the focus of man's experience of God, because God is beyond human intellection and logical deduction. One other problem with the Scholastic teaching is that it reduces the [i]hypostaseis[/i] to "mental" distinctions within the mind of man, because as St. Thomas said:
[quote]. . . relation as referred to the essence does not differ therefrom really, but only in our way of thinking. [St. Thomas, Summa Theologica, Prima Pars, Q. 39, A. 1][/quote]
[/quote]
I was trying to explain this in my earlier post in defense of Thomas but I'm not much of a Thomist so forgive my lack of clarity.
That question where Thomas says the relations are distinct "in our way of thinking" (perhaps not the best translation), is in fact referring to the relations. As I said in my earlier post, the conventional latin doctrine (in line with Thomas) does make it possible to say that the Divine relations are only notionally distinct from the Essence (depending on what you mean by relations), so not really distinct at all, but you are understanding this to mean that the hypostaseis are only mentally distinct from the Essence and I don't think this is correct.
If your understanding is correct then Thomas would appear to contradict himself terribly (as would latin dogma). As you know hypostasis with regard to the Holy Trinity is intrinsically related to the concept of relation in Thomas (relations of opposition) and the relations are but notionally distinct. However it is proper to say that the hypostases are distinct subsistences. And it is quite possible in the west to say that the Persons of the Trinity as "really" distinct, it is just perhaps more proper to say the distinction is "virtual" (which is not to say "notional") as a matter of qualification because the relations are substantial or essential, not accidental (in other words the subject and terminus are not of distinct ousia). So per Pope Eugene IV ("In Deo omnia sunt unum, ubi non obviat relationis oppositio"), the Father, Son and Sprit are "really" distinct and this rests not on the relations qua relation, but on the opposition of the relations, which is why there are three Persons and not four. So I suppose my thinking is that it is possible to say that the relations qua relation are only logically distinct from the Divine Essence, but that the hypostaseis, by virtue of the opposition of relations, must be really distinct.

[quote]
Thus it is manifest that relation really existing in God is really the same as His essence and only differs in its mode of intelligibility; as in relation is meant that regard to its opposite which is not expressed in the name of essence. Thus it is clear that in God relation and essence do not differ from each other, but are one and the same.
- ST, I, q28, a2

Boethius says (De Trin.) that in God "the substance contains the unity; and relation multiplies the trinity." Therefore, if the relations were not really distinguished from each other, there would be no real trinity in God, but only an ideal trinity, which is the error of Sabellius.
- ST I, q28, a3
[/quote]

I am quite aware of the fact that you have issues with this way of describing the Mystery of the Trinity, and that from an eastern perspective this talk of "essential" relations is at odds with how the east might speak of the Divine Essence (hyperousia, etc..), but the point is that I don't believe a correct understanding of Thomas would see him as destroying the distinction of Persons and turning the Trinity into a modalistic monad. The statement that Thomas "reduces the hypostaseis to 'mental' distinctions within the mind of man" is certainly not how I understand Thomas and it is definitely not how the west understands her own theology, in fact this idea is explicitly condemned. And if you were ultimately correct, and this was a neccessary conclusion of Thomas' system, that aspect of Thomas' theology would be deprecated (like the famous example of Thomas on the Immaculate Conception). As Thomas himself would not doubt readily testify, his speculative theology is hardly dogma.

I hope to have a chance to reread some Thomas later and perhaps put together a more comprehensive response.

God bless you.

The major problem here is that the terminology (esp. in the translation) is very inexact. It is ok to speak of the relations as notionally distinct from the Divine Essence, but in another sense you cannot say that the relations are not really distinct from each other. As i see it (I could be wrong), the key to grasping why this is not a contradiction or even a serious problematic is in Thomas' understanding of God as purely actual, simple personal, which is what I was trying to get it in my other post. Its really at the heart of his metaphysics.. To caricature Thomas as a Sabellian is simple to not understand the heart of his thought.

[quote]The Father is denominated only from paternity; and the Son only from filiation. Therefore, if no real paternity or filiation existed in God, it would follow that God is not really Father or Son, but only in our manner of understanding; and this is the Sabellian heresy.
...
Therefore as the divine processions are in the identity of the same nature, as above explained (27, 2, 4), these relations, according to the divine processions, are necessarily real relations.

- ST, I Q 28, A 1[/quote]

I hope there is a Thomist out there who can help clarify this because I don't feel entirely qualified. Bonaventure is my guy when it comes to Medieval theology.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' post='979873' date='May 13 2006, 07:30 AM']
The latins teach that the hypostases of the Trinity are truly subsistent and distinct but to call it "mere" relations of opposition is to betray a lack of appreciation for the richness of the west's ponderings on this mystery. Quite frankly the Paternity, Sonship, Spiration approach that the west takes ....[/quote]

I know you're already familiar with it Todd, but I thought I'd post a conciliar description of the Latin Church's belief:

[quote]First, then, the holy Roman church, founded on the words of our Lord and Saviour, firmly believes, professes and preaches one true God, almighty, immutable and eternal, Father, Son and holy Spirit; one in essence, three in persons; unbegotten Father, Son begotten from the Father, holy Spirit proceeding from the Father and the Son; the Father is not the Son or the holy Spirit, the Son is not the Father or the holy Spirit, the holy Spirit is not the Father or the Son; the Father is only the Father, the Son is only the Son, the holy Spirit is only the holy Spirit. The Father alone from his substance begot the Son; the Son alone is begotten of the Father alone; the holy Spirit alone proceeds at once from the Father and the Son. These three persons are one God not three gods, because there is one substance of the three, one essence, one nature, one Godhead, one immensity, one eternity, and everything is one where the difference of a relation does not prevent this. Because of this unity the Father is whole in the Son, whole in the holy Spirit; the Son is whole in the Father, whole in the holy Spirit; the holy Spirit is whole in the Father, whole in the Son. No one of them precedes another in eternity or excels in greatness or surpasses in power. The existence of the Son from the Father is certainly eternal and without beginning, and the procession of the holy Spirit from the Father and the Son is eternal and without beginning. Whatever the Father is or has, he has not from another but from himself and is principle without principle. Whatever the Son is or has, he has from the Father and is principle from principle. Whatever the holy Spirit is or has, he has from the Father together with the Son. But the Father and the Son are not two principles of the holy Spirit, but one principle, just as the Father and the Son and the holy Spirit are not three principles of creation but one principle. Therefore it condemns, reproves, anathematizes and declares to be outside the body of Christ, which is the church, whoever holds opposing or contrary views. Hence it condemns Sabellius, who confused the persons and altogether removed their real distinction. It condemns the Arians, the Eunomians and the Macedonians who say that only the Father is true God and place the Son and the holy Spirit in the order of creatures. It also condemns any others who make degrees or inequalities in the Trinity.
- Florence, Session XI[/quote]

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='980384' date='May 13 2006, 01:39 PM']...Perhaps she -- like you -- has not fully grasped the nature of the ontological gap between the [i]adiastemic[/i] uncreated essence of God and the [i]diastemic[/i] created essence of man.[/quote]
What have I said that indicates an inadequate or incorrect understanding of the adiastemic and diastemic orders? Just because I'm not a Palamite I automatically don't understand? I disagree anyway. Considering I regularly employ these concepts in discussions I think it would be really funny if all this time I haven't had a clue what I'm talking about. I suppose that's possible, but I like to think this is not the case. RevP knows since I referred to Nyssa, and many times tried to elucidate the reality of diastema/adiastema, when debating Open Theism with him. I'm also quite confident in my understanding of ekeptasis as developed by Nyssa. I have an idea: quiz me!

I readily admit that I don't know much about anything (Thomism or Palamism). I have no problem being wrong in my understanding of Thomas, Nyssa, Palamas, etc., in fact I'm kind of hoping to have my understanding corrected or deepened. And just so you know I wasn't presenting the criticisms of Palamas as my own view, I just wanted to see how a Palamite would respond to these criticisms which I've come across.

[Laudate_Dominum]

This discussion has been moved off of phatmass to avoid infringing upon the phatmass "Catholic vs. Catholic debate" guidelines.

Sorry people. Todd and I have both decided to continue our little debate elsewhere and if this thread is open it will be too enticing. I hope RevP or someone will start another thread since the original topic would be nice to actually discuss. Sorry again for the hijack Rev..