Quick Trinitarian Progression Question

[N/A Gone]

Here is a chance for me to explain this again...

[quote]The story is my internship thesis is a reflection on the contemporay Filioque dialogue. In the process my thesis statement was that there is enough openness language in the filioque, as a pneumatological expression of the creed, to interpret the Augustianian love model in a way that can allow a viable option for the Eastern and Western view of the Trinity. A common pneumatological model that can be understood as both Catholic and Orthodox in its language. In this a major part of this was to work with the classic eastern arguments against the filioque. From this is where I had the concept of a shared participation. If the Church felt the need to express Christ having a part in the procession of the spirit, as a way of proving he was divine. Then I feel that the same could be said about the spirit. Otherwise, perhaps, the eastern argument of the son being elevated above the spirit could be valid. In the augustine model, (as beautifully expressed by Frank Sheed) we see the spirit as being the perfect love between Father and Son. Using the family model it would be possible to have the father and the love produce the son. Almost any father who is expecting child will love the child before they hold him. Being that we hold the beggeting as a timeless act, it would not be impossible to see a situation where the source is the father which goes through the son to the spirit (classic filioque model accepted by some in the east) while at the same time the father is the source that is going through the spirit in begetting the son.

While I need to work with the language, and find a way to properly explain this without drawing a picture. I am cautious in making sure I am not saying something that is against church teaching. If it would be plausable with you sir, could I send you my mental notes as I progress in order to safeguard against saying something against church teaching? I had an issue 2 years ago with open theism that I would not want to repeat, and I desire to submit this paper with my application to the Steubenville distance MA program and underlining heresy might hurt my chances of making it into the program.[/quote]

[reyb]

[indent]Revprodeji,[/indent]
[indent]I just want to know if the spirit of Jesus is God the Father himself because he said…into your hands I commit my spirit. It seems he is saying ‘Father into your hands I commit Your spirit’.[/indent]

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='reyb' post='1291747' date='Jun 10 2007, 03:04 AM'][indent]Revprodeji,[/indent]
[indent]I just want to know if the spirit of Jesus is God the Father himself because he said…into your hands I commit my spirit. It seems he is saying ‘Father into your hands I commit Your spirit’.[/indent][/quote]


If I understand the question correctly the answer is no. God is Three Spirits in One Being. Or rather God is three Persons in One Being. Christ's spirit is not the Father's, and the Father's spirit is not Christ's. Also, you nor anyone will ever understand the Trinity.


Perhaps this will help...

[img]http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e34/TheVoodookilla/Trinity.jpg[/img]


The Father is not the Son, the Son is not the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit is not the Father. The Father is distinguishable from the Son, the Son is distinguishable from the Holy Spirit; and the Holy Spirit is distinguishable from the Father. However the Father is God, nothing less, and the Son is God, nothing less, and the Holy Spirit is God, and God is essentially one.

Edited June 10, 2007 by KnightofChrist

[reyb]

[indent]Therefore, you are commanded to accept it without knowing it? [/indent]

[Laudate_Dominum]

Rev,

I'm not Trinity expert, but I got your email and noticed this thread so I figured I'd post my email reply in here in order to contribute to the discussion a bit. Although, I must say that I just proof read those emails I sent you and as usual I find my own writing to be nauseating. There are plenty of details in these rants that even I would dispute. These were truly rants of the first degree--enjoy! ;-)




Let me know if this little rant is helpful at all..

If there is some way I could get more information on the details of your problem perhaps I could offer more useful feedback. At a glance it seems to me (correct me if I'm wrong) that the heart of the tension you're trying to resolve is a way of articulating the mystery of the Trinity which does not apparently diminish the full divinity of the three Persons (subordinationism of some sort).

A very crude way of illustrating such a supposed problematic in classical Latin theology may be to characterize it as a modification of neo-platonic emanationism (I prefer to describe the Plotinian motif rather in terms of an effluence because of certain historical connotations which the term 'emanation' bears).

In Plotinus (and in neo-Platonism generally speaking), the Divine is conceived as a graded hierarchy of being, the ultimate source or summit, at least for Plotinus, being 'The One'. In a necessary emanation, or irradiation, from The One the so-called Nous is timelessly produced in a kind of two-fold dynamism of out-pouring and return to the source. The last substantial grade of being, or really hypostasis, in the Divine is the World-Soul, which is also variously interpreted but for Plotinus at least seems to have a bifurcated structure. Neo-Platonism en masse involves many variations and different interpretation of the structure of Divinity, but as a whole the tendency is toward a general three-fold paradigm such as that which Plotinus elucidates. In some cases The One is identified with The Good (typically based on exegesis and or eisegesis of Plato), at other times the second stage of Divinity is identified with The Good; at times the transcendent "Ideas" are located in the Nous, at other times in the World-Soul, etc..

While Neo-Platonism has many flavors, and the latest manifestations of Neo-Platonism took on a character and spirit quite foreign to that of Plotinus, I think it can be useful, and to some extent fair, to imagine a broad sort of Neo-Platonic/Middle-Platonic schematic of Divine Being for the sake of a general, brush stroke conversation.

Based on this imaginary schema, one of the most obvious differences between the pagan understanding of Divinity and that of their contemporary Christian theologians would be the way in which the unity of God is conceived. From this angle it is clear that two general approaches to the reconciliation of unity and multiplicity (in the most broad and fundamental sense) are expressed by these distinct traditions.

The tendency in pagan thought (particularly Neo-Platonism) might be characterized by that somewhat ambiguous term "emanationism". Divinity is described as successive stages of transcendent being with the ultimate source often being pushed as far "beyond being" as human conceptualization can reasonably attain; typically the multiplication of intermediary gradations and hierarchies of beings is carried out, at times in a rather unrestrained fashion (I’m thinking in particular of the theology of Proclus).
In this scenario the "solution" to the problem of unity and multiplicity would seem to be, paradoxically, multiplication—as though issues such as immanence and transcendence can be resolved by simply piling on layers of mediation ad nauseum. Although I must admit that this is largely an insane caricature of the facts since many of the late pagan philosophers and systems were extremely profound and there are always exceptions to the rules.

But the truth I'm trying to get it is that among pagan speculatives (particularly of the platonic traditions) the spiritual aspect of man—the soul, or the "highest part" of the soul—is seen as continuous with the Divine and not so much a separate created substance (creation being a foreign concept for all intents and purposes). Matter is dealt with in various ways, but in Neo-Platonism the tendency is often not as negative as is often supposed. The theurgists, for example, conceive of the place of matter in a way somewhat reminiscent of Catholic sacramentalism, and one can find theories which describe matter as simply the outer fringes of the Divine irradiation of divine being (Neo-Platonism is not Gnosticism or Manichaeism).

Christianity, being rooted in its own distinct revelation, has a very different character—even if many early theologians adopted the language and even, at times, the modified paradigms of pagan philosophers.

Augustine himself attributed much to Neo-Platonism in the process of his conversion to the Catholic faith. In speaking of his early realization and understanding of the spiritual realm, the mystical ascent to God, and of the Divine exemplarity in the world, it is to the Neo-Platonists that he gives much credit.

But we know that the starting point, indeed the fontal source and ultimate totality of Christian truth, is contained in the Scriptures; and it is to be noted that while many of Augustine's most well-known works have a largely philosophical character, he was not a philosopher, but was a Christian theologian. If one peruses his extant works one will find mostly biblical commentary, and secondly, theological exposition relentlessly drawn from Scripture.

So what are a few of the elements in Christian theology that distinguish it from Neo-Platonism? The list could touch upon every conceivable branch of philosophy and theology. But first I would acknowledge that we are talking about a very complex milieu and diverse historical dynamics. We could compare Augustinian theology with Cappadocian and discovery areas of difference and tension for example (or even Augustine and Ambrose), but in terms of what would be considered orthodox Christian teaching I think we can draw some lines whilst remaining sufficiently inclusive.

For our purposes I will touch on only a couple of important differences: for Christianity there is an infinite distinction between creation and the Godhead, whereas, in Neo-Platonism, the contingent order is co-eternal and often in some respect coextensive with the Divine. The Divine Hypostases, the gods, the daimons, the souls of men, the forms which unfold in the cosmos, etc., are all aspects of a necessary activity or effluence of the Divine in an eternal chain of being. For most of the history of Hellenic-Roman religion the idea of a comprehensive systematic theology was quite absent, and really contrary to its essential character. In the twilight of pagan religious culture, and largely in response to the Christian phenomenon, we find explicit and voluminous attempts at coherent, systematic theological paradigms (I’m thinking of late Neo-Platonism). In order to find a place for the various myths, the star-gods, the syncretic pantheons of disparate deities, the cults, etc., it was only natural that an approach involving a conception of being as a vast hierarchical organization with successive levels and interrelations would dominate. In the Christian world, rooted in the revelation of Scripture, it was the absolute unity of God (not in the sense of a mere negation of multiplicity), the infinite uniqueness of God—singularly uncreated, the freedom of God, the self-sufficiency of God, the supremely ethical character of God, and the personality of God—including the vastness of His providential love and grace (which goes far beyond any notion of universal sympathy), which was of intrinsic importance. While the pagan traditions provided a rich vocabulary for describing spiritual concepts and the spiritual journey of man systematically, the differences between pagan and Christian theology are too vast and fundamental to really be considered aspects of an over-arching tradition (which has been done at times). Often people speak of "Christian Platonists", or "Christian Neo-Platonism"; I can understand the expediency of this sort of thing, but it seems a bit too misleading to me. What is really fascinating and important, IMHO, are the essential differences between Neo-Platonism proper and the development of Christian theology, which in many cases was influenced by Neo-Platonism either through conflict or by positive engagement, but ultimately derives from a very different source and expresses radically different truths of an entirely different nature.

The reason why I’m rambling on in such a superficial manner about something that everybody already knows is because I believe that this specific subject is capable of shedding much light on the precise nature of Christian Trinitarianism in its essence and in its distinctiveness.

For Christians God is infinitely distinct from His absolutely free work of creation. It is in light of this distinction that the Christian understanding of God’s absolute unity is cast. It goes against the revealed religion to speak of "The Divine" in Neo-Platonic terms, as essentially an eternal subordinationist spectrum of being stretching from an utterly transcendent first principle down to matter. In Christian theology, God is God, and the cosmos (including time) is created; and in every moment utterly dependant upon God’s free activity to sustain its existence.

If I may be allowed a hypothetical and vestigial sort of discussion I might say that the most basic problem in formulating the doctrine of the Trinity is the problem of Tritheism. For a pagan (our superficial-imaginary pagan that is) it could be said that all of the "gods" are divine. Perhaps it could even be said that there is one divinity, with many "persons" or distinct acting subjects who share the divine nature. But in Christian revelation God is supremely one; so how might we articulate the revelation of the Trinity to people who understand divinity in a pluralistic way, while at the same time insisting upon the authentic oneness of God? With the affirmation of one divine substance and three hypostases no doubt. For starters, God is not a divine being; God is the fullness of Divinity. It is not the fact that Christianity puts forth a Trinitarian God that might perturb our imaginary simplistic pagan crowd, it is the fact that Christianity claims that one God alone is Divine. The universe is not divine, the human soul is not divine, and the "intermediaries" (angels, demons, heroes/saints) are not divine. We are not saying that the Persons of the Trinity share in a Divine Nature in the way that men share in one human nature. We are saying that the Persons of the Trinity are of one substantial nature, not as instances of a kind, but as the fullness of an individual substance. In this case a substance that is ultimately incomprehensible and infinitely beyond created substances that we know, superessential.
Of course a natural temptation in light of this would be to grasp this mystery on our own terms and do violence to the fullness of the mystery. Modalism seems a natural enough attempt at making such a doctrine more palatable, one subject who acts in a multiplicity of modes; but of course this is heresy.

It would seem to me that a subordinationist theology takes away from what is distinctly Christian and at least points toward the late pagan understanding of Divinity (generically speaking). I think this is one of the tensions perceived in certain attempts to articulate the mystery of the Trinity which seem to diminish one or another of the Divine Persons.

I believe that it is essential to affirm the monarchia of the Father— namely that the Father is the sole cause/origin of the Son and the Holy Spirit. I do not understand the Filioque in a way which makes the Father and the Son two "causes" of the Spirit’s Hypostatic reality. I understand the Filioque in terms of the proeinai of the Holy Spirit. Rather than implying a kind of subordinationist tendency, I believe that the classical formulations of the Trinitarian dynamics, for the most part, clearly and truly express the revealed truth of God’s inner life. I will explain why I say this when I get a chance.

[Laudate_Dominum]

If I may reply more specifically:


[i]In the process my thesis statement was that there is enough openness language in the filioque, as a pneumatological expression of the creed, to interpret the Augustianian love model in a way that can allow a viable option for the Eastern and Western view of the Trinity. [/i]

A most admirable and worthy endeavor. B-)

[i]A common pneumatological model that can be understood as both Catholic and Orthodox in its language. In this a major part of this was to work with the classic eastern arguments against the filioque. From this is where I had the concept of a shared participation. [/i]

In my amateur opinion one step toward a mutual understanding would be for the distinction between ekporeusis and proeinai to be fully digested by Roman Catholic theology. I believe that a lot of the mutual misunderstanding surrounding the Filioque lies here. St. Maximos (though Eastern) did not see the West’s Filioque formulation as heretical because he understood it as referring to the Spirit’s proeinai alone.


[i]If the Church felt the need to express Christ having a part in the procession of the spirit, as a way of proving he was divine. Then I feel that the same could be said about the spirit. [/i]
To understand the Filioque simply as a basis for establishing the divinity of the Word is to already have accepted a certain subordinationist perspective.
In Latin theology (particularly Augustinian) the principle of distinction of the Divine Persons is fundamentally described in terms of their distinct relations. By way of example I would mention that in the Victorine tradition as well as in the Franciscan tradition we find clear articulations and developments of this approach in like manner: The Father alone is unbegotten and is sole origin; The Son is begotten and yet also principle of another; The Spirit is begotten but is in no way origin of another. This way of speaking of the distinct Persons is a particular expression of the broader idea of the Persons as distinct in virtue of their modes of origin.
In the Trinitarian theology of St. Bonaventure (who develops and synthesizes much of the Victorine and is even influenced somewhat by Eastern theology), we see a very stark model of the Trinity something along these lines.

Father
Completely active and communicative
Gratuitus (One who gives)

Son
Receptive and communicative
Ab Utroque Permixtus (One who both gives and receives)

Holy Spirit
Completely receptive
Debitus (One who receives)


In this type of paradigm the Word can, and has been, described as a coincidentia oppositorum (coincidence of opposites) within the Immanent Trinity (as well as in the Trinitarian works ad extra). This came to mind because it seems like an instance in the Roman Catholic theological tradition in which the Son’s inner reality, and place in the Trinitarian life, is explicitly and immanently described in a way in which his “Sonship” is conditioned by the relation of the Holy Spirit such that it is logically implied that without the Spirit the Son is not the Son. It is in participating in the procession of the Spirit that the Son becomes the perfect image of the Father and thus fully “Son”. Of course the Trinitarian life is eternal so it makes more sense to speak more of a kind of logical-ontological priority rather than a kind of successive unfolding.
The reason this is not an instance of subordinationism or indicative of subordinationist tendencies is because of the theological metaphysics which precedes this outline (which I might add strikes me as perhaps an attempt at articulating something of the dynamics of the Trinitarian perichoresis beyond the level of purely metaphorical language). In a nutshell, the basis of this is for the most part Augustinian Trinitarian theology (what you called “the family model”) with a bit of a Pseudo-Dionysian and Victorine synthesis. While of course acknowledging the impotence of language and thought to penetrate the mysteries of God’s being, it is put forth as acceptable to describe God preeminently as Absolute Goodness (a conclusion derived exegetically not borrowed from Plato). Ultimate Goodness is then further understood as essentially self-diffusive. Thus the description of God as “Love” (as in “God is Love”) is seen as capturing this truth that “God is good” and that “the good” is a self-diffusive reality. If the Persons of the Trinity were separate beings (like three instances of human persons) then it would be difficult to suggest that subordination is not involved, but God is one. In fact, God IS the Trinity—the eternal, consubstantial, tri-hypostatic enactment of the Divine Essence is precisely the perichoretic, dynamic Tri-Personal Godhead; the Trinity. So the three-fold structure which describes something of the Divine Life can be said to be a theological image of the structure of Goodness and Love enacted eternally and tri-personally in God’s being--this IS God as He is revealed to us. Given the background on this approach the question of subordinationism is scarcely thinkable since the three Divine Persons, distinct in their relations, are simply the active and living Tri-Hypostatic reality of the Divine Essence in its perfect and pure actuality. It is impossible to speak of one Person being “less God” or “less divine” or lower in power or lacking wisdom or glory. There is a perfect and absolute mutual inherence, and the word “God” refers to nothing else but the Trinity. The Trinity IS God and God is absolute Good; and the inner life of God is nothing less than that perfect, absolute, Trinitarian dynamism of Love.

I don’t bring up this aspect of the Roman Catholic theological tradition because I necessarily think it is the answer to the Filioque dispute; quite the contrary in fact. I think the Orthodox would likely see it is one of the most exaggerated instances of the Augustinian theology of the Trinity that they so often have problems meshing with their own dominant traditions (from what I can gather anyway). And I don’t even mean to suggest that this thread in the history of theology is an answer to your curiosity about the possible role of the Holy Spirit in the generation of the Son. I really don’t think that such an issue was a part of the impetus of these theologies. It is just something that came to mind as possibly related and as something that you may be interested in. If so, I would suggest reading Augustine’s treatise “On the Trinity” as well as Pseudo-Dionysius, Richard of St. Victor and St. Bonaventure (at least the “Breviloquium” and his treatise “On the Mystery of the Trinity”).

Well, if you haven’t already, I think anyone interested in the doctrine of the Trinity should have read Augustine’s treatise at least once; it is indispensable.



[i]Otherwise, perhaps, the eastern argument of the son being elevated above the spirit could be valid. In the augustine model, (as beautifully expressed by Frank Sheed) we see the spirit as being the perfect love between Father and Son. Using the family model it would be possible to have the father and the love produce the son. Almost any father who is expecting child will love the child before they hold him. Being that we hold the beggeting as a timeless act, it would not be impossible to see a situation where the source is the father which goes through the son to the spirit (classic filioque model accepted by some in the east) while at the same time the father is the source that is going through the spirit in begetting the son. [/i]

If I may digress a bit, I think there really is something to this at least on the level of the economic Trinity. Orthodox and Catholic theology often agree on this sort of thing on the level of the Trinitarian manifestation in the oikonomia. The problem is that it is dubious theological method to apply conclusions drawn of the Trinity in the oikonomia to the immanent Trinity (or God in se), unfortunately there has been a lot of this in Catholic theology (most especially in modern times, aka strands of Rahnerian theologyl), and I’m sure that the Orthodox, for the most part, would never accept theological speculations grounded on this sort of method simply because, historically, it has been criticized. In fact, in the history of the Filioque dispute, the Latins have many times been accused of deriving this very doctrine from a misapplication of economic Trinitarian theology to the immanent Trinity.
Trinitarian theology must always be rooted in Scripture and attested to in Scripture (at least implicitly but nonetheless clearly), and one of the principles going back to early Trinitarian controversies is to distinguish between passages that speak of God’s Trinitarian activity in the oikonomia (aka., salvation history, the sanctification of the soul, etc.), and that which is genuinely applicable to God’s inner life from all eternity. This is not always self-evident, but in the case of the Filioque there are passages which speak of the Holy Spirit as “the Spirit of the Son”, etc., and these have been used by Catholics in support of the Filioque, whereas the East (and I believe they are correct if you accept the distinction in the first place) typically considers such passages as referring to the economic Trinity. So as far as God’s works ad extra are concerned, it is quite orthodox and uncontroversial to speak of the Son coming forth from the Father and the Spirit (or rather from the Father in the Spirit).

Another distinction that is found in Orthodox theology but not so much in historical Latin theology is the distinction between ekporeusis and proeinai with regards to the procession of the Holy Spirit. In classical Latin theology a single word is used which seems to include both of the Greek words above without distinction, namely processio. This is the basis of St. Maximos defending the West’s use of the Filioque. In simplest terms the argument might say that when the West asserts that “the Spirit proceeds [processio] from the Father and the Son as from a single principle” they are only talking about the proeinai, noting that the Latin word processio does not distinguish the two Greek concepts. This would of course imply that the dogmatic Latin formulation is at least ambiguous and misleading, which is still a bit uncomfortable. But I don’t think it’s really that bad—the difficulty is that the issue is far more complex than this. To fully make the point would require a detailed analysis of two fairly autonomous theological traditions.

Sorry for the semi-tangential stuff, anyway, I think I see your point; in fact I believe it is present in some form in the theology of St. Bonaventure. It is very difficult to even articulate because of the feebleness of language when speaking of transcendent realities, but I believe it could be summed up (crudely and in faint approximation—even that is an overstatement) by say that before the Son was begotten, that is, if we can speak of “before” in a simply hypothetical way of course, we cannot call God “Father”. In other words, it is in begetting the Son (which is of course timeless anyway) that the Father IS precisely as “Father”. And in a similar way one might say that (following the Augustinian motifs) prior to the procession of the Spirit (ekporeusis and proeinai) the Son is not yet “Son”, since for Bonaventure it is as a kind of coincidentia oppositorum that the Son becomes “Son” in the sense of the perfect Image and expression of the absolute kenosis of the Father. So in this sense the full personal act and identity of the Father is dependent (a very crude term, forgive me) on the Son, and the Son’s “Sonship” is in some way dependent on the Holy Spirit, and in fact it is in the proeinai of the Spirit, from the Father and the Son as from one principle, which, as it were, completes the return—so in effect the whole Trinitarian dynamism is completely linked. You cannot take one of the Persons out of the picture and really have anything to speak of. God is Trinity—eternally; absolutely; consubstantially. In a sense you could say that as a kind of terminus in the generative activity of the Father, the Spirit “creates” the Trinity. The Father is the one source, but it is in the mutual inherence which happens ultimately in the Holy Spirit—which is essential to the meaning of speaking of the Holy Spirit as the love between the Father and the Son—that we have a Trinity: the full entelecheia of God’s life and love. In Bonaventure (though not unique to him), the Holy Spirit is not “merely” pure receptivity as in my crude outline above—the Spirit is better described as absolute Gift. The perfect actuality of personal being is to exist as love, and in Bonaventure’s theology, the Holy Spirit’s very being is seen as expressing first and foremost the liberality, or essential overflowing fecundity of Divine Love. As Bonaventure’s method is quite analogical it makes sense that he sees love (in the broad sense which includes human love) as involving a triadic structure which he identifies absolutely and perfectly in the Persons of the Trinity whose perfect and substantial unity as Love flows in the perfect bliss of their perichoretic mutual indwelling.


Another Franciscan who came to mind as I read your email was St. Maximillian Kolbe. His theology has always been extremely fascinating to me, particularly his understanding of the Holy Spirit and how this understanding plays out in his Christological-Pneumatological Mariology. But I don’t think you will find a solution to the Filioque question here as most of this theologizing pertains to the economic sphere.

As far as the “ex Patri Spirituque” stuff goes, if all a person means by this is that the Divine Persons, in the full actuality of their Personhood, are interdependent in that they are Father, Son and Spirit only in relation to one another, I don’t see anything particularly new or startling about it. But then again, I guess I don’t fully understand the importance or necessity of such a phrase and see it as a bit ambiguous and misleading. And if the impetus is some supposed defense of the Holy Spirit against a history of subordinationist theology, I think that the project is way off and may well produce heresy since it is already starting out with assumptions that are at least proximate to heresy (namely that orthodoxy, or an assumed and presumably unqualified understanding of its contents, is heretical), IMHO anyway. But of course to accept my viewpoint one would have to be convinced that the traditional formulations are in not, either explicitly or implicitly, subordinationist (which is of course my view). I do admit that formulations can be improved upon, and if some expressions are often interpreted heretically, or semi-heretically, perhaps it would be good to deepen and clarify them in light of the misunderstandings. But even in such a case I would not at once jump on board with the “ex Patri Spirituque” approach as it certainly seems off the mark at first glance (although I admit that I’ve not read a single systematic presentation of this view). Ultimately I don’t know enough about the subject to have a very substantial take.

As far as Catholic-Orthodox dialogue goes I think the best thing is to keep it simple rather than come up with more ambiguous and novel teachings with which to scandalize (even if unfairly so) and give ammunition to those who enjoy stirring controversy and division (apologies if my presuppositions are asinine).
To my mind two of the most important theological doctrines which ought to be fully expounded upon for the good of Catholic-Orthodox relations would be the monarchia of the Father, and the ekporeusis /proeinai distinction. On the surface the ex Patri Spirituque phrase would seem to have the same possible objections that the Filioque presents, for example that without qualification it offends the monarchia of the Father and presumably fails to distinguish between the sole ontological cause in the Godhead and the dynamic principle of hypostatic-energetic enactment or entelecheia. I also consider the discussion of the distinction between the economic Trinity and the immanent or essential Trinity to be somewhat important and I wouldn’t mind seeing more criticism of it—especially of the newer “post-modern” hijackings of this ancient distinction. It seems to me at least that a decent case could be made against the more absolute forms of that distinction, although I don’t deny that it has some real validity and applicability.

Cheers mate!

[Laudate_Dominum]

I couldn't resist at least one semi-retraction.

[quote]It is very difficult to even articulate because of the feebleness of language when speaking of transcendent realities, but I believe it could be summed up (crudely and in faint approximation—even that is an overstatement) by say that before the Son was begotten, that is, if we can speak of “before” in a simply hypothetical way of course, we cannot call God “Father”. In other words, it is in begetting the Son (which is of course timeless anyway) that the Father IS precisely as “Father”.[/quote]
This statement does not accurately reflect my understanding of Bonaventure on this point. The crude and basic point is correct, but not absolutely faithful to Bonaventure as I understand him.
Bonaventure speaks of the Father's innascibility (or unbegotteness) in two senses; a negative and a positive. The negative can be summed up as a lack of origin; the positive sense is the perfection of primacy in the most absolute sense. Thus, what I said is true in that we come to know the Father as such by the relation of origin, in other words the negative aspect alone is not enough for us to have an understanding of the Father, but according to Bonaventure the Father can be spoken of as constituted in His Personal reality in the negative (pre-generative) aspect alone. But Bonaventure would seem also to say that the Father is constituted as such in the fullest sense in the generation. So my statement that "before the Son was begotten...we cannot call God 'Father'" is loosely true from a certain epistemological sense, but was an overstating of what I understand to be Bonaventure's thought.

But, given God's eternity such distinctions are hypothetical and pretty absurd when you think about it, but not altogether useless as tools of thought I suppose.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='reyb' post='1291754' date='Jun 10 2007, 04:10 AM'][indent]Therefore, you are commanded to accept it without knowing it? [/indent][/quote]


There's more that can be understood sure, but no one will ever fully understand the Trinity, until the end of time.

Edited June 10, 2007 by KnightofChrist

[mortify]

LD, you're obviously an intelligent individual, it's wonderful that you use your God given capacity for the Church, we need bright men like you!

I have a question, and this goes for anyone who knows the answer. When we say the Spirit proceeds [i]through[/i] the Son what do we mean exactly? Are we saying that the Father is the sole source of the Spirit, which flows threw the Son the same way water can be poured from a faucet, into a cup, and then onto the ground (Faucet = Father, Cup = Son) or do we mean that the Son is also the source of the Spirit because the Father gave Him that ability, much like having a faucet [i]and[/i] hose pouring water at the same time into a sink.

Hope that's not too confusing!

Edited June 11, 2007 by mortify

[Apotheoun]

A note of clarification on [i]subordinationism[/i] is necessary.

In the Eastern theological tradition [i]subordinationism[/i] is perfectly acceptable when speaking about the triad of divine hypostaseis, but is unacceptable when referring to the divine essence. In other words, the Son and Spirit are subordinate to the Father as hypostasis, because the Father alone is hypostatically the source of divinity, but this hypostatic [i]subordinationism[/i] must not be confused with any type of essential [i]subordinationism[/i], since the Father's essence is absolutely common to the three divine persons.

That said, the [i]filioque[/i] (along with the [i]spirituque[/i] proposed in this thread) is unacceptable to the Eastern Orthodox because nothing can be interposed between the Father, Who alone is cause within the Godhead, and the hypostatic existence of the Son and the Spirit.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1294421' date='Jun 13 2007, 08:51 AM']A note of clarification on [i]subordinationism[/i] is necessary.

In the Eastern theological tradition [i]subordinationism[/i] is perfectly acceptable when speaking about the triad of divine hypostaseis, but is unacceptable when referring to the divine essence. In other words, the Son and Spirit are subordinate to the Father as hypostasis, because the Father alone is hypostatically the source of divinity, but this hypostatic [i]subordinationism[/i] must not be confused with any type of essential [i]subordinationism[/i], since the Father's essence is absolutely common to the three divine persons.

That said, the [i]filioque[/i] (along with the [i]spirituque[/i] proposed in this thread) is unacceptable to the Eastern Orthodox because nothing can be interposed between the Father, Who alone is cause within the Godhead, and the hypostatic existence of the Son and the Spirit.[/quote]
Thank you Todd. For clarification the principle sense in which I was using the term [i]subordinationism[/i] is that which implies greater or lesser degrees of Divinity strictly speaking. The distinction you bring up (hypostatic vs essential subordinationism) strikes me as crucial. I believe it is already implied in my own understanding of the way in which each Divine Person can be spoken of as [i]autotheos[/i]; an understanding that I believe retains the significance of the Father as sole [i]arche[/i] or [i]aitia[/i]. More later..

[N/A Gone]

Thanks guys, Im in the process of moving right now so my time is rare. But I have this on my google desktop.

[N/A Gone]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1294421' date='Jun 13 2007, 09:51 AM']That said, the [i]filioque[/i] (along with the [i]spirituque[/i] proposed in this thread) is unacceptable to the Eastern Orthodox because nothing can be interposed between the Father, Who alone is cause within the Godhead, and the hypostatic existence of the Son and the Spirit.[/quote]

Todd, When you say "nothing" could you cite why? If the father is still the principle source, and the other member "assists" what is wrong with that? If the father uses the other as a part of the process, or even if the father goes "through" (which in my understanding is allowed in eastern theology) I dont see that as the other member "interposing"

Please correct/educate me sir.

[N/A Gone]

bump

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Revprodeji' post='1335463' date='Jul 19 2007, 11:34 PM']Todd, When you say "nothing" could you cite why? If the father is still the principle source, and the other member "assists" what is wrong with that? If the father uses the other as a part of the process, or even if the father goes "through" (which in my understanding is allowed in eastern theology) I dont see that as the other member "interposing"

Please correct/educate me sir.[/quote]
I'll refrain from posting a comprehensive response since Todd would obviously be better in this case, but if it is any help in the meantime I will mention that in Byzantine Theology the [i]monarchia[/i] of the Father is understood such that He alone can be described as "cause" (in the Greek technical sense of [i]aitia[/i]) of the hypostasis of the Spirit. Perhaps the most that could be said in this tradition along the lines of the [i]filioque[/i] would be that the Spirit proceeds (in the sense of [i]proeinai[/i]) from the Father [i]through[/i] the Son.

I hope this helps.