/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

The Filioque is not important, it is merely one of the many steps of the fading away of the monarchy of the Father from Western thought.

The gist of orthodox criticism found in the Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit, if you want a better explanation.

https://invidio.us/Q_s9Rcsg5UI

In every spiritual nature there are two immanent operations that is, two operations that remain within the operator. They are the operations of intellect and will. God is a spirit (John 4:24) and therefore has the power of intellect and will. Now, from all eternity God is understanding Himself, knowing Himself, intellectualising Himself. Since the power of intellect that God possesses is infinite and absolutely perfect (Psalm 147:5), in understanding Himself God generates an infinite concept of Himself, a Word - Logos (John 1:1). This Word, eternally generated by God, is the absolutely perfect and infinite image of God who generates It. Hence concerning the Son, "He is the image of the invisible God (Colossians 1:15).

If the Word generated by God in understanding Himself were not as infinite and perfect as God then God's power of understanding Himself would be deficient which is impossible. Per Saint Augustine:

>On the Holy Trinity

"The Father begot the Word equal to Himself in all things; for He would not have uttered Himself wholly and perfectly if there were in His Word anything more or less than Himself."

Thus concerning the eternal generation of the Son by the Father, the Nicene Creed declares that the Son of God is:

"Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father"

As Saint Gregory Nazianzen wrote:

>Oration 30, #20

"The Son is called Logos because His relation the Father is the same as that of the Word to the Intellect."

And per Saint Basil:

>Homily on the Beginning of The Gospel of John

"Why Word? Because it is the likeness of the Begetter, which in itself reflects the whole Begetter…even as our word reflects the likeness of our whole thought.

As His perfect image, the Word eternally generated by the Father possesses the exact same substance as the one who generates Him; He is equal to the Father who generates Him. Thus, the Son is the radiance of the glory of God and the stamp of His substance, upholding all things by the Word of his power (Hebrews 1:3).

A procession is the origin of one thing from another; and, a procession can be either external or internal.

A procession is called internal when the terminus, or the end, of the procession remains within the principle from which it proceeds. The processions of intellect and will, are immanent and eternal, and hence remain within God.

A procession is called external when the terminus of the procession goes outside the principle from which it proceeds. Now, everything that is not God is a creation; and everything that is outside of God is a creation. Hence, all creation externally proceeds from God - it comes to be from nothing, through creation by God, and it has a beginning. Per Saint Athanasius:

>On The Council of Nicea, De Decretis, #13, c. 351

"Who is there of right mind who will not see at once that the things which are created and made are external to the Maker, whereas our discourse has shown already that the Son exists not externally but from the Father who begets him?"

Now, in every procession there is a distinction between the one who proceeds and the one from whom it proceeds. Therefore though the Word is the perfect image of the Father and exactly the same in substance as the Father, the Word is a distinct person from the Father. He is the distinct from the Father by an opposition of relation. The Father is from no one, He is the one who eternally generates the Son; the Son is eternally generated by the Father. Per Saint Athanasius:

"As we said above, so now we repeat, that the divine generation must not be compared to the nature of men, nor the Son considered to be part of God, nor the generation to imply any passion whatever…with God this cannot be; for He is not composed of parts, but being impassible and simple, He is impassibly and indivisibly Father of the Son. This again is strongly evidenced and proved by divine Scripture. For the Word of God is His Son, and the Son is the Father's Word and Wisdom; and the Word and Wisdom is neither creature nor part of Him whose Word He is, nor an offspring passibly begotten."

Although the Father and the Son have the same divine substance, and therefore both are fully God, the Father and the Son are distinct persons by virtue of their relation of opposition - the Father begets the Son, and the Son is begotten by the Father.

However, there is no dependence of the Son on the Father, or of the Father on the Son. In understanding Himself, the Father is not able to not generate the Word. The Father cannot be without the Son yet he does not depend upon the Son. Likewise the Son cannot be without the Father yet he does not depend on the Father. Neither lacks, nor ever could lack, anything that He possesses. Hence, there is no dependence.

>>839690

Per Saint Athanasius:

>Discourse IV, Against the Arians, #2, c. AD 356

"For as there is light from fire, so from God is there a Word, and Wisdom from the Wise, and from the Father a Son…This the Lord said, 'I and the Father are One'; for neither is the Word separated from the Father, nor was or is the Father ever Wordless; on this account He says, 'I in the Father and the Father in Me.'"

The Father is eternally generating the Son, and the Son is eternally being generated, or begotten, by the Father. It is correct to refer to the eternal generation of the Son as His origin from the Father but it must be understood that there is no beginning and no creation involved. It is the natural, vital, immanent operation of God from all eternity. Hence, Jesus says, "If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came forth from God and I am here." (John 8:42); "I came forth from the Father, and I have come into the world." (John 16:28). And Jesus also says, "Amen, amen, I say to you, Before Abraham was made, I am." (John 8:58).

Now as the Father is eternally generating the Son, the Father is also willing the good of the Son, or loving the Son whom He has begotten. For, as we mentioned, in every spiritual nature there are two immanent operations - that of the intellect and that of the will. As the perfect image of the Father, the Son likewise is eternally willing the good of the Father, or loving the Father who generates Him. This act of love is as infinite and perfect as the Father and the Son, and from this act of mutual love proceeds the third person of the Trinity, the Holy Spirit, from whom the same divine substance is communicated in the procession thereof.

The Holy Spirit is God equal to the Father and the Son. Per Pope Leo XIII:

>Divinum Illud Munus

"For He [the Holy Spirit] not only brings to us His divine gifts, but is the Author of them and is Himself the Supreme Gift, who, proceeding from the mutual love of the Father and the Son, is justly believed to be and is called 'Gift of God most High.'"

Per Pope Eugene IV:

>Council of Florence, Laetentur Caeli

"In the name of the Holy Trinity, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, we define, with the approval of this holy universal Council of Florence, that the following truth of faith shall be believed and accepted by all Christians and thus all shall profess it: that the Holy Spirit is eternally from the Father and the Son, and has His own essence and His own subsistent being from the Father together with the Son, and proceeds from both eternally as from one principle and a single spiration."

The procession of the Holy Spirit is called spiration because spiration means the act of breathing or bringing forth a spirit; a spirit is an impulse or movement toward something. From their love for one another, the Father and the Son - as one principle - breathe forth the Holy Spirit.

The two processions in God; that of His intellect, in which the eternal Word is generated, and of His will, in which the Holy Spirit is spirated; are the reason for the three co-equal, co-eternal persons who have the one divine substance. It is why there is one God in three divine persons.

However, it must be noted that the Trinity is a true Mystery. It is so far above natural reason that it cannot be proved nor arrived at by natural reason. It is, of course, not contrary to reason but it cannot be discovered without divine revelation. As Vatican I declared:

>Vatican I, Session 3, Chap. 4, April 24, 1870

"For the divine mysteries, by their very nature, so far surpass the created understanding that, even when a revelation has been given and accepted by faith, they remain covered by the veil of that same faith and wrapped, as it were, in a certain obscurity, as long as in this mortal life we are away from the Lord, for we walk by faith, and not by sight."

The existence of God and that there is one God can be demonstrated by natural reason through the things which have been created. But to know that God is three persons requires revelation. With divine revelation and faith as our anchor and guide, we can use reason to show the plausibility of the Trinity but we know that it is true because it was revealed by Jesus Christ. (John 1:18)

Did you guys also get a YouTube recommendation on this subject recently? Just curious. I don’t want to interrupt something that’s between Catholics and orthodox followers, specially when I’ve only learned about this yesterday from a YouTube recommendation. I do however have a stance on this but I’ll spare you anons from my views. I just want to gauge YouTube’s powerful reach and understand better what it is they’re up to.

>>839694

Now, the Eastern Orthodox believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father but not from the Son, and they base this primarily on two things: John 15:26 and the alteration to the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed promulgated at the Council of Constantinople in AD 381.

>John 15:26

But when the Paraclete cometh, whom I will send you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceedeth from the Father, he shall give testimony of me.

It is clear that this verse does not prove the Eastern Orthodox position. For it does not state that the Holy Spirit proceeds only from the Father, nor that the Holy Spirit does not proceed from the Son. It does not deny eternal procession from the Son. We can note that the Son has a role in sending the Holy Spirit to the world.

The meaning here is that the Spirit of truth proceeds from God the Father not from men or an earthly source. This does not contradict eternal procession from the Son since all that the Father belongs to the Son (John 16:15) and whatever the Father does, the Son does likewise (John 5:19). And therefore John 15:26 provides no proof whatsoever for the Eastern Orthodox position.

In point of fact, the teaching of the New Testament refutes the heretical position of the Eastern Orthodox. Consider that the Holy Spirit is described in Scripture as The Spirit of the Father (Matthew 10:20). The Holy Spirit is called The Spirit of the Father because the Spirit eternally proceeds from the Father; the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of the Father because there is an eternal and opposite relation of origin between the Father and the Holy Spirit. Thus, the Holy Spirit is called His Spirit (Ephesians 3:14-16), referring to the Father. For the selfsame reason the Holy Spirit is also called The Spirit of God (1 Corinthians 2:14), The Spirit of the Lord (1 Corinthians 3:16), The Spirit of the Living God (2 Corinthians 3:3).

The Holy Spirit is also called The Spirit of His Son (Galatians 4:6), The Spirit of Jesus (Acts 16:7), The Spirit of Jesus Christ (Philippians 1:19). And this is because the Holy Spirit eternally proceeds from the spiration of the Son as from the Father.

Yet the Son is never referred to as The Son of the Holy Spirit but is repeatedly referred to as the Son of the Father. And this refutes one of the bases of the position of the Eastern Orthodox.

The meaning of John 20:21-23 thus reflects the truth of the Filioque: that the Father and the Son together breathe forth, or spirate, the Holy Spirit

>John 20:21-23

He [Jesus] said therefore to them again: Peace be to you. As the Father hath sent me, I also send you. When he had said this, he breathed on them; and he said to them: Receive ye the Holy Ghost. Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.

As Saint Augustine wrote:

>Tractates on the Gospel of John, Tractate 99, #7

"For what else was signified by such a breathing upon them, but that from Him also the Holy Spirit proceeds?

The Holy Spirit is sent into the world by the Father because He proceeds from the Father in the Trinity (John 14:26); and, the Holy Spirit is sent into the world by the Son because he proceeds from the Son in the Trinity (John 16:7; John 15:26). Although the sending of the Holy Spirit refers to the temporal mission, and not to the eternal procession, it reflects the eternal procession. For as all three persons of the Trinity are coeternal and coequal with one another (Athanasian Creed), the sending of the divine persons in the missions could not be by command or counsel. Rather, it denotes Hence, a divine person in the temporal mission is sent by that person, or by those persons, from whom He comes forth in the eternal Trinity. And therefore, the Father is not sent because He does not proceed either the Son or the Holy Spirit.

>>839710

You're missing the entire point. In orthodoxy, the primary meaning of God is Father - as seen by the Creed. A position you do not adhere since you contrasted "the Spirit of the Father" with "the Spirit of God".

You will go fully amiss if you do not understand that in orthodoxy God is the Father. We have the Spirit, God from God, the Son, God from God, and God. Our unity in the Trinity lies in the Father not in the essence as it does in contemporary western theology through a developmental process that took thousands of uears. By God we mean totally different things.

>Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed, AD 381

We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father;

by whom all things were made;

who for us men, and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Ghost and of the Virgin Mary, and was made man;

he was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate, and suffered, and was buried, and the third day he rose again, according to the Scriptures, and ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of the Father;

from thence he shall come again, with glory, to judge the quick and the dead. ;

whose kingdom shall have no end.

And in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of life, who proceedeth from the Father AND THE SON, who with the Father and the Son together is worshiped and glorified, who spake by the prophets.

In one holy catholic and apostolic Church; we acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins; we look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.

Now, the Eastern Orthodox position argues that it was, and remains, wrong to have added to or altered the Creed. Per the oft Orthodox-cited Council of Ephesus:

>Council of Ephesus, AD 431

"…the holy Synod decreed that it is unlawful for any man to bring forward, or to write, or to compose a different faith as a rival to that established by the holy fathers assembled with the Holy Spirit in Nicea. But those who shall dare to compose a different faith, or to introduce or offer it to persons desiring to turn to the acknowledgement of the truth…shall be deposed…"

This basis of the Eastern Orthodox position has no merit. The above statement of the Ephesian Council concerned the Nicene Creed of AD 325. This Creed was expanded into the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed in AD 381 to include additional statements on the Holy Spirit. These additions were

The Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed omitted the words "from the essence of the Father", which were in the AD 325 Nicene Creed. Moreover, in the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed, which the schismatics consider to be absolutely untouchable, the term homoousios (ὁμοούσιον, 'same in being, same in essence') is not used in reference to the Holy Spirit nor is the Holy Spirit expressly called God in the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed. Rather, the Creed indicates the divinity of the Holy Spirit by the use of the titles 'Lord' and 'Giver of Life.' Thus additions were made to the Nicene Creed of AD 325, and these additions were lawful because they were true and were approved by the Church.

Now the reason for the failure of the Creed to recognise the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son is due to the nature of the historical controversy - the denial of the divinity of Christ and the Holy Spirit. Thus, the divinity of the Holy Spirit was emphasised by the First Council of Constantinople by the simple citation of the fact that the Holy Spirit proceeded from the Father. The First Council did not delve into the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son - the true position proven by Scripture and supported by statements of both Eastern and Western Church fathers. Per Saint Cyril of Alexandria:

>Thesaurus de sancta et consubstantiali trinitate 34; PG 75, 608

"It is necessary to confess the Spirit to be from the essence of the Son. For existing from Him according to nature, and having been sent from Him to be the creature He works renovation."

With regard to the AD 451 Council of Chalcedon and its statement on the unlawfulness of delivering a different symbol or creed, that was a disciplinary decree to forbid unapproved symbols to convert people. It did not prevent later councils, including its successor, the Second Council of Constantinople, from promulgating additional dogmatic canons that served as rules of faith.

>Second Council of Constantinople, 553, Canon 1

"If anyone does not confess one nature or essence of Father and Son and Holy Spirit, and one power and authority, a consubstantial Trinity to be worshipped as one Godhead in three hypostases or persons, let such a one be anathema…"

The Church through a Pope that wields the Supreme Authority over the Church of Christ (Matthew 16:18-19) has the authority to add a true statement to the Creed for the defence of the faith or further clarification of a point. There is therefore no merit to the argument that the Church could not add the words 'And the son' to the creed for a defence and assertion of the true doctrine.

>>839713

Pope Eugene IV at the Council of Florence correctly declared that:

>Laetentur Caeli, July 6, AD 1439

"We define in addition that the explanation of those words 'Filioque' for the sake of declaring the truth and also because of imminent necessity has been lawfully and reasonably added to the Creed."

This declaration was acknowledged by representatives from all five patriarchal sees at the Council of Florence as well as by the Metropolitan of Russia and a Greek Delegation. Per Bessarion of Nicea:

"It was not the syllogisms…or the force of arguments that lead to believe this [i.e., the Latin position on the Filioque], but the plain words of the doctors. For when I saw and heard them, straightaway I put aside all contention and controversy and yielded to the authority of those whose words they were…For I judged that the holy fathers, speaking as they did in the Holy Spirit, could not have departed from the truth and I was grieved that I had not heard their words before."

The Filioque is the true doctrine. To deny it in the face of these facts is to deny the true faith.

The Eastern Schismatics' rejection of the Filioque was a driving factor behind their rejection of the Papal Primacy of jurisdiction. Since the collection of sects that make up Eastern Orthodoxy have committed themselves to denying the Filioque, our proof of the Filioque also demonstrate that Eastern Orthodoxy is a false religion and that the Catholic Church is the One True Church of Christ, outside of which there is no salvation.

>>839713

Dude, the problem we have with it is that it was added unilaterally outside of an ecumenical council, and even some Popes were against it, not that it's not the OG 325 Nicene Creed.

Also, it has some implications that are problematic, when said in greek, unlike latin.

In fact, that's been the entire way people on both sides have been trying to solve the issue since Thomas Aquinas himself, proving that the latin text is orthodox, not that the greek isn't.

>>839767

The Eastern Orthodoxy, by their rejection of the Papacy, consider all bishops equal in authority; they believe some bishops have a special place, or honour, in ecclesiastical organisation but they hold that all bishops are equal in authority and "divine right." Per Bishop Timothy Ware:

>The Orthodox Church

"…since the schism between east and west he [i.e., the Patriarch of Constantinople] has enjoyed a special position of honour among all the Orthodox communities; but he does not have the right to interfere in the internal affairs of other Churches."

"…the system of Patriarchs and Metropolitans is a matter of ecclesiastical organisation. But if we look at the Church from the viewpoint not of ecclesiastical order but of divine right, then we must say that all bishops are essentially equal…The system of Pentarchy does not impair the essential equality of all bishops…"

The position of the Eastern Orthodox contradicts Christ's establishment of the Papacy on Saint Peter (Matthew 16:18-19), in which Christ gave Saint Peter and his successors a primacy of jurisdiction over the entire flock of Christ (John 21:15-17).

The inconsistent ecclesiology of the Eastern Orthodox serves as another refutation of their religion. It renders them unable to resolve where the territory, or jurisdiction, of one bishop begins and another bishop ends. The flaw of this specious reasoning was displayed recently with the break in communion between the Russian Orthodox Sect and the Greek Orthodox Sect.

This false and unbiblical ecclesiology also renders them unable to consistently differentiate true and binding ecumenical councils from false ones, as many false councils in Church history were approved by many bishops. An unanswerable question immediately arises: If all bishops have equal authority then why are some councils, that were approved by bishops, considered to be infallible and binding while others are not? The Eastern Orthodox has no consistent answer to this question.

Many Eastern Orthodox will mention that participation in, or acceptance of, a Council by the five Patriarchal Sees - that is, Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem - is in someway important in the consideration of whether a Council is ecumenical, and therefore binding and infallible in its decrees on faith. Such a position is associated with the doctrine of Pentarchy. Per John Meyendorff:

>Rome, Constantinople, Moscow

"…it became an important factor in the Byzantine understanding of an 'ecumenical' council, which required the presence of the five patriarchs, or their representatives, even as the Eastern sees of Alexandria and Antioch had, in fact, ceased to be influential."

>>839771

As already mentioned, the Council of Florence was a major reunion council that reconciled many in the East to the Church. The July 6 of 1439 Papal bull of union with the Greeks at the Council of Florence which taught the Filioque and the Papal Primacy of Jurisdiction was endorsed and accepted by representatives of all five patriarchal sees as well as by the Byzantine Emperor. This bull of union was signed by the entire Greek delegation with the exception of Mark of Ephesus. The refusal of this one bishop to accept an ecumenical council can have no bearing on whether the council is indeed ecumenical. For, if it did, then the first seven councils - which are considered by the Eastern Orthodox to be ecumenical - would not, in fact, be ecumenical; they were not all accepted by all bishops. For instance, two bishops at the Council of Nicea refused to accept nor sign its decree.

Hence, there is no basis for the Eastern Orthodox to reject the July 6 of 1439 Papal bull of Union with the Greeks as the act of a true ecumenical council. For to reject it as ecumenical would, logically, force them to hold that there has never been a true ecumenical council in Church history.

So, if one follows the Eastern Orthodox and believes that the Filioque and the Papal Primacy of Jurisdiction are false doctrines then one would be forced to conclude that their church defected from the "true faith" at the Council of Florence in 1439 by accepting the Filioque and the Papal Primacy.

An intense resistance to the union developed in Constantinople, and at times the pro-union Patriarchs of Constantinople were forced to absent themselves from their home church, Hagia Sophia. The members of this resistance were in direct contradiction with the Universal Church and its formal proclamation at Florence. And it is for this active rebellion that God allowed Constantinople to fall under the darkness of Islamic domination on May 29, AD 1453 - the Feast of Pentecost.

God allowed Constantinople to fall to the Muslims on the Feast of the Holy Spirit as a sign against, and a punishment for, the peoples' rebellion against the Filioque, the true doctrine of the Church of Christ on the Holy Spirit, and the resistance to other truths that were formally proclaimed at a Council that must be considered Ecumenical.

>>839771

>>839772

So yes, thanks for proving what this really ties back into is our differences on how the primacy of the First See developed in the First Millennium.

>>839690

>Neither lacks, nor ever could lack, anything that He possesses.

Except what makes the Father a father, begetting divine persons. Otherwise the Son could beget the Grandson of God, the Holy Spirit could beget the Son of the Holy Spirit, and an infinite chain would ensue. The Father does not communicate the capacity to beget.

As he says in introducing equality

>the Father and the Son are distinct persons by virtue of their relation of opposition - the Father begets the Son, and the Son is begotten by the Father

Only the Father is Begetter, which is what St. Basil says before

>"Why Word? Because it is the likeness of the Begetter, which in itself reflects the whole Begetter…even as our word reflects the likeness of our whole thought.

If being in the likeness of the Begetter meant being Begetter, than Adam being in the image of God would mean that Adam is God.

The Son, who declares the Spirit proceeding from the Father through himself and with himself, shining forth alone and by only-begetting from the unbegotten light, so far as the peculiar notes are concerned, has nothing in common either with the Father or with the Holy Ghost.

>>839824

As I said prior to your quotations, God is a spirit, and in understanding Himself eternally generates an infinite concept of Himself, the Son. God has no need for other concepts - His Word is infinite and perfect - and so, no infinite chain of begetting occurs.

Adam, proceeding outside of God, is a creation of God, and is therefore not God; the likeness of man to God is not one of equality, as the likeness of the Father is to the Son.

>>839829

You suppose distinction means degradation, which is wrong. Regarding the particular, there is no indistinction or anything in common between Father, Word, or Holy Spirit. That's Homily 38 of St. Basil, if you wish to read the orthodox position.

>>839829

Further, it is not of necessity that the Father begets the Son - as you quoted prior.

>>839913

>it is not of necessity that the Father begets the Son

Is the Son a product of the Father's will?

>>839922

No. Being a product implies time, something eternal is beyond the concept of time.

Never was the Father without Son and Holy Spirit because personhood is otherness in communion and communion in otherness. There can be no one person without you, he, we, you(plural), they etc. It is free because it is an interpersonal relation.

>>839924

Don't get hung up on semantics. In this context the word product essentially means "derived from"/"generated by", i.e. from/by the Father's will. So with that clarification, please answer the question.

>>839925

>Don't get hung up on semantics

>Filioque thread

>>839912

>You suppose that distinction means degradation, which is wrong.

If this refers to creation: any distinction from God, who is infinite and perfect, is necessarily a degradation; for by its distinction it would be neither perfect nor infinite.

If this refers to the procession of the Word from God: I have already covered this here >>839690. To say that there is nothing in common between the Father and the Word is to deny that the Word generated by the Father in understanding Himself is not as infinite and perfect as the Father and thereby, that God's power of understanding is deficient. This is absurd. Therefore, the Word possesses the exact same substance as the one who generates Him; He is equal to the Father who generates him.

>>839912

Understanding is an internal procession; for it remains in the operator as his own act and perfection. God has no form which is something other than His existence. Hence, His essence itself is also His understanding. His act of understanding must be His essence and His existence. Therefore, it is of necessity that the Father begets the Son.

>>839925

It's not semantics. The Father is a person, that is, he is free in being other from Son and Spirit.

>>839926

If the Roman Catholics had the proper understanding of the distinction between person and essence, your creed wouldn't even have existed.

>>839929

>If this refers to creation: any distinction from God, who is infinite and perfect, is necessarily a degradation; for by its distinction it would be neither perfect nor infinite.

There's the rub. I, and the Cappadocians who coined the proper sense of person, disagree perfection means indistinctiveness but that it supposes distinction. It simply does not follow that distinction means imperfection, worse yet for you, perfection implies distinction.

I think you don't know the distinction St. Basil makes of ousia/substance/essence and person/hypostasis, you should read Homily 38 and many more from him since he is very much a linguist.

>>839931

In the Trinity, there is a real distinction between the three divine Persons themselves. But the three Persons have the same divine essence.

There are many quotations of Church Fathers and Saints that refer to the Essence of the Father, the Essence of the Son or the Holy Spirit's Essence. Those quotes are true because the divine essence indeed belongs to each person. However, those statements are not contradicting the truth that the three Persons have the exact same divine essence - the one and only divine essence. There is, and could only be, one divine essence.

It is not the case that the Father has divine essence, the Son has another equally divine essence, and the Holy Spirit has another equally divine essence. No, the three Persons have the single divine essence - the only one divine essence there is. This is what is meant when it is said that the divine essence is numerically one, or numerically the same in the three Persons.

Since the divine essence is numerically one in the three Persons, there is only one God not three.

>Deuteronomy 6:4

Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one.

>Isaiah 45:6

…that people may know, from the rising of the sun and from the west, that there is none besides me; I am the Lord, and there is no other.

>Isaiah 46:8-10

Remember this and stand firm, recall it to mind, you transgressors, remember the former things of old; for I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like me, declaring the end from the beginning and from ancient times things not yet done…

As the Council of Florence declared:

>Cantate Domino

These three persons are one God not three gods, because of the three there is one substance, one essence, one nature, one divinity, one immensity, and one eternity, and all are one where no opposition of relation precludes 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 Second Council of Constantinople likewise declared:

>Canon 1

If anyone does not confess one nature or essence of Father and Son and Holy Spirit, and one power and authority, a consubstantial Trinity to be worshipped as one Godhead in three hypostases or persons, let such a one be anathema…

Although there is a real distinction between the Persons themselves in the Trinity; such as between the Father and the Son, and between the Son and the Holy Spirit; there is no real distinction between a divine Person and the divine essence. The Father is not the Son, The Father is not the Holy Spirit, and the Son is not the Holy Spirit - there is a real distinction between the divine Persons themselves based on the opposition of relation. However, when we compare the Father, or the Son, or the Holy Spirit, to the divine essence there is no real distinction between a divine Person and the divine essence. Each Person individually and all three together are in reality identical to the divine essence. On this point the Fourth Lateran Council declared:

For there is one certain supreme reality, incomprehensible indeed and ineffable [i.e., the divine essence], which truly is the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, three persons at the same time, and any one of the same individually; and so in God there is a Trinity only, not a quaternity; because any one of the three Persons is that reality, namely substance, essence or divine nature, which alone is the beginning of all things, beyond which nothing else can be found…

The divine essence is God, and the Father is God, and the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. Although many reputable authorities and texts speak on the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit as having or possessing the divine essence - and we can do so legitimately - we must recognise that such phraseology is not meant to indicate a real distinction between a divine Person and the divine essence.

Indeed, there could not be a real distinction between a divine Person and the divine essence; for if there were then there would be a supreme and divine entity, namely the essence, that is not any of the three Persons - this is false. Hence, Saint Thomas wrote:

>Summa Theologica, Pt. I, Q. 39, A. 1.

Augustine says: When we say the person of the Father we are saying nothing else than the substance of the Father.

So the divine Persons are not really distinct from the divine essence although they are really distinct from each other because of the opposition of relation.

>>839935

Against the sublime truth that each divine Person is in reality identical to the divine essence, certain heretics make specious objections because they fail to understand the more delicate point: that the terms 'Person' and 'essence' have a different mode of signifying. Since the terms 'person' and 'essence' have a different mode of signifying they are not to be used interchangeably in every context. For instance, when we discuss the Incarnation, since the union of two natures was made in the Person and not in the nature, that is in the Son as distinct from the Father and the Spirit, what is predicated of the Person of the Son in his humanity is not predicated of the divine essence itself but rather of the divine person of the Son only. Thus, we must distinguish the terms 'Person' and 'essence', or 'Person' and 'nature', in many contexts.

The Eastern Orthodox claim that:

>The Father is not the same thing as God's essence.

Saint Athanasius teaches exactly the same opposite:

>On the Council of Nicea, De Decretis, #22

But if God is simple, as indeed He is, then quite clearly when we say 'God' and name the Father we are not naming something around Him, but are signifying His very essence (ousia).

Saint Athanasius teaches exactly the opposite of the Eastern Orthodox because Saint Athanasius was a Christian and the Eastern Orthodox heretic is not. Also note that Saint Athanasius writes that:

>When we say God we are not naming something around Him

This contradicts the Eastern Orthodox heretical position on the "uncreated energies" which they claim exist around the divine essence but are not the divine essence. In point of fact, Saint Athanasius teaches:

>On the Council of Nicea, De Decretis, #22

But if one considers God to be composite, as an essence in which there is accident, or to have any external covering and to be enveloped and concealed (kaluptesthai), or if one thinks that there is something around him (peri auton) which completes his essence, so that when we say 'God' or name him 'Father,' we are not signifying the invisible and incomprehensible essence itself but something of what is around God, then let them censure the council for having written that 'the Son is from the essence of God.' But let them observe well that to think in this way is to blaspheme twice over…

Again, this is exactly the opposite of the claim of the Eastern Orthodox. They "blaspheme twice over" with their false position that "In God there is a real distinction between His Essence and His Energies. Per Gregory Palamas:

>The Triads

In the first place, that essence is one, even though the rays are many, and are sent out in a manner appropriate to those participating in them, being multiplied according to the varying capacity of those receiving them…

His essence, which exceeds even His uncreated energies, since this essence transcends all affirmation and all negation.

This position is heresy.

>>839938

>when we say 'God' or name him 'Father,' we are not signifying the invisible and incomprehensible essence itself but something of what is around God, then let them censure the council for having written that 'the Son is from the essence of God.' But let them observe well that to think in this way is to blaspheme twice over…

When we say God, we mean primarily the person of the Father - just like Christ did. Se how "or name him Father" is used. God does not mean Trinity since Trinity is not an entity, it is merely a quick way of saying the three Divine persons. The Creed does not even mention the Trinity, it mentions the belief in one God, Father.

You're the one who's blaspheming twice over, by meaning it is the invisible essence and the two other persons as well lmao.

I tried to explain to you that orthodoxy has the correct primary meaning for God, Father, but you did not hear because you prefer to listen to yourself.

>>839931

>It's not semantics

It is semantics, you got hung up on meanings of the word "product" that are not relevant here. Do you refuse to answer the question?

>The Father is a person, that is, he is free in being other from Son and Spirit.

What do you mean by this? Do you mean to suggest the Father is separate from the other two? Are you saying they are not necessary like the Father but merely exist because He chose for them to exist? If this is what you mean, then it is nothing more than rank Arianism. Not only the Father, but also the Son and the Holy Spirit are autotheos, they are the "I Am", they exist of themselves because they participate in the selfsame divine essence equally with the Father. The reason for this is precisely because they are not "free in being" from each other; the Son and Spirit are like the Father, because they come from the Father.

>>839978

>The Creed does not even mention the Trinity, it mentions the belief in one God, Father.

It also talks about belief in the Son and the Holy Spirit, and calls them both true God.

>>839986

In orthodoxy, only the Father is autotheos. This is why there is only one God. There is the Comforter, God from God, the Word, God from God, and God.

This is the Biblical view, both in the OT and Gospels, and of the Creed. As in I believe in one God, the Father, the Son is God from God because the Father begets him in his essence.

This is in no way semantics, there are real liturgical implications and you need to see the bigger picture. This ultimately culminates in the primacy of person over essence and spirit over nature making it possible to experience God through his uncreated, thus redeeming, Grace/energies.

About the latter, there was never any debate over essence/energies, it is about essence/person. Clearly, since the roman catholic thinks all three persons are actually the essence.

>>839978

You are literally taking the heretical position that Saint Athanasius wrote against. You have explained nothing - you've made no argument, nor have you made reference to scripture - you have stated your heresies apropos nothing.

>So, if one follows the Eastern Orthodox and believes that the Filioque and the Papal Primacy of Jurisdiction are false doctrines then one would be forced to conclude that their church defected from the "true faith" at the Council of Florence in 1439 by accepting the Filioque and the Papal Primacy.

Even your own bishops accepted the truth of the Catholic faith. Perhaps it is time to relent with the obstinacy.

>>839998

>In orthodoxy, only the Father is autotheos

From your perspective, is the existence of the Son and Holy Spirit necessary, or willed by God?

>>840072

It makes no sense to speak of the Father without the Son and Holy Spirit, though it also makes no sense to speak of necessity in begetting or spiration. God is love, in love there is neither loneliness nor necessity.

Perhaps you're confusing yourself by thinking I said there was progression in the trinitarian relationships, but there is none. It is beyond time.

>>840072

Perhaps I may put it likewise: to say all three is autotheos is to negate the Son comes from the Father and that the Holy Spirit comes from the Father. The Father alone is not beggoten, does not proceed, and from him all comes. Precisely this identifies him as Father.

>>840080

>to say all three is autotheos is to negate the Son comes from the Father

No it isn't, it is to recognize that He is the one who is called I Am. He is autotheos not because He is not begotten of the Father, but because He is God of Himself. The relations of paternity and filiation are themselves part of this Godhead; the Son is begotten of the Father, but this begetting is itself essential to God.

>>840079

>Perhaps you're confusing yourself by thinking I said there was progression in the trinitarian relationships, but there is none. It is beyond time.

It doesn't matter if you believe it is beyond time. If you believe that the Son and Father do not share equally the exactly identical essence then you believe in multiple gods, one created and the other the original.

>>840090

I never said the Son and Holy Spirit are ontologically different from the Father, you have me mistaken.

>>840090

Again, the problem is heterodox see God as primarily Divine nature and not as Father. It is a different perspect of reality, just as much as a diamond is a different perspect of carbon from graphite.

>>840096

Well if they don't possess aseity, they are.

>>840100

God is God, that is what He is. Is this somehow controversial now?

>>840114

They have the same essence, for the Father grants them his essence through mutual interpenetration.

You keep rehashing the same point that you think autotheos is due to nature. Autotheos is used in the highest meaning of the term God, it is not gods as in the psalms or when Christ calls us gods and sons of gods. The highest of all uses of this expression is a person, our Father. Your entire worldview will be arranged differently if you think God means primarily Divine nature.

The latter is a development that took hundreds of years. Not even Calvin agrees with your 21st century interpretation.

See

>Thus his [the Son's] essence is without beginning, while his person has its beginning in God.

I do not say Calvinism is equal to Orthodoxy in this respect, but one cannot deny the obvious development through the centuries of understanding the term God wrongfully as primarily the Divine essence instead of the person of the Father, the latter being the proper way as we see in the gospels and Fathers - with the exception of Augustine, who began the slow descent of which the Filioque, that results in the depersonalization of the Comforter, is only a small step.

>>840159

>the Father grants them his essence

Only in the sense that He gives to them their persons, which entails His essence. Anything else is Arianism.

>Autotheos is used in the highest meaning of the term God

Is Christ not the highest God?

>Your entire worldview will be arranged differently if you think God means primarily Divine nature.

Again, God is not divine nature, God is God. It isn't correct to say "God is divine nature" because there is no difference between essence and existence in God. God is all that He is, and He cannot be anything that He is not. This is where you are going wrong is in distinguishing between the divine nature and the Father. There is no difference between essence and person in God. The Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God.

>Thus his [the Son's] essence is without beginning, while his person has its beginning in God.

You think this contradicts me?

>the Filioque, that results in the depersonalization of the Comforter

How does it depersonalize Him?

>>840210

To clarify, the Son is begotten of the Father, He is derived from the Father but this is by nature. He is begotten of the Father, so He could not have not been begotten by Him.

>>840210

Arius did not believe in homoousianism. The Father granting the essence unto Son and Comforter isn't Arianism.

Why are you such an univocalist? This is not how language works. It is the fourth time I told you the highest meaning for God in orthodoxy is the person of the Father, yet you keep implying that I don't believe Christ is God coeternal and consubstantial when I do.

We've gone round and round, but my problem with what you do is destroying the distinction between essence and person in the Triune God. It is called modalism and sprang nowadays as oneness pentecostalism, though it is a clear development in Roman Catholic thought and of its children congregations. I think St. Basil talks about modalism. It might help you to see why distinguishing person and essence is important for our person-centric worldview. The Incarnation is another example, the schism between the Divine beyond-being and created being is healed by the person of the Son taking flesh without confusion of the two beings, for the person is this communion without confusion or composition. I don't know how you even see the Incarnation if the person of the Son is identical to the other two and the Divine essence. Disastrous consequences come from this, primarily idolatry.

An interesting argument St. John of Damascus makes against the iconoclasts who destroyed images of Christ and saints is that we worship the person in the image, not the essence of wood and paint.

>>840271

>It is the fourth time I told you the highest meaning for God in orthodoxy is the person of the Father, yet you keep implying that I don't believe Christ is God coeternal and consubstantial when I do.

Do you not see the contradiction in this sentence? And besides, my issue isn't with what you say you believe, it's with what you actually believe as you annunciate it.

>It is called modalism

No it is not. Western Christendom has expressly denied any distinction between essence and person in God for at least one thousand years. Modalism is a lack of distinction between the persons. The persons are distinct from each other, but not from their own essence.

>our person-centric worldview

Your "person-centric worldview" is exactly the problem. You are so focused on person that you lose sight of what God is to begin with.

>I don't know how you even see the Incarnation if the person of the Son is identical to the other two

I have consistently and emphatically denied that the persons are identical to each other. You are the one misrepresenting me.

>An interesting argument St. John of Damascus makes against the iconoclasts who destroyed images of Christ and saints is that we worship the person in the image, not the essence of wood and paint.

Don't even get me started on that

>>840288

>my issue isn't with what you say you believe, it's with what you actually believe as you annunciate it.

I don't subscribe to the ghost in the machine meme, but that's another story. I am so very tired, please forgive me. At least we may agree the Filioque is actually about distinguishing person and essence and that the lack of this distinction is in the West for a thousand years.

I do not think we will get anywhere with schemata, since we have such distant worldviews that you can identify person fully with essence and say there are three full persons in God. I think this fundamental error is whence the meme that the Triune God is not biblical. I urge you to keep in your mind how the Bible treats God more as a loving Father who sent his only-beggoten Son and Spirit of Truth to save the world rather than an essence that coincides with its existence. I don't even know why you are not a muslim, since Allah is not a person.