truefiction1
Fool
- Dec 16, 2011
- 5,208
- 2,548
- 57
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Eastern Orthodox
- Marital Status
- Married
This line of logic illustrates my point: that people, in this case -- you -- transfer their own unconscious interelational schemas to the Godhead whenever they attempt to use any sort of words or symbols to define the relationships between the members of the Godhead. You did this just now without even realizing it. Forgive me for bringing attention to this, but you automatically/instinctually applied a hierarchical model of an authority figure, represented by the person of the Father, Who "begets" the Son and Who "sends" the Spirit. How do we know that this is what you did? Because when you paraphrased what you believed to be the Scriptural teaching on the matter you unintentionally used terms which imply submission of both the Son and the Spirit. Especially significant is your choice of the words "The Father begets the Son", whereas the Father does not beget the son, rather, the Son is begotten of the Father, as in the form of a mutual agreement. Also, in the same vein, the Father does not, as you have said, "send the Spirit". The Spirit proceeds from the Father, as in the form of a mutual agreement. If there is what appears to be a hierarchical ordering, as it were, then it is an ordering that is freely chosen by each "Hypostasis". So, even if the Spirit chooses to proceed from both the Father and the Son, or from the Father through the Son, it is not out of any inferiority of the Spirit. Rather, it would be because the Spirit is in full agreement with both the Father and the Son, not forced or coerced, but acting in freedom and in Love.That would seem to go beyond what we can know, as all we have is what has been revealed. In other words, the God we know is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, where the Father begets the Son and the Spirit is sent by the Father. That's what it says in Scripture. To suppose that it could have been otherwise...I mean, what basis do you have to go off of other than human logic and reasoning? It would entirely change God. It's like saying Christ *could* have saved humanity by some other way than the Cross - but the only God I know is the Crucified One. I have no way of knowing or supposing another God. How would we when the only way we know Christ is God is by His death and resurrection? Remove the means by which we know Him and how can we suppose to still know anything about Him? It's the same in the Trinity.
I just want to be clear that I'm not trying to pick on you or anybody else in pointing out that we are possessed by unconscious relational models, received during the preverbal stage of our infancy through our contingent relationships with our primary caregiver (usually our mothers). I have one too, for sure, and you could recognize it in my own character flaws if you knew me well enough.
I don't think that anyone has stated that the question of the filioque is not important, or a big deal. But is a schism over speculative reasoning regarding the nature of relationships that exist between members of the Divine Godhead (Whose uncreated nature is and always will be beyond our intellectual grasp) justified? No it is not. The falling out of the Greeks and the Latins was not caused by this. As I stated before, the dispute over the filioque is but a symptom of something far deeper and more pervasive which effects intrapersonal, then interpersonal, and finally the greater stage of external societal relations, including the ecclesiological attitudes that separate Byzantium from Rome. The filioque may indeed be the key that can eventually help people to unlock the doors of division and separation. By virtue of this fact alone, the question of the filioque is truly a big deal.If modern theologians are stating such things it does not surprise me that they are saying the filioque is not that big of a deal - they're using the same techniques that led to the mistake in the first place.
Now, why is it (the filioque) really such a big deal? Because all that we claim to know of the Trinity and the relationships between the members of the Trinity are based upon how the primary constituent parts of our own person tend to work together in the making of our whole selves. What we claim to know about the Trinity is but a psychic projection (much of which occurs beneath conscious awareness) of a model of ourselves. What does this imply about the people who differed in their convictions regarding how the relationships between the members of the Trinity should be described? It implies that there were and are important differences in the unconscious models of themselves along with the unconscious but pervasive relational models which different people have come to be gripped by.
But, do these differences in our personal attachment schemas (unconscious, preverbal models of proper relations between the parts of ourselves as well as proper relations to others) constitute adequate grounds for Christians to refuse to worship together. No way Hose! If that were the case, then not even Orthodox Christians should be worshiping together. What we should do if we are theologians, rather, is to work together with dedicated loyalty to uncover what is at the bottom of our personal differences. This would be to everyone's mutual advantage, both in the now and in the forever.
Last edited:
Upvote
0