The Trinity in Catholicism vs. Orthodoxy

[Constantine the Sinner]

This could be close to tritheism, like Mormonism, without further elaboration (I'm formerly Orthodox so aware of Orthodox theology on this point, but mostly seeking to be the devil's advocate here).

God having three hypostases is sounds like tritheism, eh?

Now days we interpret the Nicene Creed in modern language to say the Son is "of one being with the Father". So perhaps this is true. But I don't see how it's heretical. We believe in one God, not three gods.

Being and existence are distinct in Cappadocian theology. Being is essence ("human being", for example) and then there is energies (which means activity/operation/works etc.). God is one in both regards, humans are only one being in one sense (all "human being"). An existence is a particular which being is based upon: you cannot have "humanity" ("human being") without existence to preceed it, and you cannot have energies without an existence to preceded them.

Do you understand that Christ is "consubstantial" (as you would translate it, "one being") with man? You understand what that means, yes? It doesn't mean there is one entity called "man" whom Christ is one with (except etymologically).

 

[FireDragon76]

God having three hypostases is sounds like tritheism, eh?

Without any other commentary... maybe. The Orthodox understanding can come across as tritheism to the unlearned.

Being and existence are distinct in Cappadocian theology. Being is two things: essence ("human being", for example) and energies (which means activity/operation/works etc.). God is one being in both regards, humans are only one being in one sense (all "human being"). An existence is a particular which being is based upon: you cannot have "humanity" ("human being") without existence to preceed it, and you cannot have energies without an existence to preceded them.

Now we get into semantics. I guess we are more practical minded people, and the Latin language doesn't lend itself to fine distinctions.

Do you understand that Christ is "consubstantial" (as you would translate it, "one being") with man? You understand what that means, yes?

Yes. That's part of the Athanasian Creed.

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

Without any other commentary... maybe. The Orthodox understanding can come across as tritheism to the unlearned.

That's the original formulation of the Trinity. "Person" was just used as a Western translation of hypostasis.

Yes. That's part of the Athanasian Creed.

So you understand that all humans are "one being" by your translation of the Creed, yes? This isn't really a problem so long as you are using "being" in a more classical way. The term "entity" today comes from the Latin "essence".

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

Now we get into semantics. I guess we are more practical minded people, and the Latin language doesn't lend itself to fine distinctions.

Incorrect, "operations" is a pretty distinct term from "essence" in Latin. "Cooperation" is quite the same as the Orthodox term "synergy".

 

[zippy2006]

Some online resources for Catholics who may be interested in the topic:

• FILIOQUE: A Response To Eastern Orthodox Objections
  
• The Filioque: A Church Dividing Issue?: An Agreed Statement (USCCB)
• Filioque (Catholic Answers)

 

[FireDragon76]

So you understand that all humans are "one being" by your translation of the Creed, yes? This isn't really a problem so long as you are using "being" in a more classical way. The term "entity" today comes from the Latin "essence".

Yes, though I would say there's orders of being. People have their own individual existence also unique to them as a person.

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

Yes, though I would say there's orders of being. People have their own individual existence also unique to them as a person.

Yes, being and existence are distinct. The Cappadocian formulation is that God is one being in three existences.

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

Some online resources for Catholics who may be interested in the topic:

• FILIOQUE: A Response To Eastern Orthodox Objections
  
• The Filioque: A Church Dividing Issue?: An Agreed Statement (USCCB)
• Filioque (Catholic Answers)

I can find no record of this work ascribed to Kallistos apart from that lone quotation from a Catholic work.

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

Some online resources for Catholics who may be interested in the topic:

• FILIOQUE: A Response To Eastern Orthodox Objections
  
• The Filioque: A Church Dividing Issue?: An Agreed Statement (USCCB)
• Filioque (Catholic Answers)

Document in the second link is of zero authority, third link is confused: "through" is not about the Son as principle of the Spirit, so it's not at all like "from".

 

[Erose]

I know I'm coming in late on this matter, but I noticed some false narratives that needed to be addressed here.

Besides Papal authority, the main original dividing factor between the Orthodox and the Roman Catholics was differing conceptions of the Holy Trinity, reflected by the Filioque (there is a lot more separating us today, but these were the two issues that started the division).

First and foremost, the filioque had absolutely nothing to do with the Schism, between Constantinople and Rome. It is now being used as one of many excuses to be disobedient to the Will of our Lord, sadly. Politics and only politics is the reason for the Schism.

The crux of these conceptions has to do with understanding of the term "essence" (or "substance" in Latin). The Nicene Creed, at Saint Athanasius's urging, says the Son is "homoousion" (Greek for the "same in essence") as the Father. For the East, the Cappadocian Fathers, "essence" was a rather simple term, it just meant qualities common to a class (and that class in this case is God). Unlimited, eternal and all-powerful are a few of these qualities. What makes God one is that he has only one will and activity, the Father's, which is by extension the Son's the Spirit's, both of whom eternally originate from the Father: the Son is eternally begotten from the Father, the Spirit eternally proceeds from the Father. These, rather than "qualities common to a class", are "existential properties"--that is, characteristics unique to a person; the Son is begotten, but the Father is not; so that is an existential property, not an essential quality; essential qualities are those that define all three persons of the Trinity as God, and not all three persons are begotten, only one. Similarly, the Father begets the Son, and is the only member of the Trinity who does so, therefore it is his existential property, his personal property, not his essential quality, because all three persons have the same essential qualities.

Therefore, for the East, "essence" was never intended as some new philosophical, speculative statement on God, but simply a technical term showing the Son and the Holy Spirit are divine in the exact same way the Father is: they are eternal, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, and so on. They also have the same activity as the Father, which means they created the universe.

I do agree that one of the primary issues between the East and West on this matter, is differences in language and perspective. The question is IMO is these differences in language and perspective worth both Patriarchates living in a state of sin, especially considering that these differences existed in the Church for over 500 years before the Schism, without a Schism.

However, some theologians in the West were heavily influenced by Plato, and took "essence" as something more concrete, similar to Plato's theory of forms. The idea was the essence was something existing on its own in an eternal way, and something's existence is predicated upon its essence, which is the exact opposite of the East (there is no "humanity" without humans). God's essence was taken to be something that exists distinctly and manifests itself in three relations with itself; in the East, on the other hand, God's "essence" is rather and simply a description of the qualities shared by the Holy Trinity, who are three subjects united in will and activity, the Father's (John 5:19).

Okay.

The Western conception lead them to state that because the Holy Spirit comes from God's essence, it must proceed from the Father and the Son as one principle/origin (since the Father and the Son are the same in essence). In the East, this was simply not acceptable, because the Holy Spirit does not proceed from an essence--an essence is not something that exists independently, it is a description of the common qualities of the persons. Furthermore, even if the Western, Platonic conception of the Trinity were correct, the Spirit's essence is the same as the Father's, so if he proceeded from the Father's essence, he would proceed equally from his own. To say the Spirit proceeds from the Father's essence, but not his own, would be to say the Spirit has a different essence than the Father does.

I think here is where you are getting confused. This is not the language that is used, and I think that we have to also understand the very fact that we are as human being trying to use very limiting words to explain something that those words don't truly have the ability to explain. For example the words "begotten" and "proceed". These words are used in the exact same way in both the east and the west, right? Yet when it comes to God, and what is truly trying to be described by these words, can we truly define what they mean? If so, I haven't seen it. What does it truly mean for the Son to be begotten? What does it truly mean for the Paraclete to proceed? What is the difference between being begotten and proceeding? No one can truly answer that, because it wasn't revealed to us right? All one can do is guess here.

Anyway here is the issue IMO when it comes to discussing the Holy Trinity. In all honesty if two or more folks spend enough time discussing this doctrine, they will eventually all end up as heretics, because it is so easy to be wrong, and so hard to be right, if you go too far in depth, so IMO opinion, it is smarter for both theologians and the Church to keep it simple as possible, and then let God reveal His fullness when we (hopefully) kneel before Him in heaven.

In all reality the Trinity is defined as there is only One Divine Being (Essence, Nature), yet there are Three Divine Persons, all Equal in their Divinity, yet distinct in their relations. Or to simplify it even more, when you ask the question "What is God?" there is One; when you ask the question "Who is God?" there are three.

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

I know I'm coming in late on this matter, but I noticed some false narratives that needed to be addressed here.

First and foremost, the filioque had absolutely nothing to do with the Schism, between Constantinople and Rome. It is now being used as one of many excuses to be disobedient to the Will of our Lord, sadly. Politics and only politics is the reason for the Schism.

The Filioque was actually an issue prior to Papal supremacy, Papal supremacy became a source of contention when it was used to support Rome's unilateral alteration of the Creed. When Rome anathematized Constantinople, one of the items on the anathema was the lack of the Filioque in Constantinople's creed.

I think here is where you are getting confused. This is not the language that is used, and I think that we have to also understand the very fact that we are as human being trying to use very limiting words to explain something that those words don't truly have the ability to explain. For example the words "begotten" and "proceed". These words are used in the exact same way in both the east and the west, right? Yet when it comes to God, and what is truly trying to be described by these words, can we truly define what they mean? If so, I haven't seen it. What does it truly mean for the Son to be begotten? What does it truly mean for the Paraclete to proceed? What is the difference between being begotten and proceeding? No one can truly answer that, because it wasn't revealed to us right? All one can do is guess here.

Yes, the Orthodox see their distinction as real, but mystical, whereas the Catholic see the distinction as analytical: proceeding is distinguished, in Catholicism, from begotten, solely due to a joint source.

Anyway here is the issue IMO when it comes to discussing the Holy Trinity. In all honesty if two or more folks spend enough time discussing this doctrine, they will eventually all end up as heretics, because it is so easy to be wrong, and so hard to be right, if you go too far in depth, so IMO opinion, it is smarter for both theologians and the Church to keep it simple as possible, and then let God reveal His fullness when we (hopefully) kneel before Him in heaven.

In all reality the Trinity is defined as there is only One Divine Being (Essence, Nature), yet there are Three Divine Persons, all Equal in their Divinity, yet distinct in their relations. Or to simplify it even more, when you ask the question "What is God?" there is One; when you ask the question "Who is God?" there are three.

Yes, that is why scholastic method is folly.

 

[Erose]

The Filioque was actually an issue prior to Papal supremacy, Papal supremacy became a source of contention when it was used to support Rome's unilateral alteration of the Creed. When Rome anathematized Constantinople, one of the items on the anathema was the lack of the Filioque in Constantinople's creed.

Actually I would like to see proof of this. The teaching rooted in the Filioque stretches back to at least Ambrose, Augustine both of whom lived in the 4th century. The 3rd council of Toledo is 6th century. Much earlier than the Schism. So show me the Eastern Fathers who taught against this view between these two periods. If this was such an issue then you giving me examples of the outcry should be easy.

Yes, the Orthodox see their distinction as real, but mystical, whereas the Catholic see the distinction as analytical: proceeding is distinguished, in Catholicism, from begotten, solely due to a joint source.

Actually it's one source.

Yes, that is why scholastic method is folly.

scholastic method is much later in time than the subject in question.

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

Actually I would like to see proof of this. The teaching rooted in the Filioque stretches back to at least Ambrose, Augustine both of whom lived in the 4th century. The 3rd council of Toledo is 6th century. Much earlier than the Schism. So show me the Eastern Fathers who taught against this view between these two periods. If this was such an issue then you giving me examples of the outcry should be easy.



Actually it's one source.


scholastic method is much later in time than the subject in question.

No ancient fathers of the West taught that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and Son "as one principle", which is the issue.

 

[Erose]

No ancient fathers of the West taught that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and Son "as one principle", which is the issue.

Sts Augustine, Ambrose and the fathers at the Synod of Toledo all taught the Filioque, this is irrefutable. The question I asked is where is the outrage from the Greek fathers? Why is both St Augustine and Ambrose considered Saints in the East, if they both in the modern Orthodox viewpoint taught heresy?

 

[prodromos]

Sts Augustine, Ambrose and the fathers at the Synod of Toledo all taught the Filioque, this is irrefutable. The question I asked is where is the outrage from the Greek fathers? Why is both St Augustine and Ambrose considered Saints in the East, if they both in the modern Orthodox viewpoint taught heresy?

Augustine did not "teach" it. He himself admitted working on "On the Trinity" for 17 years and would not have published it except that he was pressured to by his friends. His work wasn't translated into Greek until the 13th century. If it had been translated sooner then his errors could have been corrected before others had run with it.

 

[Erose]

Augustine did not "teach" it. He himself admitted working on "On the Trinity" for 17 years and would not have published it except that he was pressured to by his friends. His work wasn't translated into Greek until the 13th century. If it had been translated sooner then his errors could have been corrected before others had run with it.

So what you are saying is that there wasn't a single Greek Father that didn't know Latin? That the theology in the West was completely ignored in the East? Is this the argument? Or that the East being ignorant of the theology of the West would just assume or accept that so and so is a Saint because the West told them he/she was?

 

[FreeinChrist]

MOD HAT

Some off topic posts were removed in a clean up.

Please stick with the topic as stated in the OP.​

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

Sts Augustine, Ambrose and the fathers at the Synod of Toledo all taught the Filioque, this is irrefutable. The question I asked is where is the outrage from the Greek fathers? Why is both St Augustine and Ambrose considered Saints in the East, if they both in the modern Orthodox viewpoint taught heresy?

I guess you didn't quite understand what I said. Yes, they used that phrase, but they didn't use it to indicate the Son is existential principle to the Spirit. Certainly the Spirit, as per the New Testament, proceeds from the Son in some way (John 20:22, Revelation 22:1). But that's rather distinct from the sense of "proceeds from" used in the Nicene Creed, which is in relation to John 15:26. This is about the existential principle of the Spirit. The idea of the Spirit proceeding from the Father principally, but also from the Son in a different and secondary way, is perfectly acceptable and in fact espoused by Orthodox theologians. But saying the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son "as one principle," is simply heresy. I've already gone over this at length.

Now, in regard to how the East responded to Western theology: we didn't read it. Virtually no one in the East read Latin, and no Latin Father ever exerted serious influence on us except for Saint John Cassian. Saint Augustine first came to notice in the East because Saint Emperor Justinian wanted to anathematize some dead guys (especially Origen), but that practice had zero precedent; so it was researched if there was anyone who could back him up, and Augustine was found, and so Justinian motioned for his canonization and recognition as a vital teacher, that way he could have a powerful advocate in his corner. He became canonized in the East in the appropriate council, but again did not become widely read or venerated among the Orthodox of the east until after the schism. So all this "where was the outrage" business is not really applicable. The outrage started when you shoehorned your incorrect theology in the Creed. If you did that five hundred years prior, I guarantee you there would have been outraged.

Finally, and this is crucial, our Church is closer to ancient Western theology than yours by far. The Pope, in fact, strongly opposed the addition of the Filioque to the Creed, even after the See of Rome started embracing the theology of the Filioque. There are transcripts (printed in translation in Photius and the Carolingians: The Trinitarian Controversy) of Pope Leo III's conversation with the envoy from Charlemagne trying to convince him to accept the change. He starts by saying it's okay for them to sing it, but that he wasn't going to officially add it, but by the end he grows so irritated with their persistence that he forbids them even to sing it that way (despite still subscribing to the theology, albeit not in the way the Filioque was to be intended, with the Son and the Father one principle of the Spirit). The Pope said, on justifying his opposition to altering the Creed, "I shall not say that I prefer myself to the Fathers. And far be it from me to count myself their equal." Pope Leo III later went on to have the original Creed, without the Filioque, inscribed on two silver tablets in Rome, to ensure it would never be changed.

 

[hedrick]

Now, in regard to how the East responded to Western theology: we didn't read it. Virtually no one in the East read Latin, and no Latin Father ever exerted serious influence on us except for Saint John Cassian.

This is the core of the debate. We have two separate threads of development, and they ended up with different approaches. This is surely no shock. The Trinity itself is the result of a very particular thread of development, driven by a specific set of challenges, viewed in particular philosophical terms. Christian theology that developed on Mars would use something else to play the role that the Trinity does for us.

The histories I've read say that the wording in Nicea was specifically chosen because it allowed either of the interpretations described in the OP. I think we need to maintain the position that either approach, when formulated with proper care, is orthodox.

Or as orthodox as one can get... I agree with the comment above that the approach chosen by the early Church is such that any extended attempt to explain it is bound to end up heretical.

 

[zippy2006]

Now, in regard to how the East responded to Western theology: we didn't read it. Virtually no one in the East read Latin, and no Latin Father ever exerted serious influence on us except for Saint John Cassian.

According to the scholar Marcus Plested (book and talk) who studied under Kallistos Ware, there were later Byzantines who read Latin and were interested in Western theologians, especially Aquinas. For example, Emperor John V learned Latin to read Aquinas and even translated some of Aquinas' works into Greek. Emperor John VI drew heavily on Aquinas. Palamas drew on Augustine and resisted anti-Latin antipathy. Theophanes of Nicaea drew on Aquinas, as well as many other Greeks.

Although these are later theologians, they do help to dispel the modern Orthodox myth that Orthodoxy is and has always been uniformly opposed to the West.