The Trinity in Catholicism vs. Orthodoxy

[Erose]

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.

So lets get this straight here, before we go any further. You believe that all the Eastern Fathers from I guess the 3rd century on, put their heads in the sand and had absolutely no idea what was going on in the West? The West knew what was going on in the East obviously since the Patriarchs of Rome spent a lot of time trying to fix issues in the East, which is historical record and irrefutable, but no one in the East knew or cared to know what was happening in the West? Seriously this is your argument?

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

This is the core of the debate.

No, it's not. You ignored the rest of my post.

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

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.

Yes, there were also later Orthodox who loved Calvin. That doesn't make Calvin's theology compatible with Orthodoxy. After the schism, yes, interest actually picked up in Western theology, and Augustine is considered Orthodox; Aquinas however is not. He can only be drawn on in the sense Origen and Aristotle are.

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

So lets get this straight here, before we go any further. You believe that all the Eastern Fathers from I guess the 3rd century on, put their heads in the sand and had absolutely no idea what was going on in the West? The West knew what was going on in the East obviously since the Patriarchs of Rome spent a lot of time trying to fix issues in the East, which is historical record and irrefutable, but no one in the East knew or cared to know what was happening in the West? Seriously this is your argument?

No, my statement is that they didn't read Latin theologians much until after the schism; that didn't mean they were deaf to news of major developments in the west, such as the creed being changed. This is a correction of your misunderstanding. It is not, however, part of my argument, since it is irrelevant, as you can see from my other paragraphs.

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

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.

Also, no, this is completely wrong. The Trinity was taught by the Apostles from the beginning; the idea that the Father, the Son and the Spirit are all God and of one will and activity, was taught from the get go. The only thing that developed is the terms used. Whether or not the Son causes the Spirit to exist, is not relative or up to interpretation, he either does or he doesn't. We did not invent God, God created us, we just came up with terms. But any other set of terms we used would have amounted to the same thing, so long as these terms were properly defined. Whether we used the term "Trinity" or "Threesome" or whatever else, whether we use the term "essence" or "substance" or whatever else, makes zero difference where those terms are straightforward and simple in definition.

If the West "developed differently" than the East here, it is because the East did not develop, but kept the Apostolic understanding, whereas the West innovated. However, this Western innovation of the Son causing the Spirit to exist has nothing to do with the Latin Church Fathers, it is a Medieval notion that was pressed by the Holy Roman Empire upon the Pope. The Latin Fathers say the Spirit is and acts through the Son, but that he is caused by the Father. Saying he proceeds from the Father and the Son in this sense is perfectible acceptable, even if there is no reason to add it to the Creed; but saying the Son causes the Spirit to exist, is completely wrong and at odds with the ancient Fathers of both West and East.

 

[Erose]

No, my statement is that they didn't read Latin theologians much until after the schism; that didn't mean they were deaf to news of major developments in the west, such as the creed being changed. This is a correction of your misunderstanding.

Actually the Eastern fathers were more up to date on the theology of the West BEFORE the final break than afterwards. This argument that the Eastern fathers were just ignorant of what was going on in the West is just plain ludicrous.

It is not, however, part of my argument, since it is irrelevant, as you can see from my other paragraphs.

Actually it is relevant to the OP, where you start with the wrong assumption. Doctrine was not at any point the reason for the Schism. Doctrine became the reason to remain in Schism though. The bishops on both sides had to justify the Schism, and to do so they made excuses. Sadly those same excuses are still being used.

 

[Erose]

Also, no, this is completely wrong. The Trinity was taught by the Apostles from the beginning; the idea that the Father, the Son and the Spirit are all God and of one will and activity, was taught from the get go. The only thing that developed is the terms used. Whether or not the Son causes the Spirit to exist, is not relative or up to interpretation, he either does or he doesn't. We did not invent God, God created us, we just came up with terms. But any other set of terms we used would have amounted to the same thing, so long as these terms were properly defined. Whether we used the term "Trinity" or "Threesome" or whatever else, whether we use the term "essence" or "substance" or whatever else, makes zero difference where those terms are straightforward and simple in definition.

If the West "developed differently" than the East here, it is because the East did not develop, but kept the Apostolic understanding, whereas the West innovated. However, this Western innovation of the Son causing the Spirit to exist has nothing to do with the Latin Church Fathers, it is a Medieval notion that was pressed by the Holy Roman Empire upon the Pope. The Latin Fathers say the Spirit is and acts through the Son, but that he is caused by the Father. Saying he proceeds from the Father and the Son in this sense is perfectible acceptable, even if there is no reason to add it to the Creed; but saying the Son causes the Spirit to exist, is completely wrong and at odds with the ancient Fathers of both West and East.

This is one of those head in the sand moments.

First and foremost the Catholic Church does not teach that the Son causes the Spirit to exist. That just isn't true. The Spirit exists because He is God. See this is the issue here. The Christian God must be Trinity, He couldn't be anything else than that. Our understanding of God from a Christian perspective, is that it is impossible for there to be only the Father, even though He is the source of all Divinity. Why? Because of those simple words from St. John: "God is Agape". Not a loving God, not a God that loves; but He IS Agape. God must be Three, He can't be anything else, if He is Agape. The Father could not exist without the Son or the Spirit anymore than the Son and the Spirit cannot exist without Him. Why? Because God cannot be anything else than who He Is, which is Agape, or as we say when we baptize, Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. This is the revelation of the New Covenant. The revelation of the Old Covenant was that God Is; the revelation of New, is God IS Agape. This is what is taught from the beginning. What is God? HE IS. Who is God? AGAPE

Anyway here is the point I'm making. What Augustine fleshed out in his treatise on the Trinity was that in any loving relationship there must be a Lover, a Beloved and the Love between them. The Father is the Lover, for He loved His Son. The Son is the Beloved, and the Holy Spirit is the Love (Agape) between the Father and the Son. So the Christian God, cannot be just the Father, nor could He be just the Father and the Son, nor just the Father and the Spirit, no He must be and can only be the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. Hopefully I'm making this understandable in the best sense as I can. When we say that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, we say that He does so as from one source because the Father and the Son are One. But this must be understood that when the Spirit proceeds, He doesn't become something other than the One. For the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are One God, One Being, One Nature, One; but the Father is not the Son, nor the Son the Father, nor the Spirit the Father or the Son. However one can define what a divine person is that is what they are.

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

Actually the Eastern fathers were more up to date on the theology of the West BEFORE the final break than afterwards. This argument that the Eastern fathers were just ignorant of what was going on in the West is just plain ludicrous.

No, the ancient fathers of the East seldom read Latin. And no, there were not many translations of Latin works of theology in the East. They had some idea of the West's theological framework and the latest goings on, yes. Did they read works of Western theology? No.

Actually it is relevant to the OP, where you start with the wrong assumption. Doctrine was not at any point the reason for the Schism. Doctrine became the reason to remain in Schism though. The bishops on both sides had to justify the Schism, and to do so they made excuses. Sadly those same excuses are still being used.

No, doctrine is the reason for the schism. Of course, Rome's atrocious behavior over the next thousand years (which Orthodox were hardly the only victims of) contributed to the estrangement, yes. Your refusal to acknowledge doctrinal distinctions (which Rome anathematized US for), only contributes to your poor image in the eyes of the Orthodox. You don't consider any voice relevant but Rome's.

After the First Vatican Council concluded, an emissary of the Roman Curia was dispatched to secure the signatures of the patriarch and the Melkite delegation. Gregory and the Melkite bishops subscribed to it, but added the qualifying clause used at the Council of Florence: "except the rights and privileges of Eastern patriarchs."[11][14] He earned the enmity of Pope Pius IX for this; during his next visit to the pontiff Gregory was cast to the floor at Pius' feet by the Papal guard and the pope placed his foot on the patriarch's head.[15][16]

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

This is one of those head in the sand moments.

First and foremost the Catholic Church does not teach that the Son causes the Spirit to exist. That just isn't true. The Spirit exists because He is God. See this is the issue here. The Christian God must be Trinity, He couldn't be anything else than that. Our understanding of God from a Christian perspective, is that it is impossible for there to be only the Father, even though He is the source of all Divinity. Why? Because of those simple words from St. John: "God is Agape". Not a loving God, not a God that loves; but He IS Agape. God must be Three, He can't be anything else, if He is Agape. The Father could not exist without the Son or the Spirit anymore than the Son and the Spirit cannot exist without Him. Why? Because God cannot be anything else than who He Is, which is Agape, or as we say when we baptize, Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. This is the revelation of the New Covenant. The revelation of the Old Covenant was that God Is; the revelation of New, is God IS Agape. This is what is taught from the beginning. What is God? HE IS. Who is God? AGAPE

Anyway here is the point I'm making. What Augustine fleshed out in his treatise on the Trinity was that in any loving relationship there must be a Lover, a Beloved and the Love between them. The Father is the Lover, for He loved His Son. The Son is the Beloved, and the Holy Spirit is the Love (Agape) between the Father and the Son. So the Christian God, cannot be just the Father, nor could He be just the Father and the Son, nor just the Father and the Spirit, no He must be and can only be the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. Hopefully I'm making this understandable in the best sense as I can. When we say that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, we say that He does so as from one source because the Father and the Son are One. But this must be understood that when the Spirit proceeds, He doesn't become something other than the One. For the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are One God, One Being, One Nature, One; but the Father is not the Son, nor the Son the Father, nor the Spirit the Father or the Son. However one can define what a divine person is that is what they are.

Procession and begetting are both considered modes of causation by the ancient fathers. See for example: CHURCH FATHERS: On "Not Three Gods" (Gregory of Nyssa)

Causation of the Son and the Spirit here are not "acts" by the Father, but properties innate to his Person. He eternally causes both to exist.

 

[Erose]

No, the ancient fathers of the East seldom read Latin. And no, there were not many translations of Latin works of theology in the East. They had some idea of the West's theological framework and the latest goings on, yes. Did they read works of Western theology? No.

Got it, your argument is Eastern Fathers had their heads in the sand, and didn't look to the West until after the Schism.

No, doctrine is the reason for the schism. Of course, Rome's atrocious behavior over the next thousand years (which Orthodox were hardly the only victims of) contributed to the estrangement, yes. Your refusal to acknowledge doctrinal distinctions (which Rome anathematized US for), only contributes to your poor image in the eyes of the Orthodox. You don't consider any voice relevant but Rome's.

Ok, so you are contradicting yourself here. If the Eastern Bishops didn't know what was going on in the West until AFTER the Schism, then how could the Schism be about doctrine? Hum? And thanks for confirming my argument by giving political examples for the Schism.

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

Got it, your argument is Eastern Fathers had their heads in the sand, and didn't look to the West until after the Schism.

No, I said they didn't read Latin and there were not many translations. Putting your head in the sand means to willfully turn a blind eye and a deaf ear to a problem out of fear of confronting it.

Ok, so you are contradicting yourself here. If the Eastern Bishops didn't know what was going on in the West until AFTER the Schism, then how could the Schism be about doctrine? Hum? And thanks for confirming my argument by giving political examples for the Schism.

The East first started learning about the Filioque insertion when an Orthodox monk of Jerusalem who understood Latin heard it being sung by Latin monks in the early 9th Century and flipped out, calling it heretical; the other Greek monks in the area followed suit, refusing to take communion with the Latin monks. The news spread from there. The controversy engulfed the East, and actually the West later than that (it was commonly sung in the West, but not in the Creed).

As I've already posted, it was eventually brought to Rome's attention in the West by Charlemagne, who strongly supported it.

See:

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.

The Council of 879 declared insertion of the Filioque to be heresy, and anathematized Pope Nicholas I for his claims of Papal Supremacy. Pope John VIII affirmed this council, ending the Photian Schism.

In 1014, the Filioque was inserted at Rome at the request of Henry II of Germany, whom the Pope was restored to his see by. Rome excommunicated Constantinople forty years later for, among other things, failing to include the Filioque in their creed.