Hawks and doves

Patristic theology, and traditional teachings of Orthodoxy from the Church fathers of apostolic times to the present. All forum Rules apply. No polemics. No heated discussions. No name-calling.

Moderators: Maria, phpBB2 - Administrators

Extranjero
Newbie
Posts: 20
Joined: Thu 11 January 2018 11:30 am

Hawks and doves

Postby Extranjero » Thu 18 January 2018 11:01 pm

Hi. Reading the Kallistos Ware's book "The Orthodox Church" I found his comments on "hawks" and "doves" among the orthodox theologians regarding the Filioque and its controversy. .

Despite the expression "hawks and doves" do not seem good because those terms are used today in the secular political world, the topic it self is interesting.

From the hawks side he mentioned Lossky as a contemporanean model. But from the doves side he does not mentioned any name, he just explains their position. I know Lossky, but I don't know who are the doves. Perhaps Lev Gillet could be seen as a dove, but probably are others.

Can someone here tell me who are the orthodox "doves" on Filioque controversy, and what reading is representative of them?

Thank you in advance.
(I hope you can understand me because I'm not fluent in english, I'm sorry)

User avatar
Maria
Archon
Posts: 8115
Joined: Sat 12 June 2004 12:39 am
Faith: True Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: GOC
Location: USA

Re: Hawks and doves

Postby Maria » Fri 19 January 2018 2:48 am

Extranjero wrote:Hi. Reading the Kallistos Ware's book "The Orthodox Church" I found his comments on "hawks" and "doves" among the orthodox theologians regarding the Filioque and its controversy. .

Despite the expression "hawks and doves" do not seem good because those terms are used today in the secular political world, the topic it self is interesting.

From the hawks side he mentioned Lossky as a contemporanean model. But from the doves side he does not mentioned any name, he just explains their position. I know Lossky, but I don't know who are the doves. Perhaps Lev Gillet could be seen as a dove, but probably are others.

Can someone here tell me who are the orthodox "doves" on Filioque controversy, and what reading is representative of them?

Thank you in advance.
(I hope you can understand me because I'm not fluent in english, I'm sorry)


Do not worry about the fine points of English grammar and rhetorics.
You are doing just fine.

Do not read Met. Kallistos (Ware). He is an ecumenist.
Lord Jesus Christ, have mercy on me a sinner.

Extranjero
Newbie
Posts: 20
Joined: Thu 11 January 2018 11:30 am

Re: Hawks and doves

Postby Extranjero » Fri 19 January 2018 10:37 am

Do not worry about the fine points of English grammar and rhetorics.
You are doing just fine.


Thank you, Maria :)

Do not read Met. Kallistos (Ware). He is an ecumenist.


Ok. But I am not supporting his ecumenism, I am just triying to learn about the Filioque discussion. Let me ask the question in other words:

I have read the Lossky position and his thought about Filioque and its consequences. But I have read also that there are some contemporanean theologians who have a moderate position on it. Who are them? I would like know both side of that discussion...

User avatar
Maria
Archon
Posts: 8115
Joined: Sat 12 June 2004 12:39 am
Faith: True Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: GOC
Location: USA

Re: Hawks and doves

Postby Maria » Fri 19 January 2018 9:48 pm

Extranjero wrote:
I have read the Lossky position and his thought about Filioque and its consequences. But I have read also that there are some contemporanean theologians who have a moderate position on it. Who are them? I would like know both side of that discussion...


Some (not all) of the World Orthodox contemporary theologians at both St. Vladimir's OCA Seminary and at Holy Cross Greek Orthodox Seminary hold ecumenist positions and want union with Rome. These are not moderate positions, but modernist positions.

The Roman Catholic doctrine of the Filioque, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, essentially denies the Fountainhead of the Trinity.

The Orthodox Catholic Church teaches what has been taught from the beginning of Christianity and which was later on formulated into the Nicene Creed:
The Nicene Creed, which was formulated at the Councils of Nicaea in 325 AD and of Constantinople in 381 AD (1st and 2nd Ecumenical Councils), has been recognised since then as the authoritative expression of the fundamental beliefs of the Orthodox Church. The Creed is often referred to as the "Symbol of Faith". This description indicates that the Creed is not an analytical statement, but that it points to a reality greater than itself and to which it bears witness. For generations the Creed has been the criterion of authentic Faith and the basis of Christian education. The Creed is recited at the time of Baptism, during every Divine Liturgy, and as part of the daily prayers of the Orthodox Christian.

The Nicene Creed is comprised of 12 articles of Faith that summarise the essentials of the Christian Faith :

I believe in one God, 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 ages,
Light from light, true God from true God, begotten not made, of one essence with the Father, through him all things were made.
Who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven, and was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, and became man,
And was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate, and suffered and was buried,
And rose on the third day according to the Scriptures.
He ascended into heaven, and is seated at the right hand of the Father,
And He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and His kingdom will have no end.
And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, Who proceeds from the Father,
Who together with the Father and the Son, is worshipped and glorified, and Who spoke through the Prophets.

In one Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.
I acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
I expect the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the age to come. Amen.


Thus, the Orthodox teaches:
(1) that the Father is the Eternal Source of the Son Who is the Eternally Begotten Son of the Father; and
(2) that the Father is the Eternal Source of the Holy Spirit Who Eternally Proceeds from the Father.

The Holy Bible, which was canonized and standardized by the Orthodox Church about the same time as the Nicene Creed was formulated, teaches us that there are two processions of the Holy Spirit:
(1) the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father.
(2) the Holy Spirit proceeds in time (temporally) from the Father and the Son at Pentecost and at our Holy Chrismation (our personal Pentecost).

John 15:26 American King James Version [used by Orthodox Christians]
But when the Comforter [the All-Holy Spirit] is come [at Pentecost], whom I will send to you [at Pentecost] from the Father [temporal procession], even the Spirit of truth [All-Holy Spirit], Which proceeds from the Father [eternal procession], He [the All-Holy Spirit] shall testify of Me [Jesus Christ, Logos, Son and Word of God].

John 15:26 Douay-Rheims Bible [Catholic Bible]
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.

John 14:26 American King James Version
But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name [temporal procession], he [the Holy Spirit] shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatever I [the Logos] have said to you.

John 14:26 Douay-Rheims Bible
But the Paraclete, the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring all things to your mind, whatsoever I shall have said to you.

Nevertheless, the three Divine Persons are One God and are equal in divinity, so we pray:
In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. One God. Amen.

I am not infallible, so if I have made any misrepresentations, please let me know.
Lord Jesus Christ, have mercy on me a sinner.

Extranjero
Newbie
Posts: 20
Joined: Thu 11 January 2018 11:30 am

Re: Hawks and doves

Postby Extranjero » Sat 20 January 2018 12:52 am

Some (not all) of the World Orthodox contemporary theologians at both St. Vladimir's OCA Seminary and at Holy Cross Greek Orthodox Seminary hold ecumenist positions and want union with Rome. These are not moderate positions, but modernist positions.


I can understand the difference you pointed between moderation and modernism, because as catholic I know the poison which modernism has inoculated into the Church.

But I am not trying to bring any heresy here. I just want to know the different ways in which ortodox theologians have understood the Filioque problem. I know Lossky but as Ware says there is another perespective, I wanted to know about it.

Lets forget K. Ware and go to the John Gospel. In this verse (from the American King James Version): "whom I will send to you [at Pentecost] from the Father [temporal procession]" We have two sources from of the Holy Spirit coming: "whom I will send to you" (Jesus as Giver or Sender) and "from the Father" (the absolute source).

Then I guess some people can understand the first statement "I will send to you" as if the Holy Spirit proceeds from Jesus too. I AM NOT SAYING THIS IS RIGHT, I am just trying to understand the hermeneutic problem involved in the Filioque conflict. And this are my first steps, so probably I am clumsy.

I am not infallible, so if I have made any misrepresentations, please let me know.


Don't worry, we are just chatting. I do not expect you be infallible, is enough for me with our Pope who does not stop making wrongs :D

User avatar
Maria
Archon
Posts: 8115
Joined: Sat 12 June 2004 12:39 am
Faith: True Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: GOC
Location: USA

Re: Hawks and doves

Postby Maria » Sat 20 January 2018 1:36 am

Extranjero wrote:
Some (not all) of the World Orthodox contemporary theologians at both St. Vladimir's OCA Seminary and at Holy Cross Greek Orthodox Seminary hold ecumenist positions and want union with Rome. These are not moderate positions, but modernist positions.


I can understand the difference you pointed between moderation and modernism, because as catholic I know the poison which modernism has inoculated into the Church.

But I am not trying to bring any heresy here. I just want to know the different ways in which ortodox theologians have understood the Filioque problem. I know Lossky but as Ware says there is another perespective, I wanted to know about it.

Lets forget K. Ware and go to the John Gospel. In this verse (from the American King James Version): "whom I will send to you [at Pentecost] from the Father [temporal procession]" We have two sources from of the Holy Spirit coming: "whom I will send to you" (Jesus as Giver or Sender) and "from the Father" (the absolute source).

Then I guess some people can understand the first statement "I will send to you" as if the Holy Spirit proceeds from Jesus too. I AM NOT SAYING THIS IS RIGHT, I am just trying to understand the hermeneutic problem involved in the Filioque conflict. And this are my first steps, so probably I am clumsy.

I am not infallible, so if I have made any misrepresentations, please let me know.


Don't worry, we are just chatting. I do not expect you be infallible, is enough for me with our Pope who does not stop making wrongs :D


Roman Catholics believe in error that the Holy Spirit eternally proceeds from the Father and the Son. This would be a double procession that is not biblically correct, nor does it agree with the first seven ecumenical councils.

Holy Orthodoxy believes that the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father alone as the Fountainhead of the Holy Trinity. At Pentecost, however, the Son asked the Father to send the Holy Spirit to purify, illuminate, and sanctify the Apostles. This sending at Pentecost is not an eternal procession but a temporal sending, similar to the Holy Spirit coming upon us at our Chrismation.

Filioque means "and the Son." Ware and several Catholic theologians mention that the phase "through" the Son has been employed by several Church Fathers when referring to the eternal procession of the Holy Spirit. This phrase only adds confusion as "through" is not mentioned in the Nicene Creed.
Lord Jesus Christ, have mercy on me a sinner.

Extranjero
Newbie
Posts: 20
Joined: Thu 11 January 2018 11:30 am

Re: Hawks and doves

Postby Extranjero » Sat 20 January 2018 3:51 am

This sending at Pentecost is not an eternal procession but a temporal sending, similar to the Holy Spirit coming upon us at our Chrismation.


It is clear, thank you.


Return to “Theology and Tradition”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests