Donatism and the Locus of Grace

[Rdr. Arsenios]

Saint Augustine wrote from an Orthodox heart and with an Orthodox mind, but erred in expressing himself with too much dependence on human logic and philosophical rigor, thus exposing his teaching to later gross distortions, making his small errors great ones..."

He says it so much better than I do...

In which case it was not the job of the Councils to define the Son, although that is exactly why they were called = to confront heresy - and in the last couple of centuries heresies concerning the Spirit have been rampant...so the sensible thing would be to address them...

I appreciate the spirit of this comment, but it is awry, because the Councils did NOT define the Son, but anathematized false teachings about Him... And defining the Holy Spirit would be a very vain enterprise indeed... But more directly, the Creed had gone from an addressing of mere heresy to the unifying confession of the Christian Faith, which is why its adulteration by Rome was so eggregious, and especially at the imposition of Roman Authoritarianism, as was evidenced at the Council of Florence... Creeds were not merely made up willy nilly whenever some heresy arose... The Creed was the unifying confession of the Faith, and to change it is to change the Faith, and that is what happened with the Western Church...

2. If the Spirit proceeds, then it/he/she must be an emanation and not a person (?)

Well, very literally, the Creed states: "And the Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of Life, Who is proceeding from the Father..." And of not, no attempt has ever been made in the Orthodox Church to DEFINE "is proceeding/proceeds"... The nature and manner of that procession which gives the ontological source of the Holy Spirit from the Father is and shall remain a Mystery...

We are, btw, very comfortable with Mysteries - We live in them, and have our Faith in them... As my friend Lester Moore used to say: Less is More...

I find it strange that you appeal to hesychasm, given your intent is to attack my ascertian that "Imu, Augustine's argument held that man could experience God's essence = love". After all isn't the point of hesychasm to achieve an experiential knowledge of God".

Experiential knowledge of God is most assuredly NOT of God's Essence... And NO Orthodox hesychast will say that it is... God IS Love, no question, but the actual nature of that Love is far, far removed from boy meets girl, having only a very slight relationship to human love... The Love that God IS is not God's Essence, but the very energy and power that creates and sustains all creation... And in this we can on occassion participate in and partake of... That is called divinization, or theosis, and is very rarely found in people... It IS found, however...

The Divine Energies, themselves uncreated, ARE God, but not His Essence...

I was a little taken aback that you would surmise, from my sub-atomic particle explanation of the reason we do not partake of the Divine Essence, that I thought God''s essence could be found in material objects... Hardly a charitable construction of those words...

Arsenios

[Rdr. Arsenios]

Seems you aren't aware that Augustine wasn't outposted to anywhere!

Well, Tagaste (Souk Ahras), Algeria, was a long way from Rome AND from Constantinople... He had very little guidance, and had to rely on himself to transmit the Faith as best he could...
and thereby he "erred in expressing himself with too much dependence on human logic and philosophical rigor,", as Fr. Rose says...

Arsenios

[apostoli]

...the Councils did NOT define the Son, but anathematized false teachings about Him...

The anathemas are not part of the creedal statement!

The purpose of the insertion of the word "homoousia" in the creedal statement of Nicea was to define the Son (nb: likewise, God from God, Light from Light etc are definitive statements). Until the insertion of the word "homoousia" there wasn't anything in the creed with which the Arians would disagree. In Later disputes Basil the Great (then considered an Arian by the Athanasians) found the word particularly offensive (that might simply be because of its previous use by the Sabellians). Athanasius at some stage wrote to him saying he wasn't attached to the word, so find another word or phrase that gives the same definition. History documents that Basil's solution to all things was to redefine the words used by the Greeks. In doing so he also ignored the anathema of Nicea which demanded "But those who say 'He [the Son] is of another substance (hypostasis) or essence (ousias)' they are condemned by the Catholic and Apostolic Church".

Importantly, universally we all now declare that the Father & Son are different and distinct hypostases. Of course the Nicean constraint was inserted as hypostasis and ousia at the time were used synonymously, so it is evident that as language changes so must the creeds.

Recently I was reading a paper by a GOC historian who made the point that the Synod of 381 changed the creed without authorisation (though after a lengthy process, it was ratified). He also suggested that when the the Council of Ephesus (431) prohibited additions to the Nicene Creed, it specifically meant the Creed of Nicaea, not the Creed of Constantinople (which at the time had not been widely accepted). So as history demonstrates the Council of Ephesus was effectively ignored.

And defining the Holy Spirit would be a very vain enterprise indeed...

How so? Scripture is replete with material for us to use.

But more directly, the Creed had gone from an addressing of mere heresy to the unifying confession of the Christian Faith

Nicea simply modified a creed already in use in at least the Syrian and Egyptian churches.

...which is why its adulteration by Rome was so eggregious, and especially at the imposition of Roman Authoritarianism, as was evidenced at the Council of Florence...

So, you must also consider the Constantinople creed an adulteration of the Nicean creed (?)

I had to do a quick revision on the history behind the issue: Cardinal Humbert of Silva Candida placed a solemn bull of excommunication against Patriarch Michael Cerularius and his followers upon the altar of Hagia Sophia on July 16th, 1054, one of the charges he laid against them was that they had deleted the word Filioque from the creed. Apparently he thought that the filioque had been part of the original version of the 381 creed. Of more interest: everyone acknowleged that the filioque was an addition to the 325 creed of Nicea.

Creeds were not merely made up willy nilly whenever some heresy arose... The Creed was the unifying confession of the Faith, and to change it is to change the Faith, and that is what happened with the Western Church...

Where is the change in faith? Apart from the insertion of the word "homoousia" the Nicean creed does not outline metaphysics, but depicts the oikonomia of salvation, the inclusion of the filioque simply completes the picture provided to us by scripture (especially Rev 22:1 which depicts the Spirit as the water of life proceeding out of the throne of God and of the Lamb.)

Well, very literally, the Creed states: "And the Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of Life, Who is proceeding from the Father..." And of not, no attempt has ever been made in the Orthodox Church to DEFINE "is proceeding/proceeds"... The nature and manner of that procession which gives the ontological source of the Holy Spirit from the Father is and shall remain a Mystery...

Your appeal to the Constantinople creed of 381 highlights that the church had a need for clarification of the Nicean creed of 325.

The objection I recounted (If the Spirit proceeds, then it/he/she must be an emanation and not a person) was one Augustine and others were regularly confronted with in the real world (it is still an issue raised by various groups in the modern world). They were dealing with real people, and not simply contemplating their navels. And such opponents have real influence over the common people, so an answer needs to be constructed. This is where rhetoric comes in: pointing to Jn 16:15 and ask "Is it possible for an emanation of God to receive the possessions of the Father and the Son? Does not such indicate that the parakletos is a person?"

We are, btw, very comfortable with Mysteries - We live in them, and have our Faith in them... As my friend Lester Moore used to say: Less is More...

The RCC is also comfortable with msteries (the inexplicable). Thus we don't concern ourselves with the why or how of the Son's begettal, the Spirits procession or creation ex nihilo. Nor why the Father used the Son and uses the Spirit to bring us salvation (though it is discussed with much conjecture).

Experiential knowledge of God is most assuredly NOT of God's Essence... And NO Orthodox hesychast will say that it is...

Consider 2 Peter 1:4 "he has granted to us his precious and very great promises, so that through them you may become partakers of the divine nature...". A.Peter used the word physis which in ancient times was synonymous with ousia, though, imu, physis is tangible (proved), whereas ousia is speculative.

God IS Love, no question, but the actual nature of that Love is far, far removed from boy meets girl, having only a very slight relationship to human love...

The Greeks had four words for love. You seem to only consider the concept in the context of desire, rather than such concepts as the natural (irresistable) love a parent has for his/her child, a matter of physis rather than energeia (the expenditure of the later does tend to fight against the other ;-)

The Love that God IS is not God's Essence, but the very energy and power that creates and sustains all creation... And in this we can on occassion participate in and partake of... That is called divinization, or theosis, and is very rarely found in people... It IS found, however...

theosis is used three times in the NT and is only used in the context of God, not people. Though 2 Pe 1:4 refers to us having the potential to partake in the θείας φύσεως.

The Divine Energies, themselves uncreated, ARE God, but not His Essence...

(?) I would say the divine energies are of God (the Father) and have no existence apart from him.

I was a little taken aback that you would surmise, from my sub-atomic particle explanation of the reason we do not partake of the Divine Essence, that I thought God''s essence could be found in material objects... Hardly a charitable construction of those words...

George, if you use materialist language, I will take you at your word and assume you are a materialist and respond accordingly. To be honest George, I often wonder whether you give any thought to your posts or just shoot from the hip...

_______________

Well, Tagaste (Souk Ahras), Algeria, was a long way from Rome AND from Constantinople...

George, some people see the same cup as half full, others as half empty. I suspect you belong to the later camp.

Tageste was a lot closer to Alexandria than either Rome or Constantinople, and in Augustine's time Alexandria was a major center of Christian scholarship, whilst Tageste was a cultural hub, so there would have been significant interchange between these two places. So Augustine, would have had ready access to the literature and thinkers of the time, but it must be admitted that the Christian literature and thinkers of the time, at times, was inadequate. For example: Basil the Great found it necessary to redefine the Greek language in an effort to explain Nicean thought and combat the errors rampant in the church (and it took quite sometime before his vocabulary was widely accepted in the Greek speaking world).

He had very little guidance, and had to rely on himself to transmit the Faith as best he could...
and thereby he "erred in expressing himself with too much dependence on human logic and philosophical rigor,", as Fr. Rose says...

Augustine was primarily an accademic, and his public writings were peered reviewed, so in the West he had a wide range of inputs. We need to remember that whereas the East was still battling with theological questions which the West considered settled, the West was focused on moral issues and fending the likes of Montanism, Donaticism, Arianism and a movement in North Africa advocating Christian socialism (eg: the Circumcelliones). Imo, we have to read Augustine in that context. I've refrained from his writings as I found the one's I've read nearing Sabellianism, but as Augustine was working from the "one and how there are three" rather than "the three and how there is one", my reading of him is possibly immature and therefore defective...in anycase our converstion is prompting me to give him another go, especially given our conversation has caused me to think on the Trinity in the context of Rev 22:1 "he showed me a pure river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding from the throne of God and of the Lamb."

_______________

Peoples mindsets and writings are often influenced by their life experiences (rather than directly from their education/training), so it is useful to investigate peoples motivation - what they are opposing or promoting and why. For instance: A preacher that has had a bad experience with alcohol might automatically edit out all the positive things scripture says about wine and rant on about its evils (chat to an old school Methodist and you'll see such in action). With those thoughts in mind, lets have a quick look at Augustine's background and see if your earlier ascertain can be substantiated...

The Catholic Encyclopedia reports that in childhood Augustine had received a Christian education and his mother had him "enrolled among the catechumens...His association with 'men of prayer' left three great ideas deeply engraven upon his soul: a Divine Providence, the future life with terrible sanctions, and, above all, Christ the Saviour".

When he was 16yo his father sent him off to Carthage "to prepare for a forensic career". This was Augustine's downfall for a lengthy period of time. Puffed up with worldly success he lived a debauched life (at this point I thought of St Mary of Egypt's account of her early life).

While a student in Cathage he adopted Manichaeism, which fitted his philosophic disposition and promised to explain all things that an inquiring minds contemplate. Interestingly, chief amoung the Manichean calls was "The Scriptures have been falsified". Given his occasional liberty with scriptural citation, it is possible that Augustine held to this thought for a long period of time (from Jerome's account regarding the diversity in manuscripts at the time (whether Greek, Latin or Syrian), a healthy skepticism might have been useful until a standard text was produced. Also, the early church writers were notorious for manipulating scripture when it suited them).

After graduating Augustine returned to Tagaste to "teach grammar". Because of his Manichaeism, his mother wouldn't receive him, but for the interventiona of a saintly bishop, who declared that "the son of so many tears could not perish." After a time he returned to Carthage and taught rhetoric.

The Catholic Encyclopedia reports: "His talents shone to even better advantage on this wider stage, and by an indefatigable pursuit of the liberal arts his intellect attained its full maturity. Having taken part in a poetic tournament, he carried off the prize, and the Proconsul Vindicianus publicly conferred upon him the corona agonistica. It was at this moment of literary intoxication, when he had just completed his first work on æsthetics (now lost) that he began to repudiate Manichæism."

About this time it occured to Augustine that the Manicheans had not lived upto his expectations (they promised that all things could be explained). "When he questioned them concerning the movements of the stars, none of them could answer him. 'Wait for Faustus', they said, 'he will explain everything to you'. Faustus of Mileve, the celebrated Manichæan bishop, at last came to Carthage; Augustine visited and questioned him, and discovered in his responses the vulgar rhetorician, the utter stranger to all scientific culture. The spell was broken, and, although Augustine did not immediately abandon the sect, his mind rejected Manichæan doctrines. The illusion had lasted nine years".

At some stage he went to Rome, then applied for a vacant professorship at Milan. There he encountered Ambrose and his "fascination of that saint's kindness induced him to become a regular attendant at his preachings". From here we find a turning point in Augustine's life...

The Catholic Encyclopedia reports: "before embracing the [Catholic] Faith, Augustine underwent a three years' struggle during which his mind passed through several distinct phases. At first he turned towards the philosophy of the Academics, with its pessimistic scepticism; then neo-Platonic philosophy inspired him with genuine enthusiasm. At Milan he had scarcely read certain works of Plato and, more especially, of Plotinus, before the hope of finding the truth dawned upon him. Once more he began to dream that he and his friends might lead a life dedicated to the search for it [truth], a life purged of all vulgar aspirations after honours, wealth, or pleasure, and with celibacy for its rule (Confessions VI). But it was only a dream; his passions still enslaved him.

Finally, through the reading of the Holy Scripture light penetrated his mind. Soon he possessed the certainty that Jesus Christ is the only way to truth and salvation. After that resistance came only from the heart. An interview with Simplicianus, the future successor of St. Ambrose, who told Augustine the story of the conversion of the celebrated neo-Platonic rhetorician, Victorinus (Confessions VIII.1, VIII.2), prepared the way for the grand stroke of grace which, at the age of thirty-three, smote him to the ground in the garden at Milan (September, 386). A few days later Augustine, being ill, took advantage of the autumn holidays and, resigning his professorship, went with Monica, Adeodatus, and his friends to Cassisiacum, the country estate of Verecundus, there to devote himself to the pursuit of true philosophy which, for him, was now inseparable from Christianity."

I'll stop at this point, as I think it is where we might find agreement on your prejudice concerning Augustine, but if you or anyone viewing this post is interested, the Catholic Encyclopedia continues at length on his life...

That said, I had to ask myself: if one is to pursue esoteric and metaphysical ideas, one would find the need to use esoteric and metaphysical language (accademics while using common language, usually apply different sensibilities), and if one is schooled in the art of rhetoric (as any educated person in the ancient Roman world would have been), what better tool to use to tweese out the subtleties of one's argument...so I can't fault Augustine in this respect.

I've read that there is evidence that Augustine was heavily influenced by Basil and Gregory Nazianzen's works on the Trinity as well as Epiphanius' Recapitulation (at least from their works available in Latin). If so then your earlier ascertian is flimsy.

As for the filioque, Augustine in his arguments is reputed to have addressed his opponents appeal to Jn 15:26 who reasoned "if the Spirit is in a relationship of procession only with the Father, he must be his Son [or daughter]". Imu, Augustine explained that the problem is resolved via the metaphor of a gift. Yves Congar remarks: "It is true that the Father and the Son are not brought together in Scripture under the same title of giver, but Scripture does speak of the mission or sending of the Spirit by the Father and by the Son. It is on that basis that it is possible to call the Spirit 'Gift' -- Augustine always quotes Acts 8:20, also Rom 5:5 and Jn 4:7 -- and both the Father and the Son 'givers'. It is therefore on the basis of the economy that Augustine constructs his theology of the eternal procession of the Spirit from the Father and the Son, that is, not as 'Father' and as 'Son,' but as 'giver'."

Imo, a huge problem to your objection to the filioque is Rev 22:1 which clearly depicts the Spirit as proceeding out of the common throne of the Father and the Son. Of course I understand this depiction in terms of the oikonomia (the administration of the house) and not the philosophic speculation on the essential source and cause of the Spirit's person...

[Rdr. Arsenios]

George, I often wonder whether you give any thought to your posts or just shoot from the hip...

Hip...

A.

[Rdr. Arsenios]

George, some people see the same cup as half full, others as half empty. I suspect you belong to the later camp.

Suspicions are fickle... I am beginning to suspect that you are suspicious...

Tageste was a lot closer to Alexandria than either Rome or Constantinople, and in Augustine's time Alexandria was a major center of Christian scholarship, whilst Tageste was a cultural hub, so there would have been significant interchange between these two places.

There is no record of which I am aware that shows Latin speaking Augustine having "significant interchange" with Greek speaking Alexandria... For whatever reason, as Fr. Rose gently points out, he relied on Scripture in Latin and his own logic and philoosophy for his theological understanding... He does not quote extensively from the early Greek Fathers, as you well know...

So Augustine, would have had ready access to the literature and thinkers of the time,

Would have but did not... And the distances were daunting by foot, camel, or ship...

It must be admitted that the Christian literature and thinkers of the time, at times, was inadequate. For example: Basil the Great found it necessary to redefine the Greek language in an effort to explain Nicean thought and combat the errors rampant in the church (and it took quite sometime before his vocabulary was widely accepted in the Greek speaking world).

You have a problem with this? Bringing into the meaning of well developed Greek philosophical systems of thought a whole new way of approaching fundamental issues of the existence of God, man and the kosmos will of necessity entail the transformation of the meanings of terms that had only the meanings of their pagan origins in Plato, Parmenides, Aristotle, Sophocles, etc etc...

They used Greek as their lingua Franca, and gave these ancient philosophical terms radical new understandings according to the Faith of Christ... Truth, for instance, went from an Aristotelian relationship between subject and object via the mind and senses - epistemology, right? - To the very PERSON of Christ...

The transformation was RADICAL, my brother... And it IS a radical understanding to this very day... The Aristotelian "definition" of "essence", for instance, was "to ti estan einai" - And translates literally: "The WHAT it was BEING to BE..." And THAT understanding has no possibility of rigor in an unchanging God in Whom we partake that we KNOW the TRUTH...

Even the word "person" has been radically transformed... Hypostasis is certainly NOT the old Greek understanding of person - Person is a MASK that CONCEALS the identity of the one wearing it, and refers to CHARACTERS in the Hollywood Movie sense... It referred to the masks actors wore on stage to portray ROLES... And now we have a person, indeed three Divine Persons as the Hypostases of the Godhead of all creation... And the Fathers all refer to this Godhead, of Whichever one of them they speak, as a Person... Because God is Person...

You cannot permit, as a Church Father, and as St. Thomas in fact did, the meanings of the Greek philosophical terms to dictate and define their Christian meanings, because they do not... And they cannot... They do NOT reconcile... However brilliantly one intertwines their meanings... And the proof of this is Thomas himself, who said at the end of his life, "All that I have written is straw..." And with that burned up the Summa as a Christian work... And THAT after but ONE encounter with God...

Arsenios

[Rdr. Arsenios]

Thank-you for the bio of Augustine... He had a Saint's journey, no question!

The frame of reference for the meaning of the Creed is to be found in the Greek Fathers... And not in Scriptural speculations. The Creed, according to those who wrote it, is not describing the Oikonomia of the Holy Spirit, but His ONTOLOGY... And ontologically, the Holy Spirit does NOT proceed from the Son, but only from the Father... Oikonomically, the Father and the Son can SEND the Holy Spirit wherever He is needed... THAT has never been in any question whatsoever... But the addition of the Filioque MIXED ontological origination in the Father with the OIKONOMIA of His MOVEMENT... I would not be surprised, in defense of the Latins, to find that they did not even realize then that the Creed was depicting His ontology, and excluding therein His ekonomia... Procedere in Latin is not an ontological term, I should think...?? But in any event, the addition proved fatal ONLY when the Latins tried to IMPOSE BY FORCE their addition...

The western Church was a mess, no question... It covered an area hugely vast area, with competing and warring principalities, that needed a clean-up and got it when the German Bishops took over Rome and thought they owned the Church via Peter... They also thought that the filioque had been removed from the Creed... So that when they tried, by normal means of warfare [the Crusades, esp the 4th], diplomacy [the arm-twisting of Florence] and intrigue [The Jesuits were masters of the latter under the Turks] to subdue the Church of Christ under their "Petrine Headship" of the Church, a matter that was but slowly making its way to an Ecumenical Council for resolution became instead an instrument of the subjugation of the Body of Christ... And in this they committed themselves to the path they remain upon to this day, which is Papal Authority, rather than the Conciliar rulings, over the Church... The Orthodox, of course, have maintained the rule of conciliation...

Another clue, in this Latin error, occurred at Florence - I still have Latins shaking their head in bewilderment that the Orthodox would not "honor their agreement" with Rome... Still not getting it, that in order for a Council to be ratified, it must be received by the Church as a whole [eg the Catholic Church]... And Florence was rejected immediately upon the return of the delegates, who had been beaten down for two years in cold unheated rooms with inadequate bedclothes and starvation rations - One of the delegates died... And were not permitted to return home unless they signed... Mark of Ephesus, the only one on site who repudiated the signing, was persecuted by the Latins for torture and execution, and had to return home from house to house overland to escape the wrath of the Pope... He was greeted as the hero he was, and was later canonized...

Constantinople knew that the Turks were coming, and that they were too weak, after the 4th Crusade and its aftermath of 50 years of looting by the crusaders, to be able to resist them... Their choice was to voluntarily submit to Papal rule over their Church, OR, submit to Turkish rule over their flesh... They chose the latter... And the Church continued strong in the Turkish persecutions...

Enough for now!

Arsenios

[Rdr. Arsenios]

Here is a little video done by the Monks of the Hermitage of the Holy Cross in West Virginia, a ROCOR monastery... They speak for themselves as to what it means to become a monk...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ooZiP...layer_embedded

Arsenios

[apostoli]

Hello George,

My computer crashed so I had to go out and get a new one. Pity is I've been slack in doing backups and so have lost a lot of reference material. The positive thing about all this is that I now have to rebuild my libraries. I say positive, because today I came across an article that explained to me the Orthodox's theological argumentation at the Council of Florence. A recommended read...
THE DOCTRINAL SIGNIFICANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF FLORENCE By Fr. Panagiotes Carras

You often suggest that the RCC have changed their position. However, as far as I can deduce the RCC has always maintained that ontologically speaking the Father is the sole source and cause of the hypostases of the Son and the Spirit, while in terms of the economy of salvation the Spirit comes forth from the Father and the Son (I must admit those that follow Augustine are a bit vague on this point as they seem to imply something ontological also). What I have noted is the RCC in the last century or more are more cautious in their expressions - especially in English (thus the silliness of "eternally begotten" & "eternally proceeding" are replaced by the phrases "begotten in eternity" & "coming forth from eternity").

The frame of reference for the meaning of the Creed is to be found in the Greek Fathers... And not in Scriptural speculations. The Creed, according to those who wrote it, is not describing the Oikonomia of the Holy Spirit, but His ONTOLOGY..

In respect of the Spirit, there isn't a single hint of ontology in either the Nicene or Constantinople creeds. As for the Constantinople creeds, they drew directly from John 15:26, no need for speculation when one uses scripture! And all ontological statements are speculative, though at times supportable from scripture.

And ontologically, the Holy Spirit does NOT proceed from the Son, but only from the Father...

So everybody agrees when we speak about the hypostases! But what of the ousia/physis? Or would you have homoousia removed from the creeds?

Oikonomically, the Father and the Son can SEND the Holy Spirit wherever He is needed... THAT has never been in any question whatsoever... But the addition of the Filioque MIXED ontological origination in the Father with the OIKONOMIA of His MOVEMENT... I would not be surprised, in defense of the Latins, to find that they did not even realize then that the Creed was depicting His ontology, and excluding therein His ekonomia... Procedere in Latin is not an ontological term, I should think...??

Part of the confusion is the Greeks have two words to choose from, whilst the Latins have one word that can have several meanings. In the case of the filioque "procedit" refers to "to come forth" (I trust you agree with A.John that the Spirit "comes forth" from (is sent by) the Father & the Son).

But in any event, the addition proved fatal ONLY when the Latins tried to IMPOSE BY FORCE their addition...

The western Church was a mess, no question... It covered an area hugely vast area, with competing and warring principalities, that needed a clean-up and got it when the German Bishops took over Rome and thought they owned the Church via Peter... They also thought that the filioque had been removed from the Creed... So that when they tried, by normal means of warfare [the Crusades, esp the 4th], diplomacy [the arm-twisting of Florence] and intrigue [The Jesuits were masters of the latter under the Turks] to subdue the Church of Christ under their "Petrine Headship" of the Church, a matter that was but slowly making its way to an Ecumenical Council for resolution became instead an instrument of the subjugation of the Body of Christ... And in this they committed themselves to the path they remain upon to this day, which is Papal Authority, rather than the Conciliar rulings, over the Church... The Orthodox, of course, have maintained the rule of conciliation...

These remarks gave me great amusement. The Roman church was in complete disarray at the time of the Council of Florence. Poor old Pope Eugene IV was on thin ice and about to get ousted. He was more interested in reunifying the Roman church than external reunification. Lots of infighting amongst "families", so he had to attempt to assert his authority.

Another clue, in this Latin error, occurred at Florence - I still have Latins shaking their head in bewilderment that the Orthodox would not "honor their agreement" with Rome... Still not getting it, that in order for a Council to be ratified, it must be received by the Church as a whole [eg the Catholic Church]... And Florence was rejected immediately upon the return of the delegates, who had been beaten down for two years in cold unheated rooms with inadequate bedclothes and starvation rations - One of the delegates died... And were not permitted to return home unless they signed... Mark of Ephesus, the only one on site who repudiated the signing, was persecuted by the Latins for torture and execution, and had to return home from house to house overland to escape the wrath of the Pope... He was greeted as the hero he was, and was later canonized...

Seems you aren't big on facts and prone to exageration. In case you hadn't heard, during the talks there was a plague and they changed venues...

You seem to be forgetting that it was the East that instigated the talks (and initially they appealed to one of the anti-popes - lots of competing "popes" running around in those days). The west really wasn't that interested. It had its own wars to fight. Still the Pope Eugene IV promised a huge amount of money to the east to help in the combat with the Turks. As for persecutions, when the orthodox legates returned to the east they were ostracised and at least one was thrown into prison.

____________________________

This is the respected assessment of Metropolitan John (Zizioulas):
Another important point in the Vatican document is the emphasis it lays
on the distinction between ἐκπόρευσις and processio. It is historically true
that in the Greek tradition a clear distinction was always made between
εκπορεύεσθαι and προείναι, the first of these two terms denoting
exclusively the Spirit’s derivation from the Father alone, whereas προείναι
was used to denote the Holy Spirit’s dependence on the Son owing to the
common substance or ουσία which the Spirit in deriving from the Father
alone as Person or υπόστασις receives from the Son, too, as ουσιωδώς that
is, with regard to the one ουσία common to all three persons (Cyril of
Alexandria, Maximus the Confessor et al). On the basis of this distinction
one might argue that there is a kind of Filioque on the level of ουσία, but
not of υπόστασις.

However, as the document points out, the distinction between
εκπορεύεσθαι and προείναι was not made in Latin theology, which used
the same term, procedere, to denote both realities. Is this enough to
explain the insistence of the Latin tradition on the Filioque? Saint
Maximus the Confessor seems to think so. For him the Filioque was not
heretical because its intention was to denote not the εκπορεύεσθαι but the
προείναι of the Spirit.

http://www.orthodoxanswers.org/media....pdf?noredir=1

[apostoli]

Constantinople knew that the Turks were coming, and that they were too weak, after the 4th Crusade and its aftermath of 50 years of looting by the crusaders, to be able to resist them... Their choice was to voluntarily submit to Papal rule over their Church, OR, submit to Turkish rule over their flesh... They chose the latter... And the Church continued strong in the Turkish persecutions...

You conveniently forget the Massacre of the Latins in 1182 wherein around 60,000 RCC were murdered or forced to flee by EOC rabble, thousands of Latins were sold off to the Turks as slaves. You also forget that the Pope excommunicated those involved in the sack of Constantinople in 1204. That the 4th crusade as formulated by Rome was only authorised to go direct to Palistine and free Jerusalem. That by Papal decree the crusaders were forbidden to sack Christian cities. That the Venetians ended up out of pocket in providing the fleet and it was their idea to divert the fleet in an effort to recoup their losses, not to mention payback for the EOC's massacre of its citizens 20 years earlier. What comes around goes around as the saying goes. Before you can accuse the RCC of anything you need to defend the Massacre of the Latins in 1182, and the EOC's undermining of the earlier crusades by supplying and trading with the Muslims...in my experience there are two sides to every story, and both need to be considered to get a balanced picture of events.

[Rdr. Arsenios]

Yoday I came across an article that explained to me the Orthodox's theological argumentation at the Council of Florence. A recommended read...
THE DOCTRINAL SIGNIFICANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF FLORENCE By Fr. Panagiotes Carras

I am glad you got a new computer... The read by Fr. Panagiotes Sarras is lovely and accurate... I do not know exactly why the Emperor forced the omission of the Palamas distinction between Divine Essence and Divine Energies... But as the article so clearly portrays, it was the Latin failure to grasp this distinction, and the fact that we only know God in His Energies, which ARE God, but are NOT His Essence, that led them to their carelessness with the Filioque... And they blithely argued contradictions from their own mouth, in their maintainence of Thomistic doctrines... As the article shows... John de Montenegro, a Dominican [Latin] Priest did not differentiate Person and Essence, arguing one and the other of the Father and the Son processing the Holy Spirit, so that his arguments basically amounted to highly intellectualized gibberish...

I mean, have you RE-read and digested the article? It really is a dandy... I have here at home a paperback copy of the history of the Council of Florence written by one of its Orthodox attendees, and it is flat out grim - The Latins basically gave up on winning the argument, removed the Latin scholars who were being persuaded by the Greeks, and simply ignored what the Greeks argued and kept repeating their position... While freezing and starving them into submission... All the while that the Latin delegates had warm clothes, warm rooms and beds, and plenty of hot food... But not the Greeks, at all... For the Latins, it was all about bring the Greeks into SUBMISSION to the Pope... Coming together regarding Truth was not on their agenda...

Arsenios

[Rdr. Arsenios]

You conveniently forget the Massacre of the Latins in 1182 wherein around 60,000 RCC were murdered or forced to flee by EOC rabble, thousands of Latins were sold off to the Turks as slaves...
That the Venetians...idea (for) payback for the EOC's massacre of its citizens 20 years earlier.
What comes around goes around as the saying goes.

I just read about that - I wonder why they hated each other so much...

Looks like, from your argument, that the 4th Crusade was just a revenge party...
The big GET EVEN...
What goes around comes around...

Justice was served... Despite the Pope...

Before you can accuse the RCC of anything you need to defend the Massacre of the Latins in 1182, and the EOC's undermining of the earlier crusades by supplying and trading with the Muslims...

Well, there are two entities here - The Emperor and the Church... And while there were some interactions, the Emperor ran the political affairs of State, and the Church ran the Church... Unlike the Latins, who had Bishops killing their enemies in the AM and serving Communion in the PM... Still bloody... And I really am not a historian of the era... Reading both sides would be a valuable exercise, I should imagine...

in my experience there are two sides to every story, and both need to be considered to get a balanced picture of events.

Amen the THAT, my Brother...

Arsenios

[Rdr. Arsenios]

So everybody agrees when we speak about the hypostases!

Except Fr. Montenegro (at Florence) answered:

We admit that whenever we say that (the Holy Spirit) is from the Father, we mean from his Person,
whenever we say that he is from the Son, we mean to say from his Person;
for the essence of the Father and the Son is one.
As the Father projects the Spirit, so does the Son likewise project the Holy Spirit,
as if from one the Holy Spirit is projected.

So you see, the Holy spirit proceeds from the ESSENCE of the Father and the Son, which is the ONLY property between them that is ONE... Even though the Latins are insisting it is from the TWO, they also insist that is is AS IF from ONE, being from TWO, this ontological source of the Holy Spirit...

You see, as the text you cited goes on to say:

Latin theology teaches a Trinity of persons subsisting in the one undivided nature or essence, thus reducing the persons to relations of paternity, sonship and active and passive spiration.

And:

When Montenegro was asked to clarify why, when referring to from Him, he at one time would mean the hypostasis (subsistentia) of the Father, and at another time the essence, he answered:

"The existence and the essence of the Father are the same thing. For this reason, we always say that the Spirit is from His essence."

But what of the ousia/physis? Or would you have homoousia removed from the creeds?

Talking with the Copts, perhaps yes! But no, it was the best word they could muster for a usage that made up the Unity of the Three Hypostases... For an extensive Patristic exposition of the Orthodox understanding of Hypostasis being the GROUND of Essence, see: Metropolitan Hierotheos Vlachos: "The Person in the Orthodox Tradition."

The Physis of God is UN-createdness, both in Essence and in Energies... When Peter tells us that we partake of the Physis (Nature) of God, he means the latter, for this is Gods UNCREATED Grace, you see...

Arsenios

[Rdr. Arsenios]

I slowed down the read, and found where your author locates the reason for the Emperor to squash the energy-essence distinction... I must confess, I was tempted to write it off to his pessimism regarding Rome in the face of his need for help against the Turks, but I was wrong... It was far, far worse, and the condition of Rome now some 600 years later, and even this discussion with you, bears witness to the truth of his reason at that time at Florence... To wit:

First - The West's theology was VERY well known by the eastern delegates...

Second - They had planned to approach the discussions on the basis of the essence-energies distinction and the acquisition of the Holy Spirit as the meaning of salvation...

Third, when they got there, it became evident to Emperor John VIII that they could not argue that line in that venue...

And the question is why?

And Carras answers:

Once the discussions commenced, however, John VIII, attempted to avert all serious theological discussion on the problems. *

He realized that the cleavage between the Orthodox and the Latins was too deep and too wide to be healed. *

According to the Orthodox, the Latins were not only wrong in regard to the Filioque and their theology of Grace,
but were also wrong in regard to the Eucharist, Papal Primacy, Baptism, Purgatory, etc.

Symeon Thessalonikes in his list of Latin errors included
the withholding of the chalice from the laity,
the withholding of Holy Chrismation and Holy Communion from infants,
the non-concelebration of the clergy.
Symeon was also shocked by Latin religious art,
especially by the statues equipped with artificial hair and clothing
and painted in life-like fashion. *
What disturbed him even more was Latin sacred drama
and the realism for which it strove. *
For Symeon, Latin sacred drama was a theatrical profanation of divine things.
He also points out that the ethical and moral corruption of the Latin Church
was caused by doctrinal error.

So you can see that even at this early stage, the Western Church had departed radically from Her origins, and from the Eastern Communion of the major Apostolic Sees... And that they were so far entrenched in their apostasy that he felt that to introduce the essence-energies distinction would only alienate them further...

So he kept a lid on Mark, and did not allow him to pursue the only resolution that was proper to the depth of the Latin Prodigality... And the result was predictable, and more than that, would not have been other had they turned Mark loose... So Mark retained his obedience to the Emperor, approaching but not crossing, the essence-energies line of discussion...

And to this day, the Latins have no grasp of it, and regard saving Grace as God-created, and not as God...

Arsenios

[Rdr. Arsenios]

Talking with the Copts, perhaps yes!

Here is a pic from the Coptic Orthodox Faith:

http://www.impantokratoros.gr/DA483B43.en.aspx

Arsenios

[apostoli]

I do not know exactly why the Emperor forced the omission of the Palamas distinction between Divine Essence and Divine Energies...

Probably because the emperor considered Palamas' ideas an unneccessary distraction. After all Palamas' supposedly introduced a duality into the existence of God (the Father), making God (the Father) "in being" a composite, which is problematic. Though I've read that such is a misunderstanding of what Palamas intended.

As the article shows... John de Montenegro, a Dominican [Latin] Priest did not differentiate Person and Essence...

Some of what is related concerning Montenegro's argument is strange to the RCC teaching I received from childhood. In the article Fr. Carras makes the point "...it seems necessary to note that the Latin subsistentia (person) was rendered hypostasis by the interpreters, a rendition which could easily lead the Orthodox to believe that the Latins were teaching that the Holy Spirit had two sources. For the Latins, this was not so; the source of the Holy Spirit is one, the common essence of the Father and the Son. The use of the Thomistic term subsistentia leads us further to understand why, when one reads the Acts of the Council, he is led at times to believe that the two opposing sides spoke different theological languages."

Imu, the West has never really had a concept equivalent to ousia, which in reality is just a philosophical abstraction of such and such determined from the experience/observation of a hypostasis. So from this angle I'd agree with Palamas viewpoint that we cannot see God's (the Father's) ousia, and we would only experience his energies (which in turn identify elements of the ousia, which suggests we can at least know something of his inner being) - this would be true of anything. But, abstractions aside, in a Western viewpoint we can't seperate (differentiate) between the energies and the hypostasis, for the energies have no existence apart from the hypostasis. In other words: when we experience the energies we experience the hypostasis (the absolute reality of a thing). To the West, the hypostasis is the only concrete reality.

A problem does arise in the West due to the limitations of especially Latin and English. For instance: hypostasis has been variously translated as substantia (the direct Latin equivalent of the Greek), subsistentia and persona, whilst ousia has been left untranslated or translated as substantia or subsistentia. As Basil gave special theological definitions to various Greek words, so the Latins did likewise with their vocabularly. Thus "person" does not mean "person" as used in the common vernacular. It is used in the context of the Greek idea of hypostasis (in fact many EOC scholars I've read insist that hypostasis at Heb 1:3 must be translated "person" (NKJV) and not "nature" (ESV), "being" (NIV), "substance" (ASV) or "subsistence" (YLT))

It is interesting to observe that the author of Hebrews 1:3 wrote that the Son has the exact imprint of his Father's hypostasis, and John 14:9 tells us "Whoever has seen me [the Son] has seen the Father." For me, Palamas is in error (assuming I understand him correctly) that we cannot see the essence of God, to my mind this goes directly against the teaching of John 14:7 "If you had known me, you would have known my Father also. From now on you do know him [the Father] and have seen him."

There are two important words in this passage "ginōskō" and "horaō". As you know "ginōskō" does not indicate intellectualism, but intimacy. The type of knowledge one acquires through active participation in another's life (the common example of the inner knowledge that a husband and wife acquires of each other). "horaō" has the primary meaning to see with the eyes, but can also mean to see with the mind or become acquainted with by experience. Imo, Jesus indicates all three perceptions. At John 14:11 Jesus says "Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father is in me, or else believe on account of the works themselves". Though the word "ergon" is used here, given the preceeding verses, God's energeia is implied. Thus, imo, if one limits their experience of God to the energies, one can never attain "ginōskō" which can only occur by experience of God's hypostasis.

I have here at home a paperback copy of the history of the Council of Florence written by one of its Orthodox attendees, and it is flat out grim...

If so blame the emporer and the patriarch - they were the ones that instigatedthe event and were financing the discussions. Things were even grimmer for them when they got home...apparently in the east, the general population weren't keen on "reunionists"...considering any dealings with the West treason.

I just read about that - I wonder why they hated each other so much...

From the viewpoint of various westerners, part of the problem arose from a period of Byzantine expansionism, and the empire's attempts to curtail norman expansion (the sack of Naples and sicily come immediately to mind). They had a habit of gross behaviour, pillaging, theiving, murder. In William of Tyre's account of the Latins massacre in Constantinople he reports the rioters even cut babies from their mothers wombs, raided the hospital and murdered all the defenceless therein. As far as the outside world was concerned, at some stage the Emperor/s decided having their own army was too expensive so they outsourced their progrom to mercenaries - which might actually account for the carnage. On the eastern side, the hatred towards the westerners as basically petty jealousy. The Westerners in Constantinople were rich traders and the common people associated them with the aristocracy (who were also hated). Another issue was the Empress Maria was a Frank/Norman. I've read that via a reorganisation of the empire one of the emperors had reduced the peasantry to a life of serfdom and had established what amounted to a series of fiefdoms. Then along comes Andronikos I Komnenos who through a vicous coup became emperor. Basically, he did a Mao Tse-tung and purged the country of anyone he saw as a threat to his reign. He is usually blamed for inciting the 1182 massacre of the Latins.

Looks like, from your argument, that the 4th Crusade was just a revenge party...The big GET EVEN...What goes around comes around... Justice was served...

It is more complicated than that. I was in error earlier when I suggested the sacking of Constantinople was a Venetian idea (thats what happens when I rely on my feeble memory). Actually, the invasion began as a plot by Alexios Angelos, son of the deposed Emperor Isaac II Angelos. Alexios had propositioned the crusaders to invade Constantinople and in returned he pay them 200,000 silver marks, join the crusade and provide all the supplies they needed to get to Egypt. The crusaders arrived at the city in the summer of 1203 and quickly attacked, started a major fire that damaged large parts of the city, and seized control of it. Alexios III fled from the capital, and Alexios Angelos was elevated to the throne as Alexios IV. However, Alexios IV was unable to keep his promises and was deposed by Alexios V. Seems the crusaders were put out by all this and retook the city in 1204 and the rank and file pillaged the city. From what I gather the leaders lost control of the rank and file and for whatever reason the rank and file went on a rampage. Revenge is the only motivation I can conceive for the ferocity we read about.

Despite the Pope...

The Pope at the time had as much influence on the armies as the USA currently has over the USSR. History indicates he was in a very weak position politically and economically.

Well, there are two entities here - The Emperor and the Church... And while there were some interactions, the Emperor ran the political affairs of State, and the Church ran the Church... Unlike the Latins, who had Bishops killing their enemies in the AM and serving Communion in the PM... Still bloody... And I really am not a historian of the era... Reading both sides would be a valuable exercise, I should imagine...

Actually there were more than two entities. In the West at least four maybe five. In the East at least two. The emperor ruling the church to an extent, appointing and deposing the patriarchs. The East were no different than the west killing their in enemies in the AM or PM and then going through their usual pretenses. Although, possibly the East was more subtle, simply torturing people and throwing them into jail and waiting until they die. Both sides had and have their detractors...