The Filioque in light of Revelation 22:1

[Cavaradossi]

Originally Posted by marlo

I agree with you Catholic Dude, granted that the writer of Revelations might not be an expert in Greek but his wordings that describes the Holy Spirit in relations to the Godhead should use a perfect word in order to make a perfect description of the relations of the Godhead, or it will make the readers fall into heresy.

The river of the water of life is internal to the Godhead? So then according to this thinking, when we partake of it, we become gods by nature, adopted into the Godhead itself.

[Vico]

Rev. 22 ris about New Jerusalem where the flowing river (with healing leaves and monthly fruit) and throne of God and of the Lamb and his servants, all within creation.

1 And he shewed me a river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding from the throne of God and of the Lamb. 2 In the midst of the street thereof, and on both sides of the river, was the tree of life, bearing twelve fruits, yielding its fruits every month: the leaves of the tree for the healing of the nations. 3 And there shall be no curse any more: but the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it. And his servants shall serve him. 4 And they shall see his face: and his name shall be on their foreheads. 5 And night shall be no more. And they shall not need the light of the lamp, nor the light of the sun, because the Lord God shall enlighten then. And they shall reign for ever and ever

[marlo]

I didn't say that, I said when the evangelist write, he will use a perfect word to describe the trinity, It's not my fault your interpretation is wrong.

and besides, according to this thinking. So when you partake to the body and blood of Christ, which is true God, do you also become a god by nature and adopted into the Godhead itself?

Originally Posted by Cavaradossi

The river of the water of life is internal to the Godhead? So then according to this thinking, when we partake of it, we become gods by nature, adopted into the Godhead itself.

[Cavaradossi]

Originally Posted by marlo

I didn't say that, I said when the evangelist write, he will use a perfect word to describe the trinity, It's not my fault your interpretation is wrong.

and besides, according to this thinking. So when you partake to the body and blood of Christ, which is true God, do you also become a god by nature and adopted into the Godhead itself?

When you partake of the Eucharist, do you partake of the hypostasis of Christ? Is the deified flesh and blood of Christ internal to the trinity instead of being an external manifestation of it? Your interpretation of this verse is incorrect because you confuse energy with hypostasis and confuse that which is external (energy) with that which is internal (that which is essential).

Your thinking seems to be that because the river of the water of life is metaphorical for the Spirit, that the verse therefore means that the hypostasis of the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. But life is not the hypostasis of the Holy Spirit any more than wisdom is the hypostasis of the Son. Life, like wisdom, is proper to all three persons of the trinity, and is given to us as grace from the Father through the Son in the Holy Spirit. This verse does not reflect that the cause of the Spirit is from the Son, but that the Spirit manifests through the Son, which is consistent with Eastern triadology.

[marlo]

Your are putting words in my mouth and trying to put a sense of doctrine in which i never said. Are saying that in the Eastern Orthodox triadology, Partaking in the deified flesh and blood is an external manifestation, while partaking in the Holy Spirit is an Internal Union with the Trinity? Please answer this, you started this idea. do not put questions back at me. We are interested to know the eastern position.

You might also be interested to know that even in the Eastern Orthodox circles, that the river of life is really the Holy Spirit, check this out.

Apoc 22:1 The unceasing blessedness of the members of the heavenly Church is depicted in a series of symbols. The first symbol is "a pure river of the water of life." This symbolically depicts the grace of the life-giving Spirit, which fills the streets of the holy city, that is, the multitude of its inhabitants who, according to the Psalmist are "more in number than the sand" (Ps 138:18). This is the grace and mercy of God which will always be poured out inexhaustibly upon the inhabitants of the heavenly city, filling their hearts with unutterable blessedness (cf. Isaiah 35:9-10).

The Apocalypse: An Orthodox Commentary, Archbishop Averky of Jordanville, trans. by Hieromonk Seraphim (Rose)


Orthodox Study Bible:
22:1 The river of the water of life manifest the Giver of Life, the Holy Spirit (see 21:6, also Ezek 47:1-12; Zech 14:8).

From St Andrew of Caesarea's Commentary, as translated by Presbytera Eugenia Constantinou:

Rev. 22:1-2a And he showed to me apure river ofthe water oflife, bright as crystal, flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb through the middle of her wide street.

The river fiowing out from the Church in the present life hints at a baptism of regeneration being activated through the Spirit,those cleaned and washed, polished off in surpassing snow and crystal. The river of God, having been filled with waters running through the heavenly Jerusalem, is the life-giving Spirit which proceeds from God the Father and through the Lamb, through the midst of the most supreme powers which are called throne of divinity,filling the wide streets of the holy city, that is the multitude in her being increased more than the (grains of) sand, according to the Psalmist

by the way, i got this from an Eastern Orthodox forums

So, what do you say, revelations 22:1 the river of the water of life is the Holy Spirit, you cannot deny that it proceeds "ekporeuomenon" from the Throne of God and the Lamb.

Originally Posted by Cavaradossi

Your thinking seems to be that because the river of the water of life is metaphorical for the Spirit, that the verse therefore means that the hypostasis of the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. But life is not the hypostasis of the Holy Spirit any more than wisdom is the hypostasis of the Son. Life, like wisdom, is proper to all three persons of the trinity, and is given to us as grace from the Father through the Son in the Holy Spirit. This verse does not reflect that the cause of the Spirit is from the Son, but that the Spirit manifests through the Son, which is consistent with Eastern triadology.

[Cavaradossi]

Originally Posted by marlo

Your are putting words in my mouth and trying to put a sense of doctrine in which i never said. Are saying that in the Eastern Orthodox triadology, Partaking in the deified flesh and blood is an external manifestation, while partaking in the Holy Spirit is an Internal Union with the Trinity? Please answer this, you started this idea. do not put questions back at me. We are interested to know the eastern position.

No, we do not ever relate to the Trinity on an essential level, or else we would literally become Gods by nature. A consequence of your remark that the river of the water of life refers to a relation in the Godhead would be that we, by participating in it, could become gods by nature.

Originally Posted by marlo

You might also be interested to know that even in the Eastern Orthodox circles, that the river of life is really the Holy Spirit, check this out.

None of these come as any surprise to me, as I am already familiar with how this verse is interpreted in Orthodoxy. There is nothing in this verse that is inconsistent with Orthodox Triadology.

Originally Posted by marlo

Apoc 22:1 The unceasing blessedness of the members of the heavenly Church is depicted in a series of symbols. The first symbol is "a pure river of the water of life." This symbolically depicts the grace of the life-giving Spirit, which fills the streets of the holy city, that is, the multitude of its inhabitants who, according to the Psalmist are "more in number than the sand" (Ps 138:18). This is the grace and mercy of God which will always be poured out inexhaustibly upon the inhabitants of the heavenly city, filling their hearts with unutterable blessedness (cf. Isaiah 35:9-10).

The Apocalypse: An Orthodox Commentary, Archbishop Averky of Jordanville, trans. by Hieromonk Seraphim (Rose)


Orthodox Study Bible:
22:1 The river of the water of life manifest the Giver of Life, the Holy Spirit (see 21:6, also Ezek 47:1-12; Zech 14:8).

From St Andrew of Caesarea's Commentary, as translated by Presbytera Eugenia Constantinou:

Rev. 22:1-2a And he showed to me apure river ofthe water oflife, bright as crystal, flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb through the middle of her wide street.

The river fiowing out from the Church in the present life hints at a baptism of regeneration being activated through the Spirit,those cleaned and washed, polished off in surpassing snow and crystal. The river of God, having been filled with waters running through the heavenly Jerusalem, is the life-giving Spirit which proceeds from God the Father and through the Lamb, through the midst of the most supreme powers which are called throne of divinity,filling the wide streets of the holy city, that is the multitude in her being increased more than the (grains of) sand, according to the Psalmist

by the way, i got this from an Eastern Orthodox forums

So, what do you say, revelations 22:1 the river of the water of life is the Holy Spirit, you cannot deny that it proceeds "ekporeuomenon" from the Throne of God and the Lamb.

I say the same, that the verse refers to the Spirit's manifestation through the Son, not the Spirit's having existence, which is from the Father alone. You cannot cite this verse in support of the Filioque as defined at Florence because it does not show that the Holy Spirit has existence from the Son, but only that the Spirit is being manifested in into creation through the Son.

[Vico]

marlo: "So when you partake to the body and blood of Christ, which is true God, do you also become a god by nature and adopted into the Godhead itself?"

Cavaradossi: "When you partake of the Eucharist, do you partake of the hypostasis of Christ?"

Theosis iѕ thе state оf being divinized which is through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.

Indwelling: "Presence of the Holy Spirit in a person who is in the state of grace. He is present not only by means of the created gifts of grace, which he dispenses, but by his uncreated divine nature. This personal indwelling does not produce a substantial but only an accidental union with the souls of the just. As the indwelling of the Holy Spirit is an operation of God outside himself and as all activity of God outside the Trinity is common to the three persons, the indwelling of the Holy Spirit implies the indwelling of the three divine persons."

Energy: "...may also refer to the spiritual power conferred by divine grace."

-- Modern Catholic Dictionary (Fr. John Hardon)

Uncreated Grace is conferred (an act in time) on creatures in three forms:
1. hypostatic union - of the humanity of the incarnation
2. divine indwelling - of the souls on earth
3. beatific vision - of the souls in heaven

[Cavaradossi]

Originally Posted by Vico

marlo: "So when you partake to the body and blood of Christ, which is true God, do you also become a god by nature and adopted into the Godhead itself?"

Cavaradossi: "When you partake of the Eucharist, do you partake of the hypostasis of Christ?"

Theosis iѕ thе state оf being divinized which is through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.

Indwelling: "Presence of the Holy Spirit in a person who is in the state of grace. He is present not only by means of the created gifts of grace, which he dispenses, but by his uncreated divine nature. This personal indwelling does not produce a substantial but only an accidental union with the souls of the just. As the indwelling of the Holy Spirit is an operation of God outside himself and as all activity of God outside the Trinity is common to the three persons, the indwelling of the Holy Spirit implies the indwelling of the three divine persons."

Energy: "...may also refer to the spiritual power conferred by divine grace."

-- Modern Catholic Dictionary (Fr. John Hardon)

Uncreated Grace is conferred (an act in time) on creatures in three forms:
1. hypostatic union - of the humanity of the incarnation
2. divine indwelling - of the souls on earth
3. beatific vision - of the souls in heaven

Right, the indwelling is outside of God. It is an energetic (or to use the language of this article, accidental) union, not a hypostatic union or anything of that sort. That is why the verse from Revelation cannot be used to show that the existence if the Holy Spirit (which is not communicable to us) has its origin from the Father and Son.

[Bballer32]

Originally Posted by Cavaradossi

Right, the indwelling is outside of God. It is an energetic (or to use the language of this article, accidental) union, not a hypostatic union or anything of that sort. That is why the verse from Revelation cannot be used to show that the existence if the Holy Spirit (which is not communicable to us) has its origin from the Father and Son.

Cavaradossi, we've had some pretty good conversations since i've been on CAF. So, i wanted to ask you a question.

Why can't the Holy Spirit come from the Father and the Son?

[Vico]

Originally Posted by Cavaradossi

Right, the indwelling is outside of God. It is an energetic (or to use the language of this article, accidental) union, not a hypostatic union or anything of that sort. That is why the verse from Revelation cannot be used to show that the existence if the Holy Spirit (which is not communicable to us) has its origin from the Father and Son.

I have read recently where some are trying to use the Biblical quotes to show an internal procession, yet the long standing teaching is both the east and west is that the Bible refers not to internal procession but to external (economy). In the west, the basis of the filioque has been from the Council of Nicea use of homoousios.

[Cavaradossi]

Originally Posted by Bballer32

Cavaradossi, we've had some pretty good conversations since i've been on CAF. So, i wanted to ask you a question.

Why can't the Holy Spirit come from the Father and the Son?

It helps to look at the common ground first, to see why we disagree. It is agreed in common that the Spirit is a divine person, who seems to have some form of dependence upon the Son, insofar that it is the Son who sends the Spirit economically. Furthermore, it is agreed in common between East and West that there can only be one principle in the Trinity (a concept known as the monarchy of the Father). This is why a so-called double procession, where the Son and the Father are separate principles of the Spirit, is rejected in both the East and the West. A double procession would effectively admit that there are two fonts of divinity, and two Gods, which is obviously inadmissible for both sides.

The solution for avoiding this problem of having two principles in the West has been to make the Father and the Son one principle. But this is problematic. In Eastern theology, those things which are hypostatic, have an hypostasis as an origin, while those things which are anhypostatic, have anhypostatic things as their origin. If the Father and the Son together make an anhypostatic principle of the Spirit, then the Holy Spirit would be an energy of this anhypostatic principle, not an hypostasis. If the one principle is hypostatic, then the Spirit will be an hypostasis, but the Father and the Son will be one united hypostasis, and we have Sabellianism.

Even if we do away with the principle that an hypostasis must have an hypostasis as its origin, we still run into problems. Another basic proposition of Nicene Christianity is that any property of one person is either unique to that person (that is, the property is hypostatic), or it is shared by all three (that is, it is a property which belongs to the divine nature). A property which is shared by two (principle of the Spirit) is problematic, because it means that the Spirit's nature is subordinate to the nature shared by the Son and the Father, because it does not possess this one property which the other two share.

That at least, would be a general introduction to the Eastern objections to the Filioque as it was taught at Florence.

[Vico]

In order to avoid subordinationism, the Latin Church used the basis of relationship rather than origin to differentiate the Persons.

Arians argues that a distinction must be classified under the category of substance or of accident. Augustine rejected both saying the basis was relationship and the Holy Spirit is the mutual love (communem qua invicem se diligunt pater et filius caritatem).

Also Augustine states: The Father is the author of the Spirit's procession because He begot such a Son, and in begetting Him made Him also the source from which the Spirit proceeds.

[Credo ergo sum]

Originally Posted by Vico

In order to avoid subordinationism, the Latin Church used the basis of relationship rather than origin to differentiate the Persons.

Arians argues that a distinction must be classified under the category of substance or of accident. Augustine rejected both saying the basis was relationship and the Holy Spirit is the mutual love (communem qua invicem se diligunt pater et filius caritatem).

Also Augustine states: The Father is the author of the Spirit's procession because He begot such a Son, and in begetting Him made Him also the source from which the Spirit proceeds.

Augustine is not a huge authority in Eastern Orthodoxy.

[Wisely]

Originally Posted by Cavaradossi

who seems to have some form of dependence upon the Son, insofar that it is the Son who sends the Spirit economically.

Not necesarily. Even if the Father who sends the Holy Spirit through economically, it is the Father who sends the Son to the through the Holy Spirit.

It is balanced. But I may be wrong though.

[Bballer32]

Originally Posted by Cavaradossi

It helps to look at the common ground first, to see why we disagree. It is agreed in common that the Spirit is a divine person, who seems to have some form of dependence upon the Son, insofar that it is the Son who sends the Spirit economically. Furthermore, it is agreed in common between East and West that there can only be one principle in the Trinity (a concept known as the monarchy of the Father). This is why a so-called double procession, where the Son and the Father are separate principles of the Spirit, is rejected in both the East and the West. A double procession would effectively admit that there are two fonts of divinity, and two Gods, which is obviously inadmissible for both sides.

The solution for avoiding this problem of having two principles in the West has been to make the Father and the Son one principle. But this is problematic. In Eastern theology, those things which are hypostatic, have an hypostasis as an origin, while those things which are anhypostatic, have anhypostatic things as their origin. If the Father and the Son together make an anhypostatic principle of the Spirit, then the Holy Spirit would be an energy of this anhypostatic principle, not an hypostasis. If the one principle is hypostatic, then the Spirit will be an hypostasis, but the Father and the Son will be one united hypostasis, and we have Sabellianism.

Even if we do away with the principle that an hypostasis must have an hypostasis as its origin, we still run into problems. Another basic proposition of Nicene Christianity is that any property of one person is either unique to that person (that is, the property is hypostatic), or it is shared by all three (that is, it is a property which belongs to the divine nature). A property which is shared by two (principle of the Spirit) is problematic, because it means that the Spirit's nature is subordinate to the nature shared by the Son and the Father, because it does not possess this one property which the other two share.

That at least, would be a general introduction to the Eastern objections to the Filioque as it was taught at Florence.

Well if the Father is only capable of producing the Spirit, then you really don't have a Trinity. The word Trinity is made up of the Latin words trinus and unus. Trinus
meaning "3 each", "3fold", and "triple". Unus meaning "one".

Now, the most common symbol for any trinity is the triangle. So, if you put God the Father at one corner, God the Son in another, and God the Holy Spirit in the other, you create a triangle. This creates a problem with Orthodox theology. If the Spirit came only from the Father and not through the Son, then you actually create a V shape. This means that there would be no union between the Son and the Spirit causing no trinity. This basically takes out the unus of the trinity.

This picture may help.