quote:

---

"...the human race is in a constant process of gragmentation, and can recover its unity only through adoption by the Father in Christ--i.e., by becoming children of the one single hypostasis which generates without fragmenting or multiplying. The origin of unity in the Trinity, the Father restores the unity of creation by adopting jymanity in His Son, The New Adam, in whom humanity is "recapitulated" through the activity of the Spirit."

---

quote:

---

For myself, I take a ponderous moment to evaluate whether the "perfection=unchanging" business is refering to the contrast between the fragmentation of sin and the unity that restoration to nature by communion/partipation in God holds.

So, I understand your wish to doctor the metaphysics. But to think/wish that might lower your literacy level of what the EO mean.

---

I hear what you are saying. However, from what I'm seeing, it seems VERY clear that a certain metaphysic WAS assumed. This is NOT to say that that view was Platonic per se. But it did seem to place God ABOVE internal process. Remember the quote from Lossky:

If the very foundation of created being is change, the transition from non-being to being, if the creature is contingent by nature, the Trinity is an absolute stability. One would say, an absolute necessity of perfect being: and yet the idea of necessity is not proper to the Trinity, for It transcends the antinomy of what is necessary, and the contingent; entirely personal and entirely nature; liberty and necessity are one, or, rather, can have no place in God. There is no interior process in the Godhead; no 'dialectic' of the three persons; no becoming; no 'tragedy in the Absolute', which might necessitate the trinitarian development of the divine being in order— that it be surmounted or resolved. These conceptions, proper to the romantic tradition of nineteenth century German philosophy, are wholly foreign to the dogma of the Trinity. If we speak of processions, of acts, or of inner determinations, these expressions— involving, as they do, the ideas of time, becoming and intention— only show to what extent our language, indeed our thought, is poor and deficient before the primordial mystery of revelation. Again we are forced to appeal to apophatic theology in order to rid ourselves of concepts proper to human thought, transforming them into steps by which we may ascend to the contemplation of a reality which the created intelligence cannot contain.

This seems quite obvious. Lossky is saying that there IS no action in the eternal God. The concepts that deal with action and process, to him, are evidential of our INCAPACITY to deal with the Essential Trinity. In trying to place God BEYOND metaphysics, he actually ASSUMES one...one where there is NO becoming and/or change IN the Essential Trinity. It's also clear that here Lossky is NOT talking about fragmentation from sin, but PROCESS in general. See what I mean? Between the words "apatheia", and "no interior process", I couldn't find any other way to conceive it. Again, this is distinct from wholesale Platonism.

And I realize that metaphysical conceptualization was NOT on the Fathers' list. They were much more concerned about being faithful to God and divine revelation in their daily living (orthopraxis) That's cool. However, I don't think that this precludes US standing on the shoulders of giants and, while preserving good amounts of knowledge, attempting to see perhaps a LITTLE farther...including metaphysical discussion.




Edited by - Mephi2K on 09/04/2002 7:29:27 PM

quote:

---

Page 47:
The contemplation of this absolute perfection, of this divine plenitude which is the Trinity: God who is personal and who is not a person confined in his own self the very thought, the mere 'pale shade of the Trinity', lifts the human soul beyond the world of being, changing and confused, in bestowing upon it this stability in the midst of passions; this serenity, or apatheia which is the beginning of deification. For the creature, subject to change by nature, can by grace attain to the state of eternal stability; can partake of infinite life in the light of the Trinity. This is why the Church has defended so vehemently the mystery of the Holy Trinity against the natural tendencies of the human mind ' which strive to suppress it by reducing the Trinity to unity, in making it an essence of the philosophers with three modes of manifestation (the modalism of Sabellius), or even by dividing it into three distinct beings, as did Arius. This is why the Church has defended so vehemently the mystery of the Holy Trinity against the natural tendencies of the human mind ' which strive to suppress it by reducing the Trinity to unity, in making it an essence of the philosophers with three modes of manifestation (the modalism of Sabellius), or even by dividing it into three distinct beings, as did Arius.

---

MEPH: Did you guys catch it? Do you see the PRESUPPOSITIONS of these paragraphs? Allow me...

BUT, MEPH, DID YOU CATCH…: This is why the Church has defended so vehemently the mystery -- the creature can by grace attain to the state of eternal stability; can partake of infinite life in the light of the Trinity.

NOTICE: Life and stability are paired up!

AND: subject to change by nature,,, (I need that Meyendorff quote)

MEPH: 1) The view attempts to place God BEYOND metaphysics.

MY COMMENT: WHY? Are you asking it "Just because?" Why are you asking it?

MEPH's Answer: "It does this to assert…

MEPH CONTINUES:This is done because of the assumption that metaphysical discussion of the Trinity is BOUND to deny at least ONE of those assertions that are so crucial to biblical faith.

SEEMS THE TRUE ANSWER: that "the creature can by grace attain to the state of eternal stability; can partake of infinite life in the light of the Trinity."

MEPH'S HEADHUNTING: 2) THIS VIEW LARGELY SEES CHANGE (OR PROCESS) AS AN IMPERFECTION!!!! Notice what it says about apatheia and trying to "attain to the state of eternal stability"

CONTINUING: The ironic thing about #2 above is that it obviously assumes a certain IDEA about reality and, in so doing, assumes a certain metaphysic! HA!

PEANUT GALLERY: THAT WILL BE A VERY POPULAR COMMENT WITH THIS CROWD!!!



MEPH: 1) There is no NEED to place God beyond metaphysics.

COMMENT: There may be a need for us to place our inquiry "beyond metaphysics." The REAL issue is to actually "partake of infinite life in the light of the Trinity"; personally, and not just to think about it.


MEPH: There is a way to keep the insights of EO thought while using relational philsophical concepts to possibly help understand HOW God is fully personal and fully nature.

COMMENT: This is NOT about acquiring "insights" and "keeping insights."


MEPH: 2) Since we've already assertained that a certain metaphysical idea was implicitly claimed ANYWAY, we may as well evaluate it...and think about revising it, in light of more recent considerations. It may well be (I think so) that using relational philosophical categories go MUCH FARTHER in helping us understand WHAT the Trinity is expressing. This idea bolsters #1.

COMMENT: So, you are takeing the job of enlisting your Rational Inquiry to substitute for Revelation. (EO says that God is revealed in the economic Trinity. Are you now trying to deduce the Imminent Trinity?)

==============================

MEPH: I can see the EO's issue, but I can also see Rahner's. For the economic trinity to truly be a "revelation" of ANYTHING, it would seem that it must correspond in some MEANINGFUL way to what the Trinity ACTUALLY IS.

COMMENT: To my thinking, all the "revelation" has to be about is whatever we can participate in perichoretically. I'm satisfied with that. And knowing and interacting with that is what matters existentially.


Lets continue the discussion.

Stark. Interesting. I'm a slow study, and new terms come slowly to me. I think that I followed along pretty well. Not sure of all of it. Thanks.





Edited by - Al2Si2H4O9 on 09/04/2002 10:50:28 PM

1. "an ABSOLUTE EMPASSE between what we perceive...of God and who God IS"
2. there can NEVER be a meaningful correlation between God's ACTIONS (read: energies that we encounter) and God's essential being.

li>that it DOES SAY the first one,

• and that it DOES NOT SAY the second.


As I get it, it STOPS SHORT. IT JUST DOESN'T GO THERE!

Unless we can participate as one of the Trinity IN the Trinity, how else would we?????

I think you too will get this sense from Meyendorff's two chapters I e-mailed.


This mild shock might actually help make you more literate in reading their material though. That is exactly why I was mentioning the matter of salvation (Which not being juridically based is much more wholistic, and actually wrapped up in the doctrine of the Trinity, and especially the Holy Spirit -- which you will also get from Meyendorff.) and why your answer to that seemed shallow to me. (I didn't say.)


The EO [k]know[/k] (not just intellectually, or theoretically) their relationship to God to be personal and immediate. Quite different from the distance Aquinas spoke of, requiring intermediaries. We know God personally and directly. But we only know what of him that we DO know directly. We don't experience theory! All we can know is what is revealed in the Economy.

If God wrote something else, and put it under a rock and we found it, we could know that too. But we KNOW God as revealed about himself in Christ (through whom we know about the Father) and we EXPERIENCE God as we encounter him as Spirit (But the Spirit does not reveal anything about himself, only about Christ.) I think you will like Meyendorff on this all.

The EO draws a line and goes no further. But it finds what is actually experienceable to be fully overwelming enough. (Maybe its a Mary or Martha thing.)

THIS ALSO MAKES SENSE OF HOW MUCH OF THE EO THEOLOGY IS ACTUALLY IN THE FORM OF ITS LITURGIES. (IT HAS NO OFFICIAL CATECHISM.)



quote:

---

Meyendorf's Byzantine Theology,
Chapter 14--The Triune God

"WHEN I SAY God, I mean Father, Son, and Holy Spirit," writes Gregory of Nazianzus.1 Far from being a form of abstract speculation, the doctrine of the Trinity was always, for the Greek patristic tradition, a matter of religious experience—liturgical, mystical, and, often, poetical:

No sooner do I conceive of the one
than I am illumined by the splendor of the three;
no sooner do I distinguish them
than I am carried back to the one.
When I think of any one of the three,
I think of Him as the whole,
and my eyes are filled,
and the greater part of what I am thinking
escapes me.2

The basis of this Trinitarian theology, which was formulated by the Cappadocian Fathers in the fourth century at the conclusion of the Arian controversies, and which remained standard throughout the Byzantine period, is found in soteriology; the Fathers were actually preoccupied, not with speculation, but with man's salvation. The Nicaean doctrine of con-substantiality meant "the confession of the fullness of divinity in Christ and implied that the Incarnation was essential to the redemptive act of Christ"; and maintained, similarly, that if "the Spirit is not fully God, He is unable to bestow sanctification."8 In itself, the Cappadocian doctrine of the Trinity remains totally meaningless unless one remember that its goal is to maintain the Christological and pneumatological presuppositions developed in the last two chapters: the incarnate Logos and the Holy Spirit are met and experienced first as divine agents of salvation, and only s then are they also discovered to be essentially one God. It is well known that, during the theological debates of the fourth century, the Cappadocian Fathers were accused of tritheism, so that Gregory of Nyssa was even obliged to issue his famous apologetic treatise proving that "there are not three gods."

It remains debatable, however, whether he succeeded in proving his point philosophically. The doctrine of the three hypostases, adopted by the Cappadocian Fathers to designate the three divine Persons, had definite Plotinian and Origenistic associations, which normally implied substantial differentiation. The Fathers, however, remained faithful to the terminology they had adopted, in spite of all difficulties and criticism— both from the "old Nicaeans" faithful to Athanasius and from the theologians of the Latin West—because they saw no other means of preserving the Biblical experience of salvation in the fully identifiable and distinct persons of Christ and the Spirit, an experience which could never enter the categories of philosophical essentialism.


---




AND




quote:

---

Meyendorf's Byzantine Theology,
Chapter 13--The Holy Spirit

THE EARLY CHRISTIAN UNDERSTANDING of creation and of man's ultimate destiny is inseparable from pneumatology; but the doctrine of the Holy Spirit in the New Testament and in the early Fathers cannot easily be reduced to a system of concepts. The fourth-century discussions on the divinity of the Spirit remained in a soteriological, existential context. Since the action of the Spirit gives life "in Christ," He cannot be a creature; He is indeed consubstantial with the Father and the Son. This argument was used both by Athanasius in his Letters to Seraplon and by Basil in his famous treatise On the Holy Spirit. These two patristic writings remained, throughout the Byzantine period, the standard authorities in pneumatology. Except in the controversy around the Filioque—a debate about the nature of God rather than about the Spirit specifically—there was little conceptual development of pneumatology in the Byzantine Middle Ages. This does not mean, however, that the experience of the Spirit was not emphasized with greater strength than in the West, especially in hymnology, in sacramental theology, and in spiritual literature.

"As he who grasps one end of a chain pulls along with it the other end to himself, so he who draws the Spirit draws both the Son and the Father along with It," Basil writes.1 This passage, quite representative of Cappa-docian thought, implies first that all major acts of God are Trinitarian acts, and secondly that the particular role of the Spirit is to make the "first contact," which is then followed—existentially, but not chronologically— by a revelation of the Son and, through Him, of the Father. The personal being of the Spirit remains mysteriously hidden, even if He is active at every great step of divine activity: creation, redemption, ultimate fulfillment. His function is not to reveal Himself, but to reveal the Son "through whom all things were made" and who is also personally known in His humanity as Jesus Christ, "It is impossible to give a precise definition of the hypostasis of the Holy Spirit and we must simply resist errors concerning Him which come from various sides." 2 The personal existence of the Holy Spirit thus remains a mystery. It is a "kenotic" existence whose fulfillment consists in manifesting the kingship of the Logos in creation and in salvation history.

---








GO FOR IT, MEPH!

Edited by - Al2Si2H4O9 on 09/05/2002 5:29:05 PM

quote:

---

The Latin West adopted a different approach to Trinitarian theology, and the contrast has been well expressed by Theodore de Regnorh "Latin philosophy considers the nature in itself first and proceeds to the agent; Greek philosophy considers the agent first -and passes through it to find the nature. The Latins think of personality as a mode of nature; the Greeks think of nature as the content of the person." B Practically speaking, the difference of emphasis means that in both the lex orandi and the lex l o'edendi of Byzantine Christianity, the Trinity remained a primary and concrete experience; the unity of God's nature was an article of faith, coupled always with an insistence on the absolute unknowability of the divine essence. In the West, however, especially since the time of Augustine, the unity of the divine being served as the starting point of Trinitarian theology. Obviously, as long as the two schools of thought remained open to dialogue and mutual understanding, they could have developed in a complementary way. Unfortunately, the bitter polemics on the Filioque issue led to a stiffening of positions and became one of the major causes of the schism.

---

"...developed in a COMPLEMENTARY WAY." I like that. Let's try it.



Edited by - Mephi2K on 09/06/2002 07:57:22 AM

quote:

---

But I'll make sure it is honest.

---

Wouldn't have it any other way. It's the only way to get where I need to go.

***********************


Al:

quote:

---

I feel a little on-guard. Should I?

---

I don't see why. We're just trying to get farther along on this thing. That's all.


In Anticipation,

quote:

---

…the difference of emphasis means that in both the lex orandi and the lex credendi of Byzantine Christianity, the Trinity remained a primary and concrete experience…

---

This is something that you tried to reflect in what you wrote in your posts. I’ll try to offer what help I can from my poverty of experience. I’m sure you noticed right from the start that the lex orandi (worship) and lex credendi (belief) were both a primary experience (not derivative) and a concrete experience (not abstract).

So, PERHAPS to the virtue of “bring out dimensions the [each]other lack…” can be added a second virtue: that when any two “models” are set to working together, the interaction may not be “abstract” (the interaction must be in a form that can be experienced and confirmed or disproved concretely—both in faith and in worship) and not be “derivative” (the interaction must be in a form where faith and worship are the “primary” way they are experienced -- or exposed as error).

I’ll lay that on the table.

You mentioned something very important in history, from Meyendorff’s text:

quote:

---

Obviously, as long as the two schools of thought remained open to dialogue and mutual understanding, they could have developed in a complementary way. Unfortunately, the bitter polemics on the Filioque issue led to a stiffening of positions and became one of the major causes of the schism.

---

Above I mentioned the complementary, and very compatable co-contributions of Cyril and Leo. The positions each Alexandria and Rome had developed due to their own regional challenges WERE compatable and complementary. Continued interaction would have kept them that way. The Filoque is just so different from the Nicean Faith (The Filoque is true the economyt belongs in a different paragraph from where the Franks inseted it. And centuries later their were attempts by the East to accommodate it in that way. But Florence was a divisive council—which is counter to true dialog.)

I’m going to define “developed in a complementary way” to mean BOTH “diversity” and “useful relatedness.”

This combination could be my third virtue.


………NOW, ONTO YOUR SECOND POST………..

I made notes on what you wrote. I’ll refer to them throughout my particular input on what you asked for it. But let me make a few observations first.

(1)

To us Protestants, and perhaps to Roman Catholics (I’m guessing), talk of a distinction between “Esssence” and “Energies” is new talk. Strange and exotic. But we need to realize that the Byzantine tradition, and passing through them the Capadocian Fathers before them identify -- make a “required distinction” – of three (notice “3”) separate “distinctions.” They are: essence, energies, and persons. That’s three.

It is also useful, for my own weak mind, to pair them up with three other, popularly used terms. I don’t rightly know whether there is any possible distortion hidden, potentially trouble making in them. . .but here “they” are: transcendent, personal, and present.

Here’s a chart (for my weak mind. Not original with me – taken from bits of Meyendorff’s text. Don’t sue me if there are problems.)

essence……………….transcendent
personal………………persons
energies ……………… present


Helps me!

(2)

When you wrote “A LIVED MYSTERY” I noted in pencil the words “concretely experienced.” I think that that nails it.

I’ll add to that mention of WHAT IT IS NOT. It is not mystical.Spiritual is when the Spirit affects the creation. Mystical is something else.

And it is not merely rationalistic. Then, more has to be said. Rational thought is not “dissed.” boy, no way!!! In fact, those Fathers way back then were very educated, many of them. The advice of one of them was to take the flower and leave the thorns. Classical education did not get them where they needed to go, but it did provide some tools, that when guided by the Bible and the Spirit were useful.

The theology of the Orthodox is “realistic.”

(3)

NEXT, let me point out the portions at the end of your post that I thought were very good. (Many other portions I’m going to try and “tweek” for you, in some mildly significant ways. )

quote:

---

Neither the threeness or unity can be placed above the other such that either is, in any way, derivative. And this is applied when seeking to talk meaningfully about the Trinity.

---

Yes!

quote:

---

The "relations of origin" idea is used to note the Persons of the Trinity, but they are used apophatically. This means that the "relations" are used just to distinguish between the Father, Son, and Spirit (for the needs of being true to Biblical testimony). It affirms that the Father is "not" the Son, the Son is "not" the Spirit, and the Spirit is "not" the Father. But we can we can only go SO FAR in using the "relations of origin". The ideas of being uncreated (Father), eternally begotten (Son), and eternally proceeding (Spirit) are to show the distinction of the Persons. The intent is NOT to discuss what being "eternally begotten" and "eternally proceeding"

---

Yes!

(4)

My “DISCLAIMER”: My only qualification is that I have read a few books. BUT, I’m going to proceed now. . .and be very, very picky.

(5)

Here are my several critiques:

Meph: “What we perceive of God is his energies.”

Repeating: We percieve in our concrete experience (realistic, not mystical).

Meph: “It's understood dogmatically that God is unknowable and incomprehensible with respect to who God actually is in God's essence.”

Modifying: “Actually?” REMEMBER, three not two! (3 not 2). Read Meyendorff 13-2 (Chapter 13, section 2) where it is said that: “Byzantine Christian tradition requires the distinction in God, between the One unapproachable Essence, the three hypostases, and the grace, or energy, through which God enters into communion with creatures.” And it grounded in that personal “distinction” with respect to God that Meyendorff says: . . . but the same Spirit also maintains in the Church prophetic functions and reveals the whole truth to each member of Christ's body, if only he is able and worthy to "receive" it. The life of the Church, because it is created by the Spirit, cannot be reduced to either the "institution" or the "event," to either authority or freedom. It is a "new" community created by the Spirit in Christ, where true freedom is recovered in the spiritual communion of the Body of Christ.
I don’t get where you said: “…with respect to who God actually is…” Maybe you want to modify that.

THEN, Meyendorff 14-3 says “…the essence is necessarily being, but being is not necessarily essence.” THAT takes me a bit to absorb. But it is well worth absorbing.

Meph: “2) The energies that come from God "point to" God, but cannot be said to describe God's essence, in any way. ALL we have to deal with is the revelation...and the "economic" Trinity we get from that.”

First, the phrase “that come from God” is wrong. That sounds Thomist. The energies are God’s “present” actions in and with creation. With us. Careful of language that makes “God’s uncreated energies” something separate from God. You may not have been doing that. But I’m being intentionally picky.

Second, "point to" God is also suspect. On one hand it implies – to me – the same kind of separation as “from God.” And on the other hand it makes “God in his energies” (Note the lingo!) to not be God, because the “real” God is something else. Implied Thomism again.

Third – not a criticism, “but cannot be said to describe God's essence” is OK. But remember that there are three “required distinctions.” Three things compared and contrasted in our Protestant brains while trying to remain clear on this.

Four, “’economic’ Trinity.” Nothing wrong with that! But for me to remain clear in my head I wrote down the phrase: imminent trinity in the economy of salvation. I’m not sure whether that one is important.

I’ll add a word below for emphasis…

Meph: Any discussion about the Trinity is dealing with how God is [CONCRETELY] experienced...

Going well so far!

Meph: We only need to know THAT …

I’ll comment, with G.K. Chesterton, perhaps, that for us to try can sometimes endager our reading-in what we don’t know – for instance issues of gender.

Then you do very well…

Meph: When we try to use the relations to explain the inner workings of the Trinity, then problems emerge.

YES.

Meph: (This is why the terms "ousia" and "hypostases" were virtually synonomous terms...right?)

I think so. Best I can remember.

Meph: See, the reason that the Church holds so vehemently to the Mystery of the Trinity is because it wants to keep the main thing the main thing: If a person participates in the Light of God via participation with the "economic Trinity", one beings the process of removing oneself from the constant fragmentation that is human existence ... approaching the "eternal stability" that is in God. We are able, via God's energies to partake of the life from the Transcendent God.

Yes. Our focus is our salvation. And the Kingdom on earth as in heaven.


GOOD JOB, MEPH!!!





================================================
(This is a pastorial piece written to a layman’s level, by a Seminary Dean who had been a parish priest in a small, working class city in Ohio. -- from the OCA.org site.)

The Doctrine of the Holy Trinity

The doctrine of the Holy Trinity is not merely an "article of faith" which men are called to "believe." It is not simply a dogma which the Church requires its good members to "accept on faith." Neither is the doctrine of the Holy Trinity the invention of scholars and academicians, the result of intellectual speculation and philosophical thinking.

The doctrine of the Holy Trinity arises from man's deepest experiences with God. It comes from the genuine living knowledge of those who have come to know God in faith.

The paragraphs which follow <http://www.oca.org/pages/orth_chri/index.htm> are intended to show something of what God has revealed of Himself to the saints of the Church. To grasp the words and concepts of the doctrine of the Trinity is one thing; to know the Living Reality of God behind these words and concepts is something else. We must work and pray so that we might pass beyond every word and concept about God and to come to know Him for ourselves in our own living union with Him: "The Father through the Son in the Holy Spirit" (Eph 2: 18-22).

Edited by - Al2Si2H4O9 on 09/10/2002 10:12:31 PM