Why is it that in both the Bible and the writings of the Apostolic Fathers the Holy Spirit seems less emphasized than the Father and the Son?
For example, in the beginning of all of St. Paul's Epistles he salutes the Churches in the name of God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ, but never mentions the Holy Spirit. The same rule applies to the beginning lines of the Epistle of St. Polycarp to the Philippians (his only surviving work), the Epistles of St. Ignatius, the Epistle of St. Clement to the Corinthians, etc.
There are also many portions in Scripture where the roles of the Father and the Son are emphasized, but the Spirit is not mentioned. For example John 17:3, 2 John 1:9, John 5:23, etc.
Is there a particular reason this is the case? It just seemed odd to me that the third coequal person of the All-Holy Trinity is (potentially) undermined in these works compared to the Father and Son.
+God bless+
Comments
Why is it that the Holy Spirit seems less emphasized in both the Bible and the writings of the Apostolic Fathers than the Father and the Son?
For example, in the beginning of all of St. Paul's Epistles he salutes the Churches in the name of God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ, but never mentions the Holy Spirit. The same rule applies to the beginning lines of the Epistle of St. Polycarp to the Philippians (his only surviving work), the Epistles of St. Ignatius, the Epistle of St. Clement to the Corinthians, etc.
There are also many portions in Scripture where the roles of the Father and the Son are emphasized, but the Spirit is not mentioned. For example John 17:3, 2 John 1:9, John 5:23, etc.
Is there a particular reason this is the case? It just seemed odd to me that the third coequal person of the All-Holy Trinity is (potentially) undermined in these works compared to the Father and Son.
+God bless+
Severian, My tongue is bleeding and my jaws are becoming fatigued. My hands and arms are trying to burst their bonds. Your sincere Orthodoxy has conquered. Since you won't accept Copticism, my Celticism doesn't have a chance. Not even I am bold enough to try Irishism. What is to be done?
Maybe my Roman, Greek and Russian Orthodox experiences have a chance. First, bring back an Emperor (Czar) and his/(or her) army (or more recently, the Roman Pope and his/(or her) Jesuits/ Feminists). Have the Emperor (at the point of his swords/ or missiles) compel another Ecumenical Council. Get all of the self-proclaimed RC/ ORTHODOX ecumenists, scholars, theologians and politicians to write self-contradictory, incomprehensible Leoesque and Augustinian Tomes explaining all of the Trinitarian details, that they like. Take an Emperor influenced, supervised and enforced vote. Kill and banish all dissidents. Enjoy fullness of catholic/ orthodox ecumenical unity and knowledge. Forgive me. Keep searching here.
Could it be related to God's incomprehensible small, quiet, humble and hidden voice and presence? He doesn't even sign and copyright His intellectual property and inventions. Bad business practices. No wonder His investors are poor and simple.
In Pope Shenouda 3rds book- The Holy Spirit and His work in us he says :
Since the inspiriation comes from the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of God, it is then from God. Therefore, St Paul the Apostle said, : All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching" (2Tim. 3:16), and said also, "The Holy Spirit was right in saying to your ancestors through the prophet Isaiah..." (Acts 28:25-27).
^Forgive me... But how does this relate to the OP? ???
Forgive me, Severian. Historically, I just think that the RC and EO detailed speculations on the relationships and natures within the Trinity are beyond our comprehension and concern. For example, the vague Tome of Leo and 1500 years of intransigent shame of Chalcedon concerning the incomprehensible nature of Jesus Christ. I also think that we should be very careful and selective to vouch for all current "orthodox" jurisdictions. Copts, of course have many shortfalls, but are no reasonable comparison to the lax, arrogant EO (except ROCOR) jurisdictions.
What do you mean by the Orthodoxy not Copticism statement? Who and what is your measure of Orthodoxy? Of Copticism?
I have a strong feeling that you dont even know EO christology or even have an adequate understanding of chalcedonian christology, and how it was amended by the 5th council in Constantinople. The way the EO understand Christology today is FOR SURE Orthodox. You dont even have to take my word for it, both churches have agreements particularly those of the late 80s and Geneva in 1993. In addition, when someone of Fr. Peter's caliber claims that someone else is Orthodox, I tend to follow.
Orthodoxy is the faith of the fathers that was delivered by Christ once and for all to the Apostles and then to their disciples and is perpetuated through the Church which is the body of Christ. Copticism is the lack of loyalty to the fathers and the apostolic teaching and tradition seen in most of our churches now.
Now lets not hijack this thread
Irishpilgrim,
I have a strong feeling that you dont even know EO christology or even have an adequate understanding of chalcedonian christology, and how it was amended by the 5th council in Constantinople. The way the EO understand Christology today is FOR SURE Orthodox. You dont even have to take my word for it, both churches have agreements particularly those of the late 80s and Geneva in 1993. In addition, when someone of Fr. Peter's caliber claims that someone else is Orthodox, I tend to follow.
Orthodoxy is the faith of the fathers that was delivered by Christ once and for all to the Apostles and then to their disciples and is perpetuated through the Church which is the body of Christ. Copticism is the lack of loyalty to the fathers and the apostolic teaching and tradition seen in most of our churches now.
Now lets not hijack this thread
It is posts like these why I wished that SMF forums would have like buttons :)
[quote author=The least of all link=topic=13823.msg160870#msg160870 date=1351997678]
Irishpilgrim,
I have a strong feeling that you dont even know EO christology or even have an adequate understanding of chalcedonian christology, and how it was amended by the 5th council in Constantinople. The way the EO understand Christology today is FOR SURE Orthodox. You dont even have to take my word for it, both churches have agreements particularly those of the late 80s and Geneva in 1993. In addition, when someone of Fr. Peter's caliber claims that someone else is Orthodox, I tend to follow.
Orthodoxy is the faith of the fathers that was delivered by Christ once and for all to the Apostles and then to their disciples and is perpetuated through the Church which is the body of Christ. Copticism is the lack of loyalty to the fathers and the apostolic teaching and tradition seen in most of our churches now.
Now lets not hijack this thread
It is posts like these why I wished that SMF forums would have like buttons :)
I second that!
Irishpilgrim,
I have a strong feeling that you dont even know EO christology or even have an adequate understanding of chalcedonian christology, and how it was amended by the 5th council in Constantinople. The way the EO understand Christology today is FOR SURE Orthodox. You dont even have to take my word for it, both churches have agreements particularly those of the late 80s and Geneva in 1993. In addition, when someone of Fr. Peter's caliber claims that someone else is Orthodox, I tend to follow.
Orthodoxy is the faith of the fathers that was delivered by Christ once and for all to the Apostles and then to their disciples and is perpetuated through the Church which is the body of Christ. Copticism is the lack of loyalty to the fathers and the apostolic teaching and tradition seen in most of our churches now.
Now lets not hijack this thread
The least of all,
Thank you for pointing out some of the deficiencies that you suspect in my understandings. I am also disappointed with the lack of interest in and knowledge of the invaluable apostolic and Orthodox patristic teachings in the general laity of our Coptic Church and in the Western EO jurisdictions (except ROCOR) that I have participated in. I am familiar with and have read and discussed most of the christology papers from those discussions. Bishop Poulos Mar Gregorios is a favorite of mine. I am all for more friendly OO/EO theology discussions , at all levels. I agree that many of us do not see significant disagreement on these issues.
These are not my concerns. I have experienced much higher general personal Christian moral and disciplinary habits and behavior within the Coptic clergy and laity than in the EO and RC communities. My personal moral behavior and discipline improved from increased Coptic associations. Modern Coptic youth, especially young women, are increasingly rebellious, but still seemingly less so than their EO and RC counterparts. I don't think that our leaders and parents should tell our struggling teens, "Sure, go to the Greek Club dance, some Copts say that their Christology is the same as ours, have fun, they are Christians, too. If you find someone you like, get married, they will let you get divorced and remarried three times. They even have their own divorce lawyers. Don't worry, be happy."
I also find issue with your suggestion that the EO leaders agree that we have the same theology. My basis may even be broader than yours. My reference is the introduction to the 2008 edition of famous Orthodox Study Bible, that seems to be endorsed by every possible EO potentate and authority. At page XXii of this introduction of THE CHURCH, it states:
For the first thousand years of Christian history, the entire Church, save for the heretics, embraced and defended the New Testament Apostolic faith. There was no consequential division. And this one faith, preserved through all trials, attacks and tests, this Apostolic doctrine, was called "the Orthodox faith." (emphasis in original). [I believe that the introduction to the earlier edition of the Orthodox Study Bible New Testament more clearly identified these "heretics" as "the monophysites." It means the same thing, to EO.
I have been disappointed that Fr. Peter has not explained the patristic theology of the seemingly very modern common "evangelical" EO practice of initiating new Orthodox communicants without the traditional Orthodox Sacrament of Baptism. Did I miss that discussion? Did you briefly excuse this practice in an earlier post? Which Fathers excused this crucial New Testament Tradition? Why doesn't this laxity concern us, especially for the defrauded new "Orthodox?"