Topic: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error

[deusveritasest]

Aquinas Argues:

"The Father and the Son, being one in essence, differ only in this, that He is the Father, and He the Son. Everything else is common to Father and Son. But being the origin of the Holy Ghost lies outside of the relationship of paternity and filiation: for the relation whereby the Father is Father differs from the relation whereby the Father is the origin of the Holy Ghost. Being the origin then of the Holy Ghost is something common to Father and Son."
-Summa Contra Gentiles

It may sound logical to you, but it certainly does not to me. Aquinas is failing to make the general distinction between ontological relationships and oringinations in the Trinity and the ontology (Essence itself). As a consequence, he is somehow coming up with the illogical idea that the Son must share in all other realities besides that which distinguishes Him from His Originator. However, the Essence common to the Son and the Father is a different reality from their relationship to each other. Ontological relationships in the Trinity in general (rather than just the filiation) are a different reality from the Essence. Therefore, for the Father and Son to be one in Essence, it does not require that the Son share in an ontological relationship that is distinct from His own ontological originiation.

And again, as others have pointed out, if we are to take Aquinas' faulty logic as true; if the Holy Spirit differs from the Father only in Him being the Spirated and the Father being the Spirator, then logically He must also possess the Begetting of the Son.

[deusveritasest]

Is the inclusion of the Filioque so important that you would sacrifice unity for it?

What does it matter? Unity could not be achieved at this point even if they simply omitted the filioque clause from the Creed.

[deusveritasest]

"The Son says of the Holy Ghost: He shall glorify me, because he shall receive of mine (John xvi, 14). Now it cannot be maintained that He shall receive that which belongs to the Son, namely, the divine essence, but not receive it of the Son, but only of the Father: for it follows, All things whatsoever that the Father hath are mine: therefore did I say to you that he shall receive of mine: for if all things that the Father has belong to the Son, the authority of the Father, whereby He is the principle of the Holy Ghost, must belong likewise to the Son." (SCG)

Except that the procession/spiration of the Holy Spirit isn't even a possession. 

[deusveritasest]

Aquinas Argues:

"The Father and the Son, being one in essence, differ only in this, that He is the Father, and He the Son. Everything else is common to Father and Son.

I'm wondering whence Aquinas derived this striking principle. Can this actually be found in Patristic teaching, or is it, as I suspect, an artificial construct made to justify the Filioque ex post facto?

I think it is a requirement of the doctrine of the Unity of the Trinity. But I will look into Patristic support. I was under the impression that Eastern Orthodox Christians believed that the persons of the Trinity had all things in common except those things that were proper to each person, those things that distinguished them from one another.

No. We understand that they hold in common all things that are part of their actual being (Essence), which is different from the means by which they are (Unoriginate, Filiated/Begotten, Spirated/Proceeded).

[deusveritasest]

Nobody ever seems to bring up how the Son is begotten of the Father and born of the Holy Spirit. How is that not the same alleged "subordination" in the other direction?

\

I just want to make sure that I understand what you are stating. Are you saying that the Word is being born of the Holy Spirit in time due to His temporal mission just as the Son sends the Holy Spirit in His Temporal mission without being the cause of His procession in the Godhead? Or are you saying that the Son is born of the Holy Spirit as part of their relationship in the Godhead? Forgive me if i have bumbled through this question. I hope you understand what I mean.

When the EO argue that the filioque subordinates the Holy Spirit to the Father and the Son because he is the only person that does generate another person, they are doing so based on the following premise: "If one person proceeds from another, then the one who proceeds is subordinate from the one from whom he proceeds".
But if one accepts that premise then the only conclusion is that in the EO view of the Trinity, the Son and the Holy Spirit cannot be co-equal with the Father because they both find their origin in the Father.

Because I know that EOs see the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit as co-equal, then the premise of their apologetic argument must be false and cannot be applied to the filoque. Thus, the attempt to "debunk" the Filioque on the part of EOs is invalid.

No, it is actually on the premise that beyond the Father playing a personal role as the one Originator in the Trinity, that the Son is given some sort of privilege of Spirating the Spirit with the Father, while the Spirit is not given the privilege of Filiating/Begetting the Son with the Father. There is no conception of originating necessarily subordinating in the way that you are suggesting.

[deusveritasest]

Christ points out that everything the Father has, the Son has. This means that they must share all things in common, except what distinguishes them from one another. Since the thing that distinquished the Father and the Son is the Father's Paternity with regard to the Son and the Son's Sonship with regard to the Father, then they are not distinguished by the procession of the Holy Spirit. Thus, the procession of the Spirit must be something that is common to both the Father and the Son.

Again, no, because the Spiration/Procession of the Holy Spirit is not a possession, and because the Hypostases are not only distinct in their relationship to each other. It is more clear to say that they are distinct in the manner in which they exist and possess the Divine Essence.

[deusveritasest]

Actually, the fact that the Father and the Son are one in essence almost seems to make the filioque a logical necessity. If they are really one in their essence and the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, then he must also proceed from the Son as a result of the oneness between the Father and the Son.

There are three distinct Persons in the Holy Trinity. The Son is not the selfsame Person of the Father.

I agree. But they are distinguished as persons, not in their essence. [bgcolor=#ffff00]Christ points out that everything the Father has, the Son has.[/bgcolor] This means that they must share all things in common, except what distinguishes them from one another. Since the thing that distinquished the Father and the Son is the Father's Paternity with regard to the Son and the Son's Sonship with regard to the Father, then they are not distinguished by the procession of the Holy Spirit. Thus, the procession of the Spirit must be something that is common to both the Father and the Son.

That being said, because the the distinction of Paternity and Sonship is what distinguishes the Father and the Son, this distinction makes the relationship of each to the procession of the Spirit different. The Father spirates the Spirit as the Father who is monarch, and source without source. The Son, on the other hand, spirates the Spirit by participation because the everything the Son has, comes from the Father, so the procession of the Spirit from the Son, is really From the Father through the Son and is done in unison with the Father as a single source.

Yes, but which nature is speaking when He says this.

Welcome to Byzantium.

"Which nature is speaking"?!

OK, welcome to Nestorian-land. 

[deusveritasest]

So, the issue may not be so much theological but ecclesiological.

Your church has already determined it to be theological, and the Orientals have even agreed to this in the Agreed Statements.

starting with de-dogmatizing those beliefs that are not agreed to by all

De-dogmatizing of beliefs is not enough if those beliefs have already been condemned. For unity, condemned beliefs must be condemned by those who are to reunite to the Church, not just de-dogmatized.

[deusveritasest]

I think that fact that each of our Churches sees itself as the true Church and the Body of Christ, will keep us from being able to achieve unity with one another this side of Heaven.

I don't like this way of looking at things. For all we know, given the common faultiness of individual logic, we could very well have determined the identity of the Church of Christ incorrectly. That's why these religious communities must be always open to scrutiny and criticism on the basis of the Tradition of the Undivided Church, in the period of time where we know for sure which Church was the Church because there was only one real Christian community in Christendom.

[Jetavan]

And, to be fair, many Catholics argue that the H.S. is sent, temporally, from the Son.

The Holy Spirit is temporally sent from the Son.

Right; I should have said: "many Catholics argue that the H.S. is sent, temporally but not originally, from the Son."

[PeterTheAleut]

Actually, the fact that the Father and the Son are one in essence almost seems to make the filioque a logical necessity. If they are really one in their essence and the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, then he must also proceed from the Son as a result of the oneness between the Father and the Son.

There are three distinct Persons in the Holy Trinity. The Son is not the selfsame Person of the Father.

I agree. But they are distinguished as persons, not in their essence. Christ points out that everything the Father has, the Son has. This means that they must share all things in common, except what distinguishes them from one another. Since the thing that distinquished the Father and the Son is the Father's Paternity with regard to the Son and the Son's Sonship with regard to the Father, then they are not distinguished by the procession of the Holy Spirit. Thus, the procession of the Spirit must be something that is common to both the Father and the Son.

On what foundation do you base this idea that the only distinction between the Father and the Son is the Father's paternity and the Son's begottenness?

[Wyatt]

Why is it that only Orthodox Christians and analytic philosophers can understand metaphysical concepts? Maybe you should read some Aristotle.

Are you really so arrogant as to presume to understand fully the nature of the Trinity? How can a finite mind fully grasp the infinite? I really think these debates regarding the filioque are a waste of breath. It's a bunch of humans flopping around trying to understand that which cannot be understood, God Himself.

[deusveritasest]

And, to be fair, many Catholics argue that the H.S. is sent, temporally, from the Son.

The Holy Spirit is temporally sent from the Son.

Right; I should have said: "many Catholics argue that the H.S. is sent, temporally but not originally, from the Son."

Oh, you were trying to convey that some among them teach that the procession from the Son is temporal?

[deusveritasest]

Why is it that only Orthodox Christians and analytic philosophers can understand metaphysical concepts? Maybe you should read some Aristotle.

Are you really so arrogant as to presume to understand fully the nature of the Trinity? How can a finite mind fully grasp the infinite? I really think these debates regarding the filioque are a waste of breath. It's a bunch of humans flopping around trying to understand that which cannot be understood, God Himself.

We are talking about what has been revealed here, not an exhaustive understanding of the Godhead.

[visitor]

The problem with the Filioque is that it obscures the two natures of Christ, fully God, and fully Man.

I think it important here to not get into Biblical hermeneutics. This issue has had a lot of ink spilled over it.


But consider this if p then not q: If Christ is fully God, "of one essence with the Father," then it is incoherent to say that the Holy Spirit proceedeth from both the Father and the Son-----unless one resorts to a polytheist paradigm of essence, perhaps, which is of course, heresy (ugh. hate to use that word).

The results of the Filioque have been utterly predictable. Diaphysite Christiology has been utterly marginalized in the West, the Trinity has acquired a vertical hierarchy (which error sparked the Protestant reformation), and the Mother of God has been made the suffering sweetheart of the most Gothic family romance in history... You think I'm wrong? Look at the art.



In summary, a thoroughgoing understanding of diaphysite Christology immediately reveals the error, and even a cursory view of the Filioque's history exposes the doctrine for what it is...

If you are suggesting that the West is inclined to Monophysitism, I must say I find such a suggestion completely absurd.

That's exactly what I'm saying.

[Papist]

And again, as others have pointed out, if we are to take Aquinas' faulty logic as true; if the Holy Spirit differs from the Father only in Him being the Spirated and the Father being the Spirator, then logically He must also possess the Begetting of the Son.

Then that would make him a Father to the Son which is contrary to the personhood of the Holy Spirit. try again.

[visitor]

And again, as others have pointed out, if we are to take Aquinas' faulty logic as true; if the Holy Spirit differs from the Father only in Him being the Spirated and the Father being the Spirator, then logically He must also possess the Begetting of the Son.

Then that would make him a Father to the Son which is contrary to the personhood of the Holy Spirit. try again.

Do you dare disagree with Thomistic logic?!?!? Thou.... Protestant!!!!

[Jetavan]

And, to be fair, many Catholics argue that the H.S. is sent, temporally, from the Son.

The Holy Spirit is temporally sent from the Son.

Right; I should have said: "many Catholics argue that the H.S. is sent, temporally but not originally, from the Son."

Oh, you were trying to convey that some among them teach that the procession from the Son is temporal?

Correct.

[Fabio Leite]

And again, as others have pointed out, if we are to take Aquinas' faulty logic as true; if the Holy Spirit differs from the Father only in Him being the Spirated and the Father being the Spirator, then logically He must also possess the Begetting of the Son.

Then that would make him a Father to the Son which is contrary to the personhood of the Holy Spirit. try again.

But of course that if one added a "spiritoque" like this:

"And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Only-begotten, Begotten of the Father and of the Spirit before all worlds"

the ex post facto explanation could be that it is "obvious" that the begotteness of the Son from Spirit is not exactly the same as that of the Father. The Father is the only true causation while the Son is begotten in the world through the Holy Spirit in the Virgin Mary, in the Church and in the hearts of Men. And of course this analysis is correct, yet, the text of the Creed is a context in which the addition of the "spiritoque" would have a very different meaning, as does the filioque.

[deusveritasest]

That's exactly what I'm saying.

Do you read church history at all? Historically the West has been inclined to Nestorianism, if anything.

[deusveritasest]

And again, as others have pointed out, if we are to take Aquinas' faulty logic as true; if the Holy Spirit differs from the Father only in Him being the Spirated and the Father being the Spirator, then logically He must also possess the Begetting of the Son.

Then that would make him a Father to the Son which is contrary to the personhood of the Holy Spirit. try again.

How is it contrary to the personhood of the Holy Spirit? I don't see how that fits the logic you are using. The only difference between the persons is their relationships to each other, remember? Well what are the relationships to the Holy Spirit? The Holy Spirit to the Father is the Holy Spirit is the Spirated and the Father is the Spirator. Same with the Son. So why then shouldn't the Holy Spirit share the begetting of the Son with the Father? That doesn't appear to be qualified by the differences of their relationships.

[deusveritasest]

And, to be fair, many Catholics argue that the H.S. is sent, temporally, from the Son.

The Holy Spirit is temporally sent from the Son.

Right; I should have said: "many Catholics argue that the H.S. is sent, temporally but not originally, from the Son."

Oh, you were trying to convey that some among them teach that the procession from the Son is temporal?

Correct.

OK! Got it.

Iconodule made a good point that that is clearly contrary to their dogmatic tradition.

[Dave in McKinney]

This topic is pretty "heady" stuff for someone like me...  but I am wondering what the practical results of the filioque are in (Roman) Catholic and Protestant realms.

I was cradle Catholic and then went Methodist for a few years.  And I was surprised that during prayers, for the most part all were done "in Jesus' name" as opposed to "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit"... is this any relation to topic at hand?

[elijahmaria]

Many of the assertions in this thread concerning the procession of the Holy Spirit are based upon the notion that there is not only no consubstantial ordering in the Trinity but also that there is no hypostatic ordering in the Trinity.

That is not a new issue and it was raised with St. Basil the Great in fact and he wrote a letter where he addresses this questoin of the Holy Spirit in relationship to the Father and the Son, whose relationship is said to be ONE and does not include the Holy Spirit:

In Basil’s Letter 52.4 (PG 32, 396B-C), he asks:

“But what madness is this, when one is the Unbegotten, to say that there is another one that is above the Unbegotten? For there is nothing that stands in the mean position between Son and Father…. Thus, this innovation concerning order holds forth a negation of the very existence [of the Trinity], and is a denial of the whole faith. It is equally impious, either to reduce [the Holy Spirit] to the level of a creature, or to set him above either Son or Father, either with respect to time, or with respect to order.”

I would be happy if any one of you or several could explain this very clear response to the assertion that there is no order of the Persons of the Trinity.

M.

[Fabio Leite]

Many of the assertions in this thread concerning the procession of the Holy Spirit are based upon the notion that there is not only no consubstantial ordering in the Trinity but also that there is no hypostatic ordering in the Trinity.

That is not a new issue and it was raised with St. Basil the Great in fact and he wrote a letter where he addresses this questoin of the Holy Spirit in relationship to the Father and the Son, whose relationship is said to be ONE and does not include the Holy Spirit:

In Basil’s Letter 52.4 (PG 32, 396B-C), he asks:

“But what madness is this, when one is the Unbegotten, to say that there is another one that is above the Unbegotten? For there is nothing that stands in the mean position between Son and Father…. Thus, this innovation concerning order holds forth a negation of the very existence [of the Trinity], and is a denial of the whole faith. It is equally impious, either to reduce [the Holy Spirit] to the level of a creature, or to set him above either Son or Father, either with respect to time, or with respect to order.”

I would be happy if any one of you or several could explain this very clear response to the assertion that there is no order of the Persons of the Trinity.

M.

Of course there is an order. That is not being discussed. What Catholic tradition holds contrary to RC later belief is that 1) just like the Son sends the Spirit to the world, the Spirit begets the Son in the world. If "filioque" meant this secondary relation since the Father is the only true origin of the Personhoods, than we should have a "spiritoque"; 2) There are only two kinds of attributes in God: those that pertain to God and those that are exclusive to each person; "filioque", deviating from the truth, creates a third category that is an atribute that pertains to two and not to one; 3) the introduction of the filioque in the Creed did not follow even from the Iberic tradition that first originated it in a very specific context, but was the imposition of a heretical emperor-wannabe who used it as a pretext to proclaim independence from the Roman Empire. Unlike the Easterns who were used to heretical monarchs and always healed from such troubles, Westerns never managed to get rid of this imperial intervention.

[elijahmaria]

Many of the assertions in this thread concerning the procession of the Holy Spirit are based upon the notion that there is not only no consubstantial ordering in the Trinity but also that there is no hypostatic ordering in the Trinity.

That is not a new issue and it was raised with St. Basil the Great in fact and he wrote a letter where he addresses this questoin of the Holy Spirit in relationship to the Father and the Son, whose relationship is said to be ONE and does not include the Holy Spirit:

In Basil’s Letter 52.4 (PG 32, 396B-C), he asks:

“But what madness is this, when one is the Unbegotten, to say that there is another one that is above the Unbegotten? For there is nothing that stands in the mean position between Son and Father…. Thus, this innovation concerning order holds forth a negation of the very existence [of the Trinity], and is a denial of the whole faith. It is equally impious, either to reduce [the Holy Spirit] to the level of a creature, or to set him above either Son or Father, either with respect to time, or with respect to order.”

I would be happy if any one of you or several could explain this very clear response to the assertion that there is no order of the Persons of the Trinity.

M.

Of course there is an order. That is not being discussed. What Catholic tradition holds contrary to RC later belief is that 1) just like the Son sends the Spirit to the world, the Spirit begets the Son in the world. If "filioque" meant this secondary relation since the Father is the only true origin of the Personhoods, than we should have a "spiritoque"; 2) There are only two kinds of attributes in God: those that pertain to God and those that are exclusive to each person; "filioque", deviating from the truth, creates a third category that is an atribute that pertains to two and not to one; 3) the introduction of the filioque in the Creed did not follow even from the Iberic tradition that first originated it in a very specific context, but was the imposition of a heretical emperor-wannabe who used it as a pretext to proclaim independence from the Roman Empire. Unlike the Easterns who were used to heretical monarchs and always healed from such troubles, Westerns never managed to get rid of this imperial intervention.

I have no idea what you are talking about here.  This sounds a lot like Ortho-history to me.

At any rate the spiration of the Spirit from the Son is not meant in a substantially causal manner but as from one principle, and Scripture and Tradition tell us that the Father and the Son are indeed one principle.

What you've done with that teaching here in your short form is warp it and distort it so that it has no parity with actual Catholic teaching.

M.

[PeterTheAleut]

Many of the assertions in this thread concerning the procession of the Holy Spirit are based upon the notion that there is not only no consubstantial ordering in the Trinity but also that there is no hypostatic ordering in the Trinity.

That is not a new issue and it was raised with St. Basil the Great in fact and he wrote a letter where he addresses this questoin of the Holy Spirit in relationship to the Father and the Son, whose relationship is said to be ONE and does not include the Holy Spirit:

In Basil’s Letter 52.4 (PG 32, 396B-C), he asks:

“But what madness is this, when one is the Unbegotten, to say that there is another one that is above the Unbegotten? For there is nothing that stands in the mean position between Son and Father…. Thus, this innovation concerning order holds forth a negation of the very existence [of the Trinity], and is a denial of the whole faith. It is equally impious, either to reduce [the Holy Spirit] to the level of a creature, or to set him above either Son or Father, either with respect to time, or with respect to order.”

I would be happy if any one of you or several could explain this very clear response to the assertion that there is no order of the Persons of the Trinity.

M.

Of course there is an order. That is not being discussed. What Catholic tradition holds contrary to RC later belief is that 1) just like the Son sends the Spirit to the world, the Spirit begets the Son in the world. If "filioque" meant this secondary relation since the Father is the only true origin of the Personhoods, than we should have a "spiritoque"; 2) There are only two kinds of attributes in God: those that pertain to God and those that are exclusive to each person; "filioque", deviating from the truth, creates a third category that is an atribute that pertains to two and not to one; 3) the introduction of the filioque in the Creed did not follow even from the Iberic tradition that first originated it in a very specific context, but was the imposition of a heretical emperor-wannabe who used it as a pretext to proclaim independence from the Roman Empire. Unlike the Easterns who were used to heretical monarchs and always healed from such troubles, Westerns never managed to get rid of this imperial intervention.

I have no idea what you are talking about here.  This sounds a lot like Ortho-history to me.

At any rate the spiration of the Spirit from the Son is not meant in a substantially causal manner but as from one principle, and Scripture and Tradition tell us that the Father and the Son are indeed one principle.

So the Father and the Son are indeed one principle and the Holy Spirit is another principle?

[Fabio Leite]

I have no idea what you are talking about here.  This sounds a lot like Ortho-history to me.

And would you like to know? You won't even have to take my word on it, and check later.

[elijahmaria]

Many of the assertions in this thread concerning the procession of the Holy Spirit are based upon the notion that there is not only no consubstantial ordering in the Trinity but also that there is no hypostatic ordering in the Trinity.

That is not a new issue and it was raised with St. Basil the Great in fact and he wrote a letter where he addresses this questoin of the Holy Spirit in relationship to the Father and the Son, whose relationship is said to be ONE and does not include the Holy Spirit:

In Basil’s Letter 52.4 (PG 32, 396B-C), he asks:

“But what madness is this, when one is the Unbegotten, to say that there is another one that is above the Unbegotten? For there is nothing that stands in the mean position between Son and Father…. Thus, this innovation concerning order holds forth a negation of the very existence [of the Trinity], and is a denial of the whole faith. It is equally impious, either to reduce [the Holy Spirit] to the level of a creature, or to set him above either Son or Father, either with respect to time, or with respect to order.”

I would be happy if any one of you or several could explain this very clear response to the assertion that there is no order of the Persons of the Trinity.

M.

Of course there is an order. That is not being discussed. What Catholic tradition holds contrary to RC later belief is that 1) just like the Son sends the Spirit to the world, the Spirit begets the Son in the world. If "filioque" meant this secondary relation since the Father is the only true origin of the Personhoods, than we should have a "spiritoque"; 2) There are only two kinds of attributes in God: those that pertain to God and those that are exclusive to each person; "filioque", deviating from the truth, creates a third category that is an atribute that pertains to two and not to one; 3) the introduction of the filioque in the Creed did not follow even from the Iberic tradition that first originated it in a very specific context, but was the imposition of a heretical emperor-wannabe who used it as a pretext to proclaim independence from the Roman Empire. Unlike the Easterns who were used to heretical monarchs and always healed from such troubles, Westerns never managed to get rid of this imperial intervention.

I have no idea what you are talking about here.  This sounds a lot like Ortho-history to me.

At any rate the spiration of the Spirit from the Son is not meant in a substantially causal manner but as from one principle, and Scripture and Tradition tell us that the Father and the Son are indeed one principle.

So the Father and the Son are indeed one principle and the Holy Spirit is another principle?

Of a different order yes.  That is what the whole issue of "order" is about.

Jesus did not say the Father and the Holy Spirit and I are ONE.  So in some principled manner, the Father and Son are ONE in a way that the Holy Spirit is not. 

That has been the mystery from the beginning and the entire reason there had to be a separate theology worked out for the Holy Spirit.

They are in essence, ONE.  But in Principle they are separate Persons with a particular order that is both Scriptural and from Tradition.

Also, any mathematician knows that not every order is a RANK order, going from lowest to highest or hightest to lowest.

Orders can simple be different in principle.

Mary

[PeterTheAleut]

Many of the assertions in this thread concerning the procession of the Holy Spirit are based upon the notion that there is not only no consubstantial ordering in the Trinity but also that there is no hypostatic ordering in the Trinity.

That is not a new issue and it was raised with St. Basil the Great in fact and he wrote a letter where he addresses this questoin of the Holy Spirit in relationship to the Father and the Son, whose relationship is said to be ONE and does not include the Holy Spirit:

In Basil’s Letter 52.4 (PG 32, 396B-C), he asks:

“But what madness is this, when one is the Unbegotten, to say that there is another one that is above the Unbegotten? For there is nothing that stands in the mean position between Son and Father…. Thus, this innovation concerning order holds forth a negation of the very existence [of the Trinity], and is a denial of the whole faith. It is equally impious, either to reduce [the Holy Spirit] to the level of a creature, or to set him above either Son or Father, either with respect to time, or with respect to order.”

I would be happy if any one of you or several could explain this very clear response to the assertion that there is no order of the Persons of the Trinity.

M.

Of course there is an order. That is not being discussed. What Catholic tradition holds contrary to RC later belief is that 1) just like the Son sends the Spirit to the world, the Spirit begets the Son in the world. If "filioque" meant this secondary relation since the Father is the only true origin of the Personhoods, than we should have a "spiritoque"; 2) There are only two kinds of attributes in God: those that pertain to God and those that are exclusive to each person; "filioque", deviating from the truth, creates a third category that is an atribute that pertains to two and not to one; 3) the introduction of the filioque in the Creed did not follow even from the Iberic tradition that first originated it in a very specific context, but was the imposition of a heretical emperor-wannabe who used it as a pretext to proclaim independence from the Roman Empire. Unlike the Easterns who were used to heretical monarchs and always healed from such troubles, Westerns never managed to get rid of this imperial intervention.

I have no idea what you are talking about here.  This sounds a lot like Ortho-history to me.

At any rate the spiration of the Spirit from the Son is not meant in a substantially causal manner but as from one principle, and Scripture and Tradition tell us that the Father and the Son are indeed one principle.

So the Father and the Son are indeed one principle and the Holy Spirit is another principle?

Of a different order yes.  That is what the whole issue of "order" is about.

Jesus did not say the Father and the Holy Spirit and I are ONE.  So in some principled manner, the Father and Son are ONE in a way that the Holy Spirit is not.

For this argument from silence to really work, you have to first establish that you know the mind of Christ well enough to know what He chose not to say.  I don't think anyone can assert that kind of knowledge, so let's hold ourselves to what He did say and not project onto Him what we think He should have said.

That has been the mystery from the beginning and the entire reason there had to be a separate theology worked out for the Holy Spirit.

They are in essence, ONE.  But in Principle they are separate Persons with a particular order that is both Scriptural and from Tradition.

Yes, even the Cappadocian Fathers who articulated the foundation of Orthodox triadology recognized that there is some order and separation of persons in the Godhead.  They just didn't conceive of this order the same way the Latins would centuries later.  For one, the Cappadocian Fathers conceived of the Holy Trinity as emanating from the one principle of the monarchy of the Father, NOT from the diarchy of the Father and the Son.

Also, any mathematician knows that not every order is a RANK order, going from lowest to highest or hightest to lowest.

Yes, even the Orthodox understand this, which is why we don't think of the Son and the Holy Spirit as subordinate to the Father even though they both draw their life from Him.  It's like the relationship I have with my earthly father; I am in no way less of a human than he is just because I'm his son.  I owe my father the honor due his memory out of love for him, but that doesn't mean that I'm ontologically inferior to him.

Orders can simple be different in principle.

You won't find any disagreement with me on this principle.

[elijahmaria]

Many of the assertions in this thread concerning the procession of the Holy Spirit are based upon the notion that there is not only no consubstantial ordering in the Trinity but also that there is no hypostatic ordering in the Trinity.

That is not a new issue and it was raised with St. Basil the Great in fact and he wrote a letter where he addresses this questoin of the Holy Spirit in relationship to the Father and the Son, whose relationship is said to be ONE and does not include the Holy Spirit:

In Basil’s Letter 52.4 (PG 32, 396B-C), he asks:

“But what madness is this, when one is the Unbegotten, to say that there is another one that is above the Unbegotten? For there is nothing that stands in the mean position between Son and Father…. Thus, this innovation concerning order holds forth a negation of the very existence [of the Trinity], and is a denial of the whole faith. It is equally impious, either to reduce [the Holy Spirit] to the level of a creature, or to set him above either Son or Father, either with respect to time, or with respect to order.”

I would be happy if any one of you or several could explain this very clear response to the assertion that there is no order of the Persons of the Trinity.

M.

Of course there is an order. That is not being discussed. What Catholic tradition holds contrary to RC later belief is that 1) just like the Son sends the Spirit to the world, the Spirit begets the Son in the world. If "filioque" meant this secondary relation since the Father is the only true origin of the Personhoods, than we should have a "spiritoque"; 2) There are only two kinds of attributes in God: those that pertain to God and those that are exclusive to each person; "filioque", deviating from the truth, creates a third category that is an atribute that pertains to two and not to one; 3) the introduction of the filioque in the Creed did not follow even from the Iberic tradition that first originated it in a very specific context, but was the imposition of a heretical emperor-wannabe who used it as a pretext to proclaim independence from the Roman Empire. Unlike the Easterns who were used to heretical monarchs and always healed from such troubles, Westerns never managed to get rid of this imperial intervention.

I have no idea what you are talking about here.  This sounds a lot like Ortho-history to me.

At any rate the spiration of the Spirit from the Son is not meant in a substantially causal manner but as from one principle, and Scripture and Tradition tell us that the Father and the Son are indeed one principle.

So the Father and the Son are indeed one principle and the Holy Spirit is another principle?

Of a different order yes.  That is what the whole issue of "order" is about.

Jesus did not say the Father and the Holy Spirit and I are ONE.  So in some principled manner, the Father and Son are ONE in a way that the Holy Spirit is not.

For this argument from silence to really work, you have to first establish that you know the mind of Christ well enough to know what He chose not to say.  I don't think anyone can assert that kind of knowledge, so let's hold ourselves to what He did say and not project onto Him what we think He should have said.

That has been the mystery from the beginning and the entire reason there had to be a separate theology worked out for the Holy Spirit.

They are in essence, ONE.  But in Principle they are separate Persons with a particular order that is both Scriptural and from Tradition.

Yes, even the Cappadocian Fathers who articulated the foundation of Orthodox triadology recognized that there is some order and separation of persons in the Godhead.  They just didn't conceive of this order the same way the Latins would centuries later.  For one, the Cappadocian Fathers conceived of the Holy Trinity as emanating from the one principle of the monarchy of the Father, NOT from the diarchy of the Father and the Son.

Also, any mathematician knows that not every order is a RANK order, going from lowest to highest or hightest to lowest.

Yes, even the Orthodox understand this, which is why we don't think of the Son and the Holy Spirit as subordinate to the Father even though they both draw their life from Him.

Orders can simple be different in principle.

You won't find any disagreement with me on this principle.

We are very close here now.

I can tell you that the western Catholic Church never taught that the Holy Spirit originates from the Father and Son as a diarchy.  The filioque was never taught in that way.  In fact the Church explicitly teaches the monarchy of the Father.  So the spiration understood in the phrase "filioque" is true for us ONLY with respect to the order of the Persons in the Trinity and NOT as an indicator of a dyadic generative principle.

[Fabio Leite]

Yes, even the Cappadocian Fathers who articulated the foundation of Orthodox triadology recognized that there is some order and separation of persons in the Godhead.  They just didn't conceive of this order the same way the Latins would centuries later.  For one, the Cappadocian Fathers conceived of the Holy Trinity as emanating from the one principle of the monarchy of the Father, NOT from the diarchy of the Father and the Son.

That's why I usually say the RC god, despite being named a Trinity, when taken analitically is Dinity: Fatherson-Holy Spirit.

[Fabio Leite]

So the spiration understood in the phrase "filioque" is true for us ONLY with respect to the order of the Persons in the Trinity and NOT as an indicator of a dyadic generative principle.

Here lies the problem. Once again RC say something and explains it away with its opposite.

In the Creed, in the context, the sentence is talking about the generative principle.

The Father is almighty (the source of all potentiality, including that of the Personhoods)
The Son is begotten of the Father
The Spirit proceeds of the Father.

What RC twists in the text is the idea that the verb can have two different meanings despite the complement being compound. It is like saying that "Jack comes to Mexico from Canada and the U.S" and then push the case to say that it's not the case of a meaningless phrase as it is, but that in fact you're saying that he comes from Canada through the U.S. Although it is obvious that this is the best route, the sentence itself is badly constructed, for as it is, it implies two simulteanous points of origin.

The whole point is:the explanation the RC gives is not in the text. Plus, the filioque as it exists today was introduced by Charlesmagne with the opposition of the "infallible" pope of the time. *All* explanations came much later to support the imperial decree.

[elijahmaria]

So the spiration understood in the phrase "filioque" is true for us ONLY with respect to the order of the Persons in the Trinity and NOT as an indicator of a dyadic generative principle.

Here lies the problem. Once again RC say something and explains it away with its opposite.

In the Creed, in the context, the sentence is talking about the generative principle.

The Father is almighty (the source of all potentiality, including that of the Personhoods)
The Son is begotten of the Father
The Spirit proceeds of the Father.

What RC twists in the text is the idea that the verb can have two different meanings despite the complement being compound. It is like saying that "Jack comes to Mexico from Canada and the U.S" and then push the case to say that it's not the case of a meaningless phrase as it is, but that in fact you're saying that he comes from Canada through the U.S. Although it is obvious that this is the best route, the sentence itself is badly constructed, for as it is, it implies two simulteanous points of origin.

The whole point is:the explanation the RC gives is not in the text. Plus, the filioque as it exists today was introduced by Charlesmagne with the opposition of the "infallible" pope of the time. *All* explanations came much later to support the imperial decree.

Bad history, worse theology.  I am very sorry but that's the only play I am going to give this kind of "analysis."   Honestly, it is not worth the effort save for the fact that someone else might at least see some cause to question what you are saying here.  You need to have it this way and I am not going to stop you by any means.  So I will only spend the time to simply flat out say it is at very least, misguided thinking.

Mary

[PeterTheAleut]

I can tell you that the western Catholic Church never taught that the Holy Spirit originates from the Father and Son as a diarchy.  The filioque was never taught in that way.  In fact the Church explicitly teaches the monarchy of the Father.  So the spiration understood in the phrase "filioque" is true for us ONLY with respect to the order of the Persons in the Trinity and NOT as an indicator of a dyadic generative principle.

In the light of the above comments that the Holy Spirit doesn't proceed from the Father and the Son as though from a diarchy, how then do you explain the idea you put forward a few posts ago that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as from one principle?

At any rate the spiration of the Spirit from the Son is not meant in a substantially causal manner but as from one principle, and Scripture and Tradition tell us that the Father and the Son are indeed one principle.

How are the Father and the Son one principle?

[elijahmaria]

I can tell you that the western Catholic Church never taught that the Holy Spirit originates from the Father and Son as a diarchy.  The filioque was never taught in that way.  In fact the Church explicitly teaches the monarchy of the Father.  So the spiration understood in the phrase "filioque" is true for us ONLY with respect to the order of the Persons in the Trinity and NOT as an indicator of a dyadic generative principle.

In the light of the above comments that the Holy Spirit doesn't proceed from the Father and the Son as though from a diarchy, how then do you explain the idea you put forward a few posts ago that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as from one principle?

At any rate the spiration of the Spirit from the Son is not meant in a substantially causal manner but as from one principle, and Scripture and Tradition tell us that the Father and the Son are indeed one principle.

How are the Father and the Son one principle?

The "one principle" refers to the unique relationship between the Father and the Son, which is not shared by the Holy Spirit.

However, the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of the Father and the Son in that nexus of relationships.

The relationships are NOT the Persons themselves but refer to the relationships of Begetting, Begotten, and Processing.

The Processing that originates in the Begetter, reaches fruition throughout the fullness of eternity and also in time by the action of the Begotten through all eternity and in time...and the unique relationship between the Father and the Son is what is referenced 'as from one principle' proceeding eternally, in accord with both Scripture and Tradition.

Mary

[Fabio Leite]

So the spiration understood in the phrase "filioque" is true for us ONLY with respect to the order of the Persons in the Trinity and NOT as an indicator of a dyadic generative principle.

Here lies the problem. Once again RC say something and explains it away with its opposite.

In the Creed, in the context, the sentence is talking about the generative principle.

The Father is almighty (the source of all potentiality, including that of the Personhoods)
The Son is begotten of the Father
The Spirit proceeds of the Father.

What RC twists in the text is the idea that the verb can have two different meanings despite the complement being compound. It is like saying that "Jack comes to Mexico from Canada and the U.S" and then push the case to say that it's not the case of a meaningless phrase as it is, but that in fact you're saying that he comes from Canada through the U.S. Although it is obvious that this is the best route, the sentence itself is badly constructed, for as it is, it implies two simulteanous points of origin.

The whole point is:the explanation the RC gives is not in the text. Plus, the filioque as it exists today was introduced by Charlesmagne with the opposition of the "infallible" pope of the time. *All* explanations came much later to support the imperial decree.

Bad history, worse theology.  I am very sorry but that's the only play I am going to give this kind of "analysis."   Honestly, it is not worth the effort save for the fact that someone else might at least see some cause to question what you are saying here.  You need to have it this way and I am not going to stop you by any means.  So I will only spend the time to simply flat out say it is at very least, misguided thinking.

Mary

Good to know you admit calling it names is your best argument. Even to historical facts. Maybe a kinder garten attendent will get scared, who knows?

[elijahmaria]

I can tell you that the western Catholic Church never taught that the Holy Spirit originates from the Father and Son as a diarchy.  The filioque was never taught in that way.  In fact the Church explicitly teaches the monarchy of the Father.  So the spiration understood in the phrase "filioque" is true for us ONLY with respect to the order of the Persons in the Trinity and NOT as an indicator of a dyadic generative principle.

In the light of the above comments that the Holy Spirit doesn't proceed from the Father and the Son as though from a diarchy, how then do you explain the idea you put forward a few posts ago that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as from one principle?

At any rate the spiration of the Spirit from the Son is not meant in a substantially causal manner but as from one principle, and Scripture and Tradition tell us that the Father and the Son are indeed one principle.

How are the Father and the Son one principle?

The "one principle" refers to the unique relationship between the Father and the Son, which is not shared by the Holy Spirit.

However, the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of the Father and the Son in that nexus of relationships.

The relationships are NOT the Persons themselves but refer to the relationships of Begetting, Begotten, and Processing.

The Processing that originates in the Begetter, reaches fruition throughout the fullness of eternity and also in time by the action of the Begotten through all eternity and in time...and the unique relationship between the Father and the Son is what is referenced 'as from one principle' proceeding eternally, in accord with both Scripture and Tradition.

Mary

Revision: The Processing that originates in the Begetter, reaches fruition throughout the fullness of eternity and also in time by the action of the Begotten through all eternity and in time...and the unique relationship between the Father and the Son is what is referenced 'as from one principle' with the Spirit proceeding eternally from that principle of Begetter/Begotten, in accord with both Scripture and Tradition.

[PeterTheAleut]

I can tell you that the western Catholic Church never taught that the Holy Spirit originates from the Father and Son as a diarchy.  The filioque was never taught in that way.  In fact the Church explicitly teaches the monarchy of the Father.  So the spiration understood in the phrase "filioque" is true for us ONLY with respect to the order of the Persons in the Trinity and NOT as an indicator of a dyadic generative principle.

In the light of the above comments that the Holy Spirit doesn't proceed from the Father and the Son as though from a diarchy, how then do you explain the idea you put forward a few posts ago that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as from one principle?

At any rate the spiration of the Spirit from the Son is not meant in a substantially causal manner but as from one principle, and Scripture and Tradition tell us that the Father and the Son are indeed one principle.

How are the Father and the Son one principle?

The "one principle" refers to the unique relationship between the Father and the Son, which is not shared by the Holy Spirit.

However, the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of the Father and the Son in that nexus of relationships.

The relationships are NOT the Persons themselves but refer to the relationships of Begetting, Begotten, and Processing.

The Processing that originates in the Begetter, reaches fruition throughout the fullness of eternity and also in time by the action of the Begotten through all eternity and in time...and the unique relationship between the Father and the Son is what is referenced 'as from one principle' proceeding eternally, in accord with both Scripture and Tradition.

Mary

Revision: The Processing that originates in the Begetter, reaches fruition throughout the fullness of eternity and also in time by the action of the Begotten through all eternity and in time...and the unique relationship between the Father and the Son is what is referenced 'as from one principle' with the Spirit proceeding eternally from that principle of Begetter/Begotten, in accord with both Scripture and Tradition.

What Scriptures say this?  Where in Tradition do we see your line of thinking?  You keep citing Scripture and Tradition as though this gives authority to your arguments, but without any specific references to passages of Scripture or teachings of specific named Fathers, Councils, hymns, icons, etc., your repeated citation of "Scripture and Tradition" rings hollow.

[Alveus Lacuna]

Honestly, it is not worth the effort save for the fact that someone else might at least see some cause to question what you are saying here.

If you are serious about anything that you write, you might as well trade in your keyboard for a pair of clown shoes, as scripture and tradition command.

[PeterTheAleut]

Honestly, it is not worth the effort save for the fact that someone else might at least see some cause to question what you are saying here.

If you are serious about anything that you write, you might as well trade in your keyboard for a pair of clown shoes, as scripture and tradition command.

What is that supposed to mean?

[elijahmaria]

I can tell you that the western Catholic Church never taught that the Holy Spirit originates from the Father and Son as a diarchy.  The filioque was never taught in that way.  In fact the Church explicitly teaches the monarchy of the Father.  So the spiration understood in the phrase "filioque" is true for us ONLY with respect to the order of the Persons in the Trinity and NOT as an indicator of a dyadic generative principle.

In the light of the above comments that the Holy Spirit doesn't proceed from the Father and the Son as though from a diarchy, how then do you explain the idea you put forward a few posts ago that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as from one principle?

At any rate the spiration of the Spirit from the Son is not meant in a substantially causal manner but as from one principle, and Scripture and Tradition tell us that the Father and the Son are indeed one principle.

How are the Father and the Son one principle?

The "one principle" refers to the unique relationship between the Father and the Son, which is not shared by the Holy Spirit.

However, the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of the Father and the Son in that nexus of relationships.

The relationships are NOT the Persons themselves but refer to the relationships of Begetting, Begotten, and Processing.

The Processing that originates in the Begetter, reaches fruition throughout the fullness of eternity and also in time by the action of the Begotten through all eternity and in time...and the unique relationship between the Father and the Son is what is referenced 'as from one principle' proceeding eternally, in accord with both Scripture and Tradition.

Mary

Revision: The Processing that originates in the Begetter, reaches fruition throughout the fullness of eternity and also in time by the action of the Begotten through all eternity and in time...and the unique relationship between the Father and the Son is what is referenced 'as from one principle' with the Spirit proceeding eternally from that principle of Begetter/Begotten, in accord with both Scripture and Tradition.

What Scriptures say this?  Where in Tradition do we see your line of thinking?  You keep citing Scripture and Tradition as though this gives authority to your arguments, but without any specific references to passages of Scripture or teachings of specific named Fathers, Councils, hymns, icons, etc., your repeated citation of "Scripture and Tradition" rings hollow.

Oh...I hate ringing hollow.  Perhaps some other time then.

Mary

[OnThePathForward]

I finally made it through this entire thread and I was hoping elijahmaria would continue to answer the question that PeterTheAleut had asked.  What  a good discussion.  I look forward to reading more on this

-OnThePathForward

[Fabio Leite]

Leo forbade the addition of filioque to the Nicene Creed which was added by Franks in Aachen in 809. He also ordered that the Nicene creed be engraved on silver tablets so that his conclusion might not be overturned in the future. He wrote «HAEC LEO POSUI AMORE ET CAUTELA ORTHODOXAE FIDEI» (I, Leo, put here for love and protection of orthodox faith).[1]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Leo_III

[elijahmaria]

I finally made it through this entire thread and I was hoping elijahmaria would continue to answer the question that PeterTheAleut had asked.  What  a good discussion.  I look forward to reading more on this

-OnThePathForward

I had a more elaborate note that hasn't been posted yet explaining that it will take time, but I will not just let it go.

M.