Topic: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error

[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.

Dear PtA,

As I mull over how to proceed with this I am thinking of things that we could clear up in advance.

Do you?....Does Orthodoxy accept that the Spirit proceeds in time from both the Father and the Son?...or would I have to prove that in some way?

M.

[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.

Dear PtA,

As I mull over how to proceed with this I am thinking of things that we could clear up in advance.

Do you?....Does Orthodoxy accept that the Spirit proceeds in time from both the Father and the Son?...or would I have to prove that in some way?

Proceeds in time?  I don't know that I've ever heard that theology expressed before, so I really don't know.  The Holy Spirit proceeds ontologically from the Father from all eternity, but when the fullness of time had come, the Holy Spirit proceeded from the Son as one sent on a mission and descended upon the Apostles and all the Church.  This is what I understand to be the Orthodox teaching on the different processions of the Holy Spirit.

[Wyatt]

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.

Dear PtA,

As I mull over how to proceed with this I am thinking of things that we could clear up in advance.

Do you?....Does Orthodoxy accept that the Spirit proceeds in time from both the Father and the Son?...or would I have to prove that in some way?

Proceeds in time?  I don't know that I've ever heard that theology expressed before, so I really don't know.  The Holy Spirit proceeds ontologically from the Father from all eternity, but when the fullness of time had come, the Holy Spirit proceeded from the Son as one sent on a mission and descended upon the Apostles and all the Church.  This is what I understand to be the Orthodox teaching on the different processions of the Holy Spirit.

How is that different than the Catholic teaching?

[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.

Dear PtA,

As I mull over how to proceed with this I am thinking of things that we could clear up in advance.

Do you?....Does Orthodoxy accept that the Spirit proceeds in time from both the Father and the Son?...or would I have to prove that in some way?

Proceeds in time?  I don't know that I've ever heard that theology expressed before, so I really don't know.  The Holy Spirit proceeds ontologically from the Father from all eternity, but when the fullness of time had come, the Holy Spirit proceeded from the Son as one sent on a mission and descended upon the Apostles and all the Church.  This is what I understand to be the Orthodox teaching on the different processions of the Holy Spirit.

How is that different than the Catholic teaching?

I don't know.  I hope that Mary or one of our other Catholics will clarify what their church's teaching is on this so your question can get an answer.

[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.

Dear PtA,

As I mull over how to proceed with this I am thinking of things that we could clear up in advance.

Do you?....Does Orthodoxy accept that the Spirit proceeds in time from both the Father and the Son?...or would I have to prove that in some way?

Proceeds in time?  I don't know that I've ever heard that theology expressed before, so I really don't know.  The Holy Spirit proceeds ontologically from the Father from all eternity, but when the fullness of time had come, the Holy Spirit proceeded from the Son as one sent on a mission and descended upon the Apostles and all the Church.  This is what I understand to be the Orthodox teaching on the different processions of the Holy Spirit.

Yes.  Proceeds does get to be confusing doesn't it.  Well then let's use "sends" ....

Who sends the Holy Spirit at the Annunciation?

"The angel answered and said to her, 'The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; and for that reason the holy Child shall be called the Son of God.'"[Luke 1:35]

[Iconodule]

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.

Dear PtA,

As I mull over how to proceed with this I am thinking of things that we could clear up in advance.

Do you?....Does Orthodoxy accept that the Spirit proceeds in time from both the Father and the Son?...or would I have to prove that in some way?

Proceeds in time?  I don't know that I've ever heard that theology expressed before, so I really don't know.  The Holy Spirit proceeds ontologically from the Father from all eternity, but when the fullness of time had come, the Holy Spirit proceeded from the Son as one sent on a mission and descended upon the Apostles and all the Church.  This is what I understand to be the Orthodox teaching on the different processions of the Holy Spirit.

How is that different than the Catholic teaching?

Because the Catholic teaching, as expressed in the official teaching documents of the RCC (as opposed to random internet theologians on forums), says that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the son not only in time but eternally:

"The Holy Spirit is eternally from Father and Son; He has his nature and subsistence at once (simul) from the Father and the Son. He proceeds eternally from both as from one principle and through one spiration."

This is from the Council of Florence, and is also quoted in the current Catechism of the Catholic Church to explain the Filioque.

[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.

Dear PtA,

As I mull over how to proceed with this I am thinking of things that we could clear up in advance.

Do you?....Does Orthodoxy accept that the Spirit proceeds in time from both the Father and the Son?...or would I have to prove that in some way?

Proceeds in time?  I don't know that I've ever heard that theology expressed before, so I really don't know.  The Holy Spirit proceeds ontologically from the Father from all eternity, but when the fullness of time had come, the Holy Spirit proceeded from the Son as one sent on a mission and descended upon the Apostles and all the Church.  This is what I understand to be the Orthodox teaching on the different processions of the Holy Spirit.

Yes.  Proceeds does get to be confusing doesn't it.  Well then let's use "sends" ....

Who sends the Holy Spirit at the Annunciation?

So, when you say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as from one principle, His procession from the Father and the Son is that of one who is sent--e.g., sent to come upon the Theotokos at the Annunciation, sent to descend upon the Church at Pentecost, etc.?

"The angel answered and said to her, 'The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; and for that reason the holy Child shall be called the Son of God.'"[Luke 1:35]

[PeterTheAleut]

How is that different than the Catholic teaching?

Because the Catholic teaching, as expressed in the official teaching documents of the RCC (as opposed to random internet theologians on forums), says that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the son not only in time but eternally:

"The Holy Spirit is eternally from Father and Son; He has his nature and subsistence at once (simul) from the Father and the Son. He proceeds eternally from both as from one principle and through one spiration."

This is from the Council of Florence, and is also quoted in the current Catechism of the Catholic Church to explain the Filioque.

Yes, I do see that in this excerpt of the online version of the Catechism of the Catholic Church published by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (http://www.usccb.org/catechism):

B. Para. 246. The Latin tradition of the Creed confesses that the Spirit “proceeds from the Father and the Son (filioque).” The Council of Florence in 1438 explains: “The Holy Spirit is eternally from Father and Son; He has his nature and subsistence at one (simul) from the Father and the Son. He proceeds eternally from both as from one principle and through one inspiration. . . . And, since the Father has through generation given to the only-begotten Son everything that belongs to the Father, except being Father, the Son has also eternally from the Father, from whom he is eternally born, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son” (Council of Florence [1439]: DS 1300-1301).

http://www.usccb.org/catechism/quizzes/trinity8.shtml


The problem I have with this teaching is that it introduces a second unitive principle to compete with the monarchy of the Father, which thus results in a quasi-modalist breakdown of the distinctions between the Father and the Son.  Traditionally, the Orthodox Church has believed as Ss. Basil the Great, Gregory of Nyssa, and Gregory the Theologian taught us that the two axiomatic principles in the tri-unity of the Godhead are the Monarchy of the Father and the distinction of Divine Persons.  That which unites the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are the unique Monarchy of the Father--the Father begets the Son and spirates the Holy Spirit--and the bond of the perfect communion of love that flows between the three Divine Persons.  And just as Orthodoxy understands its dogma to apply to our understanding of our salvation, so it is in this case.  We understand from our experience of what God has revealed of His tri-unity of Persons that we are to be saved as a multiplicity of human persons united by our worship of our Creator and our communion of love for one another.  Any breakdown in our theology is therefore a breakdown in our soteriology.

In the Latin triadology expressed in the phrase "as from one principle" we see almost a modalist union of the Father and the Son into what Fabio Leite has here called the Person of the Fatherson.  Instead of two distinct Persons, the Father and the Son, we see almost one Person who has revealed Himself merely as two different modes of the same Divine Person.  But do I need to explain the theological lunacies that can come of this?  Did the Father become incarnate?  Did the Father suffer and die on the Cross?  No, He did neither, and to proclaim yes to either of these questions is to proclaim heresy.  I know that no Catholic worth his/her salt will ever proclaim such preposterous falsehoods, but this is where the logic of the Florentine definition of filioque ultimately leads us.

[Wyatt]

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.

Dear PtA,

As I mull over how to proceed with this I am thinking of things that we could clear up in advance.

Do you?....Does Orthodoxy accept that the Spirit proceeds in time from both the Father and the Son?...or would I have to prove that in some way?

Proceeds in time?  I don't know that I've ever heard that theology expressed before, so I really don't know.  The Holy Spirit proceeds ontologically from the Father from all eternity, but when the fullness of time had come, the Holy Spirit proceeded from the Son as one sent on a mission and descended upon the Apostles and all the Church.  This is what I understand to be the Orthodox teaching on the different processions of the Holy Spirit.

How is that different than the Catholic teaching?

Because the Catholic teaching, as expressed in the official teaching documents of the RCC (as opposed to random internet theologians on forums), says that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the son not only in time but eternally:

"The Holy Spirit is eternally from Father and Son; He has his nature and subsistence at once (simul) from the Father and the Son. He proceeds eternally from both as from one principle and through one spiration."

This is from the Council of Florence, and is also quoted in the current Catechism of the Catholic Church to explain the Filioque.

Okay, fair enough, but how is that controversial? Christ Himself said that He and the Father are one, correct? Considering that Christ said this, it doesn't seem that far of a stretch to think that the Holy Spirit proceeds from Father and Son. Jesus even breathed on the Apostles and said "Receive ye the Holy Ghost" in the Gospels. Would He be able to do this if the Spirit proceeded from the Father alone? Would He not, rather, have to pray to the Father and ask Him to send the Holy Spirit to the Apostles?

[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.

Dear PtA,

As I mull over how to proceed with this I am thinking of things that we could clear up in advance.

Do you?....Does Orthodoxy accept that the Spirit proceeds in time from both the Father and the Son?...or would I have to prove that in some way?

Proceeds in time?  I don't know that I've ever heard that theology expressed before, so I really don't know.  The Holy Spirit proceeds ontologically from the Father from all eternity, but when the fullness of time had come, the Holy Spirit proceeded from the Son as one sent on a mission and descended upon the Apostles and all the Church.  This is what I understand to be the Orthodox teaching on the different processions of the Holy Spirit.

How is that different than the Catholic teaching?

Because the Catholic teaching, as expressed in the official teaching documents of the RCC (as opposed to random internet theologians on forums), says that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the son not only in time but eternally:

"The Holy Spirit is eternally from Father and Son; He has his nature and subsistence at once (simul) from the Father and the Son. He proceeds eternally from both as from one principle and through one spiration."

This is from the Council of Florence, and is also quoted in the current Catechism of the Catholic Church to explain the Filioque.

Okay, fair enough, but how is that controversial? Christ Himself said that He and the Father are one, correct?

But don't separate this from the Creed's statement that the Spirit and the Father are one, that the Spirit and the Son are one.  Why do you assume automatically that this statement from the Gospel implies that the Father and the Son are one in a way that excludes the Holy Spirit?

Considering that Christ said this, it doesn't seem that far of a stretch to think that the Holy Spirit proceeds from Father and Son. Jesus even breathed on the Apostles and said "Receive ye the Holy Ghost" in the Gospels. Would He be able to do this if the Spirit proceeded from the Father alone? Would He not, rather, have to pray to the Father and ask Him to send the Holy Spirit to the Apostles?

You think that procession equals possession?  Or that the Son and the Spirit would have no communication with each other if they both drew their existence solely from the Father?  Derived from our understanding of the perfect communion of love between the Divine Persons of the Trinity is our belief that God does NOTHING without the full participation and cooperation of all three Divine Persons.  EVERYTHING God does He does as a Trinity; NEVER does one of the Persons act alone, and NEVER do two of the three Persons collude to work together in separation from the third.  EVERYTHING God does He does as three Divine Persons working together in perfect cooperation.  I think we can say quite safely, then, that the Son's and the Spirit's cooperation with each other for our salvation is not at all hindered by the nature of their essential derivation from the Father.  (Assuming you have a sister:  Would you need to send message through your father that you want your sister to do something with you?  Could you not just communicate directly with your sister?  Not to imply that the Son and the Holy Spirit are siblings, but I think the analogy somewhat appropriate.)

[John Larocque]

Almost by accident I found this link. I was looking for a phrase from one Latin hymn (Tantum Ergo) but found this one instead...

http://web.me.com/thomaswindsor/Society_of_St._Bede/Qui_procedis.html

Another Internet search against the phrase "qui procedis ab utroque" (which proceeds from each of them) led to an implicit version of the same, the Athanasian Creed, which has origins in Gaul:

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/hcc3.iii.xii.xvi.html

Spiritus Sanctus a Patre et Filio: non factus; nec creatus; nec genitus (est); sed procedens.

One priest explained to me that with the Filioque, it's a lop-sided pyramid, with the Holy Ghost on the bottom, and the Father and the Son (equally) at the top.

[Jetavan]

One priest explained to me that with the Filioque, it's a lop-sided pyramid, with the Holy Ghost on the bottom, and the Father and the Son (equally) at the top.

A Roman Catholic priest said this?

[Dave in McKinney]

Was flipping through K. Ware's book last night and he explained the Catholic postion as:
 position as:
Father is the monarch; the Spirit proceeds from Him; as gift he let's the Spirit proceed from the Son

[John Larocque]

One priest explained to me that with the Filioque, it's a lop-sided pyramid, with the Holy Ghost on the bottom, and the Father and the Son (equally) at the top.

A Roman Catholic priest said this?

No! The local Antiochian one...

[Wyatt]

But don't separate this from the Creed's statement that the Spirit and the Father are one, that the Spirit and the Son are one.  Why do you assume automatically that this statement from the Gospel implies that the Father and the Son are one in a way that excludes the Holy Spirit?

I was going by Christ's words. I wasn't trying to assume anything. Just reading the text.

You think that procession equals possession?  Or that the Son and the Spirit would have no communication with each other if they both drew their existence solely from the Father?  Derived from our understanding of the perfect communion of love between the Divine Persons of the Trinity is our belief that God does NOTHING without the full participation and cooperation of all three Divine Persons.  EVERYTHING God does He does as a Trinity; NEVER does one of the Persons act alone, and NEVER do two of the three Persons collude to work together in separation from the third.  EVERYTHING God does He does as three Divine Persons working together in perfect cooperation.  I think we can say quite safely, then, that the Son's and the Spirit's cooperation with each other for our salvation is not at all hindered by the nature of their essential derivation from the Father.  (Assuming you have a sister:  Would you need to send message through your father that you want your sister to do something with you?  Could you not just communicate directly with your sister?  Not to imply that the Son and the Holy Spirit are siblings, but I think the analogy somewhat appropriate.)

If the Three Divine Persons always do everything together, then why make a distinction between them? Also, I am highly doubtful that God does EVERYTHING as a Trinity. Did the Father and Holy Spirit die on the Cross on Calvary too? Are the Father and Holy Spirit present in the Holy Eucharist along with the Son? Was Pentecost an outpouring of the Father and Son as well as the Holy Spirit?

[Fabio Leite]

To sum it up

The filioque can mean two things:

1) That the Son sends the Spirit into the world, just like the Spirit sent the Son;

2) That the Father and Son are not different in anything except being Father and Son and therefore the Spirit proceeds from both at the same time eternally.

Meaning (2) is the one implied by the 'filioque' in the context of the Creed text. Because Orthodox Catholic tradition holds (1) to be true and that (2) is false, and because the 'filioque' in the Creed can only mean (2), then the Church, along with Pope Leo III and his predecessors, refuse the insertion of the filioque in the Creed imposed by Charlesmagne as both blasphemous and illegitimate.

It is illegitimate because no king, emperor or local synod can impose dogma on the Church or alter the Symbol of Faith, specially in disregard of both the synods and the primate. In analogy to secular government, it's like a state, governor or the president changing the constitution without consultation to the congress.

It is blasphemous because:

a) it disregards and alters the direct words of our Lord Jesus Christ:

But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, {even} the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me. St. John 16:26

; Our Lord is the very author of the distinction of "proceeding of the Father" which must not include "and from the Son" and the sending of the Spirit by the Son to the word. If these things could be expressed with "filioque", the Son Himself would not have made the distinction in the sentence above;

b) Despite traditional Catholic theology that there are only two attributes in God, those that pertain to the Godhead and those that are exclusive of each person alone, it creates a third category of a trait that is shared by two and not by one;

c) With the creation of this third category, it reduced the distinction of the Father and the Son to mere words with no de facto difference than the use of different words. If it were true that there is no distinction between the Father and the Son except that one is the Father and the other is the Son, then Patripassianists would be right (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patripassianism).

[elijahmaria]

But don't separate this from the Creed's statement that the Spirit and the Father are one, that the Spirit and the Son are one.  Why do you assume automatically that this statement from the Gospel implies that the Father and the Son are one in a way that excludes the Holy Spirit?

You think that procession equals possession?  Or that the Son and the Spirit would have no communication with each other if they both drew their existence solely from the Father?  Derived from our understanding of the perfect communion of love between the Divine Persons of the Trinity is our belief that God does NOTHING without the full participation and cooperation of all three Divine Persons.  EVERYTHING God does He does as a Trinity; NEVER does one of the Persons act alone, and NEVER do two of the three Persons collude to work together in separation from the third.  EVERYTHING God does He does as three Divine Persons working together in perfect cooperation.  I think we can say quite safely, then, that the Son's and the Spirit's cooperation with each other for our salvation is not at all hindered by the nature of their essential derivation from the Father.  (Assuming you have a sister:  Would you need to send message through your father that you want your sister to do something with you?  Could you not just communicate directly with your sister?  Not to imply that the Son and the Holy Spirit are siblings, but I think the analogy somewhat appropriate.)

Never does one of the Persons act alone? 

That is the heartbeat of modalism.  One need not deny the Trinity formally in order to deny it de facto.

Can you provide corroboration for this statement and also some corroboration that the Son and Father do NOT have a relationship that is unique to themselves as Persons?

I think if you pursued this particular line of thought with an Orthodox theologian-scholar, you'd find my assessment is not too far off beam.

I expect we won't be able to settle it here...

But I am not going to accept you own assessment against our explanations of filioque unless you can provide firm and universal textual proof that:

1. Never do the Persons act alone

2. The Father does not act in the economy of time without the Son

3. That there is no unique relationship between the Father and the Son, as Persons.

Mary

[LBK]

If the Three Divine Persons always do everything together, then why make a distinction between them? Also, I am highly doubtful that God does EVERYTHING as a Trinity. Did the Father and Holy Spirit die on the Cross on Calvary too?

Patripassianism is a heresy last time I checked. God the Father, and the Holy Spirit are "spirit" beings, and were never incarnate, therefore cannot die. The Son, being man as well as God, allowed Himself, in willing obedience to His Father, to suffer and die. The actions and interactions of the Persons of the Holy Trinity need not be simultaneous. At the point of death, He asks His Father to accept His spirit.

Are the Father and Holy Spirit present in the Holy Eucharist along with the Son?

The Orthodox priestly prayers at the consecration of the Eucharist petition the Lord to "send down His Holy Spirit", with imagery in this prayer derived from the events of Pentecost, and from Psalm 50 (LXX numbering): O Lord, who at the third hour sent down Your most-holy Spirit upon Your Apostles, do not take Him from us, O Good One, but renew Him in us who pray to You. The next prayer clearly refers to the Father: And that which is in this Cup [be]the precious blood of Your Christ.
The third invocation: Changing them [the bread and wine] by Your Holy Spirit. Amen, amen, amen.

Was Pentecost an outpouring of the Father and Son as well as the Holy Spirit?

From the Vigil for Pentecost:

Come, O peoples, let us worship the Godhead in three persons, the Son in the Father, with the Holy Spirit; for the Father timelessly begat the Son, co-eternal and co-reigning, and the Holy Spirit was in the Father, glorified with the Son; one power, one essence, one Godhead, whom we all worship as we say: Holy God, who created all things through the Son, with the cooperation of the Holy Spirit. Holy Mighty, through whom we have come to know the Father, and through whom the Holy Spirit came into the world. Holy Immortal, the Advocate Spirit, who proceeds from the Father and rests in the Son. Holy Trinity, glory to You.

[Wyatt]

If the Three Divine Persons always do everything together, then why make a distinction between them? Also, I am highly doubtful that God does EVERYTHING as a Trinity. Did the Father and Holy Spirit die on the Cross on Calvary too?

Patripassianism is a heresy last time I checked. God the Father, and the Holy Spirit are "spirit" beings, and were never incarnate, therefore cannot die. The Son, being man as well as God, allowed Himself, in willing obedience to His Father, to suffer and die. The actions and interactions of the Persons of the Holy Trinity need not be simultaneous. At the point of death, He asks His Father to accept His spirit.

Exactly, which is why I cannot agree with PeterTheAleut's assertion that the Holy Trinity does everything together. The Father and Holy Spirit did not die on the cross, which would had to have happened if all Three Persons of the Trinity truly act together in everything.

[LBK]

Wyatt, acting together need not mean acting simultaneously. Cooperative behavior, even among mere mortals like ourselves, may be simultaneous (everyone in the group does the same thing at the same time), or in sequence (one person does something, which then allows another person to do something, and so on). The examples I provide are of the latter type of cooperation.

Please read my post again, it's not good form to quote someone out of context.  

[Wyatt]

Wyatt, acting together need not mean acting simultaneously. Cooperative behavior, even among mere mortals like ourselves, may be simultaneous (everyone in the group does the same thing at the same time), or in sequence (one person does something, which then allows another person to do something, and so on). The examples I provide are of the latter type of cooperation.

Please read my post again, it's not good form to quote someone out of context.  

Derived from our understanding of the perfect communion of love between the Divine Persons of the Trinity is our belief that God does NOTHING without the full participation and cooperation of all three Divine Persons.  EVERYTHING God does He does as a Trinity; NEVER does one of the Persons act alone, and NEVER do two of the three Persons collude to work together in separation from the third.

Let's take a look at Peter's quote. The part I am particularly interested in is the part I put in bold: "NEVER does one of the Persons act alone." This is false because the Son alone died on the cross, the Father and the Holy Spirit did not die, only the Son did. So the assertion that all Three Persons do everything is false. Please explain to me how I am misunderstanding this because his words seem quite clear.

[PeterTheAleut]

But don't separate this from the Creed's statement that the Spirit and the Father are one, that the Spirit and the Son are one.  Why do you assume automatically that this statement from the Gospel implies that the Father and the Son are one in a way that excludes the Holy Spirit?

I was going by Christ's words. I wasn't trying to assume anything. Just reading the text.

But even your church isn't a sola scriptura church.   Even you are taught to read the Scriptures within the context of Holy Tradition (whatever Tradition means to you).

You think that procession equals possession?  Or that the Son and the Spirit would have no communication with each other if they both drew their existence solely from the Father?  Derived from our understanding of the perfect communion of love between the Divine Persons of the Trinity is our belief that God does NOTHING without the full participation and cooperation of all three Divine Persons.  EVERYTHING God does He does as a Trinity; NEVER does one of the Persons act alone, and NEVER do two of the three Persons collude to work together in separation from the third.  EVERYTHING God does He does as three Divine Persons working together in perfect cooperation.  I think we can say quite safely, then, that the Son's and the Spirit's cooperation with each other for our salvation is not at all hindered by the nature of their essential derivation from the Father.  (Assuming you have a sister:  Would you need to send message through your father that you want your sister to do something with you?  Could you not just communicate directly with your sister?  Not to imply that the Son and the Holy Spirit are siblings, but I think the analogy somewhat appropriate.)

If the Three Divine Persons always do everything together, then why make a distinction between them?

You do realize the difference between action and actor?  Take, for instance, a soccer team.  Does the fact that eleven players each executes his own unique role to help his team win the game make them all essentially and ontologically one person?  Of course not!  They're still eleven distinct persons, each working in cooperation with his teammates as they unite to play as one team.

Also, I am highly doubtful that God does EVERYTHING as a Trinity. Did the Father and Holy Spirit die on the Cross on Calvary too? Are the Father and Holy Spirit present in the Holy Eucharist along with the Son? Was Pentecost an outpouring of the Father and Son as well as the Holy Spirit?

Just to say that God does EVERYTHING as Trinity doesn't mean that all three Persons engage in the same act in exactly the same way.  For instance, the manifestation of the Holy Trinity at the baptism of Christ in the Jordan:  The Son was baptized, the Father spoke, and the Holy Spirit descended in the form of a dove.  In this way did all three Persons of the Holy Trinity participate in the baptism of Christ--the Father and the Holy Spirit weren't baptized themselves, but they participated in the baptism of the Son.  Likewise do we think of the Crucifixion.  Only the Son was crucified, but the Father caused the sky to turn black and the Holy Spirit gave the Son the strength to endure the agony.  In everything God does, each of the three Divine Persons acts in His own way, but all three participate actively in perfect cooperation.

Regarding the Holy Eucharist, I'll make a side point from the prayers of epiclesis in the Divine Liturgy:  The Divine Liturgy is performed fundamentally to bring glory to the Father, the Son is present in His Body and Blood, which is made Body and Blood of Christ by the action of the Holy Spirit.  Again, all three Persons participate in the Eucharist, even if the Body and Blood are merely that of the Son Jesus Christ.

[PeterTheAleut]

But don't separate this from the Creed's statement that the Spirit and the Father are one, that the Spirit and the Son are one.  Why do you assume automatically that this statement from the Gospel implies that the Father and the Son are one in a way that excludes the Holy Spirit?

You think that procession equals possession?  Or that the Son and the Spirit would have no communication with each other if they both drew their existence solely from the Father?  Derived from our understanding of the perfect communion of love between the Divine Persons of the Trinity is our belief that God does NOTHING without the full participation and cooperation of all three Divine Persons.  EVERYTHING God does He does as a Trinity; NEVER does one of the Persons act alone, and NEVER do two of the three Persons collude to work together in separation from the third.  EVERYTHING God does He does as three Divine Persons working together in perfect cooperation.  I think we can say quite safely, then, that the Son's and the Spirit's cooperation with each other for our salvation is not at all hindered by the nature of their essential derivation from the Father.  (Assuming you have a sister:  Would you need to send message through your father that you want your sister to do something with you?  Could you not just communicate directly with your sister?  Not to imply that the Son and the Holy Spirit are siblings, but I think the analogy somewhat appropriate.)

Never does one of the Persons act alone? 

That is the heartbeat of modalism.  One need not deny the Trinity formally in order to deny it de facto.

Can you provide corroboration for this statement and also some corroboration that the Son and Father do NOT have a relationship that is unique to themselves as Persons?

I think if you pursued this particular line of thought with an Orthodox theologian-scholar, you'd find my assessment is not too far off beam.

I expect we won't be able to settle it here...

But I am not going to accept you own assessment against our explanations of filioque unless you can provide firm and universal textual proof that:

1. Never do the Persons act alone

2. The Father does not act in the economy of time without the Son

3. That there is no unique relationship between the Father and the Son, as Persons.

Mary

Why should I give you the information you want from me?  You never give us the same when we ask it of you.

[elijahmaria]

If the Three Divine Persons always do everything together, then why make a distinction between them? Also, I am highly doubtful that God does EVERYTHING as a Trinity. Did the Father and Holy Spirit die on the Cross on Calvary too?

Patripassianism is a heresy last time I checked. God the Father, and the Holy Spirit are "spirit" beings, and were never incarnate, therefore cannot die. The Son, being man as well as God, allowed Himself, in willing obedience to His Father, to suffer and die. The actions and interactions of the Persons of the Holy Trinity need not be simultaneous. At the point of death, He asks His Father to accept His spirit.

Did the Divine Person die?  Or did the body of the Incarnate die? 

PtA was talking about the Divine Persons never acting alone.

Also your other quotes do not constitute what PtA was saying and so are not at all sufficient corroboration.

I want some kind of formal Orthodox corroboration of PtA's assertions. 

If it takes time, that's fine.  I am still putting things together myself.

M.

[elijahmaria]

Wyatt, acting together need not mean acting simultaneously. Cooperative behavior, even among mere mortals like ourselves, may be simultaneous (everyone in the group does the same thing at the same time), or in sequence (one person does something, which then allows another person to do something, and so on). The examples I provide are of the latter type of cooperation.

Please read my post again, it's not good form to quote someone out of context.  

Aside from the fact that cooperating together is not at all the same thing as never acting alone...

Could you please explain what "cooperating" together means in terms of the Trinity?

Did the Holy Spirit "cooperate" with the Father in Begetting the Son...mindful that the Son was eternally begotten before all ages?

Does this mean that the Father needed the Spirit's help?  Is the Spirit then some sort of secondary source for the Son?

Or did the Father simply need the approval of the Spirit to Beget the Son?

Or did the Father use the Spirit to Beget the Son making the Spirit an integral part of the anima of the Son?

What are you talking about here...precisely?

M.

[PeterTheAleut]

Wyatt, acting together need not mean acting simultaneously. Cooperative behavior, even among mere mortals like ourselves, may be simultaneous (everyone in the group does the same thing at the same time), or in sequence (one person does something, which then allows another person to do something, and so on). The examples I provide are of the latter type of cooperation.

Please read my post again, it's not good form to quote someone out of context.  

Aside from the fact that cooperating together is not at all the same thing as never acting alone...

Could you please explain what "cooperating" together means in terms of the Trinity?

Did the Holy Spirit "cooperate" with the Father in Begetting the Son...mindful that the Son was eternally begotten before all ages?

Does this mean that the Father needed the Spirit's help?  Is the Spirit then some sort of secondary source for the Son?

Or did the Father simply need the approval of the Spirit to Beget the Son?

Or did the Father use the Spirit to Beget the Son making the Spirit an integral part of the anima of the Son?

What are you talking about here...precisely?

M.

Is the Father's begetting of the Son an action of the will or an outflowing of His fundamental Essence?  When I speak of cooperation in the Holy Trinity, I speak solely of actions of the will.

[elijahmaria]

Wyatt, acting together need not mean acting simultaneously. Cooperative behavior, even among mere mortals like ourselves, may be simultaneous (everyone in the group does the same thing at the same time), or in sequence (one person does something, which then allows another person to do something, and so on). The examples I provide are of the latter type of cooperation.

Please read my post again, it's not good form to quote someone out of context.  

Aside from the fact that cooperating together is not at all the same thing as never acting alone...

Could you please explain what "cooperating" together means in terms of the Trinity?

Did the Holy Spirit "cooperate" with the Father in Begetting the Son...mindful that the Son was eternally begotten before all ages?

Does this mean that the Father needed the Spirit's help?  Is the Spirit then some sort of secondary source for the Son?

Or did the Father simply need the approval of the Spirit to Beget the Son?

Or did the Father use the Spirit to Beget the Son making the Spirit an integral part of the anima of the Son?

What are you talking about here...precisely?

M.

Is the Father's begetting of the Son an action of the will or an outflowing of His fundamental Essence?  When I speak of cooperation in the Holy Trinity, I speak solely of actions of the will.

The difficulty with this is that the Father Begets the Son as a Person...not as some divine fundament...The Son is Begotten of the Father...The Second Person is Begotten of the First Person, if you will.  It is a personal act, not a super essential act.

M.

M.

[PeterTheAleut]

Wyatt, acting together need not mean acting simultaneously. Cooperative behavior, even among mere mortals like ourselves, may be simultaneous (everyone in the group does the same thing at the same time), or in sequence (one person does something, which then allows another person to do something, and so on). The examples I provide are of the latter type of cooperation.

Please read my post again, it's not good form to quote someone out of context.  

Aside from the fact that cooperating together is not at all the same thing as never acting alone...

Could you please explain what "cooperating" together means in terms of the Trinity?

Did the Holy Spirit "cooperate" with the Father in Begetting the Son...mindful that the Son was eternally begotten before all ages?

Does this mean that the Father needed the Spirit's help?  Is the Spirit then some sort of secondary source for the Son?

Or did the Father simply need the approval of the Spirit to Beget the Son?

Or did the Father use the Spirit to Beget the Son making the Spirit an integral part of the anima of the Son?

What are you talking about here...precisely?

M.

Is the Father's begetting of the Son an action of the will or an outflowing of His fundamental Essence?  When I speak of cooperation in the Holy Trinity, I speak solely of actions of the will.

The difficulty with this is that the Father Begets the Son as a Person...not as some divine fundament...The Son is Begotten of the Father...The Second Person is Begotten of the First Person, if you will.  It is a personal act, not a super essential act.

It's not even an act.

[Fabio Leite]

And yet another thing. The Son has two natures. He is both God and Human.

If the Spirit proceeded from the Son, would the whole Son - God-Man - make the procession, or just part of Him? And if it's only the Divine nature that participates in that, how is it possible that just half a person is the subject of anything?

[elijahmaria]

Wyatt, acting together need not mean acting simultaneously. Cooperative behavior, even among mere mortals like ourselves, may be simultaneous (everyone in the group does the same thing at the same time), or in sequence (one person does something, which then allows another person to do something, and so on). The examples I provide are of the latter type of cooperation.

Please read my post again, it's not good form to quote someone out of context.  

Aside from the fact that cooperating together is not at all the same thing as never acting alone...

Could you please explain what "cooperating" together means in terms of the Trinity?

Did the Holy Spirit "cooperate" with the Father in Begetting the Son...mindful that the Son was eternally begotten before all ages?

Does this mean that the Father needed the Spirit's help?  Is the Spirit then some sort of secondary source for the Son?

Or did the Father simply need the approval of the Spirit to Beget the Son?

Or did the Father use the Spirit to Beget the Son making the Spirit an integral part of the anima of the Son?

What are you talking about here...precisely?

M.

Is the Father's begetting of the Son an action of the will or an outflowing of His fundamental Essence?  When I speak of cooperation in the Holy Trinity, I speak solely of actions of the will.

The difficulty with this is that the Father Begets the Son as a Person...not as some divine fundament...The Son is Begotten of the Father...The Second Person is Begotten of the First Person, if you will.  It is a personal act, not a super essential act.

It's not even an act.

True.  It is a part of the nature of the Person and that is why the divine will is always associated directly to the divine nature of the Trinity.

So even at that you're still in some difficulty with your explanation of Begetting, Begotten and Processing as an outflowing of the Divine Essence, because the Persons subsist in the Divine Essence.

Personhood in the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is part of the Divine Nature which is also the locus of the Divine Will.

[PeterTheAleut]

Wyatt, acting together need not mean acting simultaneously. Cooperative behavior, even among mere mortals like ourselves, may be simultaneous (everyone in the group does the same thing at the same time), or in sequence (one person does something, which then allows another person to do something, and so on). The examples I provide are of the latter type of cooperation.

Please read my post again, it's not good form to quote someone out of context.  

Aside from the fact that cooperating together is not at all the same thing as never acting alone...

Could you please explain what "cooperating" together means in terms of the Trinity?

Did the Holy Spirit "cooperate" with the Father in Begetting the Son...mindful that the Son was eternally begotten before all ages?

Does this mean that the Father needed the Spirit's help?  Is the Spirit then some sort of secondary source for the Son?

Or did the Father simply need the approval of the Spirit to Beget the Son?

Or did the Father use the Spirit to Beget the Son making the Spirit an integral part of the anima of the Son?

What are you talking about here...precisely?

M.

Is the Father's begetting of the Son an action of the will or an outflowing of His fundamental Essence?  When I speak of cooperation in the Holy Trinity, I speak solely of actions of the will.

The difficulty with this is that the Father Begets the Son as a Person...not as some divine fundament...The Son is Begotten of the Father...The Second Person is Begotten of the First Person, if you will.  It is a personal act, not a super essential act.

It's not even an act.

True.  It is a part of the nature of the Person and that is why the divine will is always associated directly to the divine nature of the Trinity.

So even at that you're still in some difficulty with your explanation of Begetting, Begotten and Processing as an outflowing of the Divine Essence, because the Persons subsist in the Divine Essence.

Sorry to confuse you.  When I spoke of the Son being begotten of the fundamental essence of the Father, I intended that to be understood as a statement that the Son is begotten of the Father as an outflowing of the Father's personal essence as Father, NOT as an outflowing of the Essence the Father shares with the Son and the Holy Spirit.  My ultimate goal, though, was to counter what I read as an insinuation that the Son is begotten of the Father as an act of the Father's will.  It is not the will of the Father to beget the Son; rather, it is of the very nature of the Father to beget the Son.

[elijahmaria]

Wyatt, acting together need not mean acting simultaneously. Cooperative behavior, even among mere mortals like ourselves, may be simultaneous (everyone in the group does the same thing at the same time), or in sequence (one person does something, which then allows another person to do something, and so on). The examples I provide are of the latter type of cooperation.

Please read my post again, it's not good form to quote someone out of context.  

Aside from the fact that cooperating together is not at all the same thing as never acting alone...

Could you please explain what "cooperating" together means in terms of the Trinity?

Did the Holy Spirit "cooperate" with the Father in Begetting the Son...mindful that the Son was eternally begotten before all ages?

Does this mean that the Father needed the Spirit's help?  Is the Spirit then some sort of secondary source for the Son?

Or did the Father simply need the approval of the Spirit to Beget the Son?

Or did the Father use the Spirit to Beget the Son making the Spirit an integral part of the anima of the Son?

What are you talking about here...precisely?

M.

Is the Father's begetting of the Son an action of the will or an outflowing of His fundamental Essence?  When I speak of cooperation in the Holy Trinity, I speak solely of actions of the will.

The difficulty with this is that the Father Begets the Son as a Person...not as some divine fundament...The Son is Begotten of the Father...The Second Person is Begotten of the First Person, if you will.  It is a personal act, not a super essential act.

It's not even an act.

True.  It is a part of the nature of the Person and that is why the divine will is always associated directly to the divine nature of the Trinity.

So even at that you're still in some difficulty with your explanation of Begetting, Begotten and Processing as an outflowing of the Divine Essence, because the Persons subsist in the Divine Essence.

Sorry to confuse you.  When I spoke of the Son being begotten of the fundamental essence of the Father, I intended that to be understood as a statement that the Son is begotten of the Father as an outflowing of the Father's personal essence as Father, NOT as an outflowing of the Essence the Father shares with the Son and the Holy Spirit.  My ultimate goal, though, was to counter what I read as an insinuation that the Son is begotten of the Father as an act of the Father's will.  It is not the will of the Father to beget the Son; rather, it is of the very nature of the Father to beget the Son.

We are still on the same page then.  I got sloppy, and I am trying to stay as far away from formal language as possible so it is easy to lapse once we step outside the formulas. 

Same thing happens if we try to speak of Personal essences.  It is all the same essence but the nature changes from person to person.  As you have also said, it is in the natural estate of the Father to Beget the Son, who then is distinguished by the natural estate of being Begotten.

I think that creates a great deal of confusion on occasion.  Not here perhaps but it is worth noting, in general, I think.

But then, everything that does not serve to distinguish the Father properly belongs to the Son including the power to Create from nothing.   Scripture does indeed isolate this relationship between the Father and the Son in an especial relationship.   The Holy Spirit in his natural estate of being processed and spirated has a role of course, but that does not negate the particular relationship of Father and Son in the history of Creation, in the history of Salvation.

Rublev's icon of the Trinity serves this all quite beautifully.  And it is in this icon, I believe that one sees most clearly, visually that the Father and the Son have a unique relationship.   I was always struck by the perfect humility portrayed by the figure of the Holy Spirit with head and eyes cast down and figure gently resting.   There is something solid and steady in the figure of the Father.   But the Son is full of movement with eyes cast directly upon the Father and the figure almost leaning into the Father in a great outpouring of loving and self-giving. 

The eye is drawn from the center to the left and one almost has to force the eye to move and to rest upon the figure of the Holy Spirit.  The dynamism of the icon is in the Father and the Son with the figure of the Spirit resting between them.   Powerful.

Mary

[elijahmaria]

Wyatt, acting together need not mean acting simultaneously. Cooperative behavior, even among mere mortals like ourselves, may be simultaneous (everyone in the group does the same thing at the same time), or in sequence (one person does something, which then allows another person to do something, and so on). The examples I provide are of the latter type of cooperation.

Please read my post again, it's not good form to quote someone out of context.  

Aside from the fact that cooperating together is not at all the same thing as never acting alone...

Could you please explain what "cooperating" together means in terms of the Trinity?

Did the Holy Spirit "cooperate" with the Father in Begetting the Son...mindful that the Son was eternally begotten before all ages?

Does this mean that the Father needed the Spirit's help?  Is the Spirit then some sort of secondary source for the Son?

Or did the Father simply need the approval of the Spirit to Beget the Son?

Or did the Father use the Spirit to Beget the Son making the Spirit an integral part of the anima of the Son?

What are you talking about here...precisely?

M.

Is the Father's begetting of the Son an action of the will or an outflowing of His fundamental Essence?  When I speak of cooperation in the Holy Trinity, I speak solely of actions of the will.

The difficulty with this is that the Father Begets the Son as a Person...not as some divine fundament...The Son is Begotten of the Father...The Second Person is Begotten of the First Person, if you will.  It is a personal act, not a super essential act.

It's not even an act.

True.  It is a part of the nature of the Person and that is why the divine will is always associated directly to the divine nature of the Trinity.

So even at that you're still in some difficulty with your explanation of Begetting, Begotten and Processing as an outflowing of the Divine Essence, because the Persons subsist in the Divine Essence.

Sorry to confuse you.  When I spoke of the Son being begotten of the fundamental essence of the Father, I intended that to be understood as a statement that the Son is begotten of the Father as an outflowing of the Father's personal essence as Father, NOT as an outflowing of the Essence the Father shares with the Son and the Holy Spirit.  My ultimate goal, though, was to counter what I read as an insinuation that the Son is begotten of the Father as an act of the Father's will.  It is not the will of the Father to beget the Son; rather, it is of the very nature of the Father to beget the Son.

We are still on the same page then.  I got sloppy, and I am trying to stay as far away from formal language as possible so it is easy to lapse once we step outside the formulas. 

Same thing happens if we try to speak of Personal essences.  It is all the same essence but the nature changes from person to person.  As you have also said, it is in the natural estate of the Father to Beget the Son, who then is distinguished by the natural estate of being Begotten.

I think that creates a great deal of confusion on occasion.  Not here perhaps but it is worth noting, in general, I think.

But then, everything that does not serve to distinguish the Father properly belongs to the Son including the power to Create from nothing.   Scripture does indeed isolate this relationship between the Father and the Son in an especial relationship.   The Holy Spirit in his natural estate of being processed and spirated has a role of course, but that does not negate the particular relationship of Father and Son in the history of Creation, in the history of Salvation.

Rublev's icon of the Trinity serves this all quite beautifully.  And it is in this icon, I believe that one sees most clearly, visually that the Father and the Son have a unique relationship.   I was always struck by the perfect humility portrayed by the figure of the Holy Spirit with head and eyes cast down and figure gently resting.   There is something solid and steady in the figure of the Father.   But the Son is full of movement with eyes cast directly upon the Father and the figure almost leaning into the Father in a great outpouring of loving and self-giving. 

The eye is drawn from the center to the left and one almost has to force the eye to move and to rest upon the figure of the Holy Spirit.  The dynamism of the icon is in the Father and the Son with the figure of the Spirit resting between them.   Powerful.

Mary

I am going to jump ahead a bit because it is on my mind and I don't want to loose it...the thought, not my mind....the mind went years ago!!

I think in simplest terms one might say that the Spirit must process from the Son eternally for much the same reason that the Son must be eternally Begotten from the Father, rather than simply Begotten in time from the time of the Annunciation. 

And so then the Spirit is eternally Processed or Spirated by the Father and the Son, and also in time by the Father and the Son.  These are characteristics of the estates of the divine Nature, not the Essence, and actually protect against confusion about the full Personhood of the Holy Spirit.

If one remembers, and one must remember, that the term process in Latin is not generative but descriptive of a directed movement.  There are other ways the Latins have of indicating the authorship of the Father with respect to the Holy Spirit.  And they do that in addition to speaking of the procession of the Holy Spirit.

There was one other thing but my real life intervened and its been hours since I started this note and I cannot remember the last comment.  It will come back to me eventually.

M.

[PeterTheAleut]

If one remembers, and one must remember, that the term process in Latin is not generative but descriptive of a directed movement.  There are other ways the Latins have of indicating the authorship of the Father with respect to the Holy Spirit.  And they do that in addition to speaking of the procession of the Holy Spirit.

Did St. Basil the Great speak Latin?  Did his brother Gregory?

[elijahmaria]

If one remembers, and one must remember, that the term process in Latin is not generative but descriptive of a directed movement.  There are other ways the Latins have of indicating the authorship of the Father with respect to the Holy Spirit.  And they do that in addition to speaking of the procession of the Holy Spirit.

Did St. Basil the Great speak Latin?  Did his brother Gregory?

Why do you ask?

Are you stating that the truth of revelation can only be told in Greek?

That would include liturgy, I presume.

M.

[android]

At the most basic level, Filioque is indefensible because, according to the Synods, nothing can be added to the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed.

That said, since the 12th century, Latin theology has tried to justify its insertion for reasons other than were used when it was erroneously inserted in the first place in 6th century Spain. To give it up would be to admit they were wrong.

Yahtzee.

And the bits (from Papist, I believe) about the EO not "accepting the Latin Fathers" and "other" counsels (read- their (RC) counsels which were not ecumenical) are beyond disengenuous.  Yes, we ask that you accept common points of intersection back to a point where there was unity, in the name of unity, and you merely ask that EO do, in effect, the opposite.

And the christological reasons are very clear in light of the distinction between nature and persons, which filioque conflates.  The Creed was originally crafted as it was for a reason. At least as a matter of resolving theological impasse (I think it's safe to say we are there, after a millenium), that seems reasonable (w/o the potential for error).

At a minimum, it seems like it is more problematic for a RC to allege the original Creed as "erroneous", even if it is somehow "incomplete" and some concept of filioque could be fleshed out by reexamining the Fathers-- in effect, acknowledge that the Creed (w/o filioque) is correct, and that any concepts hinted at by filioque can be up for discussion, but w/o altering the Creed or asserting that the word/phrase "filioque" somehow adequately explains such a complcated concept that relies on such precise distinctions.

Yet, it is pride, plain and simple. This is further confirmed by the fact that I believe that RC would gladly give up filioque as a pet teaching (along with immaculate conception, among others) if the EO would give on Papal Supremacy and the related authority issues.  It is ALL about authority, and therefore, pride.

[Wyatt]

Yet, it is pride, plain and simple. This is further confirmed by the fact that I believe that RC would gladly give up filioque as a pet teaching (along with immaculate conception, among others) if the EO would give on Papal Supremacy and the related authority issues.  It is ALL about authority, and therefore, pride.

One could also argue that refusal to submit to authority is prideful.

[PeterTheAleut]

If one remembers, and one must remember, that the term process in Latin is not generative but descriptive of a directed movement.  There are other ways the Latins have of indicating the authorship of the Father with respect to the Holy Spirit.  And they do that in addition to speaking of the procession of the Holy Spirit.

Did St. Basil the Great speak Latin?  Did his brother Gregory?

Why do you ask?

Are you stating that the truth of revelation can only be told in Greek?

No, I'm not suggesting that the truth can only be told in Greek.  What I am suggesting is this:  The Cappadocian Fathers who gave us the foundation for the triadology we express in the Creed defined the concept of procession in Greek.  The Latin fathers who developed your understanding of the Trinity are certainly free to take the faith of the Ss. Basil, Gregory, and Gregory, the faith of the Creed, and translate it to Latin.  However, such translation needs to be consistent with the definitions of key concepts as they were articulated in their original Greek language.  Specifically, the translators are not permitted to redefine terms to fit their own deviant theology.

[elijahmaria]

If one remembers, and one must remember, that the term process in Latin is not generative but descriptive of a directed movement.  There are other ways the Latins have of indicating the authorship of the Father with respect to the Holy Spirit.  And they do that in addition to speaking of the procession of the Holy Spirit.

Did St. Basil the Great speak Latin?  Did his brother Gregory?

Why do you ask?

Are you stating that the truth of revelation can only be told in Greek?

No, I'm not suggesting that the truth can only be told in Greek.  What I am suggesting is this:  The Cappadocian Fathers who gave us the foundation for the triadology we express in the Creed defined the concept of procession in Greek.  The Latin fathers who developed your understanding of the Trinity are certainly free to take the faith of the Ss. Basil, Gregory, and Gregory, the faith of the Creed, and translate it to Latin.  However, such translation needs to be consistent with the definitions of key concepts as they were articulated in their original Greek language.  Specifically, the translators are not permitted to redefine terms to fit their own deviant theology.

Sure am glad nobody took that position on Trinity and Incarnation!!

Surely the Latins did not think the teaching of filioque was deviant.  Certainly they understood the Greek teaching and knew it was embedded in filioque along with the secondary understanding.  Is it a fault when the Greek word could only express one meaning but the same word in Latin could be understood in two ways, each one appropriate to the Person in question?

Very few Orthodox theologian-scholars today deny that the fathers denied filioque when it was understood in its proper formal meaning.

Are you going to tell me that nothing was ever added to or dropped from the N-C Creed ever?

I hope you are not going to tell me that.

M.

[vasily]

 Glory to Jesus Christ,

 The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and  is sent into the world by the Son.(John 15,26) Two functions: the procession and the mission. Each person of the Holy Trinity has His own characteristics. The Father is "unbegotten".  Christ is "begotten". He is born eternally from the Father. The Holy Spirit "proceeds" eternally from the Father. The verb "proceeds" is in the present tense and expresses the eternal continuous procession of the Holy Spirit. This procession is something which happens within and for the Holy Trinity.

 The verb "shall send" is in the future. It expresses something that will happen in the future. The mission is something which happens within the Holy Trinity, it does not happen for the Holy Trinity but for the world.

 In the "procession' the 'centre' is the Father, in the "mission" it is the Son. The procession happens outside of time, the mission happened within time.

 The ancient Orthodox teaching of the personal attributes of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, was distorted in the Latin Church by the creation of a teaching of the procession, outside of time and from all eternity. The filioque is confuses the "procession" with the "mission" or is closing its eyes to the difference. By introducing this new dogma the Roman Church violated the decree of the Seven Ecumenical Councils, which forbade the introduction of any kind of  change into the Nicaean Symbol of Faith.. They have performed a serious canonical violation.

[Master]

ughh this annoys me. it is obvious from scripture... the holy spirit proceeds fromt he father BUT may be sent by either the father or the son as it is evident in john 15:26.

the Orthodox are always right -.-

[ialmisry]

Yet, it is pride, plain and simple. This is further confirmed by the fact that I believe that RC would gladly give up filioque as a pet teaching (along with immaculate conception, among others) if the EO would give on Papal Supremacy and the related authority issues.  It is ALL about authority, and therefore, pride.

One could also argue that refusal to submit to authority is prideful.

Not to heretical authority.  The Fathers did gather in Ecumenical Council and play "Let's make a deal."

[Wyatt]

Yet, it is pride, plain and simple. This is further confirmed by the fact that I believe that RC would gladly give up filioque as a pet teaching (along with immaculate conception, among others) if the EO would give on Papal Supremacy and the related authority issues.  It is ALL about authority, and therefore, pride.

One could also argue that refusal to submit to authority is prideful.

Not to heretical authority.  The Fathers did gather in Ecumenical Council and play "Let's make a deal."

Yeah, although schismatics can't hold Ecumenical Councils so I am not sure what your point is now. Oh, and I see you still have not put "Catholic" under faith on your profile. If you belong to the "Catholic Church" then that makes you "Catholic" so what's the hold up? Why won't you refer to yourself as "Catholic."

[ialmisry]

Yet, it is pride, plain and simple. This is further confirmed by the fact that I believe that RC would gladly give up filioque as a pet teaching (along with immaculate conception, among others) if the EO would give on Papal Supremacy and the related authority issues.  It is ALL about authority, and therefore, pride.

One could also argue that refusal to submit to authority is prideful.

Not to heretical authority.  The Fathers did not gather in Ecumenical Council and play "Let's make a deal."

Yeah, although schismatics can't hold Ecumenical Councils so I am not sure what your point is now.

Hasn't stopped you supreme pontiff from gathering schismtics into a council and calling it "ecumenical," nor from using said "councils" to set his seal upon the heretical ravings of a local council off on the periphery of Christendom.

Oh, and I see you still have not put "Catholic" under faith on your profile. If you belong to the "Catholic Church" then that makes you "Catholic" so what's the hold up? Why won't you refer to yourself as "Catholic."

Not jumping through the hoops of your supreme pontiff, what makes you think I'll jump for you?

I just define my Faith and my Church as the Fathers in Ecumenical Council defined them-the Arab just defines me.  I know that doesn't suit either your Roman pontiff or yourself, since you "know" better than they, and can redefine things "better,"  but I'm going to stick with them: anaa jaami'ii.

[elijahmaria]

Yet, it is pride, plain and simple. This is further confirmed by the fact that I believe that RC would gladly give up filioque as a pet teaching (along with immaculate conception, among others) if the EO would give on Papal Supremacy and the related authority issues.  It is ALL about authority, and therefore, pride.

One could also argue that refusal to submit to authority is prideful.

Not to heretical authority.  The Fathers did gather in Ecumenical Council and play "Let's make a deal."

Yeah, although schismatics can't hold Ecumenical Councils so I am not sure what your point is now. Oh, and I see you still have not put "Catholic" under faith on your profile. If you belong to the "Catholic Church" then that makes you "Catholic" so what's the hold up? Why won't you refer to yourself as "Catholic."

Because sauce for the goose, appears not to be sauce for the gander...