"As From One Principle"

[dcointin]

I have read that the Catholic faith teaches that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son “as from one principle”. For example, the Catechism of Trent states:

“With regard to the words immediately succeeding: who proceedeth from the Father and the Son, the faithful are to be taught that the Holy Ghost proceeds by an eternal procession from the Father and the Son, as from one principle. This truth is proposed for our belief by the Creed of the Church, from which no Christian may depart, and is confirmed by the authority of the Sacred Scriptures and of Councils.”

cin.org/users/james/ebooks/master/trent/tcreed08.htm

My question is: what does “as from one principle” mean? Does it mean “as if he proceeded from both as from one person”? What does “principle” mean in this context? Any elaboration on this topic would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!

 

[SonCatcher]

I have read that the Catholic faith teaches that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son “as from one principle”. For example, the Catechism of Trent states:

“With regard to the words immediately succeeding: who proceedeth from the Father and the Son, the faithful are to be taught that the Holy Ghost proceeds by an eternal procession from the Father and the Son, as from one principle. This truth is proposed for our belief by the Creed of the Church, from which no Christian may depart, and is confirmed by the authority of the Sacred Scriptures and of Councils.”

cin.org/users/james/ebooks/master/trent/tcreed08.htm

My question is: what does “as from one principle” mean? Does it mean “as if he proceeded from both as from one person”? What does “principle” mean in this context? Any elaboration on this topic would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!

Essentially, that is correct. As though the Holy Spirit proceeded from one person. The phrasing is carefully worded to minimize cause for debate in the different forms of the Nicene Creed. This has been an unfortunate banner for polemic debate between the Catholic and Orthodox churches since long before the Great Schism.

I earnestly pray it will end.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother SonCatcher,

Essentially, that is correct. As though the Holy Spirit proceeded from one person. The phrasing is carefully worded to minimize cause for debate in the different forms of the Nicene Creed. This has been an unfortunate banner for polemic debate between the Catholic and Orthodox churches since long before the Great Schism.

Your interpretation is the very thing that Orthodox (whether in or out of communion with Rome) fear about the Latin teaching on the Procession. To say “as though the Holy Spirit proceeded from one Person” is tantamount to the heresy of modalism.

I would say your understanding is incorrect.

Brother Ghosty explained it very well a long time ago, an explanation based on St. John Damascene’s own Trinitarian theology. If he does not come here (I mean brother Ghosty, not the Damascene ) and explain within 2 or 3 days, I will have a go at it.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Ghosty]

I’m here, and I’ll be happy to explain it.

“From one principle” definitely doesn’t mean “as from one Person”, though it is meant to eliminate the idea that He proceeds “as if by two People”.

Confused yet? It’s actually rather simple. Imagine you have a spring of water, a river flowing from that spring, and a lake being filled by that river. The lake has a single principle, because there is only one flow of water filling it, but there are two distinct things accounted for by the term “principle”, namely the river and the spring. The lake, river, and spring are consubstantial (they are all the same water), and the lake comes from a single principle (the flow of water from the river), and from one source (the spring). The “one principle” is not identical with the “source” because the “principle” in this case refers to the river and spring together as they share a single flow, while “source” can only be applied to the spring alone since all the water in question originates with it.

This is what is meant by the filioque, and it is actually entirely consistent with the writings of the Eastern Fathers. In fact, the illustration is from St. John of Damascus about the procession of the Holy Spirit.

Hope that helps!

Peace and God bless!

 

[SonCatcher]

Marduk,

Certainly not modalism. I was merely confirming that dcointin’s interpretation of the statement was essentially correct (it would likely take volumes to produce a complete statement, however).

How can we understand the whole mystery of the Holy Trinity at all? What I have learned of both the Eastern and Western understandings of this doctrine have thus far enlightened me in different ways. The more I learn, the farther I am from debate, actually.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Soncatcher,

Certainly not modalism. I was merely confirming that dcointin’s interpretation of the statement was essentially correct (it would likely take volumes to produce a complete statement, however)

Thanks for explaining. Sorry for assuming your personal position was modalist.

I don’t think brother Dcointin’s interpretation is really his interpretation. He was just asking a question. In any case, to equate “as from one principle” to “as from one Person” is indeed modalism. As brother Ghosty affirmed, they do not mean the same thing.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[SonCatcher]

Dear brother Soncatcher,

Thanks for explaining. Sorry for assuming your personal position was modalist.

I don’t think brother Dcointin’s interpretation is really his interpretation. He was just asking a question. In any case, to equate “as from one principle” to “as from one Person” is indeed modalism. As brother Ghosty affirmed, they do not mean the same thing.

Blessings,
Marduk

And that kind of misunderstanding, sadly, is the cause of much polemic debate.

Yes, I am familiar with Ghosty’s analogue (it seems much more satisfying to me than the egg one). Thank you, Ghosty, for expressing it.

I am curious, though, why so much attention isn’t paid to the Son being “conceived by the Holy Spirit.” Does it seem appropriate to say that the Son and the Holy Spirit each had some role in sending the other to us?

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Ghosty,

Thank you so much for responding so quickly! I also really like the same St. John Damascene’s explanation of the Trinity in terms of the torches:

The Trinity is to be likened to a torch, passing its flame to a second torch, and the second torch passing its flame to a third torch. The analogy is obvious - the first torch is the Father, the second torch is the Son, and the third torch is the Holy Spirit. They all share the same essence, while being distinct. This all happens in the moment of Eternity, so there is no passing of time involved in this Procession.

This is exactly what the filioque teaches.

I would also add that the statement “as from one principle” defends the Arche of the Father. The principle, as the examples of St. John Damascene indicate, has only ONE Source - the Father. The Son shares in the principle, but is not Himself the Source of the principle, of the Procession.

Blessings,
Marduk

I’m here, and I’ll be happy to explain it.

“From one principle” definitely doesn’t mean “as from one Person”, though it is meant to eliminate the idea that He proceeds “as if by two People”.

Confused yet? It’s actually rather simple. Imagine you have a spring of water, a river flowing from that spring, and a lake being filled by that river. The lake has a single principle, because there is only one flow of water filling it, but there are two distinct things accounted for by the term “principle”, namely the river and the spring. The lake, river, and spring are consubstantial (they are all the same water), and the lake comes from a single principle (the flow of water from the river), and from one source (the spring). The “one principle” is not identical with the “source” because the “principle” in this case refers to the river and spring together as they share a single flow, while “source” can only be applied to the spring alone since all the water in question originates with it.

This is what is meant by the filioque, and it is actually entirely consistent with the writings of the Eastern Fathers. In fact, the illustration is from St. John of Damascus about the procession of the Holy Spirit.

Hope that helps!

Peace and God bless!

 

[dcointin]

Very interesting analogies, thank you both! Where can I find this explanation by St. John of Damascus online?

 

[Vico]

Very interesting analogies, thank you both! Where can I find this explanation by St. John of Damascus online?

See BOOK I CHAPTER XII Concerning the Same.

orthodox.net/fathers/exactidx.html

Also interesting:

catholicpatristics.blogspot.com/

From Council of Florence (1439): DS 1300-1301, see COUNCIL OF FLORENCE 1438-1445 here (old numbering 691):

catecheticsonline.com/SourcesofDogma7.php

clerus.org/bibliaclerusonline/en/dft.htm

See SESSION 6 6 July 1439
papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecum17.htm

 

[Ghosty]

Very interesting analogies, thank you both! Where can I find this explanation by St. John of Damascus online?

Here’s a source for it: the OrthodoxWiki. He also uses the root/branch/fruit analogy, and one regarding the sun. In each case you can see that the Holy Spirit is most definitely “from the Son” in a certain sense, but never with the Son as the Source. The Son and the Father are united in bringing forth the Holy Spirit, hence “one principle”, yet the Son is always simply passing along what He has received from the Father (who is the sole Source).

That is how the “filioque” is defined by the Catholic Church, as can be seen by the Council of Florence:

The Latins asserted that they say the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son not with the intention of excluding the Father from being the source and principle of all deity, that is of the Son and of the holy Spirit, nor to imply that the Son does not receive from the Father, because the holy Spirit proceeds from the Son, nor that they posit two principles or two spirations; but they assert that there is only one principle and a single spiration of the holy Spirit, as they have asserted hitherto.

Obviously, if the Holy Spirit were from “two principles” then the Father and Son would each be contributing something of their own, rather than the Holy Spirit simply receiving from the Son what the Son has from the Father (as Scripture teaches). Sometimes “one principle” is misunderstood to mean that the Father and Son are “one Person” and not distinguished in the “filioque”, but as can be seen by the Council of Florence that is not the meaning.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Mickey]

St John was not a supporter of the Filioque. He says – “from the Father through the Son.”

 

[Ghosty]

St John was not a supporter of the Filioque. He says – “from the Father through the Son.”

That is the meaning of the filioque, as can be seen from every writing on the subject. It is even how it was defined at Florence.

 

[stephraim]

St John was not a supporter of the Filioque. He says – “from the Father through the Son.”

That is the meaning of the filioque, as can be seen from every writing on the subject. It is even how it was defined at Florence.

Isnt’ that also how St. Maximos the Confessor explained its meaning?

 

[Mickey]

That is the meaning of the filioque, as can be seen from every writing on the subject. It is even how it was defined at Florence.

So then why is the word “and” used instead of “through?”

 

[Ghosty]

So then why is the word “and” used instead of “through?”

Sometimes "through is used in theological writings. In Latin, however, “and” carries the same meaning in this context, and it was the word that was used in the Creed. In fact, in Latin “through” is the more ambiguous term; it can mean the subject is a secondary instrument, which would be an error when referring to the Son.

 

[SonCatcher]

So then why is the word “and” used instead of “through?”

my guess is because the best translators are not necessarily the best theologians and vice versa.

 

[Mickey]

Sometimes "through is used in theological writings. In Latin, however, “and” carries the same meaning in this context, and it was the word that was used in the Creed. In fact, in Latin “through” is the more ambiguous term; it can mean the subject is a secondary instrument, which would be an error when referring to the Son.

Sorry. I have never bought into the: “and means the same thing as **through **explanation.”

 

[Mickey]

my guess is because the best translators are not necessarily the best theologians and vice versa.

I have a great solution. Since “and” and “through” can sometimes be synonymous in some languages. Petition Rome to change it to “through” for the confused English speaking populations.

PS–It is not synonymous in Greek.

 

[hazcompat]

I have a great solution. Since “and” and “through” can sometimes be synonymous in some languages. Petition Rome to change it to “through” for the confused English speaking populations.

PS–It is not synonymous in Greek.

Would that resolve it for you on this particular issue?

peace