R
- Status
M
mardukm
Guest
Dear brother Richca,
I want to thank you for your responses, for it will help clarify the matter for many people. After reading your latests posts, it finally dawned on me that the whole basis for your claims is the assumption that ekporeusai and procedit are practically identical (I I think Fr. John earlier indicated that he already realized this). Unfortunately, this erroneous assumption was the whole source of the mess between the Greeks and the Latins. If you will not submit to the teaching of your/our bishops on the matter - (as reflected in the Official Clarification and the North American theological dialogues), then that is your prerogative. I will pursue our current dialogue with the hope that others will be convinced of the teaching of the Magisterium on this matter.
CONT’d
I want to thank you for your responses, for it will help clarify the matter for many people. After reading your latests posts, it finally dawned on me that the whole basis for your claims is the assumption that ekporeusai and procedit are practically identical (I I think Fr. John earlier indicated that he already realized this). Unfortunately, this erroneous assumption was the whole source of the mess between the Greeks and the Latins. If you will not submit to the teaching of your/our bishops on the matter - (as reflected in the Official Clarification and the North American theological dialogues), then that is your prerogative. I will pursue our current dialogue with the hope that others will be convinced of the teaching of the Magisterium on this matter.
You have simply corrupted what Florence taught, I’m afraid. The only thing that Florence stated is that the Son should not be excluded from the Procession - it never stated anywhere, as will be evident to anyone reading the definition of Florence, that “they did not mean to exclude the Son from being a source.” Your position is not based on the teaching of the council, but rather on an extrapolation from that teaching, an extrapolation that is itself based on the erroneous premise that ekporeusai and procedit are practically identical. I’m sorry to be so tough on you, but this is a VERY important matter for ecumenical dialogue, so it is important to be adamant against the errors that may inadvertantly be spread.
Your Church professes that the Holy Spirit proceeds (procedit) from the Father and the Son. She does not profess that the Father and the Son are the Source of the Holy Spirit. Big difference.
Again, readers will note that this is an erroneous definition of procedit.
No it does not. The Catholic Faith does not teach heterodoxy. She teaches that the Father and Son equally together are the one principle, and in that one principle, the Father is the one Source/origin, and the Son is the conduit of the spirative power of the one Source/origin. She does not teach that the Father and Son equally together are the one source/origin of the Holy Spirit.
The Son is equal to the Father in all things except to be the Father. Being Source is a hypostatic property of the Father, which cannot be shared with any other Person without destroying the integerity of the Trinity.
The Latin Fathers stressed the consubstantiality without damage to the Monarchy of the Father, preserving in all cases the belief that the Father is the ONE SOURCE, in ANY context, within the Trinity. This, brother, is not what is conveyed by your statements. In fact, your statements convey something completely unheard of in the entire history of the Church - the idea that the Source of the Trinity can be distinguished from the Source of the Procession.
CONT’d
M
mardukm
Guest
CONT’d
CONT’d
Since you refer to St. Thomas Aquinas periodically, please take the time to read Q.36, Art. 3. Therein, he states specifically why the Father and Son can be stated to spirate the Spirit “equally” - it is because the power to spirate is the same in both Father and Son. The Son has this identical spirative power of the Father because He receives it from the one Source who is the Father. So it is because of the equality of the spirative power, not because the Father and Son are both equally the Source of this spirative power, that one can say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from both equally.
Please defend this phrase from a few patristic sources. It is totally foreign to me. I don’t want extrapolations of logic from patristic statements. I want this specific phrase “princple from a principle.” If you can do that, it would be greatly appreciated.
Yes, it connotes the idea of origin, which is the Father, not the Son. The Son participates by being the conduit of the spirative power of the Origin, who is the Father, not the Son.
I’m sorry, but you are corrupting the original intent of this statement. As explained by St. Thomas, this statement refers to the fact that the Father and Son have the same (i.e., equal) spirative power, not because the Father and Son are equally the Source.
And that is the whole problem.
I’m really not sure how you have rationalized that this excerpt from St. Thomas responds to my assertion that it is heresy (according to Second Lyons) to speak of more than one principle. In this section, St. Thomas distinguishes the substantive from the adjective. He states that one can say there are two spirating, because “spirating” is an adjective, but one cannot say there are two spirators, “spirator” being a substantive. Brother, “principle” is a substantive, so your statement cannot be defended by an appeal to St. Thomas.
Again, please give the exact quote(s) from these councils that use the term “principle from principle.”
That’s fine, but where can this phrase “princple from principle” be found? Without positive support for this premise in your argument, the argument fails.
CONT’d
M
mardukm
Guest
CONT’d
The Father is love in its source (2 Cor 13:13; 1 Jn 4:8, 16), the Son is “the Son that he loves” (Col 1:14).
The divine love which has its origin in the Father reposes in "the Son of his love"
The original character of the person of the Spirit as eternal Gift of the Father’s love for his beloved Son…
How does the Son love the Father? With the love that the Father (who is the ORIGIN of this love) FIRST gives to Him. In fact, this is actually rather obvious from the quote you give (sentences 2 and 3).
So, brother. Will you or will you not accept the Clarification of the same Pope from whom you have obtained your quote above, and correct yourself?
Blessings,
Marduk
Forgive me for saying so, but I am sorely tempted to use the “H” word right now. I will not do so for the sake of civility, but I don’t doubt that any serious orthodox Trinitarian Christian (Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestant) will (at the very least) see the utter impropriety of this statement, even given the subsequent qualification given by the OP.
The term “also” in your statement above is erroneous. According to St. Thomas Aquinas (I refer to him not because I consider him authoritative for my Tradition, but because he is very influential in your Tradition), the spirative power is in fact the ONLY thing in common (because the Son receives it from the one Source) between Father and Son as the one principle. They do NOT have in common (as the one principle) the property of being the Source of ths spirative power.
This is true, but the only way you have exrapolated your own position from this truth is by the erroneous premise that procedit and ekporeusai are practically equivalent.
Well, this is certainly inventive, I’ll grant you that. From what I know of Latin Trinitarian theology, the principle of distinction between the Persons is their relations, not their “relations of origin.” This is a wholly artifical argument, brother, and does not merit any response. Sufficient to say, the Son and Holy Spirit have a relation to one another.
Interesting. I see this quote from HH JP2 of thrice-blessed memory is from 1985. The Official CLARIFICATION from the same Pope is about a decade after this. In this Offficial CLARIFICATION from the SAME Pope, he CLARIFIES:
The Father is love in its source (2 Cor 13:13; 1 Jn 4:8, 16), the Son is “the Son that he loves” (Col 1:14).
The divine love which has its origin in the Father reposes in "the Son of his love"
The original character of the person of the Spirit as eternal Gift of the Father’s love for his beloved Son…
How does the Son love the Father? With the love that the Father (who is the ORIGIN of this love) FIRST gives to Him. In fact, this is actually rather obvious from the quote you give (sentences 2 and 3).
So, brother. Will you or will you not accept the Clarification of the same Pope from whom you have obtained your quote above, and correct yourself?
Blessings,
Marduk
A
Aramis
Guest
If he did understand it properly, then he made a decision to be polemical about it. If he didn’t, then he was obstinate about not being corrected, and equally so about not actually finding out.
By 800, the theological terminology already was distinctly different between East and West. As was the lingua popula.
C
Cavaradossi
Guest
If he misunderstood it, then the Latin doctrine changed since that time, for St. Maximus wrote that the Latins did not make the Son Cause of the Holy Spirit, and understood proceeding from the Son as the Spirit’s progressing essentially through the Son. But when the Greeks proposed this and similar texts as grounds for reconciling the Greek and Latin views of the filioque at Florence, they were all rejected by the Latins. Nothing but affirming that the Son together with the Father is cause and principle of the Holy Spirit’s subsistent being would satisfy the Latins, and this we cannot agree to.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Cavaradossi-
I’d like to ask you a question, because I know you know your stuff.
Catholics and Lutherans have, at long last, come to the realization that their differences over justification stem largely from a difference of emphasis and terminology rather than actual technical details. IOW, they appear to be saying the same thing, but going about it in diffferent ways.
Is the difference in our understanding of the Filioque similar to that? Are we REALLY saying completely incompatible things? For example, if the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son, then both the Father and the Son have been involved in the procession. So, you would be correct in saying “from the Father” since that is where the origination occurs, and we would be correct in saying “and the Son” since the Son is involved.
Just asking…no agenda here.
P
Peter_J
Guest
On a side note, I must say that till now I thought you had a very different take on it from what you just said.
T
twf
Guest
I’d like to thank brother Marduk for bringing up the official clarification from Blessed John Paul. For Latin Catholics, the “living Magisterium” of the reigning Pope and bishops is the authentic voice of Christ to which we must turn if we are to understand the texts of Scripture and Councils of old. If there is a discrepancy between Blessed Pope John Paul’s understanding of the Church’s teaching and the understanding of some on this thread, I feel confident siding with the late Holy Father. Why Orthodox Christians or Catholics would rather rely on their own reading of Councils held for a very different audience many centuries ago, rather than the clear explanation of a contemporary Pope, I cannot understand. As a Latin I have never questioned the Monarchy of the Father.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
I understand why you would get that impression. Two points:
- Several years ago, I read an article by Jimmy Akin that outlined how the two theologies were essentially two sides to the same coin. The JDDJ also moves in that direction.
- Reading lutheranworld.org/sites/default/files/From%20Conflict%20to%20Communion.pdf opened my eyes to the significant points of agreement between us.
Or something like that.
F
frjohnmorris
Guest
As you define it, it would be a matter of linguistic differences rather than a matter of doctrine. However, as other Catholics define the procession of the Holy Spirit it is a matter of doctrine. Catholics have expressed two different and conflicting interpretations of the filioque clause during this discussion. One group of Catholics see the filioque as equivalent to “through the Son.” Others, however, see the filioque as teaching that the Holy Spirit has it origin from both the Father and the Son. That is why the phrase is confusing and should be eliminated. If I look at a text in the Bible and try to understand its original meaning, I look at the original Greek text. We should do the same with the Creed, where the word used, ἐκπορευόμενον, means proceeds from one single source. Augustine’s definition of the Holy Spirit as the love between the Father and the Son also should be jettisoned because it implies that the Holy Spirit is not a co-equal person of the Holy Trinity.Cavaradossi-
I’d like to ask you a question, because I know you know your stuff.
Catholics and Lutherans have, at long last, come to the realization that their differences over justification stem largely from a difference of emphasis and terminology rather than actual technical details. IOW, they appear to be saying the same thing, but going about it in diffferent ways.
Is the difference in our understanding of the Filioque similar to that? Are we REALLY saying completely incompatible things? For example, if the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son, then both the Father and the Son have been involved in the procession. So, you would be correct in saying “from the Father” since that is where the origination occurs, and we would be correct in saying “and the Son” since the Son is involved.
Just asking…no agenda here.
“Not one West Roman Father ever said that the Son is either “cause” or “co-cause” of the Holy Spirit. This appears in Latin polemics and was promulgated as dogma at the council of Florence. This Filoque is a heresy, both as a theologoumenon and as a dogma.” John Romanides en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filioque
“When the Eastern Church first noticed a distortion of the dogma of the Holy Spirit in the West and began to reproach the Western theologians for their innovations, St. Maximus the Confessor (in the 7th century), desiring to defend the Westerners, justified them precisely by saying that by the words “from the Son” they intended to indicate that the Holy Spirit is given to creatures through the Son, that He is manifested, that He is sent — but not that the Holy Spirit has His existence from Him. St. Maximus the Confessor himself held strictly to the teaching of the Eastern Church concerning the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and wrote a special treatise about this dogma.” .Orthodox Dogmatic Theology: A Concise Exposition Protopresbyter Michael Pomazansky St Herman of Alaska Brotherhood press 1994 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filioque
Archpriest John W. Morris
R
Richca
Guest
Hi Marduk,
There is nothing in the official declaration that suggests to me that the homily I quoted from Pope John Paul II in which he says the Holy Spirit is the flower or fruit so to speak of the mutual love of the Father and Son for each other should be clarified in any way, shape, or form or the 1500 years or more of tradition that precedes what the pope says. I think you are misinterpreting the document. The whole document, I think, can be summed up in #248 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church which I have quoted in previous posts.
The Holy Spirit can not proceed first from the Father then secondly from, through or into the Son. There is no first or second as if there is time in God. He lives in an eternal present. The Catholic Church teaches that the Holy Spirit proceeds simultaneously and from all eternity from the Father and the Son or from the Father through the Son . The Father being the first principle and first origin of the Spirit but not according to time.
Also, though the Father is the first source, principle, origin of love in the Trinity, we cannot say that He first loved the Son and then the Son loved Him according to time. God is beyond all time. The Father and Son have loved each other simultaneously and from all eternity. The fruit of this love is the Holy Spirit, the third person of the trinity. Since love is in the will and there is only one will of the Father and Son, together they spirate the Holy Spirit by one act of spiration or one act of love.
blessings and peace, Richca
M
mardukm
Guest
Dear brother Richca,
“…the eternal order of thedivine persons in their consubstantial communion implies that the Father, as “the principle without principle”, is the first origin of the Spirit, but also that as Father of the only Son, he is, with the Son, the single principle from which the Holy Spirit proceeds…”
It is plainly evident to everyone who understands English that while the CCC states the father is “first Origin,” it never applies the word “origin” to the Son. It does apply the Traditionally Latin word “principle,” but within this one principle, there is only one first cause or origin, who is the Father, and a second cause or intermediary, an intermediary that adds nothing to nor takes nothing from the origin, Who is the Son.
Brother, answer us this:
Since you are so insistent that “principle” means exactly the same thing as “source”/“origin,” why does not the Catechism simply state “The Father is first origin…but also that as Father of the only Son, he is, with the Son, the
single ORIGIN from which the Holy Spirit proceeds?”
I’m sure everyone reading this will appreciate an answer, so please provide one.
As St. Basil had taught us in his various writings against the Pneumatomachi, the Church’s use of the words “first,” “second,” “third,” (i.e., Father first, Son second, Holy Spirit third) has no bearing on the question of time. The argument you use is, forgive me for saying, irrelevant.
Blessings,
Marduk
I’ll repeat the relevant passage from the CCC for our readers:
“…the eternal order of thedivine persons in their consubstantial communion implies that the Father, as “the principle without principle”, is the first origin of the Spirit, but also that as Father of the only Son, he is, with the Son, the single principle from which the Holy Spirit proceeds…”
It is plainly evident to everyone who understands English that while the CCC states the father is “first Origin,” it never applies the word “origin” to the Son. It does apply the Traditionally Latin word “principle,” but within this one principle, there is only one first cause or origin, who is the Father, and a second cause or intermediary, an intermediary that adds nothing to nor takes nothing from the origin, Who is the Son.
Brother, answer us this:
Since you are so insistent that “principle” means exactly the same thing as “source”/“origin,” why does not the Catechism simply state “The Father is first origin…but also that as Father of the only Son, he is, with the Son, the
single ORIGIN from which the Holy Spirit proceeds?”
I’m sure everyone reading this will appreciate an answer, so please provide one.
To say that “there is no first or second” then admit “the Father is the FIRST source” then do another 180 and say that he cannot love the Son first… Well I think the logic speaks for itself. The sheer inconsistency of this rhetoric is self-evident that anyone who would read it would reject it.
As St. Basil had taught us in his various writings against the Pneumatomachi, the Church’s use of the words “first,” “second,” “third,” (i.e., Father first, Son second, Holy Spirit third) has no bearing on the question of time. The argument you use is, forgive me for saying, irrelevant.
Blessings,
Marduk
M
mardukm
Guest
If we translate this from Greek to Latinese, it should read “Not one West Roman Father ever said that the Son is either “first cause” or “co-first cause” of the Holy Spirit…” Which is indeed true. But neither did any Latin Church Father after the patristic age ever teach that the Son is first cause or co-first cause with the Father. Of course, we have particular Roman Catholic apologists today who contradict this. These are, to be sure, not professional apologists, but your run-of-the-mill well-meaning laypersons. Recall earlier that Mark Bonocore - a professional apologist - stated in his analogy with the game of catch that the collective idea does not challenge that the father himself is the source. Unfortunately, way many more amateur apologists than professional apologists (who have really studied the faith and often have degrees in theology) exist in the forum of Catholic apologetics.
I have read the source material from St. Maximus and he does not exactly restrict the “throughness” of the Son in the procession to what is given to creatures. St. Maximos simply admits that the Son has the role of being “through,” not the role of being ‘from" in the Procession. I believe this particular author has intentionally added a particularly polemic element into St. Maximos’ statement that does not exist in the original text. St. Maximos further admits that the Latins did not make the Son the Cause of the Spirit. Of course, by “Cause,” St. Maximos is here using the Traditional Greek sense of the word “Cause” as a reference solely to the First Cause/Source/Origin. And this would be true, for the Latins have never, before (or after) St. Maximos, ever believed nor taught (at least magisterially) that the Son is First Cause in any way.
Humbly,
Marduk
F
frjohnmorris
Guest
I would like to ask on what Biblical basis is the Holy Spirit called the love between the Father and the Son? I know that this comes from Blessed Augustine, but what is the Biblical basis for this?
I would also like to point out another verse that undermines the doctrine of the double procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son.
We already know about St. John 15:26 “But when the Counselor comes, whom I shall send to you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, he will bear witness to me;” I do not know what can have greater authority than the words of Christ directly from the Gospels, which clearly teach that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and is sent by the Son. To me that should end the debate, because the divinely inspired Scriptures take precedence over any proclamation by the Bishop of Rome or statement by a local council of the Western Church.
However, there is another verse that undermines the doctrine of the double procession is St. John 14:16-17 “And I will pray the Father, and he will give you another Counselor, to be with you for ever, even the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him; you know him, for he dwells with you, and will be in you.” Notice that the Biblical text says that Christ will pray to the Father who will give His followers the Holy Spirit. If the doctrine of the double procession were Biblical, Our Lord would have said that He will give His followers the Holy Spirit.
Thus the Biblical teaching is clear, the origin of the Holy Spirit is the Father. The Holy Spirit is sent by or through the Son.
I know that someone will argue that the teaching comes from Holy Tradition. We too believe in Holy Tradition, but also believe that any teaching that contradicts the Holy Scriptures is not an authentic expression of the Holy Tradition of the Church because the Scriptures are an essential expression of the Holy Tradition of the Church that is divinely inspired and infallible.
Archpriest John W. Morris
M
mardukm
Guest
I have always defended the Latin use of filioque in my years in the Catholic communion. I did this because I believed that filioque, correctly understood, was (is) completely orthodox. Every single magisterial document I studied on the matter convinced me that this was so.
To be honest, I simply (and very naively) assumed that all Catholics had the same orthodox belief regarding filioque. I have certainly encountered Catholics (particularly, Latin Catholics) who did not really understand it, and these particular Catholics I encountered readily accepted the magisterial teaching once it was explained to them.
But I had never once encountered a single Catholic who actually believed that the Father and Son together are the Source of the Holy Spirit - UNTIL NOW.
If this is the result of filioque, I will state something I have never stated before:
Though I still maintain and believe with all my heart that removal of filioque should not be a condition for reunion ((the Latins should do it themselves gradually and freely), I do now believe it would be best if it was removed.
Blessings,
Marduk
To be honest, I simply (and very naively) assumed that all Catholics had the same orthodox belief regarding filioque. I have certainly encountered Catholics (particularly, Latin Catholics) who did not really understand it, and these particular Catholics I encountered readily accepted the magisterial teaching once it was explained to them.
But I had never once encountered a single Catholic who actually believed that the Father and Son together are the Source of the Holy Spirit - UNTIL NOW.
If this is the result of filioque, I will state something I have never stated before:
Though I still maintain and believe with all my heart that removal of filioque should not be a condition for reunion ((the Latins should do it themselves gradually and freely), I do now believe it would be best if it was removed.
Blessings,
Marduk
M
mardukm
Guest
FWIW, I agree.
Humbly,
Marduk
P.S. Before anyone thinks Fr. John is saying something inappropriate, Catholic readers should note that the phrase “double procession” is not a magisterially approved phrase. It is not even used by the Catechism - and for good reason. Catholics should not be using this phrase at all, even though it is indeed popularly used, even by some professional Catholic apologists.
Fr. John is simply affirming the Traditional Western and Eastern belief and teaching that the Father is the sole Origin of the Holy Spirit.
P.P.S. I hope someone can respond to Fr. John regarding his question about the Love between Father and Son. I don’t have time right now to pull out my concordance and research the matter.
Humbly,
Marduk
P.S. Before anyone thinks Fr. John is saying something inappropriate, Catholic readers should note that the phrase “double procession” is not a magisterially approved phrase. It is not even used by the Catechism - and for good reason. Catholics should not be using this phrase at all, even though it is indeed popularly used, even by some professional Catholic apologists.
Fr. John is simply affirming the Traditional Western and Eastern belief and teaching that the Father is the sole Origin of the Holy Spirit.
P.P.S. I hope someone can respond to Fr. John regarding his question about the Love between Father and Son. I don’t have time right now to pull out my concordance and research the matter.
F
frjohnmorris
Guest
The first paragraph would explain why there sees to me to be a contradiction between some Catholic statements on the Procession of the Holy Spirit and others during this discussion. The statements of some Catholic members of this discussion can be reconciled with Orthodoxy, others cannot.
It is entirely possible that the translator of the Pomazanski’s work from Russian unintentionally added a polemical element, because he was Fr. Seraphim Rose who was not actually trained in Orthodox theology. Rose is more of a pop theologian who has an almost cult like following among some of the more conservative Orthodox Christians in this country but must be read with a grain of salt.
Archpriest John W. Morris
M
Misplaced_Book
Guest
Bless, Father.
I would agree that Father Seraphim is not an infallible authority (for example I don’t believe in Toll Houses). In my Jurisdiction, men like Elder Paisios, Porphyrios and Iakovos are held in a high esteem that in some corners could lend itself to the same. Forgive me for this slight tangent.
I wanted to say that I am happy that you are here, and this exchange has been very educational.
C
Cavaradossi
Guest
I disagree. The Greeks did not use the word aitia solely as a reference to the First Cause, for its uses in the Old Testament alone are not restricted to this meaning.
- Status