Debating the filioque

[mardukm]

Dear brother Richca,

Source, origin, principle, proceed if not synonyms are at least related. In truth, I think all these terms can be used to arrive at a correct understanding of the Trinity according to catholic doctrine.

Yes, just as the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are related, BUT we do not conflate them. It cannot be doubted that the Father and the Father alone is the Source/origin. The term principle, while related, is not equivalent, which is why all the Magisterial sources are careful to distinguish the two. That you yourself do not bespeaks of a deficient understanding.

In the latin church and theology, the term procession is used for both the Son and Holy Spirit.

Are you sure? Every Father of the Church, both Latin and Greek, applied the term Procession to the Holy Spirit, and a different term - Generation - to the Son. I do recall some use a certain word that accomodates BOTH Procession and Generation to describe the notion that the Father is the Source of both Son and Holy Spirit, but I can’t think of it right now.

And by proceed, we understand origin…and the dictionary gives the definition for proceed as to come forth from a source,

I don’t know what dictionary you are using, but I depend on an academic Latin dictionary to help me understand the matter. Perhaps you are depending on an English dictionary, but -to be perfectly honest - I don’t know why anyone would depend on an English dictionary to fully undersatnd this matter in the first place. NO standard, academic Latin dictionary defines procedere to mean “to come forth from a source.” Rather, they all define it simply as “to come forth” or “to move forward” or “to flow” etc. NO standard academic Latin dictionary gives as the primary meaning of procedere the specific idea of “coming from a source”. The Greek word ekporeumenon, on the other hand, specifically denotes the idea of “coming from a source.”

Perhaps a concrete mental image will help you understand the difference. Imagine a line with successive points, A, B, C, D, etc. “A” is the source/origin of this line. It is not B, it is not C, nor D, but A and A alone. When a Latin used the term procedere, it meant simply a moving forward. In the Latin mind, it can mean flowing from A to B, from B to C, from C to D, etc. The Latin would NOT think about the idea of “origin,” but simply the idea of a “going forth,” or “flowing.” In distinction, when a Greek used the term ekporeumenon, he ONLY meant flowing from A to B, or from A to C, or from A to D, etc. The Greek mind would ALWAYS think about the idea of “origin/source” being denoted by the word. I seriously hope that helps you understand the important difference.

Proceed can also mean source

Entirely untrue. In fact, the idea of source is not even on the mind of the Latin when he uses that word (when I say “Latin,” I don’t mean Latin Catholic, but someone from the ancient, patristic or medieval times that actually used and lived the language).

for source and origin are synonyms but for now I’ll just stick to origin because that is the commonly applied meaning.

Source and origin are synonyms, but source/origin and principle are not. So there is no justification for using the term “origin/source” in place of “principle” when you quote such sources as the Catechism or Florence, for example.

We understand two processions in the Godhead, that of the Son and that of the Holy Spirit.

I understand what you are trying to say here, and I agree with what you are trying to convey, though I don’t agree with the terminology you are using.

CONT’d

 

[mardukm]

CONT’d

I think a difficulty that cannot be resolved properly is if we try to apply a greek term (the one we translate as proceed) in latin or english for which there is no term in the latin and english language. Attempting to do so may result in a thought that is completely foreign to the very understanding of the language that we use to communicate ideas.

True.

I’d like to propose an analogy taken from the conception of a new human being to the procession of the Holy Spirit in the Trinity… By their mutual love for one another, another human person is conceived in the womb of the mother. Another human person is conceived in, by, and through love. This is exactly what the Catholic Church, at least in the latin tradition, understands about the procession of the Holy Spirit. Through the mutual and reciprocal love the Father and Son have for one another proceeds the Holy Spirit, a divine person of the same substance of the Father and Son. The union of man and woman is a likeness I think to the unity of the Father and Son except that the Father and Son are utterly and infinitely one along with the Holy Spirit in the highest possible degree.

This is incorrect. I would respectfully ask that you refrain from making any claims like “this is exactly what the Catholic Church, at least in the Latin Tradition, understands…” You have not given one single direct evidence from a Magisterial source for your opinions on this matter. All you have provided are extrapolations of your own ideas from those sources. Your explanation contradicts the explanation given by HH JP2 of thrice-blessed memory. HH JP2 indicated that it is the Father Who is the Source of the Love (Who is the Holy Spirit), implying it in his statement from 1985, and explicitly saying so in the Official Clarification. Your understanding is NOT how the Latin Tradition understands the Procession. Your understanding makes the Father and Son two equal Sources, which has never been taught by the Latin Catholic Church.

By the man and woman being united as one flesh, another human person is conceived. At one and the same time, we can consider the conception of a new human person as from one and as from two. The conception results from the man and woman, two persons in love, being united as one. Similarly, the procession of the Holy Spirit can be considered as from one and as from two as St Thomas Aquinas points out if I’m not understanding him incorrectly.
I do realize you are using an imagery utilized by St. Thomas Aquinas, but I believe you are misunderstanding his analogy. In his analogy of the father and mother, he distinctly and specifically utilizes that analogy to explain the distinct ideas expressed by “from” and “through” - the father has the role of being “from” and the mother has the role of being “through.” He does NOT say that the father and the mother are both the “from,” which is the point that you are making.

The Holy Spirit proceeds from the one spiration or act of love that comes from the one will of the Father and Son.

This statement is true enough, but it does not lead to the conclusion that the Father and Son are both the Source or Origin of the Holy Spirit. The one spiration in your statement above has ONE SOURCE, Who is the Father. The act of love in your statement above has ONE SOURCE, Who is the Father. Even the one will in your statement above has ONE SOURCE, Who is the Father. The attribution of “source” or “origin” to any other except the Father is an error.

There are two spirating, if we consider the Father and Son distinctly.

True enough, but it cannot be stated, as you have unfortunately often done, that there is more than one source or origin of the spiration. If you take St. Thomas Aquinas as your standard, you must agree that the expressions you have used in this discussion so far are erroneous, according to St. Thomas (recall that he asserted that while it can be stated that there are two spirating, it CANNOT be stated that there are two spirators).

Thank you for your further efforts to explain your position. We need to leave no stone unturned after all. As it is, judging from all your explanations so far, it is my personal belief that you do not have a proper understanding of the Traditional Catholic teaching on filioque (though at times, you do come close).

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dearest Fr. John,

Can you provide a text from the Holy Scriptures or the Greek Fathers, that could lead one to conclude that the Son meant to include Himself when He spoke of the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father.

Well, said. But to remove all ambiguity, I would have stated, “Can you provide a text from the Holy Scriptures or the Greek Fathers, that could lead one to conclude that the Son meant to take the role of the Father in any way, shape or form when He spoke of the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father.” As it is, Latins can easily respond to the question as you posed it, saying that the term “proceeds” used in John 15:26 is used by Jesus in the context of Him sending the Spirit. They could thus say that the concept of “procession” must inherently include the eternal role of the Son “sending,” so it is the Greeks who would be in error for attempting to exclude the Son in the definition of the Council of Constantinople. I’m just proposing a possibility.

Your argument does not make sense. If Our Lord had meant that the Holy Spirit also proceeds from Him, He would have said it. I only am interested in Greek Fathers, because it has been shown that Latin Fathers such as Augustine did not base their conclusions on the original Greek text of the Holy Scriptures, but on an error filled Latin translation. Had those who translated the Creed into Latin made an accurate translation that expressed the intent of the Fathers of the Ecumenical Councils by correctly translating the Greek word ekporeuetai which means to proceed from one source. Instead, they used the Latin word procedit which can mean to proceed through a mediator. Using the Latin word procedit can mean that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and is mediated through the Son. The problem is that the original Creed was not written in Latin using the word procedit. It was written in Greek using the word ekporeuetai that means to proceed from one source.

I would like to interject a particular consideration here. We need to consider the Latin translation, on the one hand, and the use of that Latin translation by the Latin Fathers in their understanding of the conciliar decrees, on the other. The Latin translation of ekporeusai as procedit was indeed (albeit innocently enough) erroneous. However, we have to consider, distinctly, that as far as the purpose of the Council of Constantinople’s additions to the Nicene Creed, the Latin use of procedit was perfectly orthodox. Notwithstanding that Latins may not have understood Greek perfectly, the purpose of the Council of Constantinople was to DEFEND THE DIVINITY OF THE HOLY SPIRIT, not to defend the Monarchy of the Father (for in Truth, NO ONE, not even the Pneumatomachi, questioned the Monarchy of the Father). In truth, the Latin understanding that the divine ousia was shared between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (with the use of the term procedit) perfectly adhered to the intention of the Council of Constantinople to defend the divinity of the Holy Spirit. Of course, in the Greek mind, asserting that the Father is the Source of the Holy Spirit exactly did the same thing - i.e., defend the divnity of the Holy Spirit. So both Churches, according to their respective theological expressions and presuppositions, felt they were perfectly preserving the Tradition of the Council of Constnatinople.

It seems to me that the filioque only adds confusion.

Prior to this discussion with Richca, I would not have agreed with this statement, because I (naively) thought that the debate was between the actual teaching and belief of the Latins versus what the Greeks assumed the Latins were teaching and believing. I never imagined (again, naively) that there were Latin Catholics who actually believed differently from what their Magisterium taught on the matter.

Some Roman Catholics argue that it only means through or sent by the Son, but others teach the doctrine of the double procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son.

I would personally switch those two words highlighted in your quote. Hence: “Some Roman Catholics TEACH that it only means through or sent by the Son, but others ARGUE the doctrine of the double procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son.” The term “teach” or “teaching” to Catholic ears connotes some sort of formal, official capacity. The arguments utilized by those who use expressions such as “double procession,” or use “source/origin” in reference to the Son, have absolutely no official (i.e. Magisterial) standing in the Church, so it sounds strange to Catholic ears that one could say that the doctrine of double procession is being taught.

Humbly,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother (it’s too difficult to type out your handle ),

Fr. Morris, your dismissal of our Bible as “error-filled”

Actually, Fr. John did not say that the Latin Bible was “error-filled.” He stated that the translation of that particular text was error-filled.

Furthermore, it remains to be seen that “procedit” is really faulty translation of John 15:26. You have said that “ekporeuetai” can only mean to proceed from a single source. However, it is a fact that it is impossible for any individual thing to proceed from a single source at a single time in any single respect. I am skeptical that there is any real distinction between the Latin and Greek words on this point inherent in their usual definitions rather than in their particular usages in Trinitarian theology.

I hope the explanation I gave to brother Richca in my previous post helps you understand the actual distinction (whether used popularly or theologically) between procedere and ekporeumenon.

Finally, Revelation 22:1 uses the verb “ekporeuomenon” with reference to the Son (with the Father), so it does not appear at all the verb is used univocally in the Scriptures and must be taken in John 15:26 as an exact assertion of the “ek tou Patros” of the Creed. Frankly, such an argument is just as convincing to my ears as “Matthew 16:18, therefore papal infallibility” is to your ears.

EO would say that even if we see examples of ekporeumenon that can be understood to refer to the Son, it can only mean:
(1) that the Son has the role of being “through,” never the role of being “from” in the hypostasis. This was one of the specific concerns of St. Gregory Palamas - that the Son can never be regarded as “origin” or “cause” of the hypostasis (of course, as noted earlier, when Greeks use the term “cause,” they in fact are only referring to what the Latins would call “First Cause” or “origin.”) One can actually utilize ekporeumenon in the sense of being “through” if one specifies the Greek term dia in conjunction with it;
(2) it is in reference to the eternal manifestation of the divine Energy, this eternal, divine Energy coming from the Father through the Son to Creation. It may be stated to come from the Son only if considered in the context of the Son’s relationship with Creation. This is actually the way Greeks would explain the verse from Rev 22:1;
(3) it is only in reference to the temporal economy, not the immanent Godhead.
I daresay that this third claim is an utter novelty. The first two, however, are wholly patristic, and may be considered complementary expressions to the Latin teaching.

I mean nothing in this post either way regarding the Catholic and Orthodox doctrines on the procession of the Holy Spirit, only on the assertions about language.

I appreciate and understand your point, brother.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Wandile]

Richca;11340767:

Can you provide a text from the Holy Scriptures or the Greek Fathers, that could lead one to conclude that the Son meant to include Himself when He spoke of the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father. Your argument does not make sense. If Our Lord had meant that the Holy Spirit also proceeds from Him, He would have said it. I only am interested in Greek Fathers, because it has been shown that Latin Fathers such as Augustine did not base their conclusions on the original Greek text of the Holy Scriptures, but on an error filled Latin translation. Had those who translated the Creed into Latin made an accurate translation that expressed the intent of the Fathers of the Ecumenical Councils by correctly translating the Greek word ekporeuetai which means to proceed from one source. Instead, they used the Latin word procedit which can mean to proceed through a mediator. Using the Latin word procedit can mean that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Fqather and is mediated through the Son. The problem is that the original Creed was not written in Latin using the word procedit. It was written in Greek using the word ekporeuetai that means to proceed from one source.
It seems to me that the filioque only adds confusion. Some Roman Catholics argue that it only means through or sent by the Son, but others teach the doctrine of the double procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son. Sound Trinitarian theology teaches the monarchy of the Father who is the origin of both the Son and the Holy Spirit. The Son is not the source of the Holy Spirit, but sends the Holy Spirit as the Bible clearly teaches. Remember the original Greek word of the text of St. John 15:26 and the Creed is ekporeuetai which means to proceed from one source.

Archpriest John W. Morris

This reeks of a Greek superiority complex. The Latin translation is adequate and probably a very good translation. The Latin fathers believed in filioque before the vulgate anyway so your argument is still invalid. Um fact the filioque is an ancient tradition of the Latins and Alexandrians.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Wandile,

I personally do not find anything wrong with what Fr. John stated. Granted, I am not a Latin Catholic. but an Oriental Catholic.

Also, may I ask - I recall somewhere on the internet a long time ago seeing the handle “Wandile” but it was used by an Orthodox Christian. Were you ever in the Orthodox communion?

Blessings,
Marduk

frjohnmorris;11341088:

This reeks of a Greek superiority complex. The Latin translation is adequate and probably a very good translation. The Latin fathers believed in filioque before the vulgate anyway so your argument is still invalid. Um fact the filioque is an ancient tradition of the Latins and Alexandrians.

 

[theistgal]

frjohnmorris;11341088:

This reeks of a Greek superiority complex. The Latin translation is adequate and probably a very good translation. The Latin fathers believed in filioque before the vulgate anyway so your argument is still invalid. Um fact the filioque is an ancient tradition of the Latins and Alexandrians.

Um fact, just because a tradition is ancient doesn’t mean it’s correct.

 

[mardukm]

Dear sister theistgal,

Wandile;11342515:

Um fact, just because a tradition is ancient doesn’t mean it’s correct.

Speaking as an Alexandrian, the Latin and Alexandrian Tradition is ancient AND correct.

Of course, what we need to understand is that while the Latins and Alexandrians use terms that can be translated into English as “proceeds from the Father and Son” we are using, specifically, procedit (Latin) and proienai (Greek/Alexandrian), not ekporeusai (Greek).

Our distinct Traditions are all expressing correct and orthodox teachings taken in and of themselves. What is incorrect is to take the English translation as the standard, and conflate the distinct Traditions in the process.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[frjohnmorris]

frjohnmorris;11341088:

This reeks of a Greek superiority complex. The Latin translation is adequate and probably a very good translation. The Latin fathers believed in filioque before the vulgate anyway so your argument is still invalid. Um fact the filioque is an ancient tradition of the Latins and Alexandrians.

Even the Vatican has admitted that the Latin translation of the text of John 15:26 and the Creed does not convey the exact meaning of the original Greek text.
“In 1995, the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity published in various languages a study on The Greek and the Latin Traditions regarding the Procession of the Holy Spirit,[136] which pointed out an important difference in meaning between the Greek verb ἐκπορεύεσθαι and the Latin verb procedere, both of which are commonly translated as “proceed”. It stated that the Greek verb ἐκπορεύεσθαι indicates that the Spirit “takes his origin from the Father … in a principal, proper and immediate manner”, while the Latin verb, which corresponds rather to the verb προϊέναι in Greek, can be applied to proceeding even from a mediate channel. Therefore the word used in the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed (ἐκπορευόμενον, “who proceeds”) to signify the proceeding of the Holy Spirit cannot in the Greek language be appropriately used with regard to the Son, but only with regard to the Father, a difficulty that does not exist in Latin and other languages.” en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filioque

Archpriest John W. Morris

 

[frjohnmorris]

Wandile;11342515:

Um fact, just because a tradition is ancient doesn’t mean it’s correct.

In the Church, it does. Jesus Christ is the full and complete revelation of God. Our Lord taught His Apostles who taught their successors and put some of Christ’s wrote some of Christ’s teachings forming the New Testament, the rest was passed down in oral teaching. The two written and oral teaching for the Holy Tradition of the Church. Nothing new has been revealed or can contradict the beliefs and practices of the ancient undivided Church of the Holy Fathers and the 7 Ecumenical Councils. That is why I reject modern papal claims. I have studied church history and have concluded that one cannot reconcile the Church as mandated by the canons of the 7 Ecumenical Councils with the modern papacy.

Archpriest John W. Morris

 

[frjohnmorris]

frjohnmorris;11341088:

This reeks of a Greek superiority complex. The Latin translation is adequate and probably a very good translation. The Latin fathers believed in filioque before the vulgate anyway so your argument is still invalid. Um fact the filioque is an ancient tradition of the Latins and Alexandrians.

I am an historian by academic training. An historian looks at the meaning of the original source in the original language. The original language of neither the New Testament nor the Creed were written in Latin. They were written in Greek. Therefore it is not a matter of a Greek superiority complex to argue that in order to understand the New Testament or the intent of the Holy Fathers of the Ecumenical Councils that wrote the Creed, one must look at the original Greek text. Had the New Testament or the Creed been written in Latin, one would have to look at the meaning of the original Latin words. However, since the New Testament and the Creed was written in Greek, so we must look at the meaning of the original Greek words. Unfortunately the Latin text of John 15:26 as well as the Creed does not convey the original meaning of the Greek words.
I do not want to start a new argument, but let me give one very important example how a mistake in the translation of the New Testament into Latin failed to coney the meaning of the original Greek text. Romans 5:12 translated correctly in the New International Version reads, “Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned—” However the Latin translation as reflected in the Douay Rheims translation is “Wherefore as by one man sin entered into this world, and by sin death; and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned.” Augustine who could not read Latin built his whole doctrine of original sin and inherited guilt on this mistranslaton of the original Greek text. Because the Greek could read the original version of Romans 5:12 we never developed the Western doctrine of original sin. Instead, we believe that we inherit the consequences of Adam’s sin not the guilt and retain our free will and the Image of God, and are guilty only of our own sins. We also do not consider sexual intercourse tainted by the transmission of original guilt. Thus we never developed the negative attitude towards sex that has been a constant factor in Roman Catholic thinking.

Archpriest John W. Morris

 

[QNDNNDQDCE]

Dear brother (it’s too difficult to type out your handle ),

Actually, Fr. John did not say that the Latin Bible was “error-filled.” He stated that the translation of that particular text was error-filled.

I hope the explanation I gave to brother Richca in my previous post helps you understand the actual distinction (whether used popularly or theologically) between procedere and ekporeumenon.

It’s not hard to spell if you just sound it out: “kuhnuhduhnuhnuhduhkuhduhkuhdse.”

I admire your charitable interpretation of Fr. Morris’ comment, but he is calling the Latin Bible as a whole an error-filled translation, as evidenced by his recent post bringing up Romans 5:12 as “one example.” If he had only meant to criticize the translation of John 15:26, he would not have used the words “error-filled.” The point of my last post was that even this last remark would not be justified because I don’t believe that the distinction between “processio” and “ekporeusis” or between “ekporeusis” and “proienai” is rooted in popular usage, but rather in a specific theological language that developed over time. We ought to be hesitant in insisting on such nuances in ancient languages which no one in this thread is fluent in, much less a native speaker.

And thanks again. Yes, your posts have been helpful. I admire your desire to reconcile different views as much as possible rather than set out from the beginning to tear down the opposition. I am reminded by a saying attributed (probably incorrectly) to St. Thomas: “seldom affirm, never deny, always distinguish.”

 

[QNDNNDQDCE]

Even the Vatican has admitted that the Latin translation of the text of John 15:26 and the Creed does not convey the exact meaning of the original Greek text.

Father, I think you are misreading the document. The document does note a distinction between “processio” and “ekporeusis.” However, this is couched in a distinction in their particular theological usage in describing the relations within the Holy Trinity rather than their common usage. Therefore, this alone is not a sufficient basis to say that the Latin translation is inaccurate. It only means that a different understanding developed understanding the import of the statement in John 15:26 and the Creed between the Latin and Byzantine fathers.

 

[QNDNNDQDCE]

I do not want to start a new argument, but let me give one very important example how a mistake in the translation of the New Testament into Latin failed to coney the meaning of the original Greek text. Romans 5:12 translated correctly in the New International Version reads, “Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned—” However the Latin translation as reflected in the Douay Rheims translation is “Wherefore as by one man sin entered into this world, and by sin death; and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned.” Augustine who could not read Latin built his whole doctrine of original sin and inherited guilt on this mistranslaton of the original Greek text. Because the Greek could read the original version of Romans 5:12 we never developed the Western doctrine of original sin. Instead, we believe that we inherit the consequences of Adam’s sin not the guilt and retain our free will and the Image of God, and are guilty only of our own sins. We also do not consider sexual intercourse tainted by the transmission of original guilt. Thus we never developed the negative attitude towards sex that has been a constant factor in Roman Catholic thinking.

Regardless of your stated intentions, you cannot make wild accusations against the Latin translation and expect no criticism. Your post is not a product of humility.

First of all, the translation “in quo,” even if if is not an exact replication of the Greek, conveys St. Paul’s message. I do not think “in quo” necessarily must be taken to mean “in Adam,” but I will assume it does as this is the more traditional interpretation. But it is true that we all sinned in Adam in an extended sense.

Sin is the death of the soul, and all men are born in death in need of spiritual restoration, not after sin is committed, but from birth. Thus our Lord insists on the necessity to be “born again” for salvation. This is the sense in which original sin is called sin. Original sin is not actual sin but a sinful habit which consists formally in the privation of sanctifying grace (I know you expressed a confusion over this concept earlier).

The notion of guilt for original sin is also best understood as a manner of speaking. It does not mean that God literally imputes the actual sin of Adam to all his descendants in the sense that God literally accuses us of eating the fruit. However, it is a fact that we are still liable to suffer penalties on account of Adam’s sin, chiefly the death of the soul and physical corruption. And it is in this sense that we are “guilty.”

With these clarifications in mind, we can dispense with the strawman portrayals of the Latin teaching. St. Paul certainly does mean that death came to all men through Adam’s sin, not our own personal sins. In v. 17 he says that “by one man’s offence, death reigned by one,” and in v. 19, “by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners.” He is not referring only to bodily corruption, but the death of the soul. His point is that though all men “died” through one man, Adam, they will be justified through one man, Christ.

In v. 12 he says that, as you would have it,“death came to all people, because all sinned.” This evidently does not mean that all people suffer death because of their own sins. Otherwise infants, who are innocent of any actual sin, would not die. Moreover, he says that death came through Adam, so it would not be correct to say that people only die because they commit sins. Rather they die physically and spiritually due to Adam’s trespass. However you interpret Romans 5:12 must be interpreted in harmony with this reality. Therefore, it seems that “because,” if it is interpreted that men die because of their own actual sins, is a more deficient translation of “eph ho” than “in quo.”

You can also dispense with the accusations that the Western doctrine entails a “destruction of free will” and “the image of God” in man. Where has the Catholic doctrine ever taught this. I doubt even St. Augustine ever taught this, and even if he did, this is not the teaching of St. Thomas or the Catholic magisterium. From my experience, these accusations have their origin solely in the imaginations of Eastern polemicists (and Pelagian Protestants).

Let’s try to understand each other on the other’s terms rather than an errant preconception about the other’s position.

 

[Richca]

Dear brother Richca,

Judging from this comment from you, you are still laboring under the impression that the Son can be considered the source (along with the Father) in the Procession. Certainly ,you admit that the Son is not the origin of the Trinity, but it has exactly been your apparent insistence that the “origin of the Trinity” can be different from the “origin of the Procession” that has caused our disagreement. In truth, fact, and dogma, there is absolutely NO difference between the origin of the Trinity and the origin of the Procession. This origin is the Father and Father alone. It is not that the origin of the Trinity (who is the Father) is different from the origin of the Procession (who is the Father and Son).

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Richca,

Everything you state below has already been given a response. Yet, you have barely addressed any of my responses, but simply keep bringing up new things, things which are not really new, but merely a rehash of your position. I am not complaining that you are rehashing, since we need to approach this matter in every possible way to completely refute the peculiar idea that the Father is not the one and only Source in the Procession, just as He is the one and only Source in the Trinity. What I am complaining about is that you have barely given a response to any of the points I have brought up. Why is that? Is the inconsistency of your position so difficult to accept? Nevertheless I will respond to your latest post, but please have the courtesy to actually address my statements this time, if you seek to challenge them.

The statement “The Father alone is the origin of the procession of the Holy Spirit” is true in one sense and not true in another. It is true in the sense that the Father is the source and principle of all deity. It is not true if we mean to exclude the Son in the procession of the Holy Spirit.

The Council of Florence postively and explicitly affirms that the Father is the source of all deity, the Son and the Holy Spirit. How do you reconcile this with your statement “It is not true…” PLEASE RESPOND.

Thus, the CCC says that the Father is the first origin of the Spirit.

Yes, but where does the CCC explicitly state your opinion that the Son is also the origin/source of the Holy Spirit? PLEASE RESPOND.

In the creed we recite every Sunday at Mass, we say “I believe in the Holy Spirit…who proceeds from the Father and the Son.”

Yes, but where does your Creed explicitly state that the Son (with the Father) is the origin/source of the Holy Spirit? PLEASE RESPOND.

The 4th Lateran Council declared: the Father is from no one, the Son is from the Father only, the Holy Spirit is from both equally.

Where does the 4th Lateran Council explicitly assert that the Son (with the Father) is the origin/source of the Holy Spirit? PLEASE RESPOND.

St. Thomas explicitly explains that the term “equally” refers to the fact that the power of spiration is equal in both, equal because the Father, Who is the Source, gives it to the Son, NOT because both are equally to be considered the Source of this power of spiration.

Are you claiming that the Father and Son are equally the Source of the power of spiration? PLEASE RESPOND.

And if you do so claim, please respond with direct evidence from Magisterial sources. Again, I am not in the least interested in subjective extrapolations from erroneous assumptions that conflate “principle” and “source,” on the one hand, and ekporeusai and procedit, on the other. If you are going to claim the Son is a source, or the Source with the Father, of the spirative power, provide us with explicit, direct statements from Magisterial sources.

I am now also realizing if I’m not mistaken that the greek word that we translate as proceed (I think it is ekporeusai) in the creed is probably not all that different in meaning than the proceed that we use in everyday common language.

This is most likely true. Which would then make the English proceeds practically equivalent to the Greek ekporeusai. But this does not thereby mean the Latin procedit is practically equivalent to the Greek ekporeusai. This has been the erroneous assumption of your position all along. What Magisterial source can you offer to justify the idea that the Latin procedit is practically equivalent to the Greek ekporeusai? PLEASE RESPOND.

CONT’d

 

[mardukm]

CONT’d

St Thomas Aquinas says that the word procession is the one most commonly applied to all that denotes origin of any kind.

Granted, but where does St. Thomas actually call the Son the origin of the Holy Spirit? PLEASE RESPOND. Just because one can consider the Son “some kind of origin,” that does not justify actually applying the term “origin” to the Son. The term “origin” can only be applied to that which is the origin PROPER. That is why it is important you provide us with an explicit quote from St. Thomas where he actually says the Son is, together with the Father, “origin” of the Holy Spirit. Again, I’m not interested in logical extrapolations. If you can, please provide a direct explicit quote from St. Thomas.

Further, carefully reread the section from St. Thomas to which you are referring. He makes that assumption by adding the word “from” to the term. Certainly, one can state something is “proceeding THROUGH,” and this would not denote origination. So the meaning can vary, depending on the context; similarly, though the Greek ekporeusai naturally denotes the progression from an origin, it can accomodate the notion of mediation with the addition of the word “through” to the term. But taken in and of themselves, the terms mean somthing different. The simple truth of the matter is that the Latin procedere does not naturally denote origination unless the term "from’ is used in conjunction with it. This is in distinction from the Greek term ekporeusai, which indeed NATURALLY denotes the notion of origination.

This is a very important consideration, because the Council of Florence did not equate the terms “from” and “through.” Rather, it equated the terms “and” and “through.” So according to this authoritative Latin source, when the Latins profess that the Holy Spirit “proceeds from the Father and the Son,” you are actually professing “proceeds from the Father THROUGH the Son.” So dogmatically speaking, the term “from” is not actually attached to proceeds when referring to the Son, but only when referring to the Father. Thus, you cannot use St. Thomas in support of your position, for St. Thomas only attaches the notion of origination to procedere by addition of the term “from” to the term. But the Church herself dogmatically attaches the term “from” to procedere ONLY in reference to the Father; in distinction, the Church dogmatically attaches the term “through” to procedere in reference to the Son.

It is quite reasonable to assume that Christ himself didn’t make up the word or St John who uses it in his gospel. From what I understand, it began to take on a specific meaning from the greek fathers possibly beginning with the Cappadocian fathers.

I’m not sure what you are attempting to convey here. You are aware, I hope, that the Bible was not written in Latin.

I’ve read on this discussion that the Father is the one/single source/origin of the Holy Spirit. And by this some posters have meant that the Father alone communicates His substance to the Holy Spirit to the exclusion of the Son. I’d like to ask how you reconcile this teaching to these words of Christ: “The Father and I are one.”

Again, you are basing your conclusions on subjective extrapolations. Not a single person here has stated that “the Father alone communicates His substance to the Holy Spirit to the exclusion of the Son,” not even Fr. John. What everyone who has challenged your erroneous expressions has stated is that the Father alone is the Source of the Substance/Essence to the exclusion of the Son. The Son participates in the Procession NOT AS THE SOURCE, whether considered with or distinctly from the Father, but only has a mediating role.

Btw, in the love analogy, St. Thomas specifically refers to the Father as the Lover who loves the Son, and refers to the Son as the Beloved who loves the Father. He does not claim that either both are the Lover, or both are the Beloved. St. Thomas’ understanding is that the Father is the Source of the Love between Father and the Son, the Love being the Holy Spirit Himself. Your earlier claim that this makes the Holy Spirit second in the Godhead is, quite frankly, illogical. The analogy presupposes a Receiver of the Father’s Love, the Beloved Who is the Son. Please explain your conclusion that this analogy makes the Holy Spirit second in the Godhead. PLEASE RESPOND, even if only to admit the error in your conclusion.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Q (how’s that?),

I’m not sure I understand your point. The Latin translation of John 15:26 is inaccurate. There is a Latin term that denotes origination (like ekporeusai), but it would easily lead to confusion with the concept of the generation of the Son.

But you do bring up a good point. Perhaps we need to be more specific in our terms. Perhaps what we should say is that the Latin is indeed an incorrect transliteration of the original Greek. But as far as translation (as distinct from transliteration) is concerned, we should consider that, as in any translation, the translator’s presuppositions are most likely being taken into account. It is possible that when St. Jerome read the Johannine passage, he imagined the passage in the context of the eternal sending (since it is indeed given by Jesus in that context). In that sense, procedere would conceivably be the correct translation (though not the correct transliteration).

On that assumption, however, your own comment about a distinction between popular and theological usage would be irrelevant, for the Latin procedere (or the Greek proienai) in the context of the eternal sending can never be conflated with the Greek ekporeusai in the context of the origin of hypostases.

Comments?

Blessings,
Marduk

Father, I think you are misreading the document. The document does note a distinction between “processio” and “ekporeusis.” However, this is couched in a distinction in their particular theological usage in describing the relations within the Holy Trinity rather than their common usage. Therefore, this alone is not a sufficient basis to say that the Latin translation is inaccurate. It only means that a different understanding developed understanding the import of the statement in John 15:26 and the Creed between the Latin and Byzantine fathers.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Q,

Your post is not a product of humility.

I believe this is an inappropriate comment. I hope you apologize to Father.

The notion of guilt for original sin is also best understood as a manner of speaking. It does not mean that God literally imputes the actual sin of Adam to all his descendants in the sense that God literally accuses us of eating the fruit. However, it is a fact that we are still liable to suffer penalties on account of Adam’s sin, chiefly the death of the soul and physical corruption. And it is in this sense that we are “guilty.”

When you stated “as a manner of speaking,” I thought you were going to point out the fact that the original Latin text of Trent (which is the Catholic standard for the teaching on Original Sin) has been mistranslated into English. The original Latin text does not actually use the term “guilt” (which is the Latin culpa), but English translations seem to have unanimously (and wrongly) translated the Latin reatus as “guilt.” This has given the impression that the Latin Catholic Church officially teaches a transmitted guilt. Reatus in fact connotes more the idea of “consequence” than “guilt.”

Your statement “in this sense we are guilty” implies far too much about the Catholic teaching. It is better to avoid the term “guilt” or its derivatives altogether when discussing Original Sin, since, in point of fact, Trent does not use that term.

In v. 12 he says that, as you would have it,“death came to all people, because all sinned.” This evidently does not mean that all people suffer death because of their own sins. Otherwise infants, who are innocent of any actual sin, would not die. Moreover, he says that death came through Adam, so it would not be correct to say that people only die because they commit sins. Rather they die physically and spiritually due to Adam’s trespass. However you interpret Romans 5:12 must be interpreted in harmony with this reality. Therefore, it seems that “because,” if it is interpreted that men die because of their own actual sins, is a more deficient translation of “eph ho” than “in quo.”

Good point. FYI, though my own Coptic Tradition does not accept the “guilt” aspect of St. Augustine’s teaching (nor the idea that unbaptized children are damned), we do otherwise follow St. Augustine’s teaching on original sin. St. Augustine is considered one of the patristic sources of the Coptic Orthodox Church. Unlike Easterns and Westerns, the Coptic Orthodox Church does not often distinguish between “Western Fathers” and “Eastern Fathers.” A Church Father is a Church Father. Period. But this does not mean that we accept every single thing every Church Father has stated as Gospel Truth. I’m sure you Easterns and Westerns can identify with that approach.

You can also dispense with the accusations that the Western doctrine entails a “destruction of free will” and “the image of God” in man. Where has the Catholic doctrine ever taught this. I doubt even St. Augustine ever taught this, and even if he did, this is not the teaching of St. Thomas or the Catholic magisterium. From my experience, these accusations have their origin solely in the imaginations of Eastern polemicists (and Pelagian Protestants).

St. Augustine taught that the free will is severely weakened. It is the Protestants who introduced the idea of a free will that is destroyed.

My only complaint with Father’s exposition is that he does not sufficiently distinguish the Western Catholic Tradition from the Western Protestant Tradition.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Peter_J]

I believe this is an inappropriate comment.

+1