Dropping the Filoque

[Alethiaphile]

And you continue to ignore the fact that those expressions don’t mean what you insist on believing they mean.

The problem is, neither you nor any other apologist can explain what “equally” and “as from one principle” DO mean. All you can ever say is “whatever they mean they don’t contradict the monarchy of the Father”. That’s not good enough. I can say “I believe that 3 squared is the same as 3 + 3 + 3, but that doesn’t contradict that it equals 8”, but, clearly, 3 squared does NOT equal 8, and, clearly, to say that the Father and the Son “equally” and “eternally” together spirate the Spirit DOES contradict the monarchy of the Father. Those are the meanings of the words. The idea of the Son as an intermediary (“through the Son”) which CAN BE understood in an Orthodox sense (as St. Maximos understood it) excludes any accepted sense of “equally”. If the Father and the Son spirate “equally”, it cannot be “through” the Son; if the Father spirates “through” the Son, it cannot be said to be spirated “equally”. You have never, and you CAN NOT, nor can any apologist, no matter how gifted, give a coherent account of how the Father and the Son can “equally” spirate the Spirit, because “euqlly” based on the basic relation of “equality” has a fundamental meaning across cultures and times that is not capable of infinite distortion. There must be more than lip service to the idea of the monarchy of the Father; there must be a deep understanding of what it means in all its implications. The East has that, the West doesn’t.

You keep bringing up an idea that has never, ever been supported in Latin theology,

 

[Ghosty]

It seems to me that there is a close identity between principle and hypostasis, and on this basis, this third principle, from which the Holy Spirit proceeds, is either a fourth or more person of the Trinity, or the hypostasis of the Holy Spirit himself–in other words, the Holy Spirit proceeds from himself, who is a combination of the Father and the Son.

In Latin theological terminology, there is not actually a close identity between principle and hypostasis, or rather it’s not a strict identity. Principle is used to mean any kind “origin”, whether it be strictly singular, or covers multiple individuals. If the object in question only “comes out from a single point”, and everything prior to it is sharing in both nature and the “putting forth” of the object in question, then all those things prior, even if they can be individually identified, can be considered one principle.

A couple of illustrations might help. My hand grows from my fore-arm, and my elbow in one procession of growth. The fore-arm doesn’t contribute from one side, and the elbow from another, nor do they contribute natures to the hand. The fore-arm and elbow, for the purposes of answering “what is the principle of the hand”, can be called one principle, even though they are certainly distinct themselves. What’s more, the fore-arm actually grows out from the elbow, so (considering nothing above the elbow for the purposes of illustration) the elbow is the sole source of this “one principle”.

Another, Patristic example is that of a spring-stream-lake. Considered as an individual, the lake has only one (name removed by moderator)ut of water, so we would say it has one principle. This term “one principle”, however, covers both the spring and the stream, since they are together that flow of water. This doesn’t mean that they aren’t themselves distinct, it just means that for the purpose of identifying “where the lake comes from” they can be considered together as a united principle since they have the same nature (water). This doesn’t change the fact that not only are they distinct, but the spring is also the sole source of all water in both the stream and the lake. Everything the stream contributes to the lake is merely what the spring gives it, and the fact that the lake is composed of water, and not oil, is solely because of the nature of the spring.

So principle and hypostasis don’t have a necessary, one to one identification. Principle refers to an origin of any sort, while hypostasis refers specifically to an individual entity. The term in Latin used identify the Father’s unique and singular role as “principle of all deity” is Principaliter (ruling principle, or principle of principle), rather than principium (principle).

Hope that helps!

Peace and God bless!

 

[Verbum]

Just to set the record straight, the Council of Nicea is an ecumenical council and is accepted by both East and West. The Creed as approved in that Council does not include the Filioque. The Creed without the filioque is therefore correct and accepted by the Catholic Church. It is the only “official” conciliar creed. The Creed with the filioque is a liturgical version of it. Since the Catholic Church accepts both versions, it does not admit a contradiction between both creeds. It just holds that the creed with
the Filioque is a more explicit rendering of the faith.

Orthodox Churches are very touchy about changing anything that has been handed down from ancient times, especially if it is from an ecumenical council. So their position is easy to understand. In latter years, discussions between both churches on this matter have led to the conclusion that both really believe the same thing about the trinity but do not express it the same way.

Finally, it should be noted that Eastern Catholics are allowed to drop the filioque in the litury.

Verbum

 

[Alethiaphile]

Who or what is the “one principle”?
I know that the Latins teach that the Holy Spirit does not proceed from the divine essence. But I’m a bit confused here. The Father is principle without principle; the Son, principle with principle. Is this “one principle,” if not the Father alone, then a combination of two principles into a third principle? It seems to me that there is a close identity between principle and hypostasis, and on this basis, this third principle, from which the Holy Spirit proceeds, is either a fourth or more person of the Trinity, or the hypostasis of the Holy Spirit himself–in other words, the Holy Spirit proceeds from himself, who is a combination of the Father and the Son.
Don’t mean to sound harsh there; it’s just how it sounds to me, since I can’t see how one principle can be reconciled with two hypostases.
.

That is the $60,000 question, to use an old expression, along with what meaning is to be given to “equally”. Different Latin theologians had different answers.
For St. Anselm, the “one principle” was a combination of the Father and the Son. Seriously. “Just so, the Holy Spirit, when we say that he is from the Father and the Son, is not from two sources, but one, which is the Father and the Son, as the Spirit is from God, who is Father and Son”. “On the Procession of the Holy Spirit”, Anselm, The Major Works, Penguin, p. 420. Yes, Anslem basically sets up a Diad of Father and Son, from which the Spirit proceeds. While he doesn’t deny the divinity of the HS, he reiterates several times that the Father and Son “are God”. Such a statement of course violates the Trinitarian theology of the Fathers, under which one never spoke of two of the divine persons over and above a third, and certainly never spoke of two of the Persons as “God” without including the third. One can say “the Father is God”, or “the Son is God”, or “the Holy Spirit is God”, OR “the Father the Son and the Holy Spirit are God” but NEVER “the Father and the Son are God” or “the Father and the Spirit are God”, etc. To talk that way betrays a compeltely inadequate understanding of the Trinity on the part of Anselm.
Aquinas, perhaps cautious of the trap that Anselm fell into, says something different. He says, in a passage that Ghosty and I have discussed extensively, that the “one principle” is the “power” of spiration that the Father has and shares with the Son. Aquinas doesn’t explain, nor could he or anyone else expalin, how an unexercised “power” can be a “principle” or source of anything. A “power” by itself is a mere potency, or capability, or facility. By itself it does nothing. To posit such a thing as an originating principle or source is plainly incoherent.

 

[Madaglan]

In Latin theological terminology, there is not actually a close identity between principle and hypostasis, or rather it’s not a strict identity. Principle is used to mean any kind “origin”, whether it be strictly singular, or covers multiple individuals. If the object in question only “comes out from a single point”, and everything prior to it is sharing in both nature and the “putting forth” of the object in question, then all those things prior, even if they can be individually identified, can be considered one principle.

A couple of illustrations might help. My hand grows from my fore-arm, and my elbow in one procession of growth. The fore-arm doesn’t contribute from one side, and the elbow from another, nor do they contribute natures to the hand. The fore-arm and elbow, for the purposes of answering “what is the principle of the hand”, can be called one principle, even though they are certainly distinct themselves. What’s more, the fore-arm actually grows out from the elbow, so (considering nothing above the elbow for the purposes of illustration) the elbow is the sole source of this “one principle”.

Another, Patristic example is that of a spring-stream-lake. Considered as an individual, the lake has only one (name removed by moderator)ut of water, so we would say it has one principle. This term “one principle”, however, covers both the spring and the stream, since they are together that flow of water. This doesn’t mean that they aren’t themselves distinct, it just means that for the purpose of identifying “where the lake comes from” they can be considered together as a united principle since they have the same nature (water). This doesn’t change the fact that not only are they distinct, but the spring is also the sole source of all water in both the stream and the lake. Everything the stream contributes to the lake is merely what the spring gives it, and the fact that the lake is composed of water, and not oil, is solely because of the nature of the spring.

So principle and hypostasis don’t have a necessary, one to one identification. Principle refers to an origin of any sort, while hypostasis refers specifically to an individual entity. The term in Latin used identify the Father’s unique and singular role as “principle of all deity” is Principaliter (ruling principle, or principle of principle), rather than principium (principle).

Hope that helps!

Peace and God bless!

Thanks for the illustrations. I never heard the one on the hand-forearm-elbow. I don’t suppose you can create a catechetical song out of “Dem Bones.” (I just looked up the lyrics, and it’s actually based on Ezekiel!)

It’s interesting in the spring-stream-lake illustration how it is the water of the spring and stream that is instrumental in the formation of the lake. Yes, the spring and stream are the origin of the lake, yet it is the water itself that these two share which forms (“creates”) the lake.

I’ll have to look into the distinction between Principaliter and principium.

 

[Madaglan]

That is the $60,000 question, to use an old expression, along with what meaning is to be given to “equally”. Different Latin theologians had different answers.
For St. Anselm, the “one principle” was a combination of the Father and the Son. Seriously. “Just so, the Holy Spirit, when we say that he is from the Father and the Son, is not from two sources, but one, which is the Father and the Son, as the Spirit is from God, who is Father and Son”. “On the Procession of the Holy Spirit”, Anselm, The Major Works, Penguin, p. 420. Yes, Anslem basically sets up a Diad of Father and Son, from which the Spirit proceeds. While he doesn’t deny the divinity of the HS, he reiterates several times that the Father and Son “are God”. Such a statement of course violates the Trinitarian theology of the Fathers, under which one never spoke of two of the divine persons over and above a third, and certainly never spoke of two of the Persons as “God” without including the third. One can say “the Father is God”, or “the Son is God”, or “the Holy Spirit is God”, OR “the Father the Son and the Holy Spirit are God” but NEVER “the Father and the Son are God” or “the Father and the Spirit are God”, etc. To talk that way betrays a compeltely inadequate understanding of the Trinity on the part of Anselm.
Aquinas, perhaps cautious of the trap that Anselm fell into, says something different. He says, in a passage that Ghosty and I have discussed extensively, that the “one principle” is the “power” of spiration that the Father has and shares with the Son. Aquinas doesn’t explain, nor could he or anyone else expalin, how an unexercised “power” can be a “principle” or source of anything. A “power” by itself is a mere potency, or capability, or facility. By itself it does nothing. To posit such a thing as an originating principle or source is plainly incoherent.

Thanks for your post. The thought of a dyad occurred to me when I wrote my post.

I see you quote from the Penguin edition of Anselm’s major works. Are you happy with that edition? I’m thinking of reading some Anselm soon.

 

[Ghosty]

The problem is, neither you nor any other apologist can explain what “equally” and “as from one principle” DO mean. All you can ever say is “whatever they mean they don’t contradict the monarchy of the Father”. That’s not good enough.

No offense, but it seems like you must not be paying attention. I’ve explained just that in every thread we’ve had on this topic, with the same illustrations each time. As for Aquinas, Anselm, and Augustine, they all three say that the “one principle” is the Father and the Son considered together, as they are united in Spirating, as I’ve shown in my illustrations.

As I’ve said before, you are using too narrow a definition of “principle”, trying to identify it strictly with hypostasis, but that’s not how any of the Latin Fathers use it. If you want to insist on a totally different meaning of the terms, then no discussion can be had.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Ghosty]

Thanks for the illustrations. I never heard the one on the hand-forearm-elbow. I don’t suppose you can create a catechetical song out of “Dem Bones.” (I just looked up the lyrics, and it’s actually based on Ezekiel!)

It’s interesting in the spring-stream-lake illustration how it is the water of the spring and stream that is instrumental in the formation of the lake. Yes, the spring and stream are the origin of the lake, yet it is the water itself that these two share which forms (“creates”) the lake.

I’ll have to look into the distinction between Principaliter and principium.

That water can be considered the Divine Nature, I suppose, though we must be careful not to take any worldly examples too far and fall into error. The water (Divine Nature) is identical in the lake, the stream, and the spring, but there remain three distinct entities, each with their own unique, identifying properties.

Another point about the spring-stream-lake analogy is that it also answers Alethiaphile’s question about the meaning of “equally” (which itself is merely the English translation, with all the baggage that entails). Is the water more from the spring, or more from the stream? It is equally from both, but this doesn’t mean that the spring and the stream have the same relationship to the water, as the spring is source, and the stream the receiver and participator in the flow, not the source of the flow. The same quantity of water is received from the stream and the spring, and not just quantitatively the same amount of water (as if both contributed 50%), but identically the same water itself (they both contribute 100% of the water). So, using this point, Latins could actually turn around on those who say that the Son contributes Divine Energy, but not hypostasis, to the Holy Spirit and say that they are dividing the Holy Spirit and making Him composite, and that they are the ones who are actually making “two principles of the Holy Spirit”, by making the Son not only a distinct contributor, but a contributor of something distinct in itself.

Incidentally, the spring-stream-lake analogy was used by St. John of Damascus, and other Church Fathers, to illustrate the nature of the Trinity, and how one Person is from the next without dividing the Divine Nature. It remains the best description of the Trinity in my eyes.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Madaglan]

That water can be considered the Divine Nature, I suppose, though we must be careful not to take any worldly examples too far and fall into error. The water (Divine Nature) is identical in the lake, the stream, and the spring, but there remain three distinct entities, each with their own unique, identifying properties.

Another point about the spring-stream-lake analogy is that it also answers Alethiaphile’s question about the meaning of “equally” (which itself is merely the English translation, with all the baggage that entails). Is the water more from the spring, or more from the stream? It is equally from both, but this doesn’t mean that the spring and the stream have the same relationship to the water, as the spring is source, and the stream the receiver and participator in the flow, not the source of the flow. The same quantity of water is received from the stream and the spring, and not just quantitatively the same amount of water (as if both contributed 50%), but identically the same water itself (they both contribute 100% of the water). So, using this point, Latins could actually turn around on those who say that the Son contributes Divine Energy, but not hypostasis, to the Holy Spirit and say that they are dividing the Holy Spirit and making Him composite, and that they are the ones who are actually making “two principles of the Holy Spirit”, by making the Son not only a distinct contributor, but a contributor of something distinct in itself.

Incidentally, the spring-stream-lake analogy was used by St. John of Damascus, and other Church Fathers, to illustrate the nature of the Trinity, and how one Person is from the next without dividing the Divine Nature. It remains the best description of the Trinity in my eyes.

Peace and God bless!

I didn’t know St. John of Damascus used this analogy.

My personal favorite is the one with the sun.

 

[Ghosty]

I didn’t know St. John of Damascus used this analogy.

My personal favorite is the one with the sun.

He used that one too, in the same work no less. Here’s a link to it:

balamand.edu.lb/theology/JoWrit_trinity.htm

St. John actually says spring-river-sea, but the concept remains the same. Here’s a pertainant passage:

Think of the Father as a spring of life begetting the Son like a river and the Holy Ghost like a sea, for the spring and the river and sea are all one nature.

Think of the Father as a root, and of the Son as a branch, and the Spirit as a fruit, for the substance in these three is one.

The Father is a sun with the Son as rays and the Holy Ghost as heat.

Notice that in each analogy, the filioque (in the sense used by Latin theologians, and as I’ve explained it) is implied. At the very least, the Son is not cut off from the Procession of the Holy Spirit in any way, only from being the Source (which the Latins themselves agreed with, and formally stated, at Florence).

Basically, the Trinity is a straight line, not two forking branches off of the Father. If this stuff wasn’t found in such eminent Eastern Fathers, I wouldn’t even be using it.

Peace and God bless!

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Formosus,

I apologize I don’t have time to read all your post (have to get some sleep, off for a retreat tomorrow but its a 7hour drive). I would just say there was another quote in the book I used for those quotes that seemed to address the issue of whether the energies were part of the Hypostasis (which it would seem from the second quote that they are not). I do think here that St. Palamas is saying that the Energies proceed eternally, and not just temporally.

For the benefit of our readers, here is the second quote that you referenced:

“The Holy Spirit belongs to Christ by essence and by energy, because Christ is God; nevertheless, according to essence and hypostasis it belongs but does not proceed, whereas, according to energy, it belongs and proceeds."- St. Gregory Palamas

You are saying this means that the energies are not part of hte Hypostasis.

First, from a reading of the early Fathers, here is what I understand regarding their teaching on the matter:
The Essence and Energy (or Essential Energy) is common to all the Persons of the Godhead.
Thus, each Person or Hypostasis of the Trinity is “composed of”/“defined by”: 1) a relational property; 2) Essence; 3) Energy.

In that understanding, there is NO way that Energy cannot be a part of the Hypostasis of the Holy Spirit, as Energy is common to each Person/Hypostasis of the Godhead.

If you are saying that St. Palamas is teaching otherwise, then I must disagree. I interpret the second quote you gave from Palamas thus:

In TEMPORAL time, there is a notion of “not flow from.” According to Palamas, this statement is intimately equivalent to the idea of “cannot receive.” THUS, Palamas states that in TEMPORAL time, the Essence and Hypostasis does “not flow from” the Son (but only the Energies), NOT because the Essence and Hypostasis does NOT flow from the Son, but because creatures CANNOT RECEIVE the Essence or Hypostasis, but only the Energy. This comes from the very definition of Palamas that there is no “flowing from” where there is nothing to receive.

HOWEVER, in ETERNITY, the situation is absolutely different, because there is indeed something that can receive what flows from the Son. Namely, the Holy Spirit. The notion of “NOT flow from” has ABSOLUTELY no meaning in Eternity.

Keep in mind that “flow from” (Greek proienai or Latin procedit) is to always be distinguished from the term “originates from” (Greek ekporeusai).

That, I think, is the ONLY way to interpret Palamas that does not cause him to contradict the patristic Tradition, and it is, IMHO, a legitimate interpretation of Palamas from his own texts.

I think brother Alethiaphile, though I disagree somewhat with his analysis of the Latin teaching, is correctly focusing on the DIFFERENTIATION of the roles of the Son and the Father in the Hypostasis of the Spirit. He is not going beyond the focus or concerns of the Eastern Fathers in the first millenium by attempting to cut off the Son from the Hypostasis.

I pray you had a blessed retreat. I look forward to your response when you return.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Alethiaphile,

A “power” by itself is a mere potency, or capability, or facility. By itself it does nothing. To posit such a thing as an originating principle or source is plainly incoherent.

Not fully understanding the deep things that Easterns and Latins discuss, it seems to me here that you are admitting brother Ghosty’s statement that there is a difference between the Latin understanding of principle, and the Greek understanding of Source.

Maybe you have argued yourself into the solution to your own problem.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Madaglan]

He used that one too, in the same work no less. Here’s a link to it:

balamand.edu.lb/theology/JoWrit_trinity.htm

St. John actually says spring-river-sea, but the concept remains the same. Here’s a pertainant passage:

Notice that in each analogy, the filioque (in the sense used by Latin theologians, and as I’ve explained it) is implied. At the very least, the Son is not cut off from the Procession of the Holy Spirit in any way, only from being the Source (which the Latins themselves agreed with, and formally stated, at Florence).

Basically, the Trinity is a straight line, not two forking branches off of the Father. If this stuff wasn’t found in such eminent Eastern Fathers, I wouldn’t even be using it.

Peace and God bless!

Spring to river to sea…

Obviously St. John didn’t know the difference between fresh and sea water. Ha! Homoiousios at best! :yup:

I’ll have to read more of St. John the Damascene. I know he also writes in his exposition, “we do not speak of the Spirit as from the Son”–while acknowledging that the Holy Spirit is shown and given to us through the Son.

 

[Ghosty]

Spring to river to sea…

Obviously St. John didn’t know the difference between fresh and sea water. Ha! Homoiousios at best! :yup:

I’ll have to read more of St. John the Damascene. I know he also writes in his exposition, “we do not speak of the Spirit as from the Son”–while acknowledging that the Holy Spirit is shown and given to us through the Son.

Yes, the term he used was “ek” (from), as in the Greek term in the Creed “ekporousis”. That term carries the implication of “source” in Greek, but there is no comparable term in Latin, so when the Creed was translated the more general sense of “going out from” was used with the Latin term “ex procedere”.

With the term “ek”, the filioque is absolutely erroneous, and the filioque is actually not allowed even when Latins are reciting the Creed in Greek. When the filioque was added by the Latins, however, they only knew the Latin terms, and didn’t realize the Greek carried a completely different connotation.

Peace and God bless!

 

[mardukm]

I’ll have to read more of St. John the Damascene. I know he also writes in his exposition, “we do not speak of the Spirit as from the Son”–while acknowledging that the Holy Spirit is shown and given to us through the Son.

That is not a denial of the patristic teaching that the Spirit is THROUGH the Son, d’accord?

And I know that the verse you quote is a favorite of EO, but here is another one that seems to be neglected:
“The Father Himself, then, is begetter of the Word, and through the Word the Producer of the revealing Spirit.”

EO polemicists have scrambled the novel idea that this passage refers to the relationship of the three Persons of the Godhead ONLY in termporal time. But these forget that this statement from the Damascene comes immediately on the heels of another statement that reveals the intent of the statement above - namely, “And when I think of the relation of the three subsistences to each other…”

The Damascene is obviously trying to grasp the ETERNAL relationship of the Persons, not merely their temporal one. But regardless of whether he is speaking of their Eternal or temporal relationship, how is it possible that the relationship of the three Persons of the Godhead temporally be different from their relationship in Eternity? EO polemicists (though not all EO are like this) like to pretend that they are defending true Orthodoxy. But what use is it to defend true orthodoxy by refuting a supposed heresy through the proposition of an actual heresy?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

One thing I’ve found about Palamas from reading several analyses of him by EO writers is that he basically restricts himself to discussion of the energetic procession TEMPORALLY (I’m not saying I’ve read Palamas enough to make this assessment, but that this is the assessment given by the EO writers I have read). He does not seem to concern himself with the ETERNAL procession at all, aside from saying that the energetic manifestation is Eternal as well as temporal.

I am thinking that when EO polemicists are using Palamas against Filioque (since he was against its use), they are using Palamas’ statements beyond what he intended - i.e., they are applying Palamas’ statements to the ontological Eternal relationship of the Persons, not merely the epistemological temporal relationship of the Persons. Personally, though I admit I have not read Palamas to the extent as EO surely have, I think Palamas limits his language to the epistemological TEMPORAL relationship of the Persons, and does not seek to go beyond that.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Alethiaphile]

No offense, but it seems like you must not be paying attention. I’ve explained just that in every thread we’ve had on this topic, with the same illustrations each time. As for Aquinas, Anselm, and Augustine, they all three say that the “one principle” is the Father and the Son considered together, as they are united in Spirating, as I’ve shown in my illustrations.

 

[mardukm]

Ghosty;4909752:

To be a “Roman Apologist”, one need only defend the Roman position. There are Lutherans and Anglicans who also defend the Roman position on the filioque. Joe

On the assumption that Lyons and Florence are not saying what you are saying, my point would be that this position is not merely the “Roman” position, but is simply patristic. I do think that Lyons and Florence do not go far enough in its definitions to make a proper distinction between the roles of the Father and Son in the Procession, but I don’t think there is any basis for you to claim that there is NO differentiation made.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Ghosty]

As I just wrote in my previous post, and as you know from past discussions, Aquinas believed the one principle was the “power” of spiration.

Actually, Aquinas simply said that the Father and Son are one principle:

There is no reason against saying that the Father and the Son are the same principle, because the word “principle” stands confusedly and indistinctly for the two Persons together.

newadvent.org/summa/1036.htm

But if you are going to say the “one principle” is the Father and Son acting together, “equally” as Lyons and Florence say, then you are positing, as did St. Anselm, a dyad within the Trinity, in contravention to patristic theology.

This is not a logical conclusion from the teaching, I’m sorry. This is precisely what I mean by your tying “principle to hypostasis”; you don’t have to use the term hypostasis to treat the “one principle” as if it was a hypostasis distinct from the Holy Spirit, and that’s precisely what you’re suggesting.

There is no risk of a “dyad” because it is a single Divine Nature shared between all three Persons; the Father and Son don’t possess a different Nature of themselves apart from the Holy Spirit any more than the Father alone possesses a different Nature from the Son and Holy Spirit. What’s more, the monarchy (principaliter) of the Father is preserved because He alone is Source of all deity, as Florence says; it is not that the Father and Son together are the Source of deity.

Peace and God bless!

 

[mardukm]

You have never, and you CAN NOT, nor can any apologist, no matter how gifted, give a coherent account of how the Father and the Son can “equally” spirate the Spirit, because “euqlly” based on the basic relation of “equality” has a fundamental meaning across cultures and times that is not capable of infinite distortion. There must be more than lip service to the idea of the monarchy of the Father; there must be a deep understanding of what it means in all its implications. The East has that, the West doesn’t.

As far as I know, the “equally” refers to the “power of spiration,” not the roles. The POWER from the Father, is the SAME POWER, that flows through the Son. Is that so hard to comprehend?

First of all, the language at Florence you cite for the monarchy of the Father is not part of the dogmatic decrees of the Council, as I’ve pointed out to you before.

Why would that matter? Something is only dogmatized if it requires a definitive teaching - for example, if there is conflict over the matter. There was no conflict over the monarchy of the Father. Why do you think its exclusion from the dogmatic definition at Florence means anything?

Blessings,
Marduk