Filioque and Eastern Christian Trinitarian understanding

[Aris]

Fr Ambrose:

1. Is the Holy Spirit 2 persons or one? The Spirit of the Father and the Spirit of the Son makes him two Spirits. Catholics try to avoid this conclusion by defining that he proceeds from both of them as from one principle. Well, WHAT or WHO is that principle that causes the Holy Spirit?
2. This is not totally logical. The Father is eternal but he is the eternal origin of the Son and the Spirit although in different ways.

1. Definitely just one Spirit. What is there to avoid? It has been explained previously. So we agree right?
2. No disagreement here. We totally agree.

I’m really surprised. I thought I was talking to a western Lawyer not a Eastern Priest.

 

[Aris]

Fr Ambrose:

Certainly I cannot agree, to take an obvious example, that (7) * the Father works ALL things through the Son*.

So you believe there is no biblical basis for this?

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

Originally Posted by Fr Ambrose
Certainly I cannot agree, to take an obvious example, that (7) the Father works ALL things through the Son.

Aris:

So you believe there is no biblical basis for this?

In the words of Latin theology dating from antiquity, these are the common *ad extra * acts of the Persons of the Blessed Trinity. I believe that this is what you really have in mind?

The Father has created ALL things through the Son and He will judge ALL things through the Son.

But obviously in the interior life of the Holy Trinity the Father does NOT work ALL things through the Son. If He did then the Son would be a principal in the cause of His own begottenness from the Father.

The Creed affirms the begottenness of the Son from the Father alone and the procession of the Spirit from the Father alone.

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

1. Definitely just one Spirit. What is there to avoid? It has been explained previously. So we agree right?
2. No disagreement here. We totally agree.

On what? That the Holy Spirit has a single and eternal procession from the Father alone?

 

[steve_b]

Fr Ambrose:

Is the Holy Spirit 2 persons or one? The Spirit of the Father and the Spirit of the Son makes him two Spirits. Catholics try to avoid this conclusion by defining that he proceeds from both of them as from one principle. Well, WHAT or WHO is that principle that causes the Holy Spirit?

Not 1 Spirit but 2 different Spirits? Holy Smokes!!! If I misunderstand you just hollar. So let’s do the math. You agree The Father is one person, and the Son is one person, correct? But the HS = 3 persons, one being the Spirit of the Father, one being the Spirit of the Son, and one being Himself? So we have 1Father + 1Son + 3 HS’s =5 persons of the Blessed Trinity?

No wonder we’re having trouble with this subject! But it’s gettin interestin now!
fr ambrose:

This is not totally logical. The Father is eternal but he is the eternal origin of the Son and the Spirit although in different ways.

If there was a time when the Son or the HS was not there, even for 1 blink, then They aren’t Divine, or eternal.

Did you read the definition of the HS I gave you from New Advent?

 

[steve_b]

Fr Ambrose:

Yes, the *relationship *is eternal, but the Spirit does not have His eternal origin from the Son.

The relationship of the Father and the Spirit is likewise eternal but that does not make the Spirit the origin of the Son. The Son is begotten ONLY from the Father, despite the fact that He (the Son) has an eternal relationship with the Spirit.

So having an eternal relationship does not indicate an eternal origin. If it did we would have all sorts of odd things such as the Son being the eternal origin of the Father!!

“All things whatsoever the Father hath, are mine. Therefore I said, that he shall receive of mine, and shew it to you.” Now, one Divine Person can receive from another only by Procession, being related to that other as to a principle. What the Paraclete will receive from the Son is immanent knowledge, which He will afterwards manifest exteriorly. But this immanent knowledge is the very essence of the Holy Ghost. The latter, therefore, has His origin in the Son, the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Son. “He shall not speak of Himself”, says St. Augustine (In Joan., tr. xcix, 4, in P.L., XXXV, 1887), “because He is not from Himself, but He shall tell you all He shall have heard. He shall hear from him from whom He proceeds. In His case, to hear is to know, and to know is to be. He derives His knowledge from Him from Whom He derives His essence.” St. Cyril of Alexandria remarks that the words: “He shall receive of mine” signify “the nature” which the Holy Ghost has from the Son, as the Son has His from the Father (De Trinit., dialog. vi, in P.G., LXXV, 1011). Besides, Jesus gives this reason of His assertion: “He shall receive of mine”: "All things whatsoever the Father hath, are mine Now, since the Father has with regard to the Holy Ghost the relation we term Active Spiration, the Son has it also; and in the Holy Ghost there exists, consequently, with regard to both, Passive Spiration or Procession. " [from New Advent on the HS]

We not only disagree on “proceed” but I sense we disagree on who the HS is also. Read that article in full on the HS from New Advent.

 

[Aris]

Steve,

Good posts.

However, I think the problem is not definition but on Father Ambrose trying to put on a Western (Latin) hat when probably that is not the best way to do it if they have misgivings or biases against the Latin way of thinking in the first place.

I was wondering about his statement regarding the implications of the list. To me it should be stated whether they agree or not. The statements are worded as simply as possible. There is no hidden agenda beyond comparing our list to what they would agree on.

 

[Aris]

Fr Ambrose:

In the words of Latin theology dating from antiquity, these are the common *ad extra * acts of the Persons of the Blessed Trinity. I believe that this is what you really have in mind?

The Father has created ALL things through the Son and He will judge ALL things through the Son.

But obviously in the interior life of the Holy Trinity the Father does NOT work ALL things through the Son. If He did then the Son would be a principal in the cause of His own begottenness from the Father.

Good point. But as GAssisi was the one who added it to the list, he is the best one to define what he means by works. But I will go back to the Bible and extract that verse which he should have quoted from.

 

[Aris]

1. We believe in one God
2. We believe in that God is three Persons in one God.
3. We believe that each Person is distinct from the other by their relationship, The Father is the unbegotten, the Son is begotten and the Holy Spirit proceeds.
4. that the Persons of the Trinity are consubstantial;
5. that the Persons of the Trinity are distinct by virtue of their Names.
6. that the Persons of the Trinity are all equal; that there is no gradation of power or honor among the Persons.
7. that the Father works ALL things through the Son;
8. that the Spirit is able to comprehend the innermost thoughts of the Father and the Son;
9. that the Spirit is eternally the Spirit of the Father and of the Son.
10. That God’s Nature is Agape
11. One of God’s Names is that of “Mercy” or “Merciful”
12. The Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son

What do we have?

1. Probable rewording of # 7.
2. No definite response (yes or no) from our Orthodox brethren. Come on guys. I know there must be a clear cut yes or no because you would definitely say no if we wrote down Filioque.
3. I added #12. I feel it is safe to assume that the Orthodox should be able to agree to this Catholic understanding. It addresses Father Ambrose’s procession from the Father only.
4. Hopefully with this list the Orthodox may see that there is no difference in Theology.

BTW, to go a bit off topic. I was blessed with a son last night. May he grow faithful to the Catholic Church.

 

[steve_b]

Fr Ambrose:

In the words of Latin theology dating from antiquity, these are the common *ad extra *acts of the Persons of the Blessed Trinity. I believe that this is what you really have in mind?

The Father has created ALL things through the Son and He will judge ALL things through the Son.

But obviously in the interior life of the Holy Trinity the Father does NOT work ALL things through the Son. If He did then the Son would be a principal in the cause of His own begottenness from the Father.

The Creed affirms the begottenness of the Son from the Father alone and the procession of the Spirit from the Father alone.

Define the ad intra acts of the Trinity.

 

[steve_b]

Aris:

BTW, to go a bit off topic. I was blessed with a son last night. May he grow faithful to the Catholic Church.

Congradulations to you, your bride, and your son, whom I’m sure you are well pleased.

 

[JackQ]

Fr Ambrose:

I have not seen any Bible proof so far. A couple of people have simply placed a couple of verses before us:

---

“Remove not the ancient landmarks which your fathers have set” -Proverbs 22.28

This one is the most convincing to me:

“Then Jesus answered, and said to them: Amen, amen, I say unto you, the Son cannot do any thing of himself, but what he seeth the Father doing: for what things soever he doth, these the Son also doth in like manner.” John 5:19

The Spirit proceeds from the Father, so he also proceeds from the Son.

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

Aris:

I was blessed with a son last night. May he grow faithful to the Catholic Church.

Congratulations! What happy news!

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

Well, this discussion has petered out…

I remember that it was suggested that we examine it on a historical basis, first looking at the scriptural basis for the filioque before going on to the patristic evidence and Maggie offered to share her scriptural research with us.

Maggie, are you still following this thread and may we hope to see your contribution with the argument from scripture?

MaggieOH:

“I have researched this subject in the past, and although you might not like my “tone” I cannot apologise for the fact that this question needs to be answered by reference to the Scripture.”…

“What I am trying to establish here is whether Scripture supports the inclusion of “the son”, which, after research I believe to be the case. There are other verses from the Scripture that need to be discussed, and I think these should be examined together with the Sacred Tradition that includes the work of the early Church Fathers that we share in common.”

 

[JackQ]

Fr Ambrose:

Well, this discussion has petered out…

I remember that it was suggested that we examine it on a historical basis, first looking at the scriptural basis for the filioque before going on to the patristic evidence and Maggie offered to share her scriptural research with us.

Maggie, are you still following this thread and may we hope to see your contribution with the argument from scripture?

Father Ambrose, you wound me. Per your request, I provided a scripture for your reflection, and all you can say in response is “Well, this discussion has petered out…”? Surely you’re not saying that my post doesn’t even merit a response? Is that because I am only a junior member?

Now I know that Maggie has some good points to make. But I would consider it a kindness if you would tell me why my post is so insignificant. It may be obvious to you, but it is not to me. Give me the benefit of your wisdom.

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

JackQ:

Father Ambrose, you wound me. Per your request, I provided a scripture for your reflection, and all you can say in response is “Well, this discussion has petered out…”? Surely you’re not saying that my post doesn’t even merit a response? Is that because I am only a junior member?

Dear JackQ, It is because I am a dunderhead and do not see how John 5:19 suggests that the Spirit proceeds from the Son that I was unable to make any sensible reply. Would you be so kind as to lay the argument out for me?

Now I know that Maggie has some good points to make.

Well so far it’s been only “a lick and a promise” as my grandmother would say. We have been waiting for Maggie to post her past scriptural research so that we have a basis to begin this discussion.

But I would consider it a kindness if you would tell me why my post is so insignificant. It may be obvious to you, but it is not to me. Give me the benefit of your wisdom.

As I say, it is just that I don’t understand the John 5:19 connection with the filioque. Can you please explain.

 

[JackQ]

Fr Ambrose:

Dear JackQ, It is because I am a dunderhead and do not see how John 5:19 suggests that the Spirit proceeds from the Son that I was unable to make any sensible reply. Would you be so kind as to lay the argument out for me?

Well so far it’s been only “a lick and a promise” as my grandmother would say. We have been waiting for Maggie to post her past scriptural research so that we have a basis to begin this discussion.

As I say, it is just that I don’t understand the John 5:19 connection with the filioque. Can you please explain.

I doubt you’re a dunderhead. I probably just laid out my argument in too abbreviated a fashion.

The Son does everything the Father does. Whatever the Father does, the Son does likewise. Now one thing the Father does is process the Spirit. Because the Father does this, the Son does as well.

Of course, the Son doesn’t do it of himself. He does it because the Father does it. So a distinction can be made between the Spirit proceeding from the Father in an ultimate sense, and from the Son in a derivative sense.

So those who recite the Creed in the Eastern form are right, and those who recite the Creed in the Western form are right. But if a brother of the Eastern Church says that the Spirit does not proceed from the Son, he is wrong; and if a Western brother says that the Spirit proceeds from the Son in the same ultimate sense as he does from the Father, he is wrong.

It should not surprise us that the Holy Spirit guards the entire Church from error, so that the Creed in both forms is correct. But it should equally not surprise us that those who would keep the Church divided would be wrong, regardless of what side they claim to be on.

 

[steve_b]

Fr Ambrose:

Well, this discussion has petered out…

I remember that it was suggested that we examine it on a historical basis, first looking at the scriptural basis for the filioque before going on to the patristic evidence

You haven’t answered the following.

http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?postid=463649#post463649

http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?postid=463747#post463747

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

JackQ:

The Son does everything the Father does. Whatever the Father does, the Son does likewise. Now one thing the Father does is process the Spirit. Because the Father does this, the Son does as well.

I don’t see how we can say that the Son does everything the Father does.

The Father gives birth to the Son. The Son does not do that.

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

steve b:

Did you read the definition of the HS I gave you from New Advent?

No. People on this Forum rubbish New Advent, and I would guess that the 1913 explanation is different from the 2005 one. Sometimes Catholic development of doctrine is lightening fast