Ah! Yes.Ignatius:
Too much reliance is placed on the power of human reasoning to penetrate more of the mysteries of the Godhead than God has revealed.
Actually, being a human is something I do, it’s just not something I do voluntarily. Anything that can be described with a verb is an action. So the Spirit proceeding from the Father is an action. Now this is either something that is done to the Father or done by him. Another way of putting it is that either the Spirit originates the procession or the Father does. Since the Father also sends the Spirit, it seems clear that it is the Father who originates the procession. That the Spirit would be the first cause of his own procession seems odd. And since the Father processes the Spirit, so does the Son, because, as we learn from scripture, everything that the Father does, the Son does.
Fr Ambrose said:
Really? The Father causes His own being. Does the Son cause His own being?
I don’t think that is an acceptable statement of Church dogma. The Council of Florence affirmed that the procession of the Spirit from the Father and the Son was identical to what Eastern theology called the procession of the Spirit from the Father through the Son. That procession was not by way of origin but by way of manifestation. This article explains the situation well.
usccb.org/seia/filioque.htm
In the main the Statements issued by the North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation cause either raised eyebrows or polite disregard in the Orthodox Churches. There is a feeling abroad that the Orthodox participants are not robust enough in challenging their interlocuters with the Orthodox teaching.
But seriously, the way forward will not be a return to Florence.I concur entirely. I actually believe that the way forward will be a return to the Cappadocian fathers’ defense of the Trinity against the Eunomians and an acknowledgement that St. Augustine (to a certain extent) and St. Thomas Aquinas (to a greater extent) misconceived the persons of the Trinity as relationships within an absolutely simple divine essence. The point of mentioning Florence is to observe to Catholics that we are not dogmatically bound to the “Latin” explanation of the Trinity. Many Catholics seem to feel that we are dogmatically obliged to define the notion of the Trinity as relations of opposition in an absolutely simple divine essence, and my point is that we are not bound in this way and that to the extent this understanding is wrong, we ought to be willing to accept correction. Only if we affirm a common Triadological understanding can we expect to have a meaningful discussion about papal authority. The problem with Florence was exactly that there was insufficient respect for the Orthodox Triadological concerns in the first place. Trying to put papal authority into that discussion under those circumstances was putting the cart before the horse. No wonder that Florence was rejected in the East!
Why should I deny something that I accept wholeheartedly? Why should I deny something which I know does not contradict Scripture or Tradition?
Because the Orthodox faith denies these things and your assertion was that “that only leads me to conclude that there is no difference in our belief.” Ergo, if there is no difference in our belief, you should affirm and deny the things which the Orthodox either affirm or deny.
What you ask is impossible. How can I deny something that is not in contradiction in Scripture. Even the councils up to the seventh ecumenical council does not contradict this. I know we are going in circle but you have to state your case why this is not so.
But suppose we do deny that the Holy Spirit takes His origin in any way from the Son? Surely, the simple use of the phrase “from the Father and the Son” cannot be heterodox. Consider the following:
In order to properly understand it, you have to distinguish between the origin of the hypostasis and the procession of the shared divine nature. The hypostasis of the Holy Spirit has its sole origin from the Father as the one principle of Trinity. This is the universal patristic doctrine of “monarchy of the Father” (mono- = one, arche = principle). The Father is also the fount of the divine essence, which all Persons of the Trinity share, so it also makes sense to talk about the way in which this divine essence “moves” from one Person to another. This is known as perichoresis (literally “dancing around”) among the Fathers and was later called circumincession (later still, circuminsession) in Latin theology. In that respect, there is procession of the divine essence from the Father through the Son.
New Advent is correct. You didn’t answer the question.
steve b:
Fr Ambrose: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!
steve b:
Fr Ambrose:
Unchanged since the 8th century and apparantly proud of it. Do you see that this admission, is why the term stagnant has been used by some to describe Orthodox theology?.
No, we use the same words, as I said, and we give them different meanings.
What is the question? Please forgive me, but after so many days with the Forum out of action, when real life has been rushing on as usual, I cannot recall a question from so many days ago,
It is well known that the oldest wells give the clearest water.
The task of the Ecumenical Councils was not to produce innovative doctrine but to clarify the Church’s teaching when it was being opposed and corrupted by false teachers.That’s not the argument. The argument is that the phrase “from the Father and the Son” was used in the same sense as “through the Son” in the patristic writings. Whether it could rightly be substituted into the Nicene Creed is another matter entirely, but the use of the phrase itself does not appear to be controversial.
I was trying to keep it simple, to illustrate that we use the same word with different meanings.
"Non ex Filio esse dicimus: sed Filii Spiritum nominamus.—Damascen. lib. i. Fid. Orth. c. 11
I understand what you are saying and agree. But I was replying to the people here who make a great deal of the *through * and *and * distinction as regards the word filioque. It’s a juggling act to keep all the conversations going at the same time