Filioque and Eastern Christian Trinitarian understanding

[JPrejean]

Please explain what you mean by 2 different Spirits.

If “Spirit of the Son” refers to the origin of the person of the Holy Spirit, then either the Sprit of the Son and the Spirit of the Father are two different persons or the Father and the Son are the same person. Either possibility would be absurd; therefore, the term “Spirit of the Son” cannot possibly refer to personal origin. The substance of the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son, but the person of the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone.

 

[steve_b]

JPrejean:

If “Spirit of the Son” refers to the origin of the person of the Holy Spirit, then either the Sprit of the Son and the Spirit of the Father are two different persons or the Father and the Son are the same person. Either possibility would be absurd; therefore, the term “Spirit of the Son” cannot possibly refer to personal origin. The substance of the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son, but the person of the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone.

I want to know how Fr A explains 2 different Spirits between Father and Son.

Please review this

The Holy Spirit newadvent.org/cathen/07409a.htm
It seems many misunderstandings come from not knowing who the HS is.

Also
The Filioque newadvent.org/cathen/06073a.htm

 

[JPrejean]

If you’re looking for where the Catholic Encyclopedia went wrong, here it is:

Now, one Divine Person can receive from another only by Procession, being related to that other as to a principle.

This fails to make the distinction between hypostasis (which originates solely from the Father) and ousia. It’s not surprising. The authors are being good Thomists on this point, conceiving of the persons of the Trinity as relationships within the divine essence, which means that there is no metaphysical distinction that is given in the divine persons (IOW, there is no distinction between substance and hypostasis). But this is simply wrong, at least as far as I can tell, because it misconceives the notion of divine simplicity. The notion of the Trinity as oppositions of relation is not patristic in origin, and I believe that it can be rejected. Because that distinction isn’t made, the Catholic Encyclopedia erroneously states:

As the Son Himself proceeds from the Father, it is from the Father that He receives, with everything else, the virtue that makes Him the principle of the Holy Ghost. Thus, the Father alone is principium absque principio, aitia anarchos prokatarktike, and, comparatively, the Son is an intermediate principle.

In fact, the Son is NOT the principle of origin of the Holy Spirit in any way, intermediate or otherwise.

Edit –

I want to know how Fr A explains 2 different Spirits between Father and Son.

Fr Ambrose is not saying that there are two different Spirits. In fact, he is saying quite the opposite; there is only one Spirit. Your interpretation would require two separate Spirits: one for the Father, and one for the Son. Therefore, your interpretation must be wrong.

 

[whosebob]

JPrejean:

In fact, the Son is NOT the principle of origin of the Holy Spirit in any way, intermediate or otherwise.

JMJ + OBT​

In fact, though, the Church Fathers of the East and West disagree with you. Check it out:

Corunum Apologetic Website: Filioque

A Catholic-Orthodox Dialogue on Filioque

In the Hearts of Jesus and Mary.

IC XC NIKA

 

[JPrejean]

whosebob:

In fact, though, the Church Fathers of the East and West disagree with you.

No, they don’t. In fact, the sites that you referenced agree with my position. Just to cite two examples that say exactly what I said:

The doctrine of the Filioque must be understood and presented by the Catholic Church in such a way that it cannot appear to contradict the Monarchy of the Father nor the fact that he [the Father] is the sole origin (arche, aitia) of the ekporeusis of the Spirit. The Filioque is, in fact, situated in a theological and linguistic context different from that of the affirmation of the sole Monarchy of the Father, the one origin of the Son and of the Spirit.
…
According to St Maximus, echoing Rome, the Filioque does not concern the ekporeusis of the Spirit issued from the Father as source of the Trinity, but manifests his proienai (processio) in the consubstantial communion of the Father and the Son, while excluding any possible subordinationist interpretation of the Father’s Monarchy.
…
The problem is one of translation. The Latin processio is used in two senses, originating (which the Spirit does from the Father alone) and proceeding (more specifically) (which the Spirit does from the Father and the Son, or through the Son).

The Holy Spirit in no way takes His origin from the Son, but from the Father alone.

 

[whosebob]

JPrejean:

The Holy Spirit in no way takes His origin from the Son, but from the Father alone.

JMJ + OBT​

The Catholic Church agrees insofar as “origin” is used to refer to the unique monarchy of the Father, i.e. ekporeusis.

But, in many cases Western theologians have historically also spoken of “origin” insofar as it relates to the Latin theology of processio, which does not undermine or compromise the former, rather it is complementary as the report from the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity so clearly demonstrates:

Please see this previous post of mine:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=431147#post431147

So from the orthodox (little “o”) Catholic point of view, your assertion is either valid insofar as it does not deny “proceeds from the Father and the Son” to be a true statement of the Catholic Faith; or it is contrary to Catholic belief insofar as it meant to deny that the Holy Spirit does truly proceed from the Father and the Son.

In the Hearts of Jesus and Mary.

IC XC NIKA

 

[JPrejean]

whosebob:

The Catholic Church agrees insofar as “origin” is used to refer to the unique monarchy of the Father, i.e. ekporeusis.

Precisely. Being Catholic, I would hardly presume to deny any of the dogmas of the Catholic Church. I have no qualms about the procession of the Holy Spirit according to substance (or divinity, as you put it) being “from the Father and the Son” or “from the Father through the Son.” But I have a serious problem with processio being misinterpreted to the point of compromising the monarchy of the Father, in which the Son plays no part, and I fear that is happening because the Catholic Encyclopedia did not rigorously distinguish between the two.

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

Aris:

We have given biblical proofs and that should be answered.

Could you please run them by us again. I don’t recall seeing any such proofs.

I remember that Maggie, at the beginning of this thread, said she had done a previous study of scriptural proofs for the filioque and she wanted to offer her research to us, but I don’t think she has done so?

Maggie, if you are still reading this thread, would you be able to address the scriptural proofs?

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

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

Please explain what you mean by 2 different Spirits

Ah, now I see…

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?

Did anybody explain what is this impersonal “principle” which Catholics posit as the cause the Holy Spirit?

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

steve b:

We didn’t withdraw from anything.

Of course you did. False charges were thrown at the Eastern Church that they had ommited the filioque from the Creed and that they had married clergy - and this was the basis which justified Rome breaking communion with the Church.

Not so. You’re talking about your difficulties since 1054. Eastern Catholics reunited with the pope.

Talking also about the Eastern Catholic difficulties. It is their quiet determination not to accept as binding the Councils held by Rome post 1054 which gives rise to their refusal to accept the (Roman) conciliar definitions of such things as purgatory and even of the filioque (see the document of the Union of Brest where the Uniates (their term for themselves) state their refusal to accept the Roman teaching on this point. It’s phrased very politely but it boils down to a refusal.)

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

JPrejean:

If “Spirit of the Son” refers to the origin of the person of the Holy Spirit, then either the Sprit of the Son and the Spirit of the Father are two different persons or the Father and the Son are the same person. Either possibility would be absurd; therefore, the term “Spirit of the Son” cannot possibly refer to personal origin. The substance of the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son, but the person of the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone.

I would still prefer Saint John the Damascene’s:

"Non ex Filio esse dicimus: sed Filii Spiritum nominamus.—Damascen. lib. i. Fid. Orth. c. 11

“We do not say that he is from the Son [has his existence/substance from the Son], but we name him as the Spirit of the Son” -St John of Damascus. On the Orthodox Faith, chapter 11

 

[JPrejean]

I like St. John Damascene as well.

““Likewise we believe also in one Holy Spirit, the Lord and giver of life . . . God existing and addressed along with Father and Son; uncreated, full, creative, all-ruling, all-effecting, all-powerful, of infinite power, Lord of all creation and not under any lord; deifying, not deified; filling, not filled; sharing in, not shared in; sanctifying, not sanctified; the intercessor, receiving the supplications of all; in all things like to the Father and Son; proceeding from the Father and communicated through the Son” (Exposition of the Orthodox Faith 8 [A.D. 712]).”

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

JPrejean:

I like St. John Damascene as well.

““Likewise we believe also in one Holy Spirit, the Lord and giver of life . . . God existing and addressed along with Father and Son; uncreated, full, creative, all-ruling, all-effecting, all-powerful, of infinite power, Lord of all creation and not under any lord; deifying, not deified; filling, not filled; sharing in, not shared in; sanctifying, not sanctified; the intercessor, receiving the supplications of all; in all things like to the Father and Son; proceeding from the Father and communicated through the Son” (Exposition of the Orthodox Faith 8 [A.D. 712]).”

Yes, comunicated through the Son at Pentecost… as Saint John explains…

“…we confess that He is manifested and communicated to us through the Son. For He breathed upon His Disciples, says he, and said, Receive ye the Holy Spirit. It is just the same as in the case of the sun from which come both the ray and the radiance (for the sun itself is the source of both the ray and the radiance), and it is through the ray that the radiance is imparted to us, and it is the radiance itself by which we are lightened and in which we participate.”

Notice what Saint John says in Book 1, chapter 7 - not one word that the Spirit proceeds from the Son…but merely that the Spirit is the companion of the Son (inasmuch as both share their origin in the Father) and he comes to rest in the Son. It would not be correct of Saint John to call Him only the companion of the Son if the Son were also His source.

“…so also, when we have learnt about the Spirit of God, we contemplate it as the companion of the Word and the revealer of His energy, and not as mere breath without subsistence. For to conceive of the Spirit that dwells in God as after the likeness of our own spirit, would be to drag down the greatness of the divine nature to the lowest depths of degradation. But we must contemplate it as an essential power, existing in its own proper and peculiar subsistence, proceeding from the Father and resting in the Word(4), and shewing forth the Word, neither capable of disjunction from God in Whom it exists, and the Word Whose companion it is, nor poured forth to vanish into nothingness(5), but being in subsistence in the likeness of the Word, endowed with life, free volition, independent movement, energy, ever willing that which is good, and having power to keep pace with the will in all its decrees(6), having no beginning and no end. For never was the Father at any time lacking in the Word, nor the Word in the Spirit.”

and…

"We believe in one Father, the beginning, and cause of all: begotten of no one: without cause or generation, alone subsisting: creator of all: but Father of one only by nature, His Only-begotten Son and our Lord and God and Saviour Jesus Christ, and Producer of the most Holy Spirit.

and…

“For the Father alone is ingenerate, no other subsistence having given Him being. And the Son alone is generate, for He was begotten of the Father’s essence without beginning and without time. And only the Holy Spirit proceedeth from the Father’s essence, not having been generated but simply proceeding. For this is the doctrine of Holy Scripture. But the nature of the generation and the procession is quite beyond comprehension.”

and…

“Likewise we believe also in one Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of Life: Who proceedeth from the Father and resteth in the Son…proceeding from the Father and communicated through the Son”

and…

“the Son is derived from the Father after the manner of generation, and the Holy Spirit likewise is derived from the Father, yet not after the manner of generation, but after that of procession. And we have learned that there is a difference between generation and procession, but the nature of that difference we in no wise understand. Further, the generation of the Son from the Father and the procession of the Holy Spirit are simultaneous.”

 

[SyroMalankara]

I found this thread to be amazingly helpful and beneficial. Thank You to JPrejean and Fr. Ambrose.

Practically, I would re-write the filioque or remove it. If it leads to confusion then something must be adjusted.

 

[steve_b]

JPrejean:

If you’re looking for where the Catholic Encyclopedia went wrong, here it is:

This fails to make the distinction between hypostasis (which originates solely from the Father) and ousia. It’s not surprising. The authors are being good Thomists on this point, conceiving of the persons of the Trinity as relationships within the divine essence, which means that there is no metaphysical distinction that is given in the divine persons (IOW, there is no distinction between substance and hypostasis). But this is simply wrong, at least as far as I can tell, because it misconceives the notion of divine simplicity.

1. New Advent copiously quotes sources. Not just Thomist.
2. Western thought and Eastern thought are different on procession.
3. The HS proceeds, not by way of generation, but by way of spiration, from the Father and the Son together, as from a single principle.

JPrejean:

The notion of the Trinity as oppositions of relation is not patristic in origin, and I believe that it can be rejected. Because that distinction isn’t made, the Catholic Encyclopedia erroneously states:

Oppositions of relation? What are you talking about?

JPrejean:

In fact, the Son is NOT the principle of origin of the Holy Spirit in any way, intermediate or otherwise.

Edit –

Athanasius states expressly that "the Holy Ghost comes from the Father and from the Son not made not created, not generated, but proceeding ".

JPrejean:

Fr Ambrose is not saying that there are two different Spirits. In fact, he is saying quite the opposite; there is only one Spirit. Your interpretation would require two separate Spirits: one for the Father, and one for the Son. Therefore, your interpretation must be wrong.

Here are Fr A’s own words

“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?”

1. He states that they are 2 Spirits
2. The answer to his question was given by Athenasius "the Holy Ghost comes from the Father and from the Son not made not created, not generated, but proceeding ".

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

steve b:

Here are Fr A’s own words

“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?”

1. He states that they are 2 Spirits

Ahem I was pointing to the fact that two sources of the Spirit must have given rise to two Spirits. Two mothers cannot bear the same child, and no fancy word shuffling about the child proceeding from two mothers as from one princiople will ever convince me that one child was born from two mothers.

And nobody has yet explained to us exactly what this RC “principle” is that causes the Spirit?

So here’s the question again - WHO or WHAT is the ‘principle’?

1. The answer to his question was given by Athenasius "the Holy Ghost comes from the Father and from the Son not made not created, not generated, but proceeding ".

The attribution of this Creed to Athanasius is a piece of fraud. Best to quietly lay it to rest.

 

[SyroMalankara]

Fr Ambrose:

I think it is relevant because the rumours are that the Eastern Catholics look upon the Ecumenical Councils conducted by Rome as being local Roman Councils and not binding on them. (I think they are are very discreet about this and never mention it in the presence of the Panzer-Kardinal!) But it means that they would not feel obliged to accept the trinitarian teachings on the filioque propounded at Florence.

I will humbly attempt to clarify this:

Please read this:

orthodoxchristianity.net/texts/Dvornik_whichcouncils.html

The Eastern Churches look at the Councils with a hierarchy of Universal Importance:

the First Three are of Highest Level
followed by the Next Four
then the others which contain many elements unique to the Latin Church

**Second Ecumenical Consultation between Theologians of the Oriental Orthodox and the Roman Catholic Churches” (organized by Pro Oriente in 1973) on this matter:

“We also studied the question of Ecumenical Councils, especially the difference in number (three, seven and twenty one). Though no consensus is easily attainable in this issue, we agree that the first three Ecumenical Councils had, because of their more general acceptance in the Church, a greater degree of fullness, which the later Councils do not have. We look forward, however, to future regional and ecumenical Councils with larger representation as the reunion of Churches is hastened by the working of the Holy Spirit.**

 

[JPrejean]

1. New Advent copiously quotes sources. Not just Thomist.

True. However, the notion that they have of Trinitarian persons is Thomist, as I will explain below.

1. Western thought and Eastern thought are different on procession.

Yes, and to the extent the West differs from the East (as I will describe below), the West is wrong. Fortunately, we Catholics are not dogmatically bound to the Western understanding.

1. The HS proceeds, not by way of generation, but by way of spiration, from the Father and the Son together, as from a single principle.

Can you quote a dogmatic source for that statement? I don’t think we’re compelled to accept that formulation.

Now to answer the question that really answers all of the others…

Oppositions of relation? What are you talking about?

The view of the Trinity that became prevalent in the West (particularly via St. Thomas) was that the distinction between persons was based on so-called “relations of opposition.” The notion of “relations of opposition” comes from St. Thomas’s mistaken belief (at least in my view) that the Persons are distinctions within the divine essence. Because the divine essence is absolutely simple, such distinctions cannot be “real” (which would make the essence composite), but must instead be mere “relations” by which each person was distinguished. In other words, what distinguished each of the persons of the Trinity was being on opposite sides of a relation (begetting-begotten, spirating-proceeding). Thus, by St. Thomas’s reasoning, the Spirit must proceed from both the Father and the Son so that the Spirit is in a relation of opposition with the Son (The Son spirates; the Spirit proceeds). It was this mistaken Trinitarian view that led to confusion over the meaning of the filioque. The Eastern view, which maintained the correct understanding of divine simplicity, did not need to find a relation of opposition between the Son and the Spirit, and so they did not fall into this error.

Athanasius states expressly that "the Holy Ghost comes from the Father and from the Son not made not created, not generated, but proceeding ".

Could you provide a source for that statement as well? I think that Fr. A may be right about this being the Athanasian creed. I won’t comment any further on his words, and I will utter a profound “D’OH!” for taking St. John Damascene out of context. That’s what comes of working without a net.

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

Michael_Thoma:

Please read this:

orthodoxchristianity.net/texts/Dvornik_whichcouncils.html

“We also studied the question of Ecumenical Councils, especially the difference in number (three, seven and twenty one). Though no consensus is easily attainable in this issue, we agree that the first three Ecumenical Councils had, because of their more general acceptance in the Church, a greater degree of fullness, which the later Councils do not have

Who wrote that? It’s absolute rubbish -from the Orthodox viewpoint. Chalcedon has a lesser degree of fullness than Ephesus??!! :bigyikes: <staggering, reaching for his heart medicine>

 

[SyroMalankara]

Here’s something From Cardinal Ratzinger’s 1987 book, Principles of Catholic Theology (pg. 199)
“Rome must not require more from the East with respect to the doctrine of the primacy than had been formulated and was lived in the first millenium…(he then quotes Patriarch Athenagoras, who designated the Pope as “the successor of Saint Peter, as the most esteemed among us, as one who presides in charity”)…this great Church leader was expressing the essential content of the doctrine of primacy as it was known in the first millenium. Rome need not ask for more. Reunion could take place in this context if, on the one hand, the East would cease to oppose as heretical the developments that took place in the West in the second millenium and would accept the Catholic Church as legitimate and orthodox in the form she has acquired in the course of that development, while, on the other hand, the West would recognize the Church of the East as orthodox and legitimate in the form she has always had.”