Filioque and Eastern Christian Trinitarian understanding

[Fr_Ambrose]

According to the Greek Fathers of the fourth century, whom the Orthodox Church follows to this day, the Father is the sole source and ground of unity in the Godhead. To make the Son a source as well as the Father, or in combination with him, is to risk confusing the distinctive characteristics of the persons.

The second person of the Trinity is the Son of God, his “Word” or Logos. To speak in this way of God as Son and Father is at once to imply a movement of mutual love, such as we indicated earlier. It is to imply that from all eternity God himself, as Son, in filial obedience and love renders back to God the Father the being which the Father by paternal self-giving eternally generates in him. It is in and through the Son that the Father is revealed to us: “I am the Way, the Truth and the Life: no one comes to the Father, except through me” (John 14:6). He it is who was born on earth as man, from the Virgin Mary in the city of Bethlehem. But as Word or Logos of God he is also at work before the Incarnation. He is the principle of order and purpose that permeates all things, drawing them to unity in God, and so making the universe into a “cosmos”, a harmonious and integrated whole. The Creator-Logos has imparted to each created thing its own indwelling logos or inner principle, which makes that thing to be distinctively itself, and which at the same time draws and directs that thing towards God. Our human task as craftsmen or manufacturers is to discern this logos dwelling in each thing and to render it manifest; we seek not to dominate but co-operate.

The third person is the Holy Spirit, the “wind” or “breath” of God. While appreciating the inadequacy of neat classifications, we may say that the Spirit is God within us, the Son is God with us, and the Father, God above or beyond us. Just as the Son shows us the Father, so it is the Spirit who shows us the Son, making him present to us. Yet the relation is mutual. The Spirit makes the Son present to us, but it is the Son who sends us the Spirit. (We note that there is a distinction between the “eternal procession” of the Spirit and his “temporal mission”. The Spirit is sent into the world, within time, by the Son; but, as regards his origin within the eternal life of the Trinity, the Spirit proceeds from the Father alone).

(…)

Why should God be a communion of three divine persons, neither less nor more? Here again there can be no logical proof. The threeness of God is something given or revealed to us in Scripture, in the Apostolic Tradition, and in the experience of the saints throughout the centuries. All that we can do is to verify this given fact through our own life of prayer. What precisely is the difference between the “generation” of the Son and the “procession” of the Spirit? “The manner of the generation and the manner of the procession are incomprehensible”, says St John of Damascus. “We have been told that there is a difference between generation and procession, but what is the nature of this difference, we do not understand at all.” If St John of Damascus confessed himself baffled, then so may we. The terms “generation” and “procession” are conventional signs for reality far beyond the comprehension of our reasoning "Our reasoning brain is weak, and our tongue is weaker still remarks St Basil the Great. “It is easier to measure the entire sea with a tiny cup than to grasp God’s ineffable greatness with the human mind.” But while they cannot be fully explained, these signs can (as we have said) be verified. Through our encounter with God in prayer, we know that the Spirit is not the same as the Son, even though we cannot define in words precisely what the difference is.

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

Subrosa:

you never adequately answered my question posed in the same post:
*Why is this a problem? The formulation of the Trinity is intact. Father is origin, Son and Spirit are consubstantial with the Father. *

Dear Jerry, I see that I did answer this.

The Father is the origin - affirmative.

The Son and Spirit are consubstantial with the Father - affirmative.

From Saint John of Damascus
Book 1, chapter 8
Concerning the Holy Trinity

Likewise we believe also in one Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of Life: Who proceedeth from the Father and resteth in the Son: the object of equal adoration and glorification with the Father and Son, since He is co-essential and co-eternal: the Spirit of God, direct, authoritative, the fountain of wisdom, and life, and holiness: God existing and addressed along with Father and Son: uncreate, 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: shared in, not sharing 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, and participated in by all creation, through Himself creating, and investing with essence and sanctifying, and maintaining the universe: having subsistence, existing in its own proper and peculiar subsistence, inseparable and indivisible from Father and Son, and possessing all the qualities that the Father and Son possess, save that of not being begotten or born. For the Father is without canst and unborn: for He is derived from nothing, but derives from Himself His being, nor does He derive a single quality from another. Rather He is Himself the beginning and cause of the existence of all things in a definite and natural manner. But 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.

All then that the Son and the Spirit have is from the Father, even their very being: and unless the Father is, neither the Son nor the Spirit is. And unless the Father possesses a certain attribute, neither the Son nor the Spirit possesses it: and through the Father, that is, because of the Father’s existence, the Son and the Spirit exist, and through the Father, that is, because of the Father having the qualities, the Son and the Spirit have all their qualities, those of being unbegotten, and of birth and of procession being excepted. For in these hypo-static or personal properties alone do the three holy subsistences differ from each other, being indivisibly divided not by essence but by the distinguishing mark of their proper and peculiar subsistence.

Further we say that each of the three has a perfect subsistence, that we may understand not one compound perfect nature made up of three imperfect elements, but one simple essence, surpassing and preceding perfection, existing in three perfect subsistences. For all that is composed of imperfect elements must necessarily be compound. But from perfect subsistences no compound can arise. Wherefore we do not speak of the form as from subsistences, but as in subsistences. But we speak of those things as imperfect which do not preserve the form of that which is completed out of them. For stone and wood and iron are each perfect in its own nature, but with reference to the building that is completed out of them each is imperfect: for none of them is in itself a house.

The subsistences then we say are perfect, that we may not conceive of the divine nature as compound. For compoundness is the beginning of separation. And again we speak of the three subsistences as being in each other, that we may not introduce a crowd and multitude of Gods. Owing to the three subsistences, there is no compoundness or confusion: while, owing to their having the same essence and dwelling in one another, and being the same in will, and energy, and power, and authority, and movement, so to speak, we recognise the indivisibility and the unity of God. For verily there is one God, and His word and Spirit.

 

[Subrosa]

Good day, again, Fr. Ambrose,

Thank you for those well developed answers.

We do agree, then, on the ORIGIN being Father, and SON & SPIRIT being consubstantial with the Father. All three beings of the Trinity are uncreated. This is the formula of the Trinity as revealed by scripture and Apostolic Tradition. There also is no question concerning the Spirit proceeding from the Father.

So, then, the matter sits with the understanding of the word “proceeds”.

Going to both points given by Bishop Kallistos Ware, that:

*1. The Spirit proceeds from the Father alone, *

*and *

2. The problem (of Eastern & Western understanding) is more in the area of semantics and different emphases than in any basic doctrinal differences,

…can we now focus on the semantic understanding of the word “proceeds”?

So, my second question to you in my post is: Is there at least some room in Orthodoxy to move in the filioque issue?

What say you?

Jerry

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

Subrosa:

So, my second question to you in my post is: Is there at least some room in Orthodoxy to move in the filioque issue?

No. But Orthodoxy may be able to offer to Rome the possibility of moving to develop a theology of the filioque which will be consistent with orthodoxy.

The Filioque in the Dublin Agreed Statement 1984 romanity.org/htm/rom.17.en.the_filioque_in_the_dublin_agreed_statement_1984.01.htm

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

El Católico:

They have developed an ecclesiology that is based entirely upon the invisible working of the holy spirit that leaves no room for the hierarchical church

An interesting paper delivered in January to the Catholic Bishops of Switzerland by Bishop Hilarion, Russian Orthodox bishop of Vienna and the head of the Russian Representation to the European Union in Brussels.

The Orthodox Understanding of Primacy and Catholicity
Bishop Hilarion of Vienna and Austria
Paper read at the meeting of the theological commission of the Swiss Bishops’ Conference in Basel, 24 January 2005

orthodoxytoday.org/articles5/HilarionPrimacy.shtml

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[SFH]

Fr Ambrose:

No, the distinction of the Persons come from their manner of origin and not from their relationship. Read what jprejean wrote earlier in this thread. It is very well put.

Read also what was presented earlier from St Gregory Nazianzen. This is very important. He addresses the mistake contained in what you have written…

The manner of origin describes the relationship (i.e., begetter describes the relationship of Father, begotten describes the relationship of Son, spiration describes the relationship of the Holy Spirit. Read what St. Thomas Aquinas wrote on this subject. He addresses the mistake contained in your argument:

The idea of relation, however, necessarily means regard of one to another, according as one is relatively opposed to another. So as in God there is a real relation (1), there must also be a real opposition. The very nature of relative opposition includes distinction. Hence, there must be real distinction in God, not, indeed, according to that which is absolute–namely, essence, wherein there is supreme unity and simplicity–but according to that which is relative.

But a real distinction between the divine relations can come only from relative opposition. Therefore two opposite relations must needs refer to two persons: and if any relations are not opposite they must needs belong to the same person. Since then paternity and filiation are opposite relations, they belong necessarily to two persons. Therefore the subsisting paternity is the person of the Father; and the subsisting filiation is the person of the Son. The other two relations are not opposed to each other; therefore these two cannot belong to one person: hence either one of them must belong to both of the aforesaid persons; or one must belong to one person, and the other to the other. Now, procession cannot belong to the Father and the Son, or to either of them; for thus it would follows that the procession of the intellect, which in God is generation, wherefrom paternity and filiation are derived, would issue from the procession of love, whence spiration and procession are derived, if the person generating and the person generated proceeded from the person spirating; and this is against what was laid down above (27, 3 and 4). We must frequently admit that spiration belongs to the person of the Father, and to the person of the Son, forasmuch as it has no relative opposition either to paternity or to filiation; and consequently that procession belongs to the other person who is called the person of the Holy Ghost, who proceeds by way of love, as above explained. Therefore only three persons exist in God, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.

 

[SFH]

It must be said that the Holy Ghost is from the Son. For if He were not from Him, He could in no wise be personally distinguished from Him; as appears from what has been said above. For it cannot be said that the divine Persons are distinguished from each other in any absolute sense; for it would follow that there would not be one essence of the three persons: since everything that is spoken of God in an absolute sense, belongs to the unity of essence. Therefore it must be said that the divine persons are distinguished from each other only by the relations. Now the relations cannot distinguish the persons except forasmuch as they are opposite relations; which appears from the fact that the Father has two relations, by one of which He is related to the Son, and by the other to the Holy Ghost; but these are not opposite relations, and therefore they do not make two persons, but belong only to the one person of the Father. If therefore in the Son and the Holy Ghost there were two relations only, whereby each of them were related to the Father, these relations would not be opposite to each other, as neither would be the two relations whereby the Father is related to them. Hence, as the person of the Father is one, it would follow that the person of the Son and of the Holy Ghost would be one, having two relations opposed to the two relations of the Father. But this is heretical since it destroys the Faith in the Trinity. Therefore the Son and the Holy Ghost must be related to each other by opposite relations. Now there cannot be in God any relations opposed to each other, except relations of origin, as proved above (28, 44). And opposite relations of origin are to be understood as of a “principle,” and of what is “from the principle.” Therefore we must conclude that it is necessary to say that either the Son is from the Holy Ghost; which no one says; or that the Holy Ghost is from the Son, as we confess.

Furthermore, the order of the procession of each one agrees with this conclusion. For it was said above, that the Son proceeds by the way of the intellect as Word, and the Holy Ghost by way of the will as Love. Now love must proceed from a word. For we do not love anything unless we apprehend it by a mental conception. Hence also in this way it is manifest that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Son.

We derive a knowledge of the same truth from the very order of nature itself. For we nowhere find that several things proceed from one without order except in those which differ only by their matter; as for instance one smith produces many knives distinct from each other materially, with no order to each other; whereas in things in which there is not only a material distinction we always find that some order exists in the multitude produced. Hence also in the order of creatures produced, the beauty of the divine wisdom is displayed. So if from the one Person of the Father, two persons proceed, the Son and the Holy Ghost, there must be some order between them. Nor can any other be assigned except the order of their nature, whereby one is from the other. Therefore it cannot be said that the Son and the Holy Ghost proceed from the Father in such a way as that neither of them proceeds from the other, unless we admit in them a material distinction; which is impossible. Hence also the Greeks themselves recognize that the procession of the Holy Ghost has some order to the Son. For they grant that the Holy Ghost is the Spirit “of the Son”; and that He is from the Father “through the Son.” Some of them are said also to concede that “He is from the Son”; or that “He flows from the Son,” but not that He proceeds; which seems to come from ignorance or obstinacy. For a just consideration of the truth will convince anyone that the word procession is the one most commonly applied to all that denotes origin of any kind. For we use the term to describe any kind of origin; as when we say that a line proceeds from a point, a ray from the sun, a stream from a source, and likewise in everything else. Hence, granted that the Holy Ghost originates in any way from the Son, we can conclude that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Son.

 

[Subrosa]

SFH:

It must be said that the Holy Ghost is from the Son. For if He were not from Him, He could in no wise be personally distinguished from Him; as appears from what has been said above. For it cannot be said that the divine Persons are distinguished from each other in any absolute sense; for it would follow that there would not be one essence of the three persons: since everything that is spoken of God in an absolute sense, belongs to the unity of essence. Therefore it must be said that the divine persons are distinguished from each other only by the relations. Now the relations cannot distinguish the persons except forasmuch as they are opposite relations; which appears from the fact that the Father has two relations, by one of which He is related to the Son, and by the other to the Holy Ghost; but these are not opposite relations, and therefore they do not make two persons, but belong only to the one person of the Father. If therefore in the Son and the Holy Ghost there were two relations only, whereby each of them were related to the Father, these relations would not be opposite to each other, as neither would be the two relations whereby the Father is related to them. Hence, as the person of the Father is one, it would follow that the person of the Son and of the Holy Ghost would be one, having two relations opposed to the two relations of the Father. But this is heretical since it destroys the Faith in the Trinity. Therefore the Son and the Holy Ghost must be related to each other by opposite relations. Now there cannot be in God any relations opposed to each other, except relations of origin, as proved above (28, 44). And opposite relations of origin are to be understood as of a “principle,” and of what is “from the principle.” Therefore we must conclude that it is necessary to say that either the Son is from the Holy Ghost; which no one says; or that the Holy Ghost is from the Son, as we confess.

Furthermore, the order of the procession of each one agrees with this conclusion. For it was said above, that the Son proceeds by the way of the intellect as Word, and the Holy Ghost by way of the will as Love. Now love must proceed from a word. For we do not love anything unless we apprehend it by a mental conception. Hence also in this way it is manifest that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Son.

We derive a knowledge of the same truth from the very order of nature itself. For we nowhere find that several things proceed from one without order except in those which differ only by their matter; as for instance one smith produces many knives distinct from each other materially, with no order to each other; whereas in things in which there is not only a material distinction we always find that some order exists in the multitude produced. Hence also in the order of creatures produced, the beauty of the divine wisdom is displayed. So if from the one Person of the Father, two persons proceed, the Son and the Holy Ghost, there must be some order between them. Nor can any other be assigned except the order of their nature, whereby one is from the other. Therefore it cannot be said that the Son and the Holy Ghost proceed from the Father in such a way as that neither of them proceeds from the other, unless we admit in them a material distinction; which is impossible. Hence also the Greeks themselves recognize that the procession of the Holy Ghost has some order to the Son. For they grant that the Holy Ghost is the Spirit “of the Son”; and that He is from the Father “through the Son.” Some of them are said also to concede that “He is from the Son”; or that “He flows from the Son,” but not that He proceeds; which seems to come from ignorance or obstinacy. For a just consideration of the truth will convince anyone that the word procession is the one most commonly applied to all that denotes origin of any kind. For we use the term to describe any kind of origin; as when we say that a line proceeds from a point, a ray from the sun, a stream from a source, and likewise in everything else. Hence, granted that the Holy Ghost originates in any way from the Son, we can conclude that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Son.

Good day SFH -

Is this a quote? If so, from whom? When & where? What is your source?

Or, did you write it yourself?

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

SFH:

It Hence, as the person of the Father is one, it would follow that the person of the Son and of the Holy Ghost would be one, having two relations opposed to the two relations of the Father. But this is heretical since it destroys the Faith in the Trinity. Therefore the Son and the Holy Ghost must be related to each other by opposite relations. Now there cannot be in God any relations opposed to each other, except relations of origin, as proved above (28, 44). And opposite relations of origin are to be understood as of a “principle,” and of what is “from the principle.” Therefore we must conclude that it is necessary to say that either the Son is from the Holy Ghost; which no one says; or that the Holy Ghost is from the Son, as we confess. .

This is a nice example of the madness of which the Church Fathers warn us when a human dares to try and penetrate with human logic more than the divine revelation of Himself which God has given to us.

Notice that Aquinas is quite out of step with contemporary Catholic teaching. Aquinas, in the passage above, calls the Orthodox teaching heretical. This is NOT the teaching of the modern Roman Catholic Church which declares that the Orthodox and Catholic teachings are fully reconcilable and any misunderstanding is a matter of semantics. Aquinas has misspoken and is not reliable on this point.

 

[Matthew_P]

Dear Father Ambrose,

You should hear how he that is Jim Likoudis distorts the writings and understandings of Saint John, it is so terrible I couldn’t take it his interest seems to be to oppose Orthodox Christianity, Orthodox Saints and his Greek heritage above everything at all cost. He seems to enjoy and is quite proud to be a book salesman if they are written by him. I communicated with him via email a few times, it’s just to disturbing and terrible to listen to him, for me anyway apparently there is a market to be tapped and support his ideas.

You are 100% correct.

What a nasty piece of doctrine! How can Likoudis, a former Greek Christian, turn around and proclaim that the 12 million Orthodox Greeks now living in Greece are going to hell.

 

[SFH]

Subrosa:

Good day SFH -

Is this a quote? If so, from whom? When & where? What is your source?

Or, did you write it yourself?

Sorry about that. It’s a continuation of the post I left immediately above it. St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica.

 

[SFH]

Fr Ambrose:

This is a nice example of the madness of which the Church Fathers warn us when a human dares to try and penetrate with human logic more than the divine revelation of Himself which God has given to us.

Notice that Aquinas is quite out of step with contemporary Catholic teaching. Aquinas, in the passage above, calls the Orthodox teaching heretical. This is NOT the teaching of the modern Roman Catholic Church which declares that the Orthodox and Catholic teachings are fully reconcilable and any misunderstanding is a matter of semantics. Aquinas has misspoken and is not reliable on this point.

Father Ambrose,
That’s not an argument against St. Thomas Aquinas–that’s just beating the bully pulpit. If you challenge some of the propositions in his argument, then identify the propositions you disagree with, identify why you disagree with them, and show how the absence of those propositions is fatal to St. Thomas Aquinas’ argument.

P.S. There is no such thing as the “modern Roman Catholic Church.” There is only the Catholic Church, which is the same Catholic Church that St. Irenaeus belonged to, St. John Chrysostom, St. Leo the Great, St. Francis of Assisi, St. Dominic, etc.

 

[JPrejean]

Read what St. Thomas Aquinas wrote on this subject. He addresses the mistake contained in your argument:

Read Christopher Hughes On a Complex Theory of a Simple God. Although I don’t agree with everything he says, he lays out the intractable metaphysical difficulties associated with conceiving of the Trinity in terms of relations within an absolutely simple essence. It is difficult for me to see how St. Thomas’s argument on this point can be rehabilitated, although I don’t believe that this entirely vitiates his theology or Catholic theology generally.

EDIT – To point out the problem more specifically:

The idea of relation, however, necessarily means regard of one to another, according as one is relatively opposed to another. So as in God there is a real relation (1), there must also be a real opposition. The very nature of relative opposition includes distinction. Hence, there must be real distinction in God, not, indeed, according to that which is absolute–namely, essence, wherein there is supreme unity and simplicity–but according to that which is relative.

But a real distinction between the divine relations can come only from relative opposition.

St. Thomas simply asserts this position without proving it. First, he’s wrong (and entirely contrary to the patristic witness) about the persons of the Trinity being relations in God’s essence. Second, his claim that distinctions of relation are metaphysically real is false (which Hughes develops in excruciating detail based on St. Thomas’s own definitions of identity). Third, it’s not true that a real distinction can only result from opposition; the Cappadocian Fathers viewed the real distinction in terms of the mode of origin, which is perfectly legitimate. St. Thomas argues that this would make the Son and the Holy Spirit one person, but he doesn’t prove that claim either (and it turns out to be false as well). That position is simply an artifact of his view that persons of the Trinity are relations within the essence, which is false, as I stated above.

 

[El_Catolico]

You have merely disregarded St. Thomas’s and James Likoudis’s work because it says that submission to the Roman Pontiff is neccessary for salvation. That is an incredible thing to do without reading the text. First of all, it is in the same sense that taking the Eucharist is necessary. And the section which deals with that is not made up of Thomas’s commentary, but quotes from the early church fathers anyway. You have dismissed it as a forgery- what does that mean? St. Thomas did assuredly write the work, but he didnt originally call it Contra Errores Graecorum. Thats the only amount of “forgery” one can come up with.

In order to prove the principle of your new pneumatic ecclesiology, you have given me an article which does not prove, but rather, merely rehashes the position. This quotes, as a way to prove its concept, Barlaam of Calabria (who was one of the propagators of the Palamite heresy, and who returned to Catholicism later in life). That brings up another question: where is Palamism in early christianity? It is a greek novelty. It also quotes the 28th canon of Chalcedon, as if it were a real canon. That was rejected by Pope Leo.
It is funny; this Byzantine eccclesiology was not a very powerful prescence in the medieval byzantine empire. Rather, this “collegial tradition” is no more than a modern novelty for a Church that is desperately in need of good arguments to support its own existence. Demetrios Kydones, a 14th century convert to Catholicism, did not even mention that concept in his apologia. He argued why Rome, rather than byzantium, has the Papal primacy. Additionally, the origins of the greco-slavic bloc of churches is absolutely steeped in caesaropapism.
Also, it is funny that the orthodox complain about the scholasticism and “legalism” of the thomists. This is nothing more than an attempt to justify academic stagnancy, which was rampant throughout the greek church, especially in the middle ages. The eastern orthodox actually discouraged people from reading the Latin fathers of the Church!
Again, this new “pneumatic-collegial” ecclesiology is nothing more than a novelty on the part of the greek theologians. Its roots in history are mythical at best. Rather than “collegial”, anyone who knows eastern orthodox politics (as I know someone who is a prominent bishop in the ROCOR) is aware that the interaction between the churches is not very “collegial.” If the Papacy is said to be “monarchical”, then the orthodox church is simply made up of a collection of independent princedoms. The local bishop is the end all authority; therefore 1) the fact that the orthodox church does not convene ecumenical councils anymore; 2) the eastern orthodox consider it the greatest crime for one bishop to intervene in the affairs of the other, so that heresy is unchecked. Indeed, there is much heresy in the eastern orthodox church right now. All the “bonds” they have are really no more than that the early lutheran church had (they convened in synods just like the orthodox).
Anyone familiar with greek orthodox claims knows that the greeks must first relegate the primacy of Rome to the littlest possible place, and then accuse it of heresy, in order for their church to continue to exist. This is why they are constantly hurling new accusations against the Catholic church and why they are constantly seeking new heresies to distinguish themselves from us.

 

[El_Catolico]

St. Thomas simply asserts this position without proving it. First, he’s wrong (and entirely contrary to the patristic witness) about the persons of the Trinity being relations in God’s essence. Second, his claim that distinctions of relation are metaphysically real is false (which Hughes develops in excruciating detail based on St. Thomas’s own definitions of identity). Third, it’s not true that a real distinction can only result from opposition; the Cappadocian Fathers viewed the real distinction in terms of the mode of origin, which is perfectly legitimate. St. Thomas argues that this would make the Son and the Holy Spirit one person, but he doesn’t prove that claim either (and it turns out to be false as well). That position is simply an artifact of his view that persons of the Trinity are relations within the essence, which is false, as I stated above.

You have jsut asserted that this is false without showing me seuffiecient evidence. If the distinction of the Persons are not from the relations in God’s essense, then what are they? And, how can you distinguish the operation of God’s essence from itself? That is the (false) premise on which the Greeks base their argument, but there is not a single reason to believe it. If God’s essence and operation are the same (as opposed to the disgusting Palamite heresy), then how can you cut God’s operation into two? Thomas quite clearly shows that the method of distinguishing of the persons lies ultimately in the origin of the person. Additionally, Thomas’s position is saturated in patristics, moreso than your position. There is hardly enough reason in patristics to disprove the work, either. Thomas’s writing is the best work written on the Persons of the Holy Spirit in the history of Christianity.

 

[JPrejean]

You have jsut asserted that this is false without showing me seuffiecient evidence.

I’m aware of that. That’s why I made the reference to Hughes’s work, which covers the subject in great detail. Still, my objection was that St. Thomas hasn’t proved his own case, which is true regardless of whether my position is correct.

If the distinction of the Persons are not from the relations in God’s essense, then what are they?

Different mode of origin.

And, how can you distinguish the operation of God’s essence from itself?

That’s a separate issue, and I’m not particularly enamored of the essence/energies distinction either, although I think that even St. Thomas accepts something like the essence/energies distinction. But the filioque mess has really obscured any detailed investigation of that problem.

That is the (false) premise on which the Greeks base their argument, but there is not a single reason to believe it. If God’s essence and operation are the same (as opposed to the disgusting Palamite heresy), then how can you cut God’s operation into two?

I think that the entire Greek concepts of “essence” and “operation” are oversimplified in the first place, so in my view, the question itself is a result of the limitations of classical Greek thought. The Catholic philosopher Xavier Zubiri has examined those problems in some detail and has proposed some viable alternatives to the ancient Greek metaphysics. But even accepting the Thomist view, simplicity only requires a single divine act of will by which all things are willed, not that all things that are willed be identical. In other words, God’s operation is “cut in two” in some way between what He wills necessarily (the Persons of the Trinity) and what He wills without necessity (creation). Whether you call that distinction necessary/unnecessary or created/uncreated, the concept does the same metaphysical work.

Thomas quite clearly shows that the method of distinguishing of the persons lies ultimately in the origin of the person. Additionally, Thomas’s position is saturated in patristics, moreso than your position. There is hardly enough reason in patristics to disprove the work, either.

Actually, St. Thomas asserts that without proving it, and he fails to make the logical (and patristic) distinction between hypostatic origin and substantive procession. Far from being “saturated in patristics,” his position appears to be based on St. Augustine’s misreading in De Trinitate of the patristic position. I have yet to encounter a substantive response to the argument that I laid out here, and it seems that even the Vatican recognizes its merit.

Thomas’s writing is the best work written on the Persons of the Holy Spirit in the history of Christianity.

That may very well be the case, but that doesn’t render it perfect or immune from error. St. Thomas was clearly a brilliant metaphysician, but I imagine that he would concede that he wasn’t infallible and that he ought to be corrected if a need to do so is shown.

 

[SFH]

JPrejean:

Far from being “saturated in patristics,” his position appears to be based on St. Augustine’s misreading in De Trinitate of the patristic position.

I don’t think that’s quite accurate. St. Thomas Aquinas considers Boethius, the Creed of Athenasius, Augustine, Dionysius, the Council of Constantinople, Damascene, Anselm, Athenasius, the Council of Chalcedon, and the Council of Rome. And that’s just in the parts of his discussion on the Blessed Trinity that I quoted.

 

[JPrejean]

That’s actually what I meant. He seems to be reading Eastern sources based on how St. Augustine read them, which causes him to take some statements other than how they were likely intended in their original context.

 

[SFH]

JPrejean:

That’s actually what I meant. He seems to be reading Eastern sources based on how St. Augustine read them, which causes him to take some statements other than how they were likely intended in their original context.

Well, I think you have half an argument. You’ve identified Aquinas’ propositions that you disagree with, but you haven’t shown why you disagree with them or why they’re fatal to Aquinas’ argument.

Hughes may be helpful to you, but you also assume that Hughes understands Aquinas’ argument and that Hughes’ critique of Aquinas is correct. I’m not convinced either of those assumptions is justified.

 

[JPrejean]

There’s a limit to how much I can realistically do in this environment. Perhaps it might be worthwhile considering the arguments in this thread energeticprocession.com/archives/2005/01/perrys_logical.html. There are several other posts on that blog that touch on related issues, so perhaps the totality of the arguments might prove more persuasive than the individual ones. At any rate, I am convinced of the implausibility of St. Thomas’s position on the Trinity and simplicity based on a number of arguments, not merely the argument of Hughes (although I think he captures the metaphysical aspects of the problem well), so it’s not a question of this one argument properly characterizing St. Thomas’s position. In fact, I think that Hughes gets St. Thomas wrong on certain points, but I can still recognize the validity of certain portions of his critique despite those errors.