Filioque and the Catechism

[Nine_Two]

Ironically, “from one principle” is precisely the point that defends the notion that the Holy Spirit comes from the Father through the Son. The alternative, two principles, would mean that the Holy Spirit proceeds from both seperately, much the way you proceed from both your mother and father. That’s why “from one principle” was added to the explaination, in answer to the Greek complain that the filioque made the Son a Source of the Holy Spirit; if the Father and Son are one principle, then only one of them can be the Source.

Peace and God bless!

If they are jointly one principle than both of them are the source.

 

[Hesychios]

If they are jointly one principle than both of them are the source.

That’s what I am concerned about.

The ‘catechism’ reads like double-talk, there’s something for everybody in there.

 

[Hesychios]

Are you going to report him for heresy?

 

[Nine_Two]

That’s what I am concerned about.

The ‘catechism’ reads like double-talk, there’s something for everybody in there.

It seems like verbal gymnastics, trying to say something in the most abstract way so as to avoid offending anyone. Why mention principles at all, if the Church truly teaches the same thing as the Orthodox Church it seems the smartest thing to do would be to simply clarify that the second procession is through the father, rather than all these nonsense attempts to make it that much less readable.

 

[Vico]

That’s what I am concerned about.

The ‘catechism’ reads like double-talk, there’s something for everybody in there.

But is is not double talk, but a concept. It is a concept different than the one originally and currently expressed in Greek in the Nicene Creed of 381. There are two different concepts that are not contradictory. This has been made abundantly clear through many declarations.

 

[Aramis]

But is is not double talk, but a concept. It is a concept different than the one originally and currently expressed in Greek in the Nicene Creed of 381. There are two different concepts that are not contradictory. This has been made abundantly clear through many declarations.

Underlining & color mine…

There are two different concepts that are not contradictory when both are understood correctly.

Problem is, many polemicists only understand one or the other correctly, and presume that, since it’s a different concept with much overlap, it must be in error, despite both being firmly true.

 

[Nine_Two]

Underlining & color mine…

There are two different concepts that are not contradictory when both are understood correctly.

Problem is, many polemicists only understand one or the other correctly, and presume that, since it’s a different concept with much overlap, it must be in error, despite both being firmly true.

It seems a bit low to accuse those who don’t understand what is being said, especially since the Latin Church insists on using inflated language, of being polemicists.

Do you have an authoritative source which explains the words of the catechism in unambiguous English?

Because until such a thing can be presented I’m going to have to insist on interpreting the “one principle” through which the procession occurs in the only way which seems logical from my perspective, and no amount of insults will change that.

 

[Vico]

It seems a bit low to accuse those who don’t understand what is being said, especially since the Latin Church insists on using inflated language, of being polemicists.

Do you have an authoritative source which explains the words of the catechism in unambiguous English?

Because until such a thing can be presented I’m going to have to insist on interpreting the “one principle” through which the procession occurs in the only way which seems logical from my perspective, and no amount of insults will change that.

Father: sends Paraclete → Son: sends Paraclete → You

John 15:26 Rheims:

But when the Paraclete cometh, whom I will send you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceedeth from the Father, he shall give testimony of me.

John 15:26 KJV:

But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me:

John 14:26 Rheims:

But the Paraclete, the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring all things to your mind, whatsoever I shall have said to you.

St Thomas Aquinas wrote in Summa Theologica, Query 36, Article 3:

Therefore, because the Son receives from the Father that the Holy Ghost proceeds from Him, it can be said that the Father spirates the Holy Ghost through the Son, or that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father through the Son, which has the same meaning.

 

[Nine_Two]

Father: sends Paraclete → Son: sends Paraclete → You

John 15:26 Rheims:

John 15:26 KJV:

John 14:26 Rheims:

St Thomas Aquinas wrote in Summa Theologica, Query 36, Article 3:

All fine and well, the issue arises, when you talk of the Father and Son as one principle. Each of those definitions distinguish them into two principles, to use the language of the catechism.

 

[Aramis]

It seems a bit low to accuse those who don’t understand what is being said, especially since the Latin Church insists on using inflated language, of being polemicists.

You’re misreading, badly. Many polemicists misuderstand the other side. Many more people misunderstand as well, without their being polemicists. Only you have accused them of being polemicists for misunderstanding; but in the scheme of the discussion, the non-polemicists who misunderstand the other side are, pretty much, immaterial.

 

[Vico]

All fine and well, the issue arises, when you talk of the Father and Son as one principle. Each of those definitions distinguish them into two principles, to use the language of the catechism.

The Son’s role is that the whole Person of the Holy Spirit moves through Him (Son). That is what simul indicates, nature and subsistence at once (simul): not two processions from the Father.

Per St. John Damascene, the Holy Spirit is eternally manifested by the Son, not just temporally. So Aquinas, is in agreement when he describes the Father and the Son as principles of the Holy Spirit; that the Father is the ultimate and true principle – in a “principal and proper manner”.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Nine_Two,

I will forego some sleep to try to explain.

It seems a bit low to accuse those who don’t understand what is being said, especially since the Latin Church insists on using inflated language, of being polemicists.

Do you have an authoritative source which explains the words of the catechism in unambiguous English?

Because until such a thing can be presented I’m going to have to insist on interpreting the “one principle” through which the procession occurs in the only way which seems logical from my perspective, and no amount of insults will change that.

There are several ways to explain the matter:

1. Take the passage “proceeds from both as from one principle” in the context of the CCC paragraph. You will see that the the rest of the CCC paragraph indicates that the Son’s participation in the Procession (keeping in mind that “Procession” here does not mean the ekporeusai of hypostasis, but the procedit of ousia) is itself FROM THE FATHER. So the Father is indeed the one and only SOURCE, the Arche, the Principaliter, of the Trinity. There are not two Sources. I personally don’t see a clearer explanation than that. So, the ambiguity only comes when one takes only a snippet of the paragraph out of context, wouldn’t you agree?
2. Take the passage “proceeds from both as from one principle” in the context of Trinitarian theology. In order to understand what the passage means, one must necessarily go beyond it’s Pneumatological significance. You’re thinking only in terms of the Holy Spirit’s relationship to the Father and Son. It seems you are forgetting to take into account the relationship of the Son to the Father. You can assume all you want from the ambiguity of the text in question that there are two Sources of the Spirit, but there is no way you can inject that ambiguity on the Catholic teaching that the Father is the Source of the Son. My point is that even if the Son can be mistakenly interpreted to be a source of Spirit, the Father must still be the actual Source of the Spirit, because the Father is the Source of the Son.
3. Read the official clarification on Filioque promulgated by HH JP2 of thrice-blessed memory (ewtn.com/library/CURIA/PCCUFILQ.HTM) back in 1995. I very strongly recommend you read the whole thing, though I will give you a pertinent quote here:
   "On the basis of Jn 15:26, this Symbol confesses the Spirit “to ek tou PatroV ekporeuomenon” (“who takes his origin from the Father”). The Father alone is the principle without principle (arch anarcoV) of the two other persons of the Trinity, the sole source (phgh) of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit therefore takes his origin from the Father alone (ek monou tou PatroV) in a principal, proper and immediate manner."
4. Read St. John Damascene’s description of the relationship between the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. In short, the Damascene expresses the Divine relationship in terms of water from a spring (the Father) leading to a river (the Son) flowing into a lake (the Spirit), or of fire passed from a first torch (the Father) to a second (the Son), then to a third (the Spirit). Imagine that from the perspective of the lake, the river and the spring are the causes of the lake, but the spring is actually the true and only source. Similarly, from the perspective of the third torch, the second and first torches have caused its own flame, but it is the first torch that is the true and only source of the flame.
5. Read the original conciliar documents. The Council of Florence made a specific distinction between the term “Source” and the term “cause.” In fact, the term “principle” is grammatically connected with the term “cause,” not the term “Source.” The Son shares as the causating principle of the Spirit, but the Son does not share in the Father’s character as Source. There is only ONE Source in the Trinity according to the Latin Catholic Church, as with ALL the Catholic Churches. This important distinction between “cause” and “Source” is intimately related to the distinction between procedit and ekporeusai, on the one hand, as well as the distinction between proving the divinity of the Spirit through consubstantiality and proving His divinity through origin.

To be concise, the following two sets of words basically define the distinction between the Eastern and Western understanding on the matter, both of which are completely Catholic and Orthodox:

CAUSE, PROCEDIT, CONSUBSTANTIALITY, OUSIA

SOURCE, EKPOREUSAI, ORIGIN, HYPOSTASIS

Also, I hope you take the time to read this thread: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=467720

I hope that helps.

I sacrificed some sleep to present the matter above, but I don’t expect to make any detailed responses again until about 3 weeks from now.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Dave_in_Dallas]

I sacrificed some sleep to present the matter above, but I don’t expect to make any detailed responses again until about 3 weeks from now.

Blessings,
Marduk

You’re going to be asleep for the next 3 weeks!
(kidding)

 

[crazzeto]

It seems a bit low to accuse those who don’t understand what is being said, especially since the Latin Church insists on using inflated language, of being polemicists.

Do you have an authoritative source which explains the words of the catechism in unambiguous English?

Because until such a thing can be presented I’m going to have to insist on interpreting the “one principle” through which the procession occurs in the only way which seems logical from my perspective, and no amount of insults will change that.

I’m not sure what you will consider “authoratative”, my guess is nothing less than a church proclimation (of which there are many). But one book which does a very good job of discussing trinatarian theology is Frank Sheeds Theology for beginners.

 

[Ghosty]

If they are jointly one principle than both of them are the source.

It’s not possible for two distinct things to be a single source. Even without that being said, the Council of Florence explicitely established that the Father is the Source, so the clarification has been made. There are quite simply no grounds for arguing that “by one principle” means that the Father and Son are a combined source by the filioque.

All fine and well, the issue arises, when you talk of the Father and Son as one principle. Each of those definitions distinguish them into two principles, to use the language of the catechism.

It’s funny that you should claim this, since it is precisely the notion of “two principles” which was historically denied by the Eastern Orthodox; if you feel that Scripture indicates two principles, you disagree with all Eastern Orthodox theologians.

In fact, those quotes indicate a single principle, because the Son is receiving from the Father and passing along the Holy Spirit, not contributing the Holy Spirit uniquely from Himself without regard to the Father. The origin and the movement of the Holy Spirit is singular, and therefore it has a single principle. Unless, of course, you believe that Scripture indicates that the Holy Spirit is a product of unique contributions from the Father and the Son, like a father and mother?

Peace and God bless!

 

[Nine_Two]

It’s not possible for two distinct things to be a single source. Even without that being said, the Council of Florence explicitely established that the Father is the Source, so the clarification has been made. There are quite simply no grounds for arguing that “by one principle” means that the Father and Son are a combined source by the filioque.

It’s funny that you should claim this, since it is precisely the notion of “two principles” which was historically denied by the Eastern Orthodox; if you feel that Scripture indicates two principles, you disagree with all Eastern Orthodox theologians.

In fact, those quotes indicate a single principle, because the Son is receiving from the Father and passing along the Holy Spirit, not contributing the Holy Spirit uniquely from Himself without regard to the Father. The origin and the movement of the Holy Spirit is singular, and therefore it has a single principle. Unless, of course, you believe that Scripture indicates that the Holy Spirit is a product of unique contributions from the Father and the Son, like a father and mother?

Peace and God bless!

“He proceeds from both as from one principle”, is where the issue arises. The Catechism is what is saying they are both “as one principle” in the context of the filioque.

I have not asserted there are two “principles”, I have asserted that my understanding of the catechism is that in the context of of the filioque, it says that both are the same thing, or “principles”.

I quite agree there is one “principle”, however that “principle” would be the totality of the trinity, and certainly the catechism cannot be saying the Holy Spirit also proceeds from itself, being part of that “principle”?

While I thank people for their answers they all skirt the point which the Orthodox posters have asked clarification on.

 

[Ghosty]

“He proceeds from both as from one principle”, is where the issue arises. The Catechism is what is saying they are both “as one principle” in the context of the filioque.

I have not asserted there are two “principles”, I have asserted that my understanding of the catechism is that in the context of of the filioque, it says that both are the same thing, or “principles”.

I quite agree there is one “principle”, however that “principle” would be the totality of the trinity, and certainly the catechism cannot be saying the Holy Spirit also proceeds from itself, being part of that “principle”?

While I thank people for their answers they all skirt the point which the Orthodox posters have asked clarification on.

I haven’t seen any Orthodox posters on this thread ask for clarification. What in particulare would you like clarified? How two things can be one principle without being one source?

Peace and God bless!

 

[mardukm]

I haven’t seen any Orthodox posters on this thread ask for clarification. What in particulare would you like clarified? How two things can be one principle without being one source?

I agree, brother Ghosty. It seems brother Nine-Two is confusing the concept of “principle” and “Source.” I recall you explained it well a long time ago. The principle can be understood as the motive power of the Procession. This motive power only has one Source (the Father), not two. The motive power is effected through the Son. But there is ever only one motive power (i.e., one principle) which comes from one Source, which is the Father. The Damascene’s analogies of water from a spring and fire transmitted from a first torch easily and obviously reflects this explanation. I seriously don’t know what else could be puzzling brother Nine-Two. I do hope he explains.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Nine_Two]

Let’s try again, no I’m not confusing principle with source, the text says that in the context of the filioque the Father and the Son are one. Since doctrine holds that the Father is the Source, holding the son to be part of the same principle would logically mean the Son is also the source. Add to this that the Father and the Son are only a single principle in the context of the trinity, which again cannot be a source unto itself.

What I want clarification on is how the Father and the Son can be the same “principle” but at the same time you can say one is the source and one is a conduit, particularly when what they are conveying is also part of the “principle”.

 

[Ghosty]

Let’s try again, no I’m not confusing principle with source, the text says that in the context of the filioque the Father and the Son are one. Since doctrine holds that the Father is the Source, holding the son to be part of the same principle would logically mean the Son is also the source. Add to this that the Father and the Son are only a single principle in the context of the trinity, which again cannot be a source unto itself.

What I want clarification on is how the Father and the Son can be the same “principle” but at the same time you can say one is the source and one is a conduit, particularly when what they are conveying is also part of the “principle”.

Simply put, principle and source aren’t the same thing. A source is a principle, but principle isn’t necessarily source. Source refers to the first origin of something, while principle is a general term that can cover everything that comes before and leads to something, so long as it covers a “single flow”. This is the character of the term “principium” in Latin theology.

So, for example, a spring and stream are one principle of a lake, but only the spring is the source of the lake. They are one principle because the lake comes from one “direction”, but only the spring is the source since the flow originates there. Another example, without reference to any source, would be that the hand is the principle of the finger; the hand isn’t the source, but it is the principle since the finger comes from the hand. Likewise the wrist and hand are one principle when referring to the finger, since they are connected and share the fact that the finger grows from them.

The Catechism does indeed express this distinction, by the way, when it says:

The Western tradition expresses first the consubstantial communion between Father and Son, by saying that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son (filioque). It says this, "legitimately and with good reason,"78 for the eternal order of the divine persons in their consubstantial communion implies that the Father, as "the principle without principle,"79 is the first origin of the Spirit, but also that as Father of the only Son, he is, with the Son, the single principle from which the Holy Spirit proceeds.

This clearly distinguishes “first origin” from “single principle”. This distinction was also made at the Council of Florence, where it was said:

The Latins asserted that they say the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son not with the intention of excluding the Father from being the source and principle of all deity, that is of the Son and of the holy Spirit, nor to imply that the Son does not receive from the Father, because the holy Spirit proceeds from the Son

The Latins have been making this distinction since the very beginning of the debate, in fact. Hope that helps!

Peace and God bless!