Filioque, One Principle, "From" as "Through"

[MilesVitae]

I’m sure this has all been hashed out in plenty of prior discussions, sorry…
What does the Church mean when she says that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as from one principle, by one spiration? Also, I’ve heard some claim that the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Son can be interpreted as meaning “through” the son - how is that reconcilable with saying the Spirit proceeds from both, equally, as from one principle?

Thanks!

 

[Vico]

I’m sure this has all been hashed out in plenty of prior discussions, sorry…
What does the Church mean when she says that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as from one principle, by one spiration? Also, I’ve heard some claim that the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Son can be interpreted as meaning “through” the son - how is that reconcilable with saying the Spirit proceeds from both, equally, as from one principle?

Thanks!

catholic.com/tracts/filioque

 

[MilesVitae]

catholic.com/tracts/filioque

Thank you. Unfortunately, that doesn’t really answer much. What does the Church mean when she says the Spirit proceeds from Father and Son equally, as from one source, by one spiration? What does “from one source” mean exactly? The reason I bring this up is because in some discussions I’ve had the objection has arisen that the filioque, describing the Father and Son as one source, blurs the distinction between the two of them and ascribing a quality to two divine persons which is not possessed by the Third.
Also, again, I still don’t understand in what sense the Spirit proceeds from or through the Son…is the Son a channel, or an actual source of the Spirit’s being, or what?

 

[Rohzek]

Thank you. Unfortunately, that doesn’t really answer much. What does the Church mean when she says the Spirit proceeds from Father and Son equally, as from one source, by one spiration? What does “from one source” mean exactly? The reason I bring this up is because in some discussions I’ve had the objection has arisen that the filioque, describing the Father and Son as one source, blurs the distinction between the two of them and ascribing a quality to two divine persons which is not possessed by the Third.
Also, again, I still don’t understand in what sense the Spirit proceeds from or through the Son…is the Son a channel, or an actual source of the Spirit’s being, or what?

Proceeding from the Father and the Son is not the same as proceeding from the Father through the Son. Here’s the run down in Latin:

The former states the following: “qui procedit Patre Filioque”

The latter states: “qui procedit Patre per Filium”

The big controversy over the Filioque actually got its first start in the aftermath of the seventh ecumenical council. The Frankish bishops, disagreeing with Pope Hadrian I, rejected the council. One of their many problems with it was that according to their records of the council, Patriarch Tarasius of Constantinople said that the Holy Spirit “ex Patre per Filium procedentem” (proceeds from the Father through the Son). Theodulf of Orleans, a prominent Carolingian theologian, contends that he should have said “[procedit] ex Patre et Filio.”

So Theodulf rejected the second version listed above, which no Orthodox theologian would have problems with (I will come back to this point). Theodulf interprets the alleged words of Tarasius as though Tarasius was rejecting the consubstantiality of the Father and the Son. Therefore, Tarasius was promoting heresy according to Theodulf. For Theodulf, saying “procedit ex Patre et Filio” or “procedit ex Patre Filioque” was essential to affirm consubstantiality between the Father and the Son.

And this leads us to the big divide between Eastern and Western Trinitarian theologies. In order to fully understand this, we must fully understand the nature of the Son. It is primarily rooted in the different interpretation of Hebrews 1:3. The Eastern theologians traditionally hold that the Son of the Father is begotten from the person of the Father. Western theologians hold that the Son of the Father is begotten from the essence of the Father, which the Father and the Son share. In the Greek, Hebrews 1:3 states that the Son is of the hypostaseos of the Father. Hypostaseos can be translated as either “person” or “essence,” but has traditionally been interpreted as “person” in the East. In the Latin Vulgate, hypostaseos is translated as “substantiae,” which means specifically “essence” or “substance.”

If we agree with the Eastern theologians on the nature of the Son, then it would naturally be impossible logically speaking to admit that the Holy Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son because then it has two origins, a charge Theodulf and other Western theologians deny. Furthermore, it upsets the monarchy of the Father. If we agree with the Western theologians on the nature of the Son, then none of these problems arise.

Theodulf did not perceive the fact that Tarasius (if he even said those words) was operating on a completely different understanding of the nature of the Son. Because Theodulf did not grasp this, he thought Tarasius was consciously denying the consubstantiality of both the Father and the Son.

This was much more info than you probably asked for, but it gives you the basics of the problem. Personally, I have no strong opinion on it, despite my Orthodox faith.

 

[Vico]

I’m sure this has all been hashed out in plenty of prior discussions, sorry…
What does the Church mean when she says that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as from one principle, by one spiration? Also, I’ve heard some claim that the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Son can be interpreted as meaning “through” the son - how is that reconcilable with saying the Spirit proceeds from both, equally, as from one principle?

Thanks!

There is one essence and three divine persons.

• Unity appropriated to the Father ( the “principle without principle”),
• Equality is appropriated to the Son (the “principle from a principle”)
• Concord appropriated to the Holy Ghost (“He proceeds from two”)

Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Q 39. “…in creatures relations are accidental, whereas in God they are the divine essence itself. Thence it follows that in God essence is not really distinct from person; and yet that the persons are really distinguished from each other. For person, as above stated (29, 4), signifies relation as subsisting in the divine nature. But relation as referred to the essence does not differ therefrom really, but only in our way of thinking; while as referred to an opposite relation, it has a real distinction by virtue of that opposition. Thus there are one essence and three persons.”
And “The second consideration of God regards Him as “one.” In that view Augustine (De Doctr. Christ. i, 5) appropriates “unity” to the Father, “equality” to the Son, “concord” or “union” to the Holy Ghost. It is manifest that these three imply unity, but in different ways. For “unity” is said absolutely, as it does not presuppose anything else; and for this reason it is appropriated to the Father, to Whom any other person is not presupposed since He is the “principle without principle.” “Equality” implies unity as regards another; for that is equal which has the same quantity as another. So equality is appropriated to the Son, Who is the “principle from a principle.” “Union” implies the unity of two; and is therefore appropriated to the Holy Ghost, inasmuch as He proceeds from two. And from this we can understand what Augustine means when he says (De Doctr. Christ. i, 5) that “The Three are one, by reason of the Father; They are equal by reason of the Son; and are united by reason of the Holy Ghost.””

 

[Wandile]

I’m sure this has all been hashed out in plenty of prior discussions, sorry…
What does the Church mean when she says that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as from one principle, by one spiration? Also, I’ve heard some claim that the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Son can be interpreted as meaning “through” the son - how is that reconcilable with saying the Spirit proceeds from both, equally, as from one principle?

Thanks!

The filioque is the Catholic belief that The Holy Spirit proceeds from the father and the Son.

The concept is simply this :

[In some crazy world where water systems work like this] There are three components to this system namely The Sea, The Rivers and The Ponds. Now the Sea (Father) is the ultimate source of all water(Divinity). The water in the sea is not fixated in the sea but flows to the rivers and ponds. How this happens is that the water(Divinity) flows from the seas into the rivers (Son). The rivers then in turn allow for the water to flow to the ponds (Holy Spirit). Now it can be said that the source of the water in the pond is the sea. This is true as all water in this system finds its ultimate origin/source in the sea. However it can also be said that the water in the pond finds its source from the river because without the river, the water from the sea could not reach the pond. It is from the river that the pond receives its water. Thus it is true to say the water in the pond is from the sea and the river. The sea and the river are both components in the flow (Spiration) of water and thus they are one principal from which the pond received its water.

So the Filioque does not deny the Father’s singular role as the Cause (Aition) of the Spirit; but merely acknowledges the Son’s necessary Presence (i.e., participation) for the Spirit’s eternal procession. The Father and Son are thus collectively identified as accounting for the Spirit’s procession. This is all that the Filioque was ever intended to address; and it was included in the Creed by the Western fathers at Toledo in order to counter the claims of the 6th Century Spanish (Germanic) Arians. These Arians were of course denying this essential and orthodox truth, that is, the Son’s eternal participation in the Spirit’s procession and thus the Son being somewhat less divine than the Father

The filioque claims that the Holy Spirit also proceeds from the Son which if understood, is equivalent to the eastern formula " from the Father through the Son". The Catholic Church simply teaches that all 3 persons are eternal. They are equally God and only differs in rank according to relationships. The Father is the Father becasue he begets the son. The son is son because he is begotten of the father. The Holy Spirit does not beget nor is he begotten, but proceeds from the father and the son as from one principle. The main issue is the understanding of “as from one principle”. The Father is the ultimate origin of the Holy Ghost alone. However the procession of the the Holy Ghost involves the Son as the father gave everything to the Son except being the father. That is except the property to Beget. So the son inherits the Spirit of the Father as his own and the spirit is manifested through Son. As the Father is the origin of deity and in having the Holy Ghost proceeding, the son is a participant in transmission of being. Thus it is by way of the son that the spirit proceeds from the Father. He gets his being from the father and the Son as from one principle. That is what is meant to proceed from the son. The only reason the Holy Ghost proceeds from the son is because the Son is begotten of the Father. As such monarchy of the father is still maintained as everything is only becasue it has ultimate origin in the father.

 

[Wandile]

Here is another analogy for the Procession of the Holy Spirit:

A man speaks a word and in speaking the word correspondingly breathes out.

And if we both accept that analogy (and we do)…any other differences must be mere semantics, as the concept when parsed in images like this…is the same.

They do not like attributing to the Son the Origin of the Holy Spirit, because in Greek…“origin” implies the ultimate source. And I think we can understand this; in the analogy…the word and the breath come from the man. It would be a little odd to say the breath “comes from” the word.

At the same time, they do not deny any relationship between the generation of the Son and spiration of the Spirit, as if they are entirely “parallel”. Obviously, in the analogy, the breath is only breathed out, and is necessarily breathed out, because of the speaking of the word. The speaking of the word is the occasion for the breathing of the breath. The breath is breathed out “due to” the speaking of the word, “through” the word, “in the” or “during the” speaking of the word.

It’s really more about the fact that the Greek concieves “cause” more narrowly. In the Greek, only the man would be the “cause” of the word and breath…because they mean only the agent. Whereas in Latin “cause” is broader, and so both the man, and the word, can be said to “cause” the breath inasmuch as the man is the agent, and the word is the occasion. So that we can even say “as one principle” because it is “the man’s speaking” taken as one conceptual term, one efficient cause, which is the cause of the breath. But it is silly of them to claim that we thus confuse the man and his speech

 

[Wandile]

Further here is testimony from the fathers, both eastern and western :
Augustine

“If that which is given has for its principle the one by whom it is given, because it did not receive from anywhere else that which proceeds from the giver, then it must be confessed that the Father and the Son are the principle of the Holy Spirit, not two principles, but just as the Father and the Son are one God . . . relative to the Holy Spirit, they are one principle” (The Trinity 5:14:15 [A.D. 408]).

“[The one] from whom principally the Holy Spirit proceeds is called God the Father. I have added the term ‘principally’ because the Holy Spirit is found to proceed also from the Son” (ibid., 15:17:29).

“Why, then, should we not believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds also from the Son, when he is the Spirit also of the Son? For if the Holy Spirit did not proceed from him, when he showed himself to his disciples after his resurrection he would not have breathed upon them, saying, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit’ [John 20:22]. For what else did he signify by that breathing upon them except that the Holy Spirit proceeds also from him” (Homilies on John 99:8 [A.D. 416]).

Tertullian

“I believe that the Spirit proceeds not otherwise than from the Father through the Son” (Against Praxeas 4:1 [A.D. 216]).

Fulgence of Ruspe

“Hold most firmly and never doubt in the least that the only God the Son, who is one person of the Trinity, is the Son of the only God the Father; but the Holy Spirit himself also one person of the Trinity, is Spirit not of the Father only, but of Father and of Son together” (The Rule of Faith 53 [A.D. 524]).

“Hold most firmly and never doubt in the least that the same Holy Spirit who is Spirit of the Father and of the Son, proceeds from the Father and the Son” (ibid., 54).

Origen

“We believe, however, that there are three persons: the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit; and we believe none to be unbegotten except the Father. We admit, as more pious and true, that all things were produced through the Word, and that the Holy Spirit is the most excellent and the first in order of all that was produced by the Father through Christ” (Commentaries on John 2:6 [A.D. 229]).

Maximus the Confessor

"By nature the Holy Spirit in his being takes substantially his origin from the Father through the Son who is begotten (Questions to Thalassium 63 [A.D. 254]).

Gregory the Wonderworker

“[There is] one Holy Spirit, having substance from God, and who is manifested through the Son; image of the Son, perfect of the perfect; life, the cause of living; holy fountain; sanctity, the dispenser of sanctification; in whom is manifested God the Father who is above all and in all, and God the Son who is through all. Perfect Trinity, in glory and eternity and sovereignty neither divided nor estranged” (Confession of Faith [A.D. 265]).

Hilary of Poitiers

“Concerning the Holy Spirit . . . it is not necessary to speak of him who must be acknowledged, who is from the Father and the Son, his sources” (The Trinity 2:29 [A.D. 357]).

“In the fact that before times eternal your [the Father’s] only-begotten [Son] was born of you, when we put an end to every ambiguity of words and difficulty of understanding, there remains only this: he was born. So too, even if I do not g.asp it in my understanding, I hold fast in my consciousness to the fact that your Holy Spirit is from you through him” (ibid., 12:56).

Didymus the Blind

“As we have understood discussions . . . about the incorporeal natures, so too it is now to be recognized that the Holy Spirit receives from the Son that which he was of his own nature. . . . So too the Son is said to receive from the Father the very things by which he subsists. For neither has the Son anything else except those things given him by the Father, nor has the Holy Spirit any other substance than that given him by the Son” (The Holy Spirit 37 [A.D. 362]).

Epiphanius of Salamis

“The Father always existed and the Son always existed, and the Spirit breathes from the Father and the Son” (The Man Well-Anchored 75 [A.D. 374]).

Basil The Great

“Through the Son, who is one, he [the Holy Spirit] is joined to the Father, one who is one, and by himself completes the Blessed Trinity” (The Holy Spirit 18:45 [A.D. 375]).

“[T]he goodness of [the divine] nature, the holiness of [that] nature, and the royal dignity reach from the Father through the only-begotten [Son] to the Holy Spirit. Since we confess the persons in this manner, there is no infringing upon the holy dogma of the monarchy” (ibid., 18:47).

Ambrose of Milan

“Just as the Father is the fount of life, so too, there are many who have stated that the Son is designated as the fount of life. It is said, for example that with you, Almighty God, your Son is the fount of life, that is, the fount of the Holy Spirit. For the Spirit is life, just as the Lord says: ‘The words which I have spoken to you are Spirit and life’ [John 6:63]” (The Holy Spirit 1:15:152 [A.D. 381]).

“The Holy Spirit, when he proceeds from the Father and the Son, does not separate himself from the Father and does not separate himself from the Son” (ibid., 1:2:120)…

 

[Ghosty]

The best illustrations of the filioque and the monarchy of the Father that I know of comes from St. John of Damascus:

    Think of the Father as a spring of life begetting the Son like a river          and the Holy Ghost like a sea, for the spring and the river and sea are          all one nature. 
    
    Think of the Father as a root, and of the Son as a branch, and the Spirit          as a fruit, for the substance in these three is one. 
    
    The Father is a sun with the Son as rays and the Holy Ghost as heat.

In these analogies we see that the Holy Spirit proceeds at once from the Father and the Son, as there is only one “spiration” of the Holy Spirit. There is one principle of the Holy Spirit (the mouth of the river, or the stem of the fruit, so to speak) but this does not preclude the Father from being the ultimate source, nor the Son from a participation in this single flow. The Father and Son remain very much distinct, and have different “roles” in the Spiration, but from the perspective of the distinct origin of Holy Spirit they are united. Although it is not explicit in the Latin language, the term filioque was always understood with the monarchy of the Father implied, and the theology follows the examples above.

Greek is much more explicit in this emphasis by the nature of the language, with two different terms and meanings being used for the single Latin term “procedere”. Where the Greek language makes an explicit distinction in the words themselves, Latin relies heavily on context.

Hope that helps!

Peace and God bless!

 

[Vanez]

John 15:26 NKJV:

“But when the Helper comes, whom I shall send to you from the Father, the Spirit of Truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify of Me”

 

[Wandile]

John 15:26 NKJV:

“But when the Helper comes, whom I shall send to you from the Father, the Spirit of Truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify of Me”

John 20:22 Douay-Rheims Bible:

“When he had said this, he breathed on them; and he said to them: Receive ye the Holy Ghost”

St Augustine of Hippo:

*"Why, then, should we not believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds also from the Son, when he is the Spirit also of the Son? For if the Holy Spirit did not proceed from him, when he showed himself to his disciples after his resurrection he would not have breathed upon them, saying, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit’. For what else did he signify by that breathing upon them except that the Holy Spirit proceeds also from him" *

St Hilary of Poitiers :

"For our Lord has not left this in uncertainty, for after these same words He spoke thus :

• “I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. When He, the Spirit of truth, is come, He shall guide you into all truth: for He shall not speak from Himself: but what things soever He shall hear, these shall He speak; and He shall declare unto you the things that are to come. He shall glorify Me: for He shall receive of Mine and stroll declare it unto you. All things whatsoever the Father hath are Mine: therefore said I, He shall receive of Mine and shall declare it unto you” [Jn 16:12-15].*

Accordingly He receives from the Son, Who is both sent by Him, and proceeds from the Father. Now I ask whether to receive from the Son is the same thing as to proceed from the Father. But if one believes that there is a difference between receiving from the Son and proceeding from the Father, surely to receive from the Son and to receive from the Father will be regarded as one and the same thing."

 

[Vanez]

It is still through Jesus, right?

 

[Wandile]

It is still through Jesus, right?

Yes that is the equivalent formula. We do not deny this.

 

[Vanez]

Oh i see now that you were not finished when i typed that last comment. I will read the rest later, i am in hurry now for a vesper.

God bless

 

[Vanez]

John 20:22 Douay-Rheims Bible:

“When he had said this, he breathed on them; and he said to them: Receive ye the Holy Ghost”

St Augustine of Hippo:

"Why, then, should we not believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds also from the Son, when he is the Spirit also of the Son? For if the Holy Spirit did not proceed from him, when he showed himself to his disciples after his resurrection he would not have breathed upon them, saying, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit’. For what else did he signify by that breathing upon them except that the Holy Spirit proceeds also from him"

St Hilary of Poitiers :

"For our Lord has not left this in uncertainty, for after these same words He spoke thus :

• “I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. When He, the Spirit of truth, is come, He shall guide you into all truth: for He shall not speak from Himself: but what things soever He shall hear, these shall He speak; and He shall declare unto you the things that are to come. He shall glorify Me: for He shall receive of Mine and stroll declare it unto you. All things whatsoever the Father hath are Mine: therefore said I, He shall receive of Mine and shall declare it unto you” [Jn 16:12-15].*

Accordingly He receives from the Son, Who is both sent by Him, and proceeds from the Father. Now I ask whether to receive from the Son is the same thing as to proceed from the Father. But if one believes that there is a difference between receiving from the Son and proceeding from the Father, surely to receive from the Son and to receive from the Father will be regarded as one and the same thing."

I’m just back

Thank you. So far i thought the filioque is added because the arian heresy started to exist…

 

[thinkandmull]

There is one essence and three divine persons.

• Unity appropriated to the Father ( the “principle without principle”),
• Equality is appropriated to the Son (the “principle from a principle”)
• Concord appropriated to the Holy Ghost (“He proceeds from two”)

Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Q 39. “…in creatures relations are accidental, whereas in God they are the divine essence itself. Thence it follows that in God essence is not really distinct from person; and yet that the persons are really distinguished from each other. For person, as above stated (29, 4), signifies relation as subsisting in the divine nature. But relation as referred to the essence does not differ therefrom really, but only in our way of thinking; while as referred to an opposite relation, it has a real distinction by virtue of that opposition. Thus there are one essence and three persons.”
And “The second consideration of God regards Him as “one.” In that view Augustine (De Doctr. Christ. i, 5) appropriates “unity” to the Father, “equality” to the Son, “concord” or “union” to the Holy Ghost. It is manifest that these three imply unity, but in different ways. For “unity” is said absolutely, as it does not presuppose anything else; and for this reason it is appropriated to the Father, to Whom any other person is not presupposed since He is the “principle without principle.” “Equality” implies unity as regards another; for that is equal which has the same quantity as another. So equality is appropriated to the Son, Who is the “principle from a principle.” “Union” implies the unity of two; and is therefore appropriated to the Holy Ghost, inasmuch as He proceeds from two. And from this we can understand what Augustine means when he says (De Doctr. Christ. i, 5) that “The Three are one, by reason of the Father; They are equal by reason of the Son; and are united by reason of the Holy Ghost.””

Augustine’s statement there is not really explained by Aquinas and seems like a mystery to me.

Aquinas does say “in creatures relations are accidental, whereas in God they are the divine essence itself”. He must mean relation in general. For relation as “principle without principle” is the Father’s…

 

[Rohzek]

I’m just back

Thank you. So far i thought the filioque is added because the arian heresy started to exist…

It’s not so simple. The question you have to ask next the following: "what does “procedit ex Patre Filioque mean exactly?” What I mean by this question, is that does it claim that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son ontologically or economically? By ontologically, I mean in the divine sense that reaches beyond time. By the economical sense, I mean by the that which occurs within time. This is where the Latin is incredibly vague, while the Greek can be much more specific. Orthodox have no problem with the economical claim. In fact, they argue that the economical claim is specifically supported by scripture. The Council of Florence specifically rejected interpreting the Filioque clause as an economical claim though. The doctrine adopted was the following:

“spiritus sanctus ex patre et filio eternaliter est”

“The Holy Spirit is eternally from the Father and the Son.”

This is not an economical claim. It is an ontological claim. So claiming that the Holy Spirit proceeds through the Son, is misleading or inaccurate in light of Florence, unless you understand it in the sense of ontology. In other words, at best phrasing it as “through the Son” is a very vague way of putting the Latin belief regarding the Trinity. It does not make the ontological claim explicit. This is one reason why Theodulf of Orleans condemned Patriarch Tarasius of Constantinople for saying “through the Son.” (Although the Filioque was not adopted as doctrine by Rome at the time, but it was permissible). For more info, review my initial post in the thread.

The ways of understanding the Trinity are completely different in the East and West. The Filioque clause really forces one to look at the differences on understanding between the two (East and West) on their understanding of the begottenness of the Son. And that’s where the true problem between the two lies.

In short, the filioque was probably added because of Arianism, but only so because the Latin West conceived of the begottenness of the Son very differently to begin with. The gap between the Eastern Church Fathers and the Latin Church Fathers on this is actually much wider than it might initially seem, because of the lack of language specificity in translations. The best way to sum this debate up is that Augustine leads in the Latin school, while Maximos the Confessor leads in the Eastern/Greek school.

 

[Vico]

Augustine’s statement there is not really explained by Aquinas and seems like a mystery to me.

Aquinas does say “in creatures relations are accidental, whereas in God they are the divine essence itself”. He must mean relation in general. For relation as “principle without principle” is the Father’s…

The persons are the relations, and person is essence. This should help to understand what Aquinas refers to from Augustine:

• “unity” to the Father,
• “equality” to the Son,
• “concord” or “union” to the Holy Ghost

From St. Augustine, On Christian Doctrine, Book I, Chapter 5.—* The Trinity the True Object of Enjoyment.* 5. The true objects of enjoyment, then, are the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, who are at the same time the Trinity, one Being, supreme above all, and common to all who enjoy Him, if He is an object, and not rather the cause of all objects, or indeed even if He is the cause of all. For it is not easy to find a name that will suitably express so great excellence, unless it is better to speak in this way: The Trinity, one God, of whom are all things, through whom are all things, in whom are all things. Romans 11:36 Thus the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, and each of these by Himself, is God, and at the same time they are all one God; and each of them by Himself is a complete substance, and yet they are all one substance. The Father is not the Son nor the Holy Spirit; the Son is not the Father nor the Holy Spirit; the Holy Spirit is not the Father nor the Son: but the Father is only Father, the Son is only Son, and the Holy Spirit is only Holy Spirit. To all three belong the same eternity, the same unchangeableness, the same majesty, the same power. In the Father is unity, in the Son equality, in the Holy Spirit the harmony of unity and equality; and these three attributes are all one because of the Father, all equal because of the Son, and all harmonious because of the Holy Spirit.

 

[thinkandmull]

“**all **equal *because *of the Son, and **all ***harmonious *because of the Holy Spirit.” I don’t get that

 

[Vico]

“**all **equal *because *of the Son, and **all ***harmonious *because of the Holy Spirit.” I don’t get that

He says it because in the Father is unity, in the Son equality, and in the Holy Spirit the harmony of unity and equality.

So are you wondering about specific attributes of the persons, why in the Father is unity, in the Son equality, and in the Holy Spirit harmony? Remember that the divine persons are the relations and that person is essence, in the Trinity.