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

[Ghosty]

Rohzek: St. John of Damascus was speaking ontologically, not economically. It is not so simple as saying that there is no procession “through the Son” ontologically. I can’t link to it now, but if you do a search for “On the Trinity” by St. John you will see he was speaking of the eternal, ontological relationship between the Divine Persons.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Rohzek]

Rohzek: St. John of Damascus was speaking ontologically, not economically. It is not so simple as saying that there is no procession “through the Son” ontologically. I can’t link to it now, but if you do a search for “On the Trinity” by St. John you will see he was speaking of the eternal, ontological relationship between the Divine Persons.

Peace and God bless!

John of Damascus’ position is actually much more complicated. He never endorsed the such an ontological position.

If you can find a link to his work containing it in full or somewhere near that, then I’d be happy to discuss it more. I haven’t been able to find an online version containing large swaths of the work though, just some excerpts that disappointingly cut themselves off at the most crucial moment.

 

[Nelka]

I too struggle with the Filioque problem, maybe I am being thick.

I know what we Catholics pray but is there a summary for the non-super intelligent?

 

[Ghosty]

John of Damascus’ position is actually much more complicated. He never endorsed the such an ontological position.

If you can find a link to his work containing it in full or somewhere near that, then I’d be happy to discuss it more. I haven’t been able to find an online version containing large swaths of the work though, just some excerpts that disappointingly cut themselves off at the most crucial moment.

I will give you some more when I get to a computer.

The ontological vs. economic distinction really didn’t come up until Photius’ time. The writings of St. Gregory of Nyssa, for example, make it very clear that there is an eternal, ontological “through”. Again, when I have access to a computer I will provide more solid citations.

I don’t personally find the economic vs. ontological distinction at all helpful. While it can certainly be used to explain away the arguments of some writers, like Augustine, it does nothing to explain the Greek Fathers who spoke very clearly about the Divine Nature and consubstantiality in the same breath as the Holy Spirit processing “through” the Son.

The major distinction, I believe, is in the difference between Greek and Latin, and the extreme difficulty in translating from a very specific language to a very context dependent one. It is made all the more complicated by the fact that we are working in a third, relatively unrelated language.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Rohzek]

I will give you some more when I get to a computer.

The ontological vs. economic distinction really didn’t come up until Photius’ time. The writings of St. Gregory of Nyssa, for example, make it very clear that there is an eternal, ontological “through”. Again, when I have access to a computer I will provide more solid citations.

Eh, I think Theodulf of Orleans saw it and argued for it. He was the first Latin to make the case for an ontological distinction. He was actually the first Latin to really make an argument in favor of the Filioque at all. So I would push it back another century. The reason we don’t often hear about him is because the Opus Caroli was shelved. But I think it makes the argument very clearly.

I look forward to the quotations. But I think they Eastern theologians for the most part used “through” in a different sense. By this, I mean in an economic mediary sense. This is in part why Theodulf argued against them using the word “through,” because he understood what sense the Eastern theologians were using, and disagreed with it. And I think that in large part is why the Council of Florence refrained from using the word “through” as well.

 

[Ghosty]

Here’s a link to the fuller context of the quote from St. John of Damascus. It really doesn’t address the issue in depth, but I was simply using his words as illustration.

St. Gregory of Nyssa, however, is much more explicit in “Not Three Gods”, which can be found here. Of particular interest is this passage, found on page 10 of that website:

If, however, any one cavils at our argument, on the ground that by not admitting the difference of nature it leads to a mixture and confusion of the Persons, we shall make to such a charge this answer;–that while we confess the invariable character of the nature, we do not deny the difference in respect of cause, and that which is caused, by which alone we apprehend that one Person is distinguished from another;–by our belief, that is, that one is the Cause, and another is of the Cause; and again in that which is of the Cause we recognize another distinction. For one is directly from the first Cause, and another by that which is directly from the first Cause; so that the attribute of being Only-begotten abides without doubt in the Son, and the interposition of the Son, while it guards His attribute of being Only-begotten, does not shut out the Spirit from His relation by way of nature to the Father.

Here he is explicitly speaking of the Divine processions and Divine Nature, and not speaking economically. He interposes the Son “between” the Father and the Holy Spirit, preserving the “only-begotteness” of the Son.

His argument here matches the illustration above from St. John of Damascus. The Son is “interposed” in the same manner as the river is “between” the spring and the sea. This is why I say that the argument that the “through” is purely economic is unhelpful and ultimately doesn’t sync up with what the Fathers actually said.

Eh, I think Theodulf of Orleans saw it and argued for it. He was the first Latin to make the case for an ontological distinction. He was actually the first Latin to really make an argument in favor of the Filioque at all. So I would push it back another century. The reason we don’t often hear about him is because the Opus Caroli was shelved. But I think it makes the argument very clearly.

I’m not sure what you mean by this. St. Augustine made the argument of an ontological “through” long before Theodulf’s time, as did St. Gregory of Nyssa in the citation above. It is the insistence that the “through” is purely economic that came later.

While this position is helpful in highlighting the fact that we can’t automatically assume an ontological meaning for economic activities, such as Augustine arguing for the procession “through” from Christ breathing the Holy Spirit upon the Apostles, it doesn’t address the fact that we have Greek Fathers, writing in Greek, that clearly teach the ontological “through”. It is handy for shooting down a faulty basis for argument, but it does not address the fundamental doctrine.

If St. Gregory of Nyssa can interpose the Son between the Father and the Holy Spirit, and St. John of Damascus can use illustrations from nature that do the same, then I think we should say that the Latin theology is sound so long as it follows the same structure.

It is when the Filioque is illustrated and/or understood to place the Father and Son side by side originating the Holy Spirit, as equals or at least partners, that it becomes problematic in my opinion. Fortunately that is not way it has been defined in the Latin tradition, but there are many examples of that kind of thinking.

I would argue that it is equally perilous to say that the Son has no place at all in the ontological procession of the Holy Spirit because, as St. Gregory of Nyssa indicates, that potentially jeopardizes His Personalizing mark of being Only-Begotten. It merely reverses the mistake of putting the Father and Son side by side in “producing” the Holy Spirit by putting the Son and Holy Spirit side by side as two “siblings” that were somehow brought about in a different but unknowable manner.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Vico]

I too struggle with the Filioque problem, maybe I am being thick.

I know what we Catholics pray but is there a summary for the non-super intelligent?

Catechism of the Catholic Church
248 At the outset the Eastern tradition expresses the Father’s character as first origin of the Spirit. By confessing the Spirit as he “who proceeds from the Father”, it affirms that he comes from the Father *through *the Son.77 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.80 This legitimate complementarity, provided it does not become rigid, does not affect the identity of faith in the reality of the same mystery confessed.

77 Jn 15:26; cf. AG 2.
78 Council of Florence (1439): DS 1302.
79 Council of Florence (1442): DS 1331.
80 Cf. Council of Lyons II (1274): DS 850.

 

[Wandile]

I’m just back

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

Many western fathers already taught the filioque before. However it was added to the creed at the Council of Toledo to combat Arianism

 

[Wandile]

Eh, I think Theodulf of Orleans saw it and argued for it. He was the first Latin to make the case for an ontological distinction. He was actually the first Latin to really make an argument in favor of the Filioque at all. So I would push it back another century. The reason we don’t often hear about him is because the Opus Caroli was shelved. But I think it makes the argument very clearly.

There are numerous western fathers that were already teaching an ontological procession before Theodulf of Orleans

I look forward to the quotations. But I think they Eastern theologians for the most part used “through” in a different sense. By this, I mean in an economic mediary sense. This is in part why Theodulf argued against them using the word “through,” because he understood what sense the Eastern theologians were using, and disagreed with it. And I think that in large part is why the Council of Florence refrained from using the word “through” as well.

No a lot of then taught of the the procession in an eternal/ontological manner. I already showed you a few fathers but let me focus on eastern fathers :

St Athanasius of Alexandria :

“David sings in the psalm [35:10], saying: 'For with You is the font of Life;'because jointly with the Father the Son is indeed the source of the Holy Spirit.”

“…Everything the Spirit has, He has from the Word (para tou Logou).”

St Basil the Great :

“Even if the Holy Spirit is third in dignity and order, why need He be third also in nature? For that He is second to the Son, having His being from Him and receiving from Him and announcing to us and being completely dependent on Him, pious tradition recounts; but that His nature is third we are not taught by the Saints nor can we conclude logically from what has been said.”

At the council of Florence, Metropolitan Mark Eugenikos of Ephesus, struck by the unmistakable Filioquism of this passage, which is not compatible with his narrow Photian theology, was forced to maintain that it is not genuine. However, he was wrong, according to the Rev. Reuben Parsons, D.D. of pious memory :

the archbishop of Nicea tells us that out of six codices of St. Basel’s works brought by his countrymen to Florence, five gave this passage in its entirety; while the one that wanted it “was defective in some parts, and had many additions, according to the pleasure of the corrupter.” When he returned to Constantinople, Bessarion searched the libraries, and he found some new codices, written after the Council of Florence had terminated, and in which the above passage was wanting; whereas in other ancient MSS. which he consulted it was given.

St Epiphanios of Salamis :

"But someone will say, “Therefore we are saying that there are two Sons. And how then is He the Only-begotten?” Well then. “Who art thou that repliest against God?” [Rom 9:20]. For if he calls the one Who is from Him the Son, and the one Who is from both (παρ᾽ ἀμφοτέρων) the Holy Spirit, which things we understand by faith alone, from the saints— full of light, givers of light, they have their operation full of light…

St. Epiphanios distinguishes the hypostases of the Son and the Holy Spirit, Who share the two-person description “from the Father,” by adding that the Son is from the Father alone, whereas the Holy Spirit proceeds hypostatically from the Father and the Son.

St Cyril of Alexandria

“the Son is God, and from God according to nature (for He has had His birth from God the Father), the Spirit is both proper to Him and in Him and from Him, just as, to be sure, the same thing is understood to hold true in the case of God the Father Himself.”

In 429 St. Cyril says in Thesaurus 34 :
“Thus, Paul knows no difference of nature between the Son and the Holy Spirit, but because the Spirit exists from Him and in Him by nature, He calls Him by the name of Lordship.”

In the same part of the same work St. Cyril says,

“Therefore, when Christ lays down the law, **He lays it down that His Spirit naturally exists in Him and from Him.” **

 

[Rohzek]

This post is in two parts due to a word limit. Please read both parts as one post.

Here’s a link to the fuller context of the quote from St. John of Damascus. It really doesn’t address the issue in depth, but I was simply using his words as illustration.

St. Gregory of Nyssa, however, is much more explicit in “Not Three Gods”, which can be found here. Of particular interest is this passage, found on page 10 of that website:

Here he is explicitly speaking of the Divine processions and Divine Nature, and not speaking economically. He interposes the Son “between” the Father and the Holy Spirit, preserving the “only-begotteness” of the Son.

Gregory of Nyssa really doesn’t say much about the Person of the Holy Spirit in this passage. He is largely speaking about how all of the persons of the Trinity share the same essence, and therefore are not three different gods. I would argue that Gregory’s statement on the procession of the Holy Spirit is vague at best. Yeah, he is speaking ontologically, but again, there isn’t much said about the Holy Spirit’s procession. He is merely arguing that the essence (not the Person) of the Holy Spirit comes from the Father.

But if you look further down in the passage in the second to last paragraph, we arrive at a clarification. He argues that the Son is begotten of the Person of the Father. He is listing that the cause is the Person. Now, according to Western tradition, the cause is listed as from the Essence of the Father. And it is this position which allows the Filioque clause to make perfect sense. I’m not saying either of these positions on the Cause are wrong, as both to me seem permissible opinions. However, what I am saying is that Augustine and Gregory here are operating from very different premises of the Trinity.

His argument here matches the illustration above from St. John of Damascus. The Son is “interposed” in the same manner as the river is “between” the spring and the sea. This is why I say that the argument that the “through” is purely economic is unhelpful and ultimately doesn’t sync up with what the Fathers actually said.

See my point above. John of Damascus is speaking the same way. He also said the following: “. . . we do not speak of the Spirit as from the Son, but yet we call Him the Spirit of the Son.” - On the Orthodox Faith Book 1, chapter 8.

I’m not sure what you mean by this. St. Augustine made the argument of an ontological “through” long before Theodulf’s time, as did St. Gregory of Nyssa in the citation above. It is the insistence that the “through” is purely economic that came later.

What I mean by this, and I see that I have confused both you and Wandile, is that Theodulf was the first Latin theologian to actually engage in an argument with other theologians on the Filioque clause specifically. Yes, Augustine clearly favored the filioque, and I did acknowledge that. But what I am saying is that Theodulf saw the gap between Latin and Greek Trinitarian theologies and argued in favor of the Latin. The only reason we often don’t speak about his arguments is because the work they were contained in, the Opus Caroli, was shelved on Charlemagne’s orders. Theodulf’s position and argument is remarkably similar if not the same as to that which was adopted at Florence so many centuries later.

If St. Gregory of Nyssa can interpose the Son between the Father and the Holy Spirit, and St. John of Damascus can use illustrations from nature that do the same, then I think we should say that the Latin theology is sound so long as it follows the same structure.

It doesn’t follow the same structure though. And that’s my point. The disagreement really goes back to the begottennes of the Son. And the divide can be traced back to the Vulgate’s/Jerome’s translation of hypostaseos as “substantiae” which means essence for Hebrews 1:3. Greeks understood it as “person.”

It is when the Filioque is illustrated and/or understood to place the Father and Son side by side originating the Holy Spirit, as equals or at least partners, that it becomes problematic in my opinion. Fortunately that is not way it has been defined in the Latin tradition, but there are many examples of that kind of thinking.

My point exactly. The Latin tradition avoids this by defining the begottenness of the Son as coming from the essence of the Father rather than the Person of the Father. Scholastics saw this big divide between the two I think, and often tried to bridge the gap by saying separating the Person from is Essence is impossible. Therefore, they said, the begottenness comes from both. Thomas Aquinas argued this as well as Anselm of Laon (or his school) I believe.

I would argue that it is equally perilous to say that the Son has no place at all in the ontological procession of the Holy Spirit because, as St. Gregory of Nyssa indicates, that potentially jeopardizes His Personalizing mark of being Only-Begotten. It merely reverses the mistake of putting the Father and Son side by side in “producing” the Holy Spirit by putting the Son and Holy Spirit side by side as two “siblings” that were somehow brought about in a different but unknowable manner.

Peace and God bless!

He doesn’t have this problem though, because they all share the same essence.

 

[Rohzek]

This is the second part of my post. Please read my previous post along with this one as though they were one. I had to post twice due to word count.

St Athanasius of Alexandria :

“David sings in the psalm [35:10], saying: 'For with You is the font of Life;'because jointly with the Father the Son is indeed the source of the Holy Spirit.”

“…Everything the Spirit has, He has from the Word (para tou Logou).”

I don’t find this so clear. I know he spoke in Greek, but I must admit, I only know like 5 words in Greek. So allow me to refer to the Latin, if you will.

"Ita non alienum sed proprium Patris esse eum dicit. Nam cum professus fuisset, quia apud te est fons vitae, adjunxit, in lumine tuo videbimus lumen (Psal. XXXV, 10); id est, in Filio tuo videbimus spiritum. Nec non etiam in nomine virtutis Dei appellatur spiritus, et vita et sapientia esse monstratur. "

“Thus he said to him to be not an alien of the Father, but a peculiar of the Father. For when he had professed, because unto you is the fountain of life, joined, in your light we will see the light (Ps. 35:10); that is, in your Son we see the Spirit. Also too, the Spirit is spoken in the name of the almighty God, and life and wisdom are demonstrated to be.”

He is speaking along the same lines as Gregory of Nyssa and John of Damascus. He is trying to argue that the three persons do not qualify as three gods. So again, it’s possible Anathasius was speaking in favor of the Filioque, but this passage hardly shows it.

As for the second part, I ask that you please include a larger section of it, as I cannot find it myself in order to check the context.

St Basil the Great :

“Even if the Holy Spirit is third in dignity and order, why need He be third also in nature? For that He is second to the Son, having His being from Him and receiving from Him and announcing to us and being completely dependent on Him, pious tradition recounts; but that His nature is third we are not taught by the Saints nor can we conclude logically from what has been said.”

This is hardly clear. If anything, it just simply reaffirms that all of them share the same substance, as he is speaking of nature. It does not speak of where the the personhood of the Holy Spirit is derived from. It is merely making the statement that the essence of the Holy Spirit derives from both. Without further context, I don’t see what else I could derive from this.

St Epiphanios of Salamis :

"But someone will say, “Therefore we are saying that there are two Sons. And how then is He the Only-begotten?” Well then. “Who art thou that repliest against God?” [Rom 9:20]. For if he calls the one Who is from Him the Son, and the one Who is from both (παρ᾽ ἀμφοτέρων) the Holy Spirit, which things we understand by faith alone, from the saints— full of light, givers of light, they have their operation full of light…

I do not follow your explanation of this passage exactly. I ask that you please include more of the passage for further context. Maybe then I could follow your point.

St Cyril of Alexandria

“the Son is God, and from God according to nature (for He has had His birth from God the Father), the Spirit is both proper to Him and in Him and from Him, just as, to be sure, the same thing is understood to hold true in the case of God the Father Himself.”

In 429 St. Cyril says in Thesaurus 34 :
“Thus, Paul knows no difference of nature between the Son and the Holy Spirit, but because the Spirit exists from Him and in Him by nature, He calls Him by the name of Lordship.”

In the same part of the same work St. Cyril says,

“Therefore, when Christ lays down the law, **He lays it down that His Spirit naturally exists in Him and from Him.” **

For the first passage, I really don’t see it. To me, I can give the same answer as I did with Anathasius above. He doesn’t really seem to be speaking of personhood.

For the second one, again he is speaking of a shared nature, not Personhood. So this does not address the subject as you might think.

For the third one, again it is too vague, and needs further exposition. But it seems to me to again be talking about the nature/essence.

 

[Kmon23]

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.

Could I have some clarification from a Catholic that this is what the Catholic Church believes? I was under the assumption that being begotten or procession of the Son and Holy Spirit is from the Person of the Father, not of the essence shared among the Trinity?

Unless of course I was wrong and Catholicism’s source of unity in the Trinity is not the Father (through the Monarchy of the Father) but instead in the essence?

 

[Vico]

Could I have some clarification from a Catholic that this is what the Catholic Church believes? I was under the assumption that being begotten or procession of the Son and Holy Spirit is from the Person of the Father, not of the essence shared among the Trinity?

Unless of course I was wrong and Catholicism’s source of unity in the Trinity is not the Father (through the Monarchy of the Father) but instead in the essence?

The Father is the source of unity (from Augustine). Spiration is from the Father immediately (arche) and from the Son mediately, as if by one spiration.

St. Thomas Aquinas Summa Theologica I, Q39, A3, r1:But if we consider the persons themselves spirating, then, as the Holy Ghost proceeds both from the Father and from the Son, the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father immediately, as from Him, and mediately, as from the Son; and thus He is said to proceed from the Father through the Son.

newadvent.org/summa/1036.htm

Catechism of the Catholic Church
246 The Latin tradition of the Creed confesses that the Spirit “proceeds from the Father and the Son (filioque)”. The Council of Florence in 1438 explains: "The Holy Spirit is eternally from Father and Son; He has his nature and subsistence at once (simul) from the Father and the Son. He proceeds eternally from both as from one principle and through one spiration. . . . And, since the Father has through generation given to the only-begotten Son everything that belongs to the Father, except being Father, the Son has also eternally from the Father, from whom he is eternally born, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son."75

75 Council of Florence (1439): DS 1300-1301.

 

[Richca]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rohzek View Post
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.

Could I have some clarification from a Catholic that this is what the Catholic Church believes? I was under the assumption that being begotten or procession of the Son and Holy Spirit is from the Person of the Father, not of the essence shared among the Trinity?

Unless of course I was wrong and Catholicism’s source of unity in the Trinity is not the Father (through the Monarchy of the Father) but instead in the essence?

Western theologians do not hold a real distinction between the Godhead, essence, or divine nature and the persons. The Godhead or the essence is the persons and the persons are the essence or Godhead. So, for example, if it is said that the essence of the Father begets the Son, this is the same to say that the Father begets the Son; for the essence or divine nature of the Father and the person of the Father are one and the same thing. God is one in essence and three in persons.

 

[Richca]

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 Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as from one principle and through one spiration because the Father and Son are one God with one divine nature, one will, and one spirative power through which they spirate the Holy Spirit.

The meaning of “The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son,” is that the Father who is the origin or the principle without principle of the Trinity spirates the Holy Spirit through the Son, the Father being the first origin of the Holy Spirit (cf. CCC#248). The Son, of course, is from the Father and the Son receives the power of spirating the Holy Spirit from the Father. So, it is sometimes said that the Holy Spirit proceeds immediately from the Father and mediately from the Son.

There is no contradiction between saying that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son or from the Father through the Son, they both mean the same thing in the Catholic Church. As to your question regarding how to reconcile proceeding through the Son and proceeding from both equally, there is no inequality between the Father and Son (nor the Holy Spirit for that matter); the Son (and Holy Spirit) are equal to the Father in all things, for they have the same identical nature as the Father, namely, that of being God, whole and entire.

 

[Kmon23]

The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as from one principle and through one spiration because the Father and Son are one God with one divine nature, one will, and one spirative power through which they spirate the Holy Spirit.

The meaning of “The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son,” is that the Father who is the origin or the principle without principle of the Trinity spirates the Holy Spirit through the Son, the Father being the first origin of the Holy Spirit (cf. CCC#248). The Son, of course, is from the Father and the Son receives the power of spirating the Holy Spirit from the Father. So, it is sometimes said that the Holy Spirit proceeds immediately from the Father and mediately from the Son.

There is no contradiction between saying that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son or from the Father through the Son, they both mean the same thing in the Catholic Church. As to your question regarding how to reconcile proceeding through the Son and proceeding from both equally, there is no inequality between the Father and Son (nor the Holy Spirit for that matter); the Son (and Holy Spirit) are equal to the Father in all things, for they have the same identical nature as the Father, namely, that of being God, whole and entire.

Why is it that the church words it as the filioque instead of “through” the son? It seems a lot less headache would have occurred with east-west theological dialogue if the latter was used instead.

 

[Richca]

Why is it that the church words it as the filioque instead of “through” the son? It seems a lot less headache would have occurred with east-west theological dialogue if the latter was used instead.

Probably from Tradition. The latin fathers used “proceeds from the Father and the Son.”

 

[Ghosty]

Rohzek: Almost your entire response appears to be based on a misunderstanding of Latin theology, so rather than respond point by point I will try instead to clear that up first.

Latin theology does not teach that the Son, or any person, is begotten from the Essence as opposed to the Person. In fact, the traditional Latin approach of distinguishing Persons is by processional relationships, so it is impossible that the Essence would beget anything. Indeed, the “Essence” of the Father is identical to the “Essence” of the Son, so how could the Essence of the Son beget the Son?

According to Latin tradition, it is the very fact that the Father begets and is unbegotten that distinguishes His Person, as there is no distinction in Essence between any of the Persons.

That said, Gregory of Nyssa is not speaking of the Divine Nature in that particular passage, but rather of how the Persons are distinguished from each other if we say they share one Nature. He is specifically responding the the argument that you can’t have three Persons without having three natures, and is showing how the distinction of persons can arise when there is a single nature. The passage is entirely about defining Personhood in God.

Richa: It is incorrect to say that the there is no distinction in Latin theology between Essence and Person. If that were the case then the Son would beget Himself. It would also mean that there are either three Gods, as there are three Persons and therefore three Essences, or else there would be One Person that presents Himself in three manners.

The Essence does not beget, nor is it begotten. The Divine Essence is, however, intrinsically Personal, and does not exist apart from Divine Personhood. To understand this distinction it helps to look at humanity. We can speak of human nature, and of individual people. Human nature is not intrinsically personal, as we can speak of the human species in general as opposed to individualized humans, but this is not possible with God. In humans the person is not “essential”, but is individualized by distinct features that don’t belong to humanity in general. I am distinguished by my hair, my bones, my thoughts, and humanity in general does not exist with my hair, my bones, my thoughts, even though it is part of human nature to have hair, have bones, have thoughts.

The Divine Persons, however, are not distinguished by such additional features added on top of Divine Nature. The Son is not distinguished from the Divine Essence by His own thoughts, his own bones, his own hair, but rather is distinguished only by His relationship with the Father and the Holy Spirit. Unlike us, who are distinguished by our relationships AND our unique personal properties like flesh and bones and thoughts, the Divine Persons have nothing to themselves apart from the Divine Essence, except their relations to each other. There is no “thought of the Son” distinct from the “thought of the Father”.

Of course I’m leaving aside the human side of Christ in this discussion, because it isn’t directly pertinent to the Trinity. Suffice to say that the Son does have His own thoughts when it comes to His human nature, but we are speaking of Divine distinctions and not not those that arise from the Incarnation.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Rohzek]

Probably from Tradition. The latin fathers used “proceeds from the Father and the Son.”

I think there is much more to do with it than just simple tradition. As I mentioned before, the Filioque supporters denounced Tarasius for saying “through the Son.” “Through the Son” was condemned initially because it was interpreted that the Holy Spirit was created within time. Therefore, Tarasius was accused of being like the Arians and Adoptionists, except in this case on the Holy Spirit. The case for the Filioque in the eighth century was basically argued along the same lines as Florence long after: one source, principle, etc. The only thing that really changed was the added phrase of “eternally,” which amended any concern that the eighth century Franks had regarding Tarasius’ “per Filium.” The arguments all stress the shared substance of the Godhead.

Western theologians do not hold a real distinction between the Godhead, essence, or divine nature and the persons. The Godhead or the essence is the persons and the persons are the essence or Godhead. So, for example, if it is said that the essence of the Father begets the Son, this is the same to say that the Father begets the Son; for the essence or divine nature of the Father and the person of the Father are one and the same thing. God is one in essence and three in persons.

My apologies if I mislead people on this point. I mentioned before the scholastics amendation to this issue, particularly Thomas Aquinas and the school of Anselm of Laonn. I’d also like to add to this:

"VERS. 3.—Qui cum sit splendor gloriae, etc. Hic secundum divinam naturam commendat Christum, ostendens eum coaeternum et coaequalem Patri, ejusdemque cum eo substantiae, sed alterum in persona.

Figura substantiae. Ecce aliter personaliter, ut figura ab eo cujus est figura. Sed aequalis, quia non dissimilis, sicut ipse ait: Pater in me est; et: Qui videt me, videt et Patrem meum (Joan. XIV). Attende quod haec nomina, scilicet lumen, gloria, quandoque ad naturam divinam referuntur, quandoque ad personam. [Col.0643D] Et quando ad personam referuntur; modo ad Patrem, modo ad Filium referuntur. Dicimus enim: Pater est lumen, et Filius est lumen. Similiter Pater est gloria, Filius gloria, et hi duo una gloria et unum lumen, non duo. Et dicitur Filius gloria de gloria, sicut lumen de lumine, et principium de principio, et Deus de Deo, non tamen duo dii, sed unus, non duo principia, sed unum. Splendor autem et figura, sicut et imago proprie ad personam Filii referuntur et relative dicuntur." - PL 114: 0643C - 0643D.

The above quotation is from the Glossa Ordinaria, which widely circulated during the High Middle Ages as a biblical commentary. It basically argues the same thing Aquinas does I believe. Someone earlier posted a quote from him saying something similar. This is an except regarding Hebrews 1:3. I would like to bring attention to the focus in red: “Consider that these names, as you may know as the light, (and) the glory, in as much as they are referred to as the divine nature, they refer as much to the person.”

Ghosty, I disagree. Latin theology does teach that the Son derives from the essence, although it does not fully distinguish between essence and personhood, which I think Richca rightly pointed out. I’m not alone in the assertion either. It’s a position that Protestants inherited from Catholicism, and the Reformers argued strongly in favor of it. See the following articles by theologian Paul Owen:

bib.irr.org/reflections-on-doctrine-of-holy-trinity-part-1

mit.irr.org/reflections-on-doctrine-of-holy-trinity-part-2

Part 2 is the main concern here. Just do a word search for the word “monarchy” and you will find the passage I am talking about.

As for your further statements on Gregory of Nyssa, I am not sure what to think of them. I don’t see how it contradicts what I’ve said. Could you clarify?

 

[Vico]

**…**Unlike us, who are distinguished by our relationships AND our unique personal properties like flesh and bones and thoughts, the Divine Persons have nothing to themselves apart from the Divine Essence, except their relations to each other. There is no “thought of the Son” distinct from the “thought of the Father”…

It is a subtle but important thing that the persons are the subsisting relations themselves.

St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica Whether the persons are distinguished by the relations?
**Objection 1: **It would seem that the persons are not distinguished by the relations. For simple things are distinct by themselves. But the persons are supremely simple. Therefore they are distinguished by themselves, and not by the relation.
Reply to Objection 1: The persons are the subsisting relations themselves. Hence it is not against the simplicity of the divine persons for them to be distinguished by the relations.
sacred-texts.com/chr/aquinas/summa/sum044.htm