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

[Vico]

Yes but in Catholic theology the interactions of the Persons of the Godhead in time mirror their interactions in eternity. Hence as so the Son sends the Spirit in time, so too does He eternally

Surely, St. Augustine reasoned from the economic processions to the immanent processions. St. Thomas Aquinas took a different approach, establishing first the eternal processions and then moving to the economic processions.

So for the mirror analogy, the economic procession must also then be as the eternal where the Father is the first principle (monarch) of both the Son and Holy Spirit.

 

[Richca]

The is called the economic procession which is not disputed. The basis of the internal procession has no scriptural basis, rather comes from the ecumenical councils use of consubstantial.

I disagree with you on this one and I believe the Fathers of the Church as well as the teaching authority of the Catholic Church would disagree with you as well. I don’t believe the Catholic Church nor the fathers of the Church could have taught that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son without any scriptural basis since knowledge of the Trinity as well as the internal processions are beyond the natural light of reason and we depend on this knowledge according to divine revelation. For one thing, the Holy Spirit is referred to in Sacred Scripture as both the Spirit of the Father ((Mt 10:20, Rom 8:10-11, 2 Cor 1:21-22, Eph 3:14-16) and the Spirit of the Son (Rom 8:9, Gal 4:6, Phil 1:19, 1 Pt 1:11).

Two, Jesus said “The Father and I are one,” (John 10:30) and “everything that the Father has is mine” (John 16:15).
The Council of Florence decreed, following the Tradition of the Church and the fathers of the Church, "“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.”

 

[Vico]

I disagree with you on this one and I believe the Fathers of the Church as well as the teaching authority of the Catholic Church would disagree with you as well. I don’t believe the Catholic Church nor the fathers of the Church could have taught that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son without any scriptural basis since knowledge of the Trinity as well as the internal processions are beyond the natural light of reason and we depend on this knowledge according to divine revelation. For one thing, the Holy Spirit is referred to in Sacred Scripture as both the Spirit of the Father ((Mt 10:20, Rom 8:10-11, 2 Cor 1:21-22, Eph 3:14-16) and the Spirit of the Son (Rom 8:9, Gal 4:6, Phil 1:19, 1 Pt 1:11).

Two, Jesus said “The Father and I are one,” (John 10:30) and “everything that the Father has is mine” (John 16:15).
The Council of Florence decreed, following the Tradition of the Church and the fathers of the Church, "“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.”

It is a dogma based upon a rational conclusion, but, I researched it thoroughly, and there is no scripture referring specifically to the* double internal procession* of the Holy Spirit. There is scripture for the economic procession (sending) of the Holy Spirit and for procession from the Father. That is why there remains disagreement to this day on it as mentioned in the Catechism 248. The basis of internal procession is logic but the dogma of faith is from the councils using these phrases (also see Catechism 465):

• “consubstantial with the Father” “homoousios tō Patri” (ὁμοούσιον τῷ Πατρί)
• “Who with the Father and the Son is equally worshipped and equally glorified” (τὸ σὺν πατρὶ καὶ υἱῷ συμπροσκυνούμενον καὶ συνδοξαζόμενον).

**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.

465 The first heresies denied not so much Christ’s divinity as his true humanity (Gnostic Docetism). From apostolic times the Christian faith has insisted on the true incarnation of God’s Son “come in the flesh”.87 But already in the third century, the Church in a council at Antioch had to affirm against Paul of Samosata that Jesus Christ is Son of God by nature and not by adoption. The first ecumenical council of Nicaea in 325 confessed in its Creed that the Son of God is “begotten, not made, of the same substance (homoousios) as the Father”, and condemned Arius, who had affirmed that the Son of God “came to be from things that were not” and that he was “from another substance” than that of the Father.88

John 15:26 “When the Advocate comes whom I will send you from the Father, the Spirit of truth that proceeds from the Father, he will testify to me.”

 

[Kmon23]

Yes but in Catholic theology the interactions of the Persons of the Godhead in time mirror their interactions in eternity. Hence as so the Son sends the Spirit in time, so too does He eternally

Can you explain why the Trinity in time should mirror those in eternity?

 

[johnnykins]

Can you explain why the Trinity in time should mirror those in eternity?

Because in God there is no time - there is only the I AM the Eternal…

But, whatever we say about God is limited by our own limits. Like the blind men each touching the elephant in different places and describing what an elephant is like…each is right, but limited in what he perceives.

 

[Kmon23]

Because in God there is no time - there is only the I AM the Eternal…

But, whatever we say about God is limited by our own limits. Like the blind men each touching the elephant in different places and describing what an elephant is like…each is right, but limited in what he perceives.

mmm… not sure. yes for God, He is outside of time. But do we also not say there is the economic Trinity and ontological Trinity. If we really did say that there is no time period for God, then why is there a distinction for God within time and outside time?

What you are saying seems somewhat counter to what I’m familiar with when reading Catholic theology.

 

[johnnykins]

mmm… not sure. yes for God, He is outside of time. But do we also not say there is the economic Trinity and ontological Trinity. If we really did say that there is no time period for God, then why is there a distinction for God within time and outside time?

What you are saying seems somewhat counter to what I’m familiar with when reading Catholic theology.

The prior post and question were:

Can you explain why the Trinity in time should mirror those in eternity?

You agree that God is outside time…this is not to say there is no distinction between God within time and outside time…only that that is the reason

why the Trinity in time should mirror those in eternity.

You’re trying to read too much into the issue.

 

[Kmon23]

The prior post and question were: You agree that God is outside time…this is not to say there is no distinction between God within time and outside time…only that that is the reason
You’re trying to read too much into the issue.

Okay thanks. Luckily I have theology professors to ask, so hopefully they can elucidate on my questions.

 

[Parvulus]

I am joining this conversation after having read a related thread from 2013 that’s now closed. I mention it because both threads have a common participant, Richca, and notably the second part of my response to Rohzek applies also to Richca’s post linked above.

Part 1 of 2

So apparently my supposition is wrong according to this Catholic theologian:

"Rather, in the Filioque, a third possibility is presented in regard to the procession of the Spirit. For, as the West confesses, the Spirit does not proceeds as an action of the consubstantial Nature (Substance)

Nothing can proceed “as an action of the consubstantial Nature” apart from any divine Person because the divine nature or essence does not exist apart from the divine Persons. This was already defined in the Fourth Lateran Council (1215):
Fourth Lateran Council:

each of the three persons is that reality - that is to say substance, essence or divine nature - which alone is the principle of all things, besides which no other principle can be found. This reality neither begets nor is begotten nor proceeds; the Father begets, the Son is begotten and the holy Spirit proceeds.

In the quote, “the principle of all things” refers to “all things created”, not to the generation and procession “ad intra” of the Persons, and is just an instance of the dogma of the unity of the divine operation ad extra, which states that all divine operations ad extra are common to the three divine Persons as a single efficient cause.

That the divine nature or essence does not exist apart from the divine Persons is taught e.g. in a 2010 textbook by CDF’s Secretary Msgr. Luis F. Ladaria, S.I., of which the abridged version of some chapters is online (as well as the Spanish original):
The Living and True God: The Mystery of the Trinity:

The divine essence is not something prior to the persons, but it subsists only in the three persons. (ch. 9)

There is no divine essence prior to the persons. There is no divine nature that is above the persons. (ch. 10)

(A bonus of using that textbook is the low risk of having problems with the CDF out of that )

 

[Parvulus]

Part 2 of 2

So at this point, I am still left wondering then how the monarchy of the Father is maintained in this Trinitarian schema. I’ve read the article, but I am still confused. If possible, please refer back to this article in order to guide me along in this, although it is not necessary.

For Catholics, the reference is the decree of Session 6 of the Ecumenical Council of Florence:
Council of Florence:

For when Latins and Greeks came together in this holy synod, they all strove that, among other things, the article about the procession of the holy Spirit should be discussed with the utmost care and assiduous investigation. Texts were produced from divine scriptures and many authorities of eastern and western holy doctors, some saying the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, others saying the procession is from the Father through the Son. All were aiming at the same meaning in different words. The Greeks asserted that when they claim that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, they do not intend to exclude the Son; but because it seemed to them that the Latins assert that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as from two principles and two spirations, they refrained from saying that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. 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, nor that they posit two principles or two spirations; but they assert that there is only one principle and a single spiration of the holy Spirit, as they have asserted hitherto. Since, then, one and the same meaning resulted from all this, they unanimously agreed and consented to the following holy and God-pleasing union, in the same sense and with one mind.

In the name of the holy Trinity, Father, Son and holy Spirit, we define, with the approval of this holy universal council of Florence, that the following truth of faith shall be believed and accepted by all Christians and thus shall all profess it: that the holy Spirit is eternally from the Father and the Son, and has his essence and his subsistent being from the Father together with the Son, and proceeds from both eternally as from one principle and a single spiration. We declare that when holy doctors and fathers say that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son, this bears the sense that thereby also the Son should be signified, according to the Greeks indeed as cause, and according to the Latins as principle of the subsistence of the holy Spirit, just like the Father.

And since the Father gave to his only-begotten Son in begetting him everything the Father has, except to be the Father, so the Son has eternally from the Father, by whom he was eternally begotten, this also, namely that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Son.

We define also that the explanation of those words “and from the Son” was licitly and reasonably added to the creed for the sake of declaring the truth and from imminent need.

The key to reconcile the two statements resulting from the emphasized text in the above quote from Florence:

• the Father (alone) is the source and principle of all deity, that is of the Son and of the holy Spirit,
• the Father and the Son are one cause (according to the Greeks) / one principle (according to the Latins) of the holy Spirit,

is to qualify “cause” / “principle” in each statement appropriately, as either:

• “first” (“principaliter”) or “ultimate”, in the first statement.
• “immediate” in the second statement.

The concept can be clearly seen using the analogy of a natural causal chain. Let there be the self-contained causal chain (A → B → C), with A, B and C either entities or events of the natural world. We can state that:

• A is the first / ultimate cause of C
• B is the immediate cause of C.

Applying this concept to the procession of the Holy Spirit:

• The Father alone is the (first / ultimate) (source, pege πηγή) / (principle, arche άρχή) of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.
• The Father and the Son are one (immediate) (Greek: cause, aitia αιτία) / (Latin: principle, arche άρχή) of the Holy Spirit by procession.

As for the generation of the Son:

• The Father alone is the (ultimate & immediate) (Greek: cause, aitia αιτία) / (Latin: principle, arche άρχή) of the Son by generation.

In the case of “source”, it may be redundant to qualify it as “first” or “ultimate”, because that is the only way it is used in the conciliar text. In contrast, “principle” must necessarily be qualified appropriately because it is used in both senses: first / ultimate and immediate.

Thus, with the Filioque doctrine the monarchy of the Father means that the Father is the only “first / ultimate” origin, source or principle of both the Son and the Holy Spirit, as “principle without principle”. (And of course also the only “immediate” principle of the Son.)