Lateran IV

  • Thread starter Thread starter Formosus
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
F

Formosus

Guest
I think this council gets overlooked since there was subsequently Lyons and Florence, but this might be one of the most troubling looking council I have read. It is an Ecumenical council in latin tradition.

“Father, Son, and Holy Spirit: indeed three Persons but one essence, substance, or nature entirely simple. The Father from no one, the Son from the Father only, and the Holy Spirit equally from both; without beginning, always, and without end; the Father generating, the Son being born, and the Holy Spirit proceeding;”
(Denzingers 428)

This “Ecumenical Council” contradicts even Lyons and Florence in this regard. How can the Holy Spirit proceed from the Father and Son equally without
a. subordinating the Holy Spirit
b. confusing the Persons of the Father and Son
c. Or completely contradicting Lyons and Florence when they talk of procession from the Father and Son as if from one Principle, and principly from the Father as Augustine puts it.
:confused:
 
I would hazard to guess that it is two ways to say the same thing:

equally from both == as from one principle
 
It can’t be equally from both, and from one principle though. Because then that merges the Father and Son into one Person. Augustine says that the Holy Spirit proceeds principally from the Father but in a different manner (as a gift to the Son from the Father) from the Son. If its equally both, then it is the Father and Son both producing the same type of procession : ( Perhaps marduk or Ghosty can comment on this, they seem to know far more on the subject then myself.
 
Formosus said:
It can’t be equally from both, and from one principle though. Because then that merges the Father and Son into one Person. Augustine says that the Holy Spirit proceeds principally from the Father but in a different manner (as a gift to the Son from the Father) from the Son. If its equally both, then it is the Father and Son both producing the same type of procession : ( Perhaps marduk or Ghosty can comment on this, they seem to know far more on the subject then myself.
Click to expand...
The decrees don’t say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son who are one principle – it says that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as from one principle. Important difference.
 
I understand that is what Lyons and Florence say about the Filioque. That is not what Lateran IV is saying though. It is saying that the Holy Spirit proceeds equally from both… if its as from one principle, then it couldn’t have the word equally and both in the same sentence without destroying the monarchy of the Father.
 
Formosus said:
It can’t be equally from both, and from one principle though. Because then that merges the Father and Son into one Person. Augustine says that the Holy Spirit proceeds principally from the Father but in a different manner (as a gift to the Son from the Father) from the Son. If its equally both, then it is the Father and Son both producing the same type of procession : ( Perhaps marduk or Ghosty can comment on this, they seem to know far more on the subject then myself.
Click to expand...
Brother JMJ_Coder has hopefully clarified your concern regarding “from one principle.” The term “as” has a very distinctive connotation which should impress upon you that the Latin teaching does not intend to make the Father and Son identical.

The Holy Spirit is “equally from both” because there is only ONE Principle involved, not because there is only one “merged” Person involved. That Principle is the ONE Principle FROM the Father THROUGH the Son. It is impossible to understand the phrase “equally from both” as “both producing the same type of procession,” because as much as the Latin Church teaches this, she ALSO EXPLICITLY teaches that whatever the Son has and whatever the Son does has come FROM the Father. The Son is not “producing” (in your words) anything. ONLY the Father “produces”; however, it is ALWAYS enacted THROUGH the Son.

In other words, the Processive “power” (if you will) coming from Christ is indeed EQUAL to the Processive “power” coming from the Father. But this is NOT because the Son is producing a Processive “power” in and of himself. Rather, this is only because the Processive “power” coming from the Son is the SAME (hence “equal”) Processive “power” coming from the Father (and/yet THROUGH the Son).

Does that help?

Blessings,
Marduk
 
That makes some sense out of it. The wording chosen by the council fathers is pretty poor though, perhaps this is why it is never used again in Lyons or Florence:shrug:
 
Formosus said:
That makes some sense out of it. The wording chosen by the council fathers is pretty poor though, perhaps this is why it is never used again in Lyons or Florence:shrug:
Click to expand...
Think of it this way.

Imagine that you were someone who never heard of Christianity or its doctrines. You meet a Christian one day who tells you “I believe in Jesus Christ who was begotten of the Father.” And then later on, you meet another Christian who tells you, “I believe in God the Father.”

If you knew NOTHING else of Christianity, you’d probably immediately understand this to mean that Jesus is not God. To get the FULL teaching on the matter, you’d probably need to talk to many more Christians before you can piece together what EXACTLY it is that Christians believe.

This is basically the same situation.

You hear (or rather read) from one Catholic source, “the Spirit is equally from Father and Son.” Your immediate reaction - that there are two SEPARATE yet EQUAL processive powers at work - is rather sensible. However, you need another Catholic source to remind you that the power the Son has (in fact, EVERYTHING the Son has) is actually the power of the Father that that has been enacted through the Son.

Here’s an analogy. Imagine a father who teaches his son how to fix a car. The son one day fixes his friend’s car. The friend says, “thank you.” The son responds to his friend, “you should thank my father equally because I couldn’t have done it without him.”

Blessings,
Marduk
 
Formosus said:
That makes some sense out of it. The wording chosen by the council fathers is pretty poor though, perhaps this is why it is never used again in Lyons or Florence:shrug:
Click to expand...
Another thing to keep in mind is that you’re reading an English translation. The Latin might not be nearly as confusing. 🙂

Peace and God bless!
 
Ghosty said:
Another thing to keep in mind is that you’re reading an English translation. The Latin might not be nearly as confusing. 🙂

Peace and God bless!
Click to expand...
Translations have plagued the Church since the beginning. As a whole, human language doesn’t translate well.

Do you have a source your not telling us? I have had a very hard time trying to find original texts – if you know where they can be found online (I lack the resources to fly to Europe! ;)) – let us know!!!
 
JMJ_coder said:
Translations have plagued the Church since the beginning. As a whole, human language doesn’t translate well.

Do you have a source your not telling us? I have had a very hard time trying to find original texts – if you know where they can be found online (I lack the resources to fly to Europe! ;)) – let us know!!!
Click to expand...
I wish I had an easy source for such things. Sometimes I’ll come across the original Latin for documents, but usually not for Councils, and I don’t recall where I’ve seen the few Latin texts of Councils that I have read.

I just know from experience that translations can be a problem, especially considering that most of these English translations were done a century or more ago, with a different nuance of the English language being employed. :o

Peace and God bless!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top