OK, tell me what you think of this filioque formulation

[dvdjs]

“equally” means, uh, equally.

This again?
Post #128 on the thread “Dropping the Filioque”:

Alethiaphile: Your interpretation contradicts the understanding of the Catholic Church. You may think that you have no “problems interpreting the language”, but your interpretation, however easily you arrive at it, is in error. It is your selection of a particular meaning of “equally” among its many nuances that is root of your error.

After, these examples (post #108) ought to have clarified the point:

1=1.
0.3+0.7=1.
x=1.
x-3=1.
(cosx)^2+(sinx)^2=1.
Notice the many, distinctive uses of “=”.

When you read the works of the Catholic Church and encounter a seeming difficulty, you have a choice: you may assume the authors to be obviously wrong - even absurd - in their thinking, or you could question your own interpretation of their writing. Especially in encounters with towering intellects like Aquinas, the latter is a far less dangerous course.

 

[Alethiaphile]

The Catholic Church believes that the Spirit ekporeusai from the Father alone.

Maybe (hopefully) it does now.

Council of Florence:
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*

 

[Ghosty]

Maybe (hopefully) it does now.

Council of Florence:
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*

What does this have to do with what Mardukm wrote? Ekporousai does not mean “eternal” (it means “from the source”), and proinai does not mean “temporal” (it means “proceeds”).

Peace and God bless!

 

[eOxy]

Eternal relations are eternal even if they exist in time. …

Here lies the core of our differences.

We know what we believe about the Divinity, and everything we believe is consistent, logical and can be proved.

You are fundamentally and deeply confused in your belief, since it is full of contradictions. Thats why none of you could have answered the simple question I already asked several times:

How could anyone claim that manifestation (of the Holy Ghost) can be eternal, simultaneously professing the belief that God created everything, since there was nothing and nowhere to manifest to when there was nothing else but God?

Your silence speaks volumes.

 

[Benadam]

Here lies the core of our differences.

We know what we believe about the Divinity, and everything we believe is consistent, logical and can be proved.

You are fundamentally and deeply confused in your belief, since it is full of contradictions. Thats why none of you could have answered the simple question I already asked several times:

How could anyone claim that manifestation (of the Holy Ghost) can be eternal, simultaneously professing the belief that God created everything, since there was nothing and nowhere to manifest to when there was nothing else but God?

Your silence speaks volumes.

Revelation of ‘other’ is inherent in relations between persons. There is an eternal giving and recieving manifest between the Divine Persons. I think the eternal acts of giving and knowing can be properly called manifesting of self? The eternal inner conversation of God?

 

[Leo_The_Great]

Wow, I don’t understand the objection my Orthodox neighbors: The Father and son are only differentiated by what distinguishes them, in all other things they are one.

This is our fundamental thesis. Refute this patristically, and we can talk more.

Now the Son is distinguished from the Father by being generated. All other attributes are shared between them, which would include spiration. The Holy Spirit is Spirated in a single spiration by proceeding from that unity that is the Father and the Son, and he is distinguished from both by proceeding from both as a single principle: The singleness of the principle is the unity of the Father and Son.

Since the Son has all things from the Father, he has the procession of the Spirit as well.

As for the Spirits manifestation, the Father eternally manifests the Spirit to the Son; And the Son, who is the Fathers image (except in origin: generation, being the generated image of the Father) eternally “mirrors” the manifestation of the Spirit to the Father: but the Father and the Son are one:

Therefore the Spirit proceeds from both in a single spiration as from a single principle.

BECAUSE the Father and Son are one.

 

[Ghosty]

Leo the Great: While I fundamentally agree with you, your argument needs some work. You said:

Wow, I don’t understand the objection my Orthodox neighbors: The Father and son are only differentiated by what distinguishes them, in all other things they are one.

Now the Son is distinguished from the Father by being generated. All other attributes are shared between them…

This is also true of the Holy Spirit and the Father. Since the thing that distinguishes them is Spiration, the Holy Spirit must share in the Begetting of the Son.

Obviously this is not true, so the flaw in your reasoning must be corrected. I don’t say this to disagree with the filioque, but in order to encourage those who support it to think carefully about their arguments.

Peace and God bless!

 

[eOxy]

I think the eternal acts of giving and knowing can be properly called manifesting of self? The eternal inner conversation of God?

I don’t think so.

Manifestation must be towards others and cannot be towards oneself.

 

[Benadam]

I don’t think so.

Manifestation must be towards others and cannot be towards oneself.

Aren’t there three selves if there are three persons?

 

[Leo_The_Great]

eOXy, are you saying the father and the son are the same hypostases? aka Subsistence?

This position is known as Monism, aka Sabellianism, it is a heresy condemned in the 3rd and 4th century.

The Father Can Manifest the Spirit to the Son without manifesting to himself, because the Son is distinct from the Father in that he is generated. And Vice Versa.

The Spirit does not share the property of generation. It is ineffable. I have to research this further.

 

[Leo_The_Great]

…in addition

Leo the Great: While I fundamentally agree with you, your argument needs some work. You said:

Quote:
Wow, I don’t understand the objection my Orthodox neighbors: The Father and son are only differentiated by what distinguishes them, in all other things they are one.

Now the Son is distinguished from the Father by being generated. All other attributes are shared between them…

This is also true of the Holy Spirit and the Father. Since the thing that distinguishes them is Spiration, the Holy Spirit must share in the Begetting of the Son.

Obviously this is not true, so the flaw in your reasoning must be corrected. I don’t say this to disagree with the filioque, but in order to encourage those who support it to think carefully about their arguments.

Peace and God bless!

Ok, I see what you MEAN but here is the problem: Many latin and greek fathers refer to the Spirit as the Image of the Son. Let’s Keep that in mind.

Now, The Father is Distinguished from the Son by Generation, and in this sense, he is infinitely ontologically prior to the Son; but not in the temporal sense or else the Son would be created: but in an infinite eternal sense so that the Son is Just as infinite and eternal as the Father since the Son is always being begotten from all eternity.

Now, Since the Father is ontologically PRIOR to the Son, the Son cannot share in his own generation, or he would be the Father. Nevertheless, the Father and the Son share all other attributes in common, because the Son is the Fathers image, having received all things except generation from the Father. This includes the property of Spiration of the Holy Spirit. He can share this attribute because it is not prior to himself, the procession of the Spirit being ineffably distinct from and different than the Son’s generation.

NOW, Since the Father is ontologically prior to the Son and both Spirate the Holy Spirit in a single spiration as from a single principle, it then follows that the Father AND THE SON are ontologically prior to the Spirit in terms of origin of hypostases. That being the case, the Holy Spirit cannot share in the generation of the Son because he receives his being and hypostases from the Son through the gift of the Father.

Thus He can have nothing to do with the generation of the Son. If he could share in the Generation of the Son we would be mingled with and confused with the Father, even though he himself proceeds principally from the Father.

SO the question is: Why can the Son share in the Spirit’s origin, but the Spirit doesn’t share in the Son’s origin?

A. The Spirit is indeed God, but he is not the image of the Father in the same way the SOn is, therefore he does not receive from the father the principle of generation. The Son receives the Principle of Spiration because he is the Father’s image and is distinguished only by his relation to the Father. All the other Attributes between the two are the same.

Also, the Spirit is the Son’s image, and being the image of the Son, he cannot receive his being prior to the Son receiving his being.

Between the three, all attributes of divinity are common except what is proper to each one personally.

And once again, this all takes place eternally, so all three are equally infinite, glorious and majestic and there is no subordination, simply different origins.

 

[Ghosty]

NOW, Since the Father is ontologically prior to the Son and both Spirate the Holy Spirit in a single spiration as from a single principle, it then follows that the Father AND THE SON are ontologically prior to the Spirit in terms of origin of hypostases. That being the case, the Holy Spirit cannot share in the generation of the Son because he receives his being and hypostases from the Son through the gift of the Father.

This is exactly what we have to focus on, rather than the “sameness” of the Father and the Son. The best example of this that I’ve seen is by St. Gregory of Nyssa, one of the Cappadocian Fathers often cited by the Eastern Orthodox against the filioque. Read his description, and I think you’ll see how it sums up the filioque quite nicely:

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.

You’ll see that not only does he show that there must be an order of Persons, but he also utilizes the unique property of Sonship in defense of the Holy Spirit’s procession from the Son: if the Son is Only-Begotten, then the Holy Spirit must be through Him, and not from the Father alone.

The argument, in this case, rests on the necessity of a “three-step” procession, rather than on the similarity of Divine Persons. This leaves the counter-argument of a shared Divine Nature for all three completely muted.

It also has the benefit of being a Cappadocian argument for the filioque, which really trips up those who would argue that the filioque goes against Cappadocian theology.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Leo_The_Great]

So, you believe we should focus on the three-step procession, instead of the sameness and relation of opposition?

SO, if I understand Gregory of Nyssa correctly we basically have the Cause, and those persons of the cause. The Cause is the Father, those of the cause are the spirit and the Son.

Now he who is immediately of the Cause is the Son, therefore being only-begotten. And he who is of the immediate Cause (the Son) is the Spirit. THerefore we see in a sense the Spirit originating in the father and descending to the SOn and being manifested by him?

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Leo,

So, you believe we should focus on the three-step procession, instead of the sameness and relation of opposition?

SO, if I understand Gregory of Nyssa correctly we basically have the Cause, and those persons of the cause. The Cause is the Father, those of the cause are the spirit and the Son.

Now he who is immediately of the Cause is the Son, therefore being only-begotten. And he who is of the immediate Cause (the Son) is the Spirit. THerefore we see in a sense the Spirit originating in the father and descending to the SOn and being manifested by him?

I believe the highlighted portion would be an erroneous interpretation. But it may just be your terminology, for your next sentence seems to ecoginze that origination is a property of the Father alone.

Blessings

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother eOxy,

How could anyone claim that manifestation (of the Holy Ghost) can be eternal, simultaneously professing the belief that God created everything, since there was nothing and nowhere to manifest to when there was nothing else but God?

I am not certain, but perhaps what they meant was that the ORIGIN of the manifestation is eternal. This would be supported by St. Palamas’ distinction between the eternal hypostatic procession and the eternal energetic procession.

Blessings

 

[Benadam]

The energy, I think it could be said, that is a spiration able to be a divine person ( forgive my lack of proper vocabulary) is Love returned to the Father by the Son. The spiration of God can not be love that is God manifest unless God generates a divine person to recieve and return it who is of Himself since only God can recieve the fullness of God’s love. Divine spirated Person distinguished as divine love is by necessity a spiration of God 's love returned in the fullness it was given.

 

[eOxy]

eOXy, are you saying the father and the son are the same hypostases?

No.

They are two different hypostasies (the Holy Ghost being the third).

But they are the same Being.

I say there is no manifestation within one Being. There is self-awarenes, and any other self-whatever within one being, but no manifestation.

Manifestation must be towards somewhere else and to someone else.

aka Subsistence?

Huh?

 

[Benadam]

No.

They are two different hypostasies (the Holy Ghost being the third).

But they are the same Being.

I say there is no manifestation within one Being. There is self-awarenes, and any other self-whatever within one being, but no manifestation.

Manifestation must be towards somewhere else and to someone else.

Huh?

eOxy, I’ve been thinking that communication between the divine persons is an eternal manifestation of personal distinction.

But I can’t find a definition of the word ‘manifestation’ as a theological term. Can you help a brother?

 

[Leo_The_Great]

To eOXy: Wow, I get to explain greek terms to an eastern orthodox!

Hypostases is the greek term that transliterates into subsistence. A subsistence is an individually existing thing. Three hypostases in one ousia is three subsistances in one nature which translates sloppily into: Three persons in one being.

The West uses the term Person instead of hypostases because a person implies a rational individual, but hypostases is anything that exists on its own distinct from other things: A chair has its own subsistence aka hypostases.

Now, you said that God is a single being and you are correct. You said the Hypostases (Persons) are self aware and you are also correct.

However you did not say they were aware of each other, and that is the key. Each Person in the Trinity is fully aware of the Other, and each two interpenetrate the one person being discussed. For example the Son cannot be present without also making present the Father and Spirit, the Spirit cannot be present without making present the Father and the Son, etc.

Also, you cannot pray SOLELY to a single person of the Trinity in isolation from the rest. Praying to one is just as good as praying to the other two.

What this means is that the Hypostases of the Father eternally manifests the Spirit to the Son. The Son, being the Fathers image “mirrors” ,if you will, this same action to the Father. This is within the internal relations of the divine persons from all eternity.

To deny this is to deny the distinctiveness of each person of the trinity.

 

[eOxy]

eOxy, I’ve been thinking that communication between the divine persons is an eternal manifestation of personal distinction.

I can’t see anything wrong here, as long as it doesn’t imply the manifestation within the Holy Trinity, because that would assume they are not only Three in hypostasies (persons), but also three in Being.

But I can’t find a definition of the word ‘manifestation’ as a theological term. Can you help a brother?

Sorry, the best I can find is literal meaning:

dictionary.reference.com/browse/manifest

man⋅i⋅fest
  /ˈmænəˌfɛst/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [man-uh-fest] Show IPA
Use manifest in a Sentence
See web results for manifest
See images of manifest
–adjective

1. readily perceived by the eye or the understanding; evident; obvious; apparent; plain: a manifest error.
2. Psychoanalysis. of or pertaining to conscious feelings, ideas, and impulses that contain repressed psychic material: the manifest content of a dream as opposed to the latent content that it conceals.
   **–verb (used with object)
3. to make clear or evident to the eye or the understanding; show plainly: He manifested his approval with a hearty laugh.
4. to prove; put beyond doubt or question: The evidence manifests the guilt of the defendant.
5. to record in a ship’s manifest.**
   –noun
6. a list of the cargo carried by a ship, made for the use of various agents and officials at the ports of destination.
7. a list or invoice of goods transported by truck or train.
8. a list of the cargo or passengers carried on an airplane.
   Origin:
   1350–1400; (adj.) ME < L manifestus, manufestus detected in the act, evident, visible; (v.) ME manifesten < MF manifester < L manifestāre, deriv. of manifestus. See manus, infest