Proceeds from the father and the son

[ERose]

The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and/through the Son as if from one principle and through one spiration. This directly contradicts those who claim that the teaching of the Filioque implies two sources or principles of the Holy Spirit.

It can and does get confusing and subtle (but a lot of theology does).

First and foremost the phrases “and the Son” and “through the Son” do not mean the same thing and the Church does not teach that they mean the same thing. This is expressed in the following quote from the 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

247 The affirmation of the filioque does not appear in the Creed confessed in 381 at Constantinople. But Pope St. Leo I, following an ancient Latin and Alexandrian tradition, had already confessed it dogmatically in 447,76 even before Rome, in 451 at the Council of Chalcedon, came to recognize and receive the Symbol of 381. The use of this formula in the Creed was gradually admitted into the Latin liturgy (between the eighth and eleventh centuries). The introduction of the filioque into the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed by the Latin liturgy constitutes moreover, even today, a point of disagreement with the Orthodox Churches.

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.

This is like the second thread that I have seen recently that has someone trying to claim a teaching is what the Church teaches when in fact it isn’t.

 

[JMJ_coder]

ERose, you answered your own objection with the quote you provided:

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.

So, the CCC first says that the Eastern tradition affirms in a different form of expression what the Church teaches. It then further notes that it is a legitimate complementarity and warns against claiming that one or the other is the only orthodox expression.

 

[ERose]

ERose, you answered your own objection with the quote you provided:

So, the CCC first says that the Eastern tradition affirms in a different form of expression what the Church teaches. It then further notes that it is a legitimate complementarity and warns against claiming that one or the other is the only orthodox expression.

No I did not answer my objection. You are claiming that “through the Son” and “and the Son” are identical statements and they are not. That is the statement that I am objecting. The Church from my understanding allows for the acceptance of either description of the procession of the Holy Spirit. She has not ruled against one or the other. I do know that the Western Church favors the “and the Son” primarily because of the teachings of St. Augustine.

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

No I did not answer my objection. You are claiming that “through the Son” and “and the Son” are identical statements and they are not. That is the statement that I am objecting. The Church from my understanding allows for the acceptance of either description of the procession of the Holy Spirit. She has not ruled against one or the other. I do know that the Western Church favors the “and the Son” primarily because of the teachings of St. Augustine.

I agree with your statements on this subject. I’d just like to add, my acceptance of the filioque comes not from Augustine, but from Scripture. “In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God.” John 1; “Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father…the Father and I are One.” I think these passages gave rise to Augustine’s teaching. They certainly give rise to my belief it’s not possible to separate the Father from the Son, which is what ‘through the Son’ does.

 

[JMJ_coder]

No I did not answer my objection. You are claiming that “through the Son” and “and the Son” are identical statements and they are not. That is the statement that I am objecting. The Church from my understanding allows for the acceptance of either description of the procession of the Holy Spirit. She has not ruled against one or the other. I do know that the Western Church favors the “and the Son” primarily because of the teachings of St. Augustine.

The Church isn’t just pulling an ecumenical stunt: ‘O, we’ll just turn our head from your heresy if you’ll play nice with us’. It doesn’t work that way.

What I’m saying when they mean the same thing is what the Catechism notes in paragraph 248. The two express (in their own formulas and even with different emphases) the one and same divine reality.

 

[JMJ_coder]

I agree with your statements on this subject. I’d just like to add, my acceptance of the filioque comes not from Augustine, but from Scripture. “In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God.” John 1; “Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father…the Father and I are One.” I think these passages gave rise to Augustine’s teaching. They certainly give rise to my belief it’s not possible to separate the Father from the Son, which is what ‘through the Son’ does.

Be careful. Following this line of reasoning, we must then admit that the Son begets Himself – clearly erroneous.

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

Be careful. Following this line of reasoning, we must then admit that the Son begets Himself – clearly erroneous.

You’ll have to take that up with John and the Lord. I’m just reading along.

 

[crazzeto]

Haydock’s comments on John 1:1

Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the word:[1] or rather, the word was in the beginning. The eternal word, the increated wisdom, the second Person of the blessed Trinity, the only begotten Son of the Father, as he is here called (ver. 14.) of the same nature and substance, and the same God, with the Father and Holy Ghost. This word was always; so that it was never true to say, he was not, as the Arians blasphemed. This word was in the beginning. Some, by the beginning, expound the Father himself, in whom he was always. Others give this plain and obvious sense, that the word, or the Son of God, was, when all other things began to have a being; he never began, but was from all eternity. — And the word was with God; i.e. was with the Father; and as it is said, (ver. 18) in the bosom of the Father; which implies, that he is indeed a distinct person, but the same in nature and substance with the Father and the Holy Ghost. This is repeated again in the second verse, as repetitions are very frequent in St. John. — And the word was God. This without question is the construction; where, according to the letter we read, and God was the word. (Witham) — The Greek for the word is Greek: Logos, which signifies not only the exterior word, but also the interior word, or thought; and in this latter sense it is taken here. (Bible de Vence) — Philo Judæus, in the apostolic age, uses the word Greek: Logos, p. 823, to personify the wisdom and the power of God. Greek: Logos estin eikon Theou di ou sumpas o Kosmos edemiourgeito. By a similar metonymy, Jesus Christ is called the way, the truth, the life, the resurrection. — And the word was God. Here the eternity and the divinity of the second Person are incontrovertibly established; or, we must say that language has no longer a fixed meaning, and that it is impossible to establish any point whatever from the words of Scripture. (Haydock)

===============================

[BIBLIOGRAPHY]

Et Deus erat Verbum, Greek: kai theos en o logos. Greek: Logos was a word very proper to give all that should believe a right notion of the Messias, and of the true Son of God. Greek: Logos, according to St. Jerome, (Ep. ad Paulinum. tom. iv. part 2, p. 570. Ed. Ben.) signifies divers things; as, the wisdom of the Father, his internal word or conception; and, as it were, the express image of the invisible God. Here it is not taken for any absolute divine attribute or perfection; but for the divine Son, or the second Person, as really distinct from the other two divine Persons. And that by Greek: Logos, was to be understood him that was truly God, the Maker and Creator of all things; the Jews might easily understand, by what they read adn frequently heard in the Chaldaic Paraphrase, or Targum of Jonathan, which was read to them in the time of our Saviour, Christ, and at the time when St. John wrote his gospel. In this Paraphrase they were accustomed to hear that the Hebrew word Memreth, to which corresponded in Greek, Logos, was put for him that was God: as Isaias xlv. 12, I made the earth; in this Targum, I, by my word, made the earth: Isaias xlviii. 13, My hand also hath founded the earth; in this Paraphrase, in my word I founded the earth: Genesis iii. 8, They heard the voice of the Lord God; in the Paraphrase, the voice of the word of God. See Walton, prolog. xii, num. 18, p. 86.; Maldonatus on this place; Petavius, lib. vi. de Trin. chap. 1.; Dr. Pearson on the Creed, p. 11.; Dr. Hammond’s note on St. Luke, chap. i, p. 203, &c. However, St. John shews us that he meant him who was the true God, by telling us that the world, and every thing that was made, was made by this word, or Greek: Logos; that in this word was life; that he was in the world, and was the light of the world; that he had glory, as the glory of the only begotten of the Father, &c.

 

[crazzeto]

Be careful. Following this line of reasoning, we must then admit that the Son begets Himself – clearly erroneous.

The Trinaty is a difficult concept to understand, I posted haydock’s comments in aprevious post. Now here’s my question regarding your comment here, are you questioning whether the Word of God is Eternal? Because it is, the Father begot the Son, but that doesn’t mean the Son is any less Eternal than the Father. If that were the case, then the Son and the Father would not be of the same nature, and you’ve just entered the heresy of Arianism.

 

[JMJ_coder]

The Trinaty is a difficult concept to understand, I posted haydock’s comments in aprevious post. Now here’s my question regarding your comment here, are you questioning whether the Word of God is Eternal? Because it is, the Father begot the Son, but that doesn’t mean the Son is any less Eternal than the Father. If that were the case, then the Son and the Father would not be of the same nature, and you’ve just entered the heresy of Arianism.

Heaven forbid such a thing to be said! The Son is coeternal with the Father and the Holy Spirit. Amen. Amen.

What I am trying to show is that in the previous statement by Ferde, the logic conclusion is that every attribute in the Trinity is applied to every Person of the Trinity. That is simply false. In Trinitarian theology, an attribute is applied to all three Persons or only one Person. There is no attribute which two out of the three Persons share but is not with the other. For example, all three Persons are called Almighty (from the Athanasian Creed, which is a good example of all of this). Also, all three are called Eternal and Creator. But, there is only one Son not three Sons, and one Father not three Fathers, and one Holy Spirit not three Holy Spirits. And the Son is the only one begotten – the Father is not begotten and the Holy Spirit is not begotten. The Holy Spirit is the only one proceeding – the Father doesn’t proceed nor does the Son. The logical falsity from Ferde’s argument would apply the attribute of Source of the Trinity to both the Father and the Son and thus the Son is His own begetter, clearly heretical.

Note that Ferde’s erroneous thought is exactly one of the misunderstandings that many Orthodox have with the Catholic teaching. They think we teach that the Holy Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son in the sense that both are the ultimate source of the Holy Spirit. This is NOT the Catholic teaching. This is one reason why the East in emphasizing the absolute Monarchy of God the Father in their valid licit expression of the procession of the Holy Spirit use the Greek word proienai (there are other good reasons this word is used) which is translated into English as “through the Son”.

 

[JMJ_coder]

You’ll have to take that up with John and the Lord. I’m just reading along.

Your erroneous thought is not what either Saint John or the Lord meant by “the Father and I are one”. There are attributes in the Trinity that only one Person possesses. For example, only the Son is begotten. The Father is not begotten. But the logical conclusion of what you expressed would demand that both the Father and the Son are begotten before all ages, clearly a heretical contradiction.

 

[ERose]

The Church isn’t just pulling an ecumenical stunt: ‘O, we’ll just turn our head from your heresy if you’ll play nice with us’. It doesn’t work that way.

What I’m saying when they mean the same thing is what the Catechism notes in paragraph 248. The two express (in their own formulas and even with different emphases) the one and same divine reality.

I do not think that it is an ecumenical stunt, but again if they meant the same thing then why did the Catechism go out of its way to discuss the differences between the Eastern and Western traditions concerning this subject? Also if you would ask the Western or Eastern theologians they would tell you that these two formulas do not mean the same thing. The Eastern tradition has been very clear on this subject on it’s stand concerning this subject that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as if from one principle or one spiration. The Western tradition is very clear that He (Holy Spirit) proceeds from the Father only. I do not know how you can reconcile these as being the same statement but worded differently.

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

I do not think that it is an ecumenical stunt, but again if they meant the same thing then why did the Catechism go out of its way to discuss the differences between the Eastern and Western traditions concerning this subject? Also if you would ask the Western or Eastern theologians they would tell you that these two formulas do not mean the same thing. The Eastern tradition has been very clear on this subject on it’s stand concerning this subject that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as if from one principle or one spiration. The Western tradition is very clear that He (Holy Spirit) proceeds from the Father only. I do not know how you can reconcile these as being the same statement but worded differently.

You have the Eastern and Western theologies backwards, but you’re right otherwise. The notion the two concepts mean the same thing is absurd on its face. If they meant the same thing, there would not be a dispute about them.

 

[ERose]

Note that Ferde’s erroneous thought is exactly one of the misunderstandings that many Orthodox have with the Catholic teaching. **They think we teach that the Holy Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son in the sense that both are the ultimate source of the Holy Spirit. This is NOT the Catholic teaching. **This is one reason why the East in emphasizing the absolute Monarchy of God the Father in their valid licit expression of the procession of the Holy Spirit use the Greek word proienai (there are other good reasons this word is used) which is translated into English as “through the Son”.

I believe that you are wrong here. I say believe because I may misunderstand your comment and if I do please forgive me. The Catholic Church teaches that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. Not as two processions but as one procession. Not as two spirations but one spiration. The Catholic Church does teach that the Father is the only one that does not proceed or begotten but it emphasizes the equality of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Because the Son is begotten does not mean that the Father is greater than the Son because the Father is the begetter. Nor does she teach that the Holy Spirit is less than the Father and the Son because He proceeds from them both. All three members are equal in all things that make Him God. Read the Creed of Athanasius for verification.
holybible.com/resources/athanasius_creed.htm
What I am saying is that the Church does teach that the source of the procession of the Holy Spirit is the Father and the Son. Not two sources but one source.

The Orthodox churches do not hold this belief. They believe that the source of the Holy Spirit’s procession is the Father only. You cannot reconcile these two beliefs for they do not say the same thing. If you want to use the version that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son that is not the same as saying that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. If they were then we would not have the “filioque clause” being used as an excuse for the divisions within the Church.

 

[ERose]

You have the Eastern and Western theologies backwards, but you’re right otherwise. The notion the two concepts mean the same thing is absurd on its face. If they meant the same thing, there would not be a dispute about them.

Thanks for letting me know. I can’t edit it now but I did accidently get those backwards.

 

[JMJ_coder]

I do not think that it is an ecumenical stunt, but again if they meant the same thing then why did the Catechism go out of its way to discuss the differences between the Eastern and Western traditions concerning this subject? Also if you would ask the Western or Eastern theologians they would tell you that these two formulas do not mean the same thing. The Eastern tradition has been very clear on this subject on it’s stand concerning this subject that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as if from one principle or one spiration. The Western tradition is very clear that He (Holy Spirit) proceeds from the Father only. I do not know how you can reconcile these as being the same statement but worded differently.

What I mean by they mean the same thing is not that they are the same formulaic expression, but that using a different expression they both address the same reality. And furthermore, the Church has declared that they are both legitimate and licit expression. Thus ‘and the Son’ and ‘through the Son’ are equal expressions in that they both relate that the Son plays a role in the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father.

 

[JMJ_coder]

The Catholic Church teaches that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. Not as two processions but as one procession. Not as two spirations but one spiration. The Catholic Church does teach that the Father is the only one that does not proceed or begotten but it emphasizes the equality of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Because the Son is begotten does not mean that the Father is greater than the Son because the Father is the begetter. Nor does she teach that the Holy Spirit is less than the Father and the Son because He proceeds from them both. All three members are equal in all things that make Him God. Read the Creed of Athanasius for verification.
holybible.com/resources/athanasius_creed.htm

If you are expecting to hear an argument from me on this, you won’t (sorry to disappoint).

What I am saying is that the Church does teach that the source of the procession of the Holy Spirit is the Father and the Son. Not two sources but one source.

This may be a point of slight misunderstanding as there is a very subtle nuance going on that would (in my opinion) be best worded as: Not two sources but as from one source. [theology is just full of these little subtleties]

This expresses to me what the Church teaches [taking the total sum from East and West] that the Father is the sole source of the Trinity and that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and/through the Son as if from one source. This to my mind maintains both the emphases from the East and from the West.

The Orthodox churches do not hold this belief. They believe that the source of the Holy Spirit’s procession is the Father only. You cannot reconcile these two beliefs for they do not say the same thing. If you want to use the version that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son that is not the same as saying that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. If they were then we would not have the “filioque clause” being used as an excuse for the divisions within the Church.

I’m not trying to reconcile Orthodox belief, but Eastern Catholic thought (which Rome has said is reconcilable – and I agree). In the Eastern Church, the emphasis is indeed on the absolute monarchy of the Father.

Just a couple points to re-present:

1. a primary reason the East uses their expression is because that is the way it is to be expressed in the Greek language
2. the Church has affirmed again and again the Eastern expression is equally legitimate and licit
3. I don’t know if I brought this out before, but there is in the East distinctions between the inner eternal communion of the Trinity and the outer temporal workings within creation – a distinction that really doesn’t exist in the Latin Church