Not heresy- Right out of the Catechism #247

" 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, 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."

I'm using heresy as a formal term. It is a school that led to schism. And it absolutely was a theological novum and a departure from the creed. Which, I may add, was reaffirmed at every ecumenical council prior to the schism. I don't care what historical revisionism your need to ensure papal infallibility has led to writing into your catechism.

It's a stupid unnecessary dogma.

And it's weird you think a post schism council decree and your catechism would hold any weight in this discussion.

Hit a nerve I see. Carry on.

Also for those following along at home, the dual spiration as from one principle stance is incompatible with the other views here toward reconciliation, ie first from the Father, or proceeds vs sending distinction. As long as Rome maintains that as dogma, there is a real distinction in actual teaching.

With regards to procession;

Ekporeuesthai or Proion?

We're talking about the symbol of faith, so the word in question is the former, which is the same used by St John in the scripture that it references.

Anyway - I stand by that this is a stupid dogma, unprofitable and useless (cf Titus 3:9). Not interested in debating it further. I'm in submission to my bishop and have no authority or real opinion of any worth anyway.

Quote:

---

The Spirit proceeds from the Father in the same way the Son is begotten by the Father.

---

How is the Spirit not a second Son then?

The Trinity is revealed to us through revelation, not logic or direct observation. There's a limit to what we can say affirmatively about the Godhead. As St John of Damascus said "It is not within our capacity to say anything about God or even to think of Him, beyond the things which have been divinely revealed to us, whether by word or by manifestation, by the divine oracles at once of the Old Testament and of the New."

So the simple answer is because the Son is begotten of the Father but the Spirit proceeds from the Father. That is what distinguishes them, and we know them by this distinction because that is how they have been revealed.

Going back to St John,

Quote:

---

"[God] possesses His own Word, begotten of Himself, not, as our word is, without a subsistence and dissolving into air, but having a subsistence in Him and life and perfection, not proceeding out of Himself but ever existing within Himself. For where could it be, if it were to go outside Him?... since God is everlasting and perfect, He will have His Word subsistent in Him, and everlasting and living, and possessed of all the attributes of the Begetter. For just as our word, proceeding as it does out of the mind, is neither wholly identical with the mind nor utterly diverse from it...so in the same manner also the Word of God in its independent subsistence is differentiated from Him from Whom it derives its subsistence: but inasmuch as it displays in itself the same attributes as are seen in God, it is of the same nature as God. For just as absolute perfection is contemplated in the Father, so also is it contemplated in the Word that is begotten of Him.

Moreover the Word must also possess Spirit. For in fact even our word is not destitute of spirit; but in our case the spirit is something different from our essence. For there is an attraction and movement of the air which is drawn in and poured forth that the body may be sustained. And it is this which in the moment of utterance becomes the articulate word, revealing in itself the force of the word.

But in the case of the divine nature, which is simple and uncompound, we must confess in all piety that there exists a Spirit of God, for the Word is not more imperfect than our own word. Now we cannot, in piety, consider the Spirit to be something foreign that gains admission into God from without, as is the case with compound natures like us.

Nay, just as, when we heard of the Word of God, we considered it to be not without subsistence, nor the product of learning, nor the mere utterance of voice, nor as passing into the air and perishing, but as being essentially subsisting, endowed with free volition, and energy, and omnipotence: so also, when we have learned about the Spirit of God, we contemplate it as the companion of the Word and the revealer of His energy, and not as mere breath without subsistence.

For to conceive of the Spirit that dwells in God as after the likeness of our own spirit, would be to drag down the greatness of the divine nature to the lowest depths of degradation. But we must contemplate it as an essential power, existing in its own proper and peculiar subsistence, proceeding from the Father and resting in the Word , and showing forth the Word, neither capable of disjunction from God in Whom it exists, and the Word Whose companion it is, nor poured forth to vanish into nothingness, but being in subsistence in the likeness of the Word, endowed with life, free volition, independent movement, energy, ever willing that which is good, and having power to keep pace with the will in all its decrees, having no beginning and no end. For never was the Father at any time lacking in the Word, nor the Word in the Spirit.

---

Quote:

---

We believe in one Father, the beginning, and cause of all: begotten of no one: without cause or generation, alone subsisting: creator of all: but Father of one only by nature, His Only-begotten Son and our Lord and God and Saviour Jesus Christ, and Producer of the most Holy Spirit.

---

Quote:

---

The terms, 'Word' and 'effulgence,' then, are used because He is begotten of the Father without the union of two, or passion, or time, or flux, or separation : and the terms 'Son' and 'impress of the Father's subsistence,' because He is perfect and has subsistence and is in all respects similar to the Father, save that the Father is not begotten : and the term 'Only-begotten' because He alone was begotten alone of the Father alone. For no other generation is like to the generation of the Son of God, since no other is Son of God. For though the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, yet this is not generative in character but processional. This is a different mode of existence, alike incomprehensible and unknown, just as is the generation of the Son. Wherefore all the qualities the Father has are the Son's, save that the Father is unbegotten, and this exception involves no difference in essence nor dignity, but only a different mode of coming into existence.

So then in the first sense of the word the three absolutely divine subsistences of the Holy Godhead agree: for they exist as one in essence and uncreate. But with the second signification it is quite otherwise. For the Father alone is ingenerate, no other subsistence having given Him being. And the Son alone is generate, for He was begotten of the Father's essence without beginning and without time. And only the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father's essence, not having been generated but simply proceeding. For this is the doctrine of Holy Scripture. But the nature of the generation and the procession is quite beyond comprehension.

---

Quote:

---

Likewise we believe also in one Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of Life: Who proceeds from the Father and rests in the Son: the object of equal adoration and glorification with the Father and Son, since He is co-essential and co-eternal : the Spirit of God, direct, authoritative , the fountain of wisdom, and life, and holiness: God existing and addressed along with Father and Son: uncreate, full, creative, all-ruling, all-effecting, all-powerful, of infinite power, Lord of all creation and not under any lord : deifying, not deified : filling, not filled: shared in, not sharing in: sanctifying, not sanctified: the intercessor, receiving the supplications of all: in all things like to the Father and Son: proceeding from the Father and communicated through the Son, and participated in by all creation, through Himself creating, and investing with essence and sanctifying, and maintaining the universe: having subsistence, existing in its own proper and peculiar subsistence, inseparable and indivisible from Father and Son, and possessing all the qualities that the Father and Son possess, save that of not being begotten or born. For the Father is without cause and unborn: for He is derived from nothing, but derives from Himself His being, nor does He derive a single quality from another. Rather He is Himself the beginning and cause of the existence of all things in a definite and natural manner. But the Son is derived from the Father after the manner of generation, and the Holy Spirit likewise is derived from the Father, yet not after the manner of generation, but after that of procession. And we have learned that there is a difference between generation and procession, but the nature of that difference we in no wise understand. Further, the generation of the Son from the Father and the procession of the Holy Spirit are simultaneous.

All then that the Son and the Spirit have is from the Father, even their very being: and unless the Father is, neither the Son nor the Spirit is. And unless the Father possesses a certain attribute, neither the Son nor the Spirit possesses it: and through the Father , that is, because of the Father's existence , the Son and the Spirit exist , and through the Father, that is, because of the Father having the qualities, the Son and the Spirit have all their qualities, those of being unbegotten, and of birth and of procession being excepted. For in these hypo static or personal properties alone do the three holy subsistences differ from each other, being indivisibly divided not by essence but by the distinguishing mark of their proper and peculiar subsistence.

---

Going on from St John, St Gregory the Theologian writes...

Quote:

---

The Father is the Begetter and the Emitter; without passion of course, and without reference to time, and not in a corporeal manner. The Son is the Begotten, and the Holy Ghost the Emission; for I know not how this could be expressed in terms altogether excluding visible things. For we shall not venture to speak of an overflow of goodness, as one of the Greek Philosophers dared to say, as if it were a bowl overflowing, and this in plain words in his Discourse on the First and Second Causes. Let us not ever look on this Generation as involuntary, like some natural overflow, hard to be retained, and by no means befitting our conception of Deity. Therefore let us confine ourselves within our limits, and speak of the Unbegotten and the Begotten and That which proceeds from the Father, as somewhere God the Word Himself says.

---

In another place...

Quote:

---

In my opinion He is called Son because He is identical with the Father in Essence; and not only for this reason, but also because He is Of Him. And He is called Only-Begotten, not because He is the only Son and of the Father alone, and only a Son; but also because the manner of His Sonship is peculiar to Himself and not shared by bodies. And He is called the Word, because He is related to the Father as Word to Mind; not only on account of His passionless Generation, but also because of the Union, and of His declaratory function. Perhaps too this relation might be compared to that between the Definition and the Thing defined since this also is called Logos. For, it says, he that has mental perception of the Son (for this is the meaning of Hath Seen) has also perceived the Father; and the Son is a concise demonstration and easy setting forth of the Father's Nature. For every thing that is begotten is a silent word of him that begot it.

---

Continuing, in another place

Quote:

---

What then, say they, is there lacking to the Spirit which prevents His being a Son, for if there were not something lacking He would be a Son? We assert that there is nothing lackingfor God has no deficiency. But the difference of manifestation, if I may so express myself, or rather of their mutual relations one to another, has caused the difference of their Names. For indeed it is not some deficiency in the Son which prevents His being Father (for Sonship is not a deficiency), and yet He is not Father. According to this line of argument there must be some deficiency in the Father, in respect of His not being Son. For the Father is not Son, and yet this is not due to either deficiency or subjection of Essence; but the very fact of being Unbegotten or Begotten, or Proceeding has given the name of Father to the First, of the Son to the Second, and of the Third, Him of Whom we are speaking, of the Holy Ghost that the distinction of the Three Persons may be preserved in the one nature and dignity of the Godhead. For neither is the Son Father, for the Father is One, but He is what the Father is; nor is the Spirit Son because He is of God, for the Only-begotten is One, but He is what the Son is. The Three are One in Godhead, and the One Three in properties; so that neither is the Unity a Sabellian one, nor does the Trinity countenance the present evil distinction.

---

And in another place..

Quote:

---

All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality; and all that is the Son's belongs also to the Spirit, except His Sonship

---

Causality is a curious concept in light of eternality.

Hence the reason we should limit to revelation. The words of procession were given to us from the Lord himself.

St Gregory goes into the "when" aspect a bit in one of his theological orations. The thing is as I quoted here you can't describe without some visible metaphor or analog. These are the ones we have.

But… I do not think it is possible to square spiration from the Father and Son as from one principle with the quotes from those fathers. And these are not offhand quotes, or out of context or whatever. They are in orations and writings specifically on the topic of the Trinity.

Zobel said:

---

Hence the reason we should limit to revelation. The words of procession were given to us from the Lord himself.

St Gregory goes into the "when" aspect a bit in one of his theological orations. The thing is as I quoted here you can't describe without some visible metaphor or analog. These are the ones we have.

But… I do not think it is possible to square spiration from the Father and Son as from one principle with the quotes from those fathers. And these are not offhand quotes, or out of context or whatever. They are in orations and writings specifically on the topic of the Trinity.

---

Thanks. If the third person is the love between the first and second persons, how should we understand the second person's love for the first person?

Why do you think that is the definition or criterion of the personhood of the Spirit?

Zobel said:

---

Why do you think that is the definition or criterion of the personhood of the Spirit?

---

That's how I have learned to think about it from Catholic teaching on the Trinity, referring to first to Augustine and then more specifically Aquinas.

Aquinas tells us, following Pope St. Gregory the Great: "The Holy Ghost Himself is Love." He elaborates further that the Holy Spirit is said to be the bond of Love between the Father and the Son and that "from the fact that the Father and the Son mutually love one another, it necessarily follows that this mutual Love, the Holy Ghost, proceeds from both. As regards origin, therefore, the Holy Ghost is not the medium, but the third person in the Trinity."

Aquinas also expounds upon Augustine's profound declaration that the Father and the Son love each other by the Holy Spirit when explains that the phrase "to love" can be taken two ways. In one sense, it means that the Father and the Son love each other by Their own essence. In another, it means that the Father and the Son "spirate," or breathe, the love that is the Holy Spirit. Further, "the Father loves not only the Son, but also Himself and us, by the Holy Ghost."

I am not smart enough to be able to properly defend all of that, but as a Catholic I believe it. You asked why I think it. That's why.

Forgive but Aquinas lived some two centuries after the schism and was more or less taking for granted dual procession.

St Gregory and St John - and others - clearly say here we are dealing with ineffable and unapproachable mystery, and that we need to stay with what was revealed to us in scripture. Begotten of the Father, proceeds from the Father.

The goal should not be to take what Aquinas at axiomatic but ask how can this be the same as St John? Or St Gregory? Because for centuries the East has said… you can't. St John is explicit, the Father is the cause of the Trinity. He is the source of the Son by Generation, and the Spirit by Procession. And this is what was a) taught to us by the Holy Fathers and b) what was preserved for us in holy scripture and c) what we have confessed everywhere always by all (until Rome unilaterally changed it and tore the church in two).

Zobel said:

---

The Trinity is revealed to us through revelation, not logic or direct observation.

---

Where in revelation does it say "the Spirit proceeds from the Father in the same way the Son is begotten by the Father"? At the very least, the Spirit proceeds and is not begotten, right? There is some difference in how the divine essence is communicated.

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

---

Zobel said:

---

Why do you think that is the definition or criterion of the personhood of the Spirit?

---

That's how I have learned to think about it from Catholic teaching on the Trinity, referring to first to Augustine and then more specifically Aquinas.

Aquinas tells us, following Pope St. Gregory the Great: "The Holy Ghost Himself is Love." He elaborates further that the Holy Spirit is said to be the bond of Love between the Father and the Son and that "from the fact that the Father and the Son mutually love one another, it necessarily follows that this mutual Love, the Holy Ghost, proceeds from both. As regards origin, therefore, the Holy Ghost is not the medium, but the third person in the Trinity."

Aquinas also expounds upon Augustine's profound declaration that the Father and the Son love each other by the Holy Spirit when explains that the phrase "to love" can be taken two ways. In one sense, it means that the Father and the Son love each other by Their own essence. In another, it means that the Father and the Son "spirate," or breathe, the love that is the Holy Spirit. Further, "the Father loves not only the Son, but also Himself and us, by the Holy Ghost."

I am not smart enough to be able to properly defend all of that, but as a Catholic I believe it. You asked why I think it. That's why.

---

I have greatly enjoyed this description of the Trinity, but I will say that it could easily be compatible with the Eastern way of thinking. In a clumsy mechanistic way, think of God the Father begetting the Son. The Father loves the Son, the Son is loved by the Father, and the Holy Spirit is the Father's love for the Son. But this love is so perfect and infinite as to be the ultimate expression of love itself, to the point of being a distinct person of the Trinity. So the Son can love the Father back through the Spirit, because anyone loving anyone else does so through the Spirit. But the Spirit originated from the Father.

Quote:

---

Where in revelation does it say "the Spirit proceeds from the Father in the same way the Son is begotten by the Father"? At the very least, the Spirit proceeds and is not begotten, right? There is some difference in how the divine essence is communicated.

---

That is a communication breakdown.

When I said "in the same way" I was comparing the <<from the the Father>> part, not comparing procession with generation. The similarity between the two is that both are from the Father, not in the nature of generation and procession.

I also made that clear in my post, that procession vs generation is what distinguishes them. And as St John said, the Father alone is ingenerate, the Son alone is generate because He was begotten of the Father, and only Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, not having been generated but proceeding, and the nature of the generation and the procession is beyond comprehension.

It is a beautiful thought, but I err on the side of caution, and I am not familiar with that description in the fathers. St John and St Gregory both liken it to life, breath - which is what pnevma means.

The other "guard" I have against this is that we experience God's love, it is an energy or working of God, and the energies of God are God. So it is true to say God is love, because His love is of Him just as His mercy, or goodness, or justice. But I do think it is a potential error to conflate God's energies, His workings, with the Persons. The Father, Son, and Spirit all love, and are all merciful.

The Fathers teach that all have what the others have save what identifies them as distinct. Given that, it seems that if we say the Spirit is love in a unique way, this means the Spirit has some unique aspect of love the others do not. Again - St John says:

Quote:

---

All then that the Son and the Spirit have is from the Father, even their very being: and unless the Father is, neither the Son nor the Spirit is. And unless the Father possesses a certain attribute, neither the Son nor the Spirit possesses it: and through the Father , that is, because of the Father's existence , the Son and the Spirit exist , and through the Father, that is, because of the Father having the qualities, the Son and the Spirit have all their qualities, those of being unbegotten, and of birth and of procession being excepted. For in these hypo static or personal properties alone do the three holy subsistences differ from each other, being indivisibly divided not by essence but by the distinguishing mark of their proper and peculiar subsistence.

---

Serviam said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

Quote:

---

We're getting the band back together

---

The Holy Spirit proceeds from...

---

The Father and Through the Son, which is what the Creed teaches even if the words are confusing to some.

---

That's where the band name came from! Better late than never on the revelation.

Quote:

---

It is a beautiful thought, but I err on the side of caution, and I am not familiar with that description in the fathers. St John and St Gregory both liken it to life, breath - which is what pnevma means.

The other "guard" I have against this is that we experience God's love, it is an energy or working of God, and the energies of God are God. So it is true to say God is love, because His love is of Him just as His mercy, or goodness, or justice. But I do think it is a potential error to conflate God's energies, His workings, with the Persons. The Father, Son, and Spirit all love, and are all merciful.

---

I believe the original formulation was by Augustine, who is much more prominent in the Western Church than the East. It was picked up later by both the Catholic scholastics and Protestants.

IMHO, the description became popular later as a refutation to the strict monotheism of Judaism and Islam. Theologically, a single perfect indivisible God is a lot cleaner than a Trinity. So an argument needed to be formulated to show that a unitarian God was deficient or lacking in some way, and the obvious answer is love. A single entity cannot selflessly love himself.

In regards to energies, I would say that some are derivative of others. Justice and mercy are derivative of love. Coincidentally, I think there are three "prime" energies of God: Being, Goodness, and Love. I think I could derive all the other energies from those three. God the Father is already identified with Being, that's the meaning of His Hebrew name. Augustine and the Western Church has a long tradition of the Holy Spirit being Love. That leaves Goodness for Christ. Though I don't think it really works. God the Father can impart Being onto the Son and Spirit through the Begetting of and the Proceeding from. But I don't think it makes sense to say that Christ imparts Goodness to the others or that the Spirit imparts Love to the others. Sorry, just brainstorming. Going to have to let that roll around in my brain a bit

I think St Maximos in his Ambiguum has something along the lines of the love, but I think he comes at it from expansion to perfection without multiplicity - which is also found in Sr Gregory's theological orations.

As for energies. I'm not sure we need to systematize it. Properly everything we experience at all from God are His energies, and His energies are God. This is the whole energies essence distinction. So I'm not sure it is on safe theological footing to speak of some of God being derivative (exception being of course the distinctions we make with ungenerate, begotten, proceeding). And that's why we make the counter statement that everything else all possess.