FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums
Heresy of Dual-Cause - Printable Version

+- FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums (https://www.fisheaters.com/forums)
+-- Forum: Archives (https://www.fisheaters.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=6)
+--- Forum: Theology and Philosophy (https://www.fisheaters.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=13)
+--- Thread: Heresy of Dual-Cause (/showthread.php?tid=38957)

Pages: 1 2 3 4


Heresy of Dual-Cause - St.Ambrose - 09-17-2010

http://www.monachos.net/content/patristics/patristictexts/185-maximus-to-marinus

Those of the Queen of Cities [Constantinople] have attacked the synodal letter of the present very holy Pope, not in the case of all the chapters that he has written in it, but only in the case of two of them. One relates to the theology [of the Trinity] and according to this, says 'the Holy Spirit also has his ekporeusis from the Son.'

The other deals with the divine incarnation. With regard to the first matter, they [the Romans] have produced the unanimous evidence of the Latin Fathers, and also of Cyril of Alexandria, from the study he made of the gospel of St John. On the basis of these texts, they have shown that they have not made the Son the cause of the Spirit -- they know in fact that the Father is the only cause of the Son and the Spirit, the one by begetting and the other by procession -- but that they have manifested the procession through him and have thus shown the unity and identity of the essence.

They [the Romans] have therefore been accused of precisely those things of which it would be wrong the accuse them, whereas the former [the Byzantines] have been accused of those things it has been quite correct to accuse them [Monothelitism].

In accordance with your request I have asked the Romans to translate what is peculiar to them (the 'also from the Son') in such a way that any obscurities that may result from it will be avoided. But since the practice of writing and sending [the synodal letters] has been observed, I wonder whether they will possibly agree to doing this. It is true, of course, that they cannot reproduce their idea in a language and in words that are foreign to them as they can in their mother-tongue, just as we too cannot do.


(The Romans believed that the Father is the only cause of the Son and the Spirit, the one by begetting and the other by procession )
Indeed,The very Bishop of Rome and all of the Roman Church believed this.That the Father alone is cause of the Spirit,Not that the Son has any original cause of the Spirit.Only proceeding THROUGH the Son,not of the son .Indeed St.John of Damasus made a point when he stated this matter in his Exposition of the Faith

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/33041.htm

[[And we speak also of the Spirit of the son, not as through proceeding from Him, but as proceeding through Him from the Father. For the Father alone is cause.]]

Exposition of the Faith,book I ,chapter 12

Now let us see what Rome says

http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecum17.htm

[[ 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.]]

Lateran IV in 1215,Twelfth ecumenical council
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecum17.htm

[[We firmly believe and openly confess that there is only one true God, eternal and immense, omnipotent, unchangeable, incomprehensible, and ineffable, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; three Persons indeed but one essense, substance, or nature absolutely simple; the Father (proceeding) from no one, but the Son from the Father only, and the Holy Ghost equally from both, always without beginning and end.]]

What use to be considered a heresy by the romans,including the pope who affirmed 700 years of church Fathers of the west and the unanimous belief of the church that the father is SOLE CAUSE of the Son and spirit. Indeed the east still believes this is heresy.It is heresy.Since it is a departure from the traditions of the church

Remember "If they are wrong now,we were Wrong then"






Re: Heresy of Dual-Cause - NonNobis - 09-18-2010

Out of curiosity, can we compare/analyze the Greek or Latin here translated "cause"? Intervening between this letter and our present usage of "cause" is the notable collection of those writings by the Angelic Doctor St. Thomas Aquinas --- who among other things, expressed his Questions on theology after the logical analytic mode of Aristotle who distinguished at least four senses of cause, some of which are fallen into obscurity today, and may have been glossed-over or differently expressed in the eighth century.  In particular, I'm not sure any of Thomas' or Aristotle's senses of cause are suitable for predicating of the Divine Persons.


Re: Heresy of Dual-Cause - St.Ambrose - 09-18-2010


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 FatherAnd 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

Here we see many points.But I think the point that is most clear is this

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


Now,the council makes known that they are refering to "Cause" in the Greek sense. Latin is not the issue in this.


Re: Heresy of Dual-Cause - St.Ambrose - 09-18-2010

And this was a heresy,according to the Church of the pre-schism

The Condemned Heresy: 'the Holy Spirit also has his ekporeusis from the Son.'

The [New] Roman Dotrine: this bears the sense that thereby also the Son should be signified, according to the Greeks indeed as cause

Indeed,this should have been included in some kind of "Syllabus of Error" or something.


Re: Heresy of Dual-Cause - SouthpawLink - 09-18-2010

St.Ambrose,
What exactly are you arguing? Are you stating that the Lateran Council IV (1215; Denz. 428 ) and the Council of Florence (1439; Denz. 691) contradict an earlier Council, Creed, and/or the Fathers in general?


"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" (Catechism of the Catholic Church, n. 248).

77 Jn 15:26; cf. AG 2.
78 Council of Florence (1439): DS 1302.
79 Council of Florence (1442): DS 1331.
80 Cf. Council of Lyons II (1274): DS 850.


I'll come back to this thread sometime tomorrow.


Re: Heresy of Dual-Cause - St.Ambrose - 09-18-2010

"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" (Catechism of the Catholic Church, n. 248).

I know I know "First" means "Sole" or "Only".I'm certain my english must still be rusty.The Heresy is making the son also a cause of the spirit.To make the son AT ALL a cause of the spirit IS the heresy.

Making the son a part of the Arche of the Father is heresy.The heretic will never admit it is heresy.Though we see it quite simply and clearly.

EDIT: The East Believes the Father is the SOLE/ONLY/ONE Cause of the Spirit. Pope Martin I said this to Maximus when they were charged with the heresy which Rome of the schism believed.Not "First" Cause.But ONLY Cause.

Pope Martin of the 7th Century stated the fact "they have shown that they have not made the Son the cause of the Spirit -- they know in fact that the Father is the "only cause" of the Son and the Spirit, the one by begetting and the other by procession"

The same is echoed in St.John of Damascus's exposition of the faith.

If the Pope of Rome believed this,all the Bishops believed this,The belief that the Son is also cause was deemed "Heretical" or "errorness" by the entire church. Pope Martin told Maximus that NO LATIN FATHER Believed the son was a cause at all.

The Father is the ONLY,not first,not original,but ONLY cause.

Thank you for helping me make my point using the catechism.I didn't notice 248 would have been so much help for me :D 247 is the usual one that I use.Thanks SouthpawLink

(Disclaimer: Not Sarcasm)


Re: Heresy of Dual-Cause - St.Ambrose - 09-18-2010

"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" (Catechism of the Catholic Church, n. 248).

First Origin Implies a Second Origin,this is dual-Cause.The Heresy that was condemned

From the Holy St.Photios The Great of Constantinople said in his encyclical

They attempted by their false opinions and distorted words to ruin the holy and sacred Nicene Symbol of Faith — which by both synodal and universal decisions possesses invincible power — by adding to it that the Holy Spirit proceeds not only from the Father, as the Symbol declares, but from the Son also. Until now, no one has ever heard even a heretic pronounce such a teaching. What Christian can accept the introduction of two sources into the Holy Trinity; that is, that the Father is one source of the Son and the Holy Spirit, and that the Son is another source of the Holy Spirit, thereby transforming the monarchy of the Holy Trinity into a dual divinity?

And why should the Holy Spirit proceed from the Son as well as from the Father? For if His procession from the Father is perfect and complete — and it is perfect because He is perfect God from perfect God — then why is there also a procession from the Son? The Son, moreover, cannot serve as an intermediary between the Father and the Spirit because the Spirit is not a property of the Son. If two principles, two sources, exist in the divinity, then the unity of the divinity would be destroyed. If the Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son, His procession from the Father alone would of necessity be either perfect or imperfect. If it is imperfect, then procession for two hypostases would be much more contrived and less perfect than procession from one hypostasis alone. If it is not imperfect, then why would it be necessary for the Spirit to also proceed from the Son?

If the Son participates in the quality or property of the Father's own hypostasis, then the Son and the Spirit lose their own personal distinctions. Here one falls into semi-Sabellianism. The proposition that in the divinity there exist two principles, one which is independent and the other which receives its origin from the first, destroys the very root of the Christian conception of God. It would be much more consistent to expound these two principles into three, for this would be more in keeping with the human understanding of the Holy Trinity.

But since the Father is the principle and source, not because of the nature of the divinity, but because of the property of the hypostasis (and the hypostasis of the Father does not include the hypostasis of the Son), the Son cannot be a principle or source. The Filioque actually divides the hypostasis of the Father into two parts, or else the hypostasis of the Son becomes a part of the hypostasis of the Father. By the Filioque teaching, the Holy Spirit is two degrees or steps removed from the Father, and thus has a much lower rank than the Son. If the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son also, then of the three Divine Hypostases, the Holy Spirit alone has more than one origin or principle.

By the teaching of the procession from the Son also, the Father and the Son are made closer to each other than the Father and the Spirit, since the Son possesses not only the Father's nature but also the property of His Person. The procession of the Spirit from the Son is either the same as that from the Father, or else it is different, in which case there exists an opposition in the Holy Trinity. A dual procession cannot be reconciled with the principle that what is not common to the three hypostases belongs exclusively to only one of the three hypostases. If the Spirit proceeds also from the Son, why then would something not proceed from the Spirit, so that the balance between the Divine Hypostases would therefore be maintained?

By the teaching that the Spirit also proceeds from the Son, the Father appears partial towards the Son. The Father is either a greater source of the Spirit than the Son, or a lesser source. If greater, the dignity of the Son is offended; if lesser, the dignity of the Father is offended. The Latins make the Son greater than the Spirit, for they consider Him a principle, irreverently placing Him closer to the Father. By introducing a dual principle into the Holy Trinity as they do, the Latins offend the Son, for by making Him a source of that which already has a source, they thus render Him unnecessary as a source. They also divide the Holy Spirit into two parts: one part from the Father and one part from the Son. In the Holy Trinity, which is united in an indivisible unity, all three hypostases are inviolable. But if the Son contributes to the procession of the Spirit, Sonship is then injured, and the hypostatic property damaged.

If, by the begetting of the Son, the power was thereby given to the Son that the Holy Spirit would proceed from Him, then how would His Sonship itself not be destroyed when He, Who Himself has a source, became a source of Another Who is equal to Him and is of the same nature as He? According to the Filioque teaching, it is impossible to see why the Holy Spirit could not be called a granson! If the Father is the source of the Son, who is the second source of the Spirit, then the Father is both immediate and the mediated source of the Holy Spirit! A dual source in the divinity inescapably concludes in a dual result; therefore, the hypostasis of the Spirit must be dual. Therefore, the teaching of the Filioque introduces into the divinity two principles, a dyarchy, which destroys the unity of the divinity, the monarchy of the Father.

http://www.uoregon.edu/~sshoemak/324/texts/photius_encyclical.htm




Re: Heresy of Dual-Cause - NonNobis - 09-18-2010

The thing is, all in all, my creed does not use the words "cause" anywhere.  It does read "[Credo] et in Spiritum Sanctum Dominum et vivificantem, qui ex Patre Filoque procedit".  I can read in this a description of the eternal inner life of the trinity; I can't read anything about causation, whether formal, material, efficient, or final.  I'm grateful for your introducing the new word, "ekporeusis"; it doesn't mean anything new to me, but if it really does refer to procession and not causation, then that's how it should be translated; if it's not procession, but an Eastern inference from procession, fine, and we can talk about whether the inference is justified.


Re: Heresy of Dual-Cause - St.Ambrose - 09-18-2010

(09-18-2010, 09:43 AM)NonNobis Wrote: The thing is, all in all, my creed does not use the words "cause" anywhere.  It does read "[Credo] et in Spiritum Sanctum Dominum et vivificantem, qui ex Patre Filoque procedit".  I can read in this a description of the eternal inner life of the trinity; I can't read anything about causation, whether formal, material, efficient, or final.  I'm grateful for your introducing the new word, "ekporeusis"; it doesn't mean anything new to me, but if it really does refer to procession and not causation, then that's how it should be translated; if it's not procession, but an Eastern inference from procession, fine, and we can talk about whether the inference is justified.

Hmmmmm,NonNobis,you do know that Procedit has double-meaning.It could mean To come through,or out of.(as in out of a store)  OR it could mean to originate from,to have a cause from. As Proceeding from a origin.

Also Procedit is the latin,it isn't heresy but if you use it to mean the son is a co-cause of the spirit.We have a problem. Ekporeusis is greek and it refers to the procession from origin alone.It is a single meaning. Amazingly enough the Romans said quite clearly "As the Greeks",the Greek word they even say is cause,while the latin is principle.Both are right? No.Both are Wrong.The Father is Sole Principle and the Father is sole cause.Anything else is Heresy.Since the Father gave the son every BUT being a cause.


The Creed was in Greek first.so understand the greek.Where we have procedit the greek have the original Ekporeusis


Re: Heresy of Dual-Cause - NonNobis - 09-18-2010

As I have said before, I'm leary of any modern sense of causation used to describe the relations within the Trinity.  I'm quite content with the mystical poetry of Father, the Son who is the Word of the Father, and Love of the Father given to His Son which the Son returns to him.

I'll happily concede that the word procedit, even with the preposition ex, is ambiguous; but I would never have guessed that the breadth of its ambiguity could encompass any sense of causation or principle (which I might also term "formal cause", if you take my meaning).

I'm afraid I've comparatively little Latin in any case, but far less greek.

Why did we start this thread, anyways? (I mean, is there a back-story? A conversation we're following after? Did I gate-crash a party by joining in?)