Trouble understanding Filioque and the Father's "monarchy"
#11
(05-18-2018, 09:31 PM)formerbuddhist Wrote: If that were the case it would have clearly been in the creed universally from the start and it was not. At least that's how i see this.

There wasn’t a need for it initially, and, besides, it’s heretical in Greek. It’s not heretical in Latin, because procedit doesn’t mean exactly the same thing as the Greek verb.

It still comes down to the Pope. Either there’s papal supremacy, in which case the Pope is supreme over a council and can add it, or he’s not, in which case Vatican I is wrong and the Catholic Church isn’t what she says she is.
Reply
#12
Bear with me on this one. Another analogy will be explained in the next post after this. I thought of this post while I was in bed. Here it goes:

Saying that the Father and Son are one principal seems to separate the Holy Spirit from the one principal of the Trinity. Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one principal, but saying that the Father and Son are one principal seems to break apart the flow of the divine essence because that one principal of Father and Son is like a Joint Principal. It also seems to imply the Spirit has no part in procession himself

First Analogy:
Think of a fountain in a T-shape form. At the top two ends water rises up. One end is like the Father and the Other is like the Son. Water (spiration) from both ends merges and reaches the bottom on the T-shape. The top two ends don't really communicate with each other. In other words, one end doesn't send the water to the other end (in a linear way). A T-Shape doesn't seem to imply a single origin of water.

Potential flaw with this analogy:
I just realized a minute or two ago a potential flaw with this analogy. I guess one could say the top two ends do "communicate" when water from both ends reaches the middle and converges to become one stream. In other words, spiration from both ends converges and becomes one principal.
Reply
#13
[Image: Filioque.jpg]

The model on the left is what I was thinking of with that analogy.
Reply
#14
Here is another analogy which I think makes more sense:

Think of a small, decorative fountain. The fountainhead starts the flow of water. Part of the fountain has an immovable bucket which fills up. When the water fills, it flows down once more to a small pool which absorbs the water. The fountainhead absorbs the water to keep the process continuing.

The fountainhead is the Father. It is the source of water flowing. The fountainhead "communicates" with the bucket by having water flow into it. Both the fountainhead and bucket are still acting as one to continue the flow of water. While the fountainhead is not bucket, they are still part of the same decorative fountain.This doesn't imply two sources of water. The flow still originally started from the fountainhead. The bucket just helps keep the flow going into the pool.

So it is accurate to say the water flows from the fountainhead and through the bucket, but it is also accurate to say the water flows from the fountainhead and from the bucket. As already mentioned, this doesn't that the bucket is the source of the water. The fountainhead will always remain the source. The fountainhead just "shares" the flow of water with the bucket.

Here is an image I found which seems to help with the analogy. It is not exactly like I described, but its very close.

[Image: cIC-aZhfEHKPb9c8yuTJWiP-XQo1Vhdi2xrS0UNo...pc0xffffff]
Reply
#15
Here is another image which might help with the analogy:

[Image: lovely-inverness-indoor-outdoor-fountain...s-home.jpg]
Reply
#16
(05-19-2018, 03:12 AM)yablabo Wrote: Here is the dogmatic sense of the Trinity from the Council of Florence, Bull of Union with the Copts:

"First, then, the holy Roman church, founded on the words of our Lord and Saviour, firmly believes, professes and preaches one true God, almighty, immutable and eternal, Father, Son and holy Spirit; one in essence, three in persons; unbegotten Father, Son begotten from the Father, holy Spirit proceeding from the Father and the Son; the Father is not the Son or the holy Spirit, the Son is not the Father or the holy Spirit, the holy Spirit is not the Father or the Son; the Father is only the Father, the Son is only the Son, the holy Spirit is only the holy Spirit. The Father alone from his substance begot the Son; the Son alone is begotten of the Father alone; the holy Spirit alone proceeds at once from the Father and the Son. These three persons are one God not three gods, because there is one substance of the three, one essence, one nature, one Godhead, one immensity, one eternity, and everything is one where the difference of a relation does not prevent this. Because of this unity the Father is whole in the Son, whole in the holy Spirit; the Son is whole in the Father, whole in the holy Spirit; the holy Spirit is whole in the Father, whole in the Son. No one of them precedes another in eternity or excels in greatness or surpasses in power. The existence of the Son from the Father is certainly eternal and without beginning, and the procession of the holy Spirit from the Father and the Son is eternal and without beginning. Whatever the Father is or has, he has not from another but from himself and is principle without principle. Whatever the Son is or has, he has from the Father and is principle from principle. Whatever the holy Spirit is or has, he has from the Father together with the Son. But the Father and the Son are not two principles of the holy Spirit, but one principle, just as the Father and the Son and the holy Spirit are not three principles of creation but one principle. Therefore it condemns, reproves, anathematizes and declares to be outside the body of Christ, which is the church, whoever holds opposing or contrary views. Hence it condemns Sabellius, who confused the persons and altogether removed their real distinction. It condemns the Arians, the Eunomians and the Macedonians who say that only the Father is true God and place the Son and the holy Spirit in the order of creatures. It also condemns any others who make degrees or inequalities in the Trinity."

Here also is the dogmatic sense regarding the Trinity from the Council of Florence, Bull of Union with the Armenians:

"...we offer to the envoys that compendious rule of the faith composed by most blessed Athanasius, which is as follows:

"Whoever wills to be saved, before all things it is necessary that he holds the catholic faith. Unless a person keeps this faith whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish eternally. The catholic faith is this, that we worship one God in the Trinity, and the Trinity in unity, neither confounding the persons nor dividing the substance. For there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the holy Spirit. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son and of the holy Spirit is one, the glory equal, and the majesty co-eternal. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the holy Spirit. The Father uncreated the Son uncreated and the holy Spirit uncreated. The Father infinite, the Son infinite and the holy Spirit infinite. The Father eternal, the Son eternal and the holy Spirit eternal. Yet they are not three eternals, but one eternal. As also they are not three uncreateds nor three infinites, but one uncreated and one infinite. Likewise the Father is almighty, the Son is almighty and the holy Spirit is almighty. Yet they are not three almighties, but one almighty. Likewise the Father is God, the Son is God and the holy Spirit is God. Yet they are not three gods, but one God. Likewise the Father is Lord, the Son is Lord and the holy Spirit is Lord. Yet they are not three lords, but one Lord. For just as we are compelled by the Christian truth to acknowledge each person by himself to be God and Lord, so we are forbidden by the catholic religion to say there are three gods or three lords. The Father is made by none, neither created nor begotten. The Son is from the Father alone; not made nor created, but begotten. The holy Spirit is from the Father and the Son; not made nor created nor begotten, but proceeding. So there is one Father, not three fathers; one Son, not three sons; one holy Spirit, not three holy spirits. And in this Trinity nothing is before or after, nothing is greater or less; but the whole three persons are co-eternal together and co-equal. So that in all things, as has been said above, the unity in Trinity and the Trinity in unity is to be worshipped. Whoever, therefore, wishes to be saved, let him think thus of the Trinity.

"It is also necessary for salvation to believe faithfully the incarnation of our lord Jesus Christ. The right faith, therefore, is that we believe and confess that our lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, is God and man. God, of the substance of the Father, begotten before the ages; and man, of the substance of his mother, born in the world. Perfect God, perfect man, subsisting of a rational soul and human flesh. Equal to the Father according to his Godhead, less than the Father according to his humanity. Although he is God and man, he is not two, but one Christ. One, however, not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh, but by the taking of humanity into God. One altogether, not by confusion of substance, but by unity of person. For as a reasoning soul and flesh is one man, so God and man is one Christ. He suffered for our salvation and descended into hell. On the third day he rose from the dead. He ascended into heaven and sits at the right hand of God the Father almighty. Thence he shall come to judge the living and the dead. At his coming all shall rise again with their bodies, and shall give an account of their own deeds. Those who have done good shall go into eternal life, but those who have done evil shall go into eternal fire.

"This is the catholic faith. Unless a person believes it faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved."

And finally, this also from the Council of Florence, Definition of the holy ecumenical synod of Florence:

"For when Latins and Greeks came together in this holy synod, they all strove that, among other things, the article about the procession of the holy Spirit should be discussed with the utmost care and assiduous investigation. Texts were produced from divine scriptures and many authorities of eastern and western holy doctors, some saying the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, others saying the procession is from the Father through the Son. All were aiming at the same meaning in different words. The Greeks asserted that when they claim that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, they do not intend to exclude the Son; but because it seemed to them that the Latins assert that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as from two principles and two spirations, they refrained from saying that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. The Latins asserted that they say the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son not with the intention of excluding the Father from being the source and principle of all deity, that is of the Son and of the holy Spirit, nor to imply that the Son does not receive from the Father, because the holy Spirit proceeds from the Son, nor that they posit two principles or two spirations; but they assert that there is only one principle and a single spiration of the holy Spirit, as they have asserted hitherto. Since, then, one and the same meaning resulted from all this, they unanimously agreed and consented to the following holy and God-pleasing union, in the same sense and with one mind.

"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.

"We define also that the explanation of those words “and from the Son” was licitly and reasonably added to the creed for the sake of declaring the truth and from imminent need."
Reply
#17
I just thought of something else. It's not originally my idea but I think it is helpful. There are two forms of procession in the Trinity: Generation and Spiration.

The Father generates the Son as one Principle

The Father and Son spirate the Holy Spirit as one principle

The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit create as one principle

But then here comes another problem: How can you get two processions in a Trinity where each person is supposed to be equal? Shouldn't each person of the trinity have participate in some form of procession? Is creation another form of procession?
Reply
#18
(05-19-2018, 01:55 PM)Paul Wrote:
(05-18-2018, 09:31 PM)formerbuddhist Wrote: If that were the case it would have clearly been in the creed universally from the start and it was not. At least that's how i see this.

There wasn’t a need for it initially, and, besides, it’s heretical in Greek. It’s not heretical in Latin, because procedit doesn’t mean exactly the same thing as the Greek verb.

It still comes down to the Pope. Either there’s papal supremacy, in which case the Pope is supreme over a council and can add it, or he’s not, in which case Vatican I is wrong and the Catholic Church isn’t what she says she is.
That’s the big question. I myself believe the latter option (error of Vatican I, etc.). Changing the Symbol of Faith should never take place. Even the Bishops of Rome (Leo III, John VIII) forbade changing the words of the Symbol of Faith (the Filioque). Assuming that the change isn’t heretical, what is the point anyway, especially given that previous Bishops of Rome forbade their successors’ actions (change of the Symbol)?
Here is my thought. If the Symbol of Faith can be changed by one man, then what can’t be changed?
[-] The following 1 user Likes Klemens's post:
  • formerbuddhist
Reply
#19
(05-19-2018, 06:30 PM)Klemens Wrote:
(05-19-2018, 01:55 PM)Paul Wrote:
(05-18-2018, 09:31 PM)formerbuddhist Wrote: If that were the case it would have clearly been in the creed universally from the start and it was not. At least that's how i see this.

There wasn’t a need for it initially, and, besides, it’s heretical in Greek. It’s not heretical in Latin, because procedit doesn’t mean exactly the same thing as the Greek verb.

It still comes down to the Pope. Either there’s papal supremacy, in which case the Pope is supreme over a council and can add it, or he’s not, in which case Vatican I is wrong and the Catholic Church isn’t what she says she is.
That’s the big question. I myself believe the latter option (error of Vatican I, etc.). Changing the Symbol of Faith should never take place. Even the Bishops of Rome (Leo III, John VIII) forbade changing the words of the Symbol of Faith (the Filioque). Assuming that the change isn’t heretical, what is the point anyway, especially given that previous Bishops of Rome forbade their successors’ actions (change of the Symbol)?
Here is my thought. If the Symbol of Faith can be changed by one man, than what can’t be changed?

There was no change in the symbol of faith, as no deletion and no addition of contrary information occurred.  There was a necessary clarification made, as was pointed out at the Council of Florence.
Reply
#20
(05-19-2018, 06:30 PM)Klemens Wrote: That’s the big question. I myself believe the latter option (error of Vatican I, etc.). Changing the Symbol of Faith should never take place. Even the Bishops of Rome (Leo III, John VIII) forbade changing the words of the Symbol of Faith (the Filioque). Assuming that the change isn’t heretical, what is the point anyway, especially given that previous Bishops of Rome forbade their successors’ actions (change of the Symbol)?
Here is my thought. If the Symbol of Faith can be changed by one man, then what can’t be changed?

No Pope can bind his successor, since all have the same power given to St Peter by our Lord. That's why Quo primum and Quod a nobis aren't binding on future popes, and why Clement VIII and Urban VIII made changes to the Missal and Breviary despite what Pius V said.

The point of the Filioque was anti-Arian, since Arius denied that the Son was God. Clarifying that the Holy Ghost proceeds from both Father and Son means that the Son is God.

What can't be changed is the teaching of the Church. The Pope couldn't change the Creed to say that Christ isn't God, or that Mary is part of the Trinity, or that you can be re-baptised. But if the Pope wanted to add the Assumption and Immaculate Conception to the Creed, he could. The content of the Creed is doctrine, the exact wording isn't, necessarily - after all, English-speaking Catholics began the Creed with 'We believe' for several decades - and the Pope has jurisdiction over the liturgy.

Previous Popes said the same thing about adding St Joseph to the Canon; St John XXIII went ahead and did it, and most Latin Catholics use the revised Canon, even traditional Catholics.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)