Author Topic: Why the Filioque is incorrect  (Read 2073 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline trifecta

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 794
  • Manna: 24
  • Gender: Male
Why the Filioque is incorrect
« on: Sun Jan 20, 2013 - 22:44:27 »
I'll try to do it in as few words as possible.

The RCC (and most Protestants by extension) says that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son is incorrect:

1) if the Spirit proceeds from the Father and Son, the Holy Spirit is inferior because He doesn't have this power.

2) The unifying thing of the trinity is the "essence" that belongs to all three with the Filioque while in the east the unifier is
the Father  (the son is begotten from the Father and the Spirit proceeds from the Father).

3) without the Filioque, each member of the Trinity is unique (Father is head, Son begotten, Spirit proceeds) while with
the Filioque it is hard to distinguish between the Father and Son while the Spirit ends up different from them.

I've purposely avoided the historical issues around the Filioque cause, for this thread, I prefer to look at the underlying issue.


Offline LightHammer

  • Defender of the Faith
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8424
  • Manna: 273
  • Gender: Male
  • I.C.T.H.Y.S.
Re: Why the Filioque is incorrect
« Reply #1 on: Mon Jan 21, 2013 - 19:08:19 »
I'll try to do it in as few words as possible.

The RCC (and most Protestants by extension) says that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son is incorrect:

1) if the Spirit proceeds from the Father and Son, the Holy Spirit is inferior because He doesn't have this power.

2) The unifying thing of the trinity is the "essence" that belongs to all three with the Filioque while in the east the unifier is
the Father  (the son is begotten from the Father and the Spirit proceeds from the Father).

3) without the Filioque, each member of the Trinity is unique (Father is head, Son begotten, Spirit proceeds) while with
the Filioque it is hard to distinguish between the Father and Son while the Spirit ends up different from them.

I've purposely avoided the historical issues around the Filioque cause, for this thread, I prefer to look at the underlying issue.



Its been a while trifecta. Always a pleasure.

1) That doesn't seem too sound at all. You seem to imply that because the Holy Spirit proceeds He is inferior to that which is proceeds from. If that were the case than the issue would still exist even if double procession were not true.

The Holy Spirit would still be inferior among the Godhead because He proceeds from the Father. Here you introduce division and inferiroty into the very Godhead itself by way of exploiting procession.

There is simply no sound basis to suggest that the Holy Spirit is made inferior ONLY when He is held to proceed from both the Father and the Son and that He is ONLY equal when He proceeds from the Father alone.

Your first point implies that inferiority comes from either procession or being processed from the Son, in which case the Son would be inferior to the Father.

2) I will not use east vs west designations seeing as the Catholic Church has priests and members from China to Hawaii. In the Catholic Church the Father is not so much the "unifer" of the Triune God, that would imply that God is a compositie being that consists of a unifying part to act as His lynchpin. The Father's role is patrimony and so He is called the Root of Divinity.

Hilary of Poiters and Athanasius of Alexandria are perhaps the best two ECF's to consult for the formation of the Catholic defintion.

With the Father's role among the Godhead we do not come to know God as a composite being that is united as the infinite and the absolute. In the Catholic Church the Father teaches us that God by His nature is an active generating being; a sort of eternal geiser without beginning or end and the Father is the fountainhead while the Holy Spirit and the Son are both independently full expressions of the Father. 

There is no need for a "unifying function" in the Trinity because God can not be divided.

3) I think that is more of a strawman. I believe any praticing Catholic, devoid of the slightest theological training or even proper catechesis can clearly discern the unique nature of the Trinity.
« Last Edit: Mon Jan 21, 2013 - 19:20:31 by LightHammer »

Offline CDHealy

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 4397
  • Manna: 120
  • Gender: Male
Re: Why the Filioque is incorrect
« Reply #2 on: Mon Jan 21, 2013 - 20:01:33 »
The principles here are clear and straightforward: whatever is shared by the Persons is from the nature of the Godhead, whatever is not shared is from the Persons.  There is only one Father, only one Son, and only one Holy Spirit; there is one nature common to All and shared by All.

So, if the Father causes the Spirit to process, and the Son causes the Spirit to process, then whom does the Spirit cause to process?  He would have to cause Himself to process, but that is not what the filioque claims; and if He caused Himself to process, there is no need for Father and Son to cause Him to process.  So the principle of procession cannot be common to the Persons of the Trinity, therefore it can only be unique to one Person, and the Orthodox have always taught that only the Father causes the Spirit to process.


Offline LightHammer

  • Defender of the Faith
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8424
  • Manna: 273
  • Gender: Male
  • I.C.T.H.Y.S.
Re: Why the Filioque is incorrect
« Reply #3 on: Mon Jan 21, 2013 - 23:52:09 »
The principles here are clear and straightforward: whatever is shared by the Persons is from the nature of the Godhead, whatever is not shared is from the Persons.  There is only one Father, only one Son, and only one Holy Spirit; there is one nature common to All and shared by All.

So, if the Father causes the Spirit to process, and the Son causes the Spirit to process, then whom does the Spirit cause to process?  He would have to cause Himself to process, but that is not what the filioque claims; and if He caused Himself to process, there is no need for Father and Son to cause Him to process.  So the principle of procession cannot be common to the Persons of the Trinity, therefore it can only be unique to one Person, and the Orthodox have always taught that only the Father causes the Spirit to process.




That is inconsistent with itself.

You said that what the persons have in common comes from the divine nature and that what they do not share comes from themselves.

1. I have never known any theology that suggests that the Persons possess things exclusive to themselves. I have heard it say that the Persons are unique only in function and role but who or rather they are is held entirely in common.

To suggest that the Person of the Son has things (however far you want to that definition) that the Father or the Spirit does not is to utterly disembody God.

2. Furthermore the Father proceeds eternally(that is without beginning it end) and so He proceeds according to His nature which is also eternal. Even if you remove double procession from the table your view would compromise the integrity of the Trinity.

You say that what the Persons share in common is due to the divine nature but if the Father alone proceeds by that same divine nature, according to your view the other Persons should bear the principle of procession as well. It need not be found in the Father and the Son as the Catholic Church maintains for your view to be at odds. It simply needs to be at all. The Father proceeds without beginning or end because it is natural to His being.

Therefore if we attribute procession not as the exclusive possession of the Patirominial Person but to the very nature He is root of then your view mandates that it should belong to all. You must first affirm that procession is not a congenial trait of the divine nature but rather something that Gld chooses to do to express Himself.

I would think it impossible. Seeing how there is not beginning or end to procession it seems clear that it is the property of the divine nature itself which is also without beginning or end. It does not imply conscious effort on the part of the Father is the natural accident if the divine nature.


Offline CDHealy

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 4397
  • Manna: 120
  • Gender: Male
Re: Why the Filioque is incorrect
« Reply #4 on: Tue Jan 22, 2013 - 09:50:04 »
That is inconsistent with itself.

You said that what the persons have in common comes from the divine nature and that what they do not share comes from themselves.

1. I have never known any theology that suggests that the Persons possess things exclusive to themselves. I have heard it say that the Persons are unique only in function and role but who or rather they are is held entirely in common.

To equate the Persons with mere function is the heresy of Sabellianism, that the Persons are merely nominal designations of functions or qualities of the nature of the Godhead.

The Orthodox Church has always maintained that the Persons are unique and real.  We believe in the fundamental concomitant reality of the many and the one.

To suggest that the Person of the Son has things (however far you want to that definition) that the Father or the Spirit does not is to utterly disembody God.

But in fact, only the Person of the Son is embodied—present tense, by the way: the Incarnate God-Man, Jesus the Christ, the only begotten Son of God did not divest himself of his body when he resurrected and ascended to heaven.  A man, the God-Man, sits on the throne of God in heaven.  The Father did not become incarnate.  The Holy Spirit did not become incarnate.  Only the Son is incarnate, because this is unique to his Person.  The Father sent forth the Son to be incarnate of the Holy Spirit (and the Virgin Mary).  Only the Father sent the Word.  Only the Holy Spirit overshadowed the Virgin.  But the tri-personal God, fully and completely one dwelt in Mary’s womb  in the Person of the Son.

Thus it is that only the Son is eternally begotten of the Father, because being the begotten is unique to the Person of the Son.  The Holy Spirit is not begotten.  The Father is not begotten.

So, yes, there are aspects of the life of the Holy Trinity that is unique to His respective Persons.

2. Furthermore the Father proceeds eternally(that is without beginning it end) and so He proceeds according to His nature which is also eternal. Even if you remove double procession from the table your view would compromise the integrity of the Trinity.

You say that what the Persons share in common is due to the divine nature but if the Father alone proceeds by that same divine nature, according to your view the other Persons should bear the principle of procession as well. It need not be found in the Father and the Son as the Catholic Church maintains for your view to be at odds. It simply needs to be at all. The Father proceeds without beginning or end because it is natural to His being.

Therefore if we attribute procession not as the exclusive possession of the Patirominial Person but to the very nature He is root of then your view mandates that it should belong to all. You must first affirm that procession is not a congenial trait of the divine nature but rather something that Gld chooses to do to express Himself.

I would think it impossible. Seeing how there is not beginning or end to procession it seems clear that it is the property of the divine nature itself which is also without beginning or end. It does not imply conscious effort on the part of the Father is the natural accident if the divine nature.

This is a misunderstanding of the nature of procession and the causing of the Holy Spirit to process.  You are confusing the Personal action/causation of procession and the eternal being of the Godhead.  It is common to the Persons to be eternally.  It is unique to the Son to be begotten, and unique to the Holy Spirit to process from the Father.  Being/Nature does not act.  It simply is.  Persons act, not beings.  Thus only a Person can cause to process, can beget.  A being/nature simply is.  So procession and begetting are unique to their respective Trinitarian Persons and are not common to the nature.

Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: Why the Filioque is incorrect
« Reply #4 on: Tue Jan 22, 2013 - 09:50:04 »



Offline LightHammer

  • Defender of the Faith
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8424
  • Manna: 273
  • Gender: Male
  • I.C.T.H.Y.S.
Re: Why the Filioque is incorrect
« Reply #5 on: Tue Jan 22, 2013 - 11:21:15 »
Quote
To equate the Persons with mere function is the heresy of Sabellianism, that the Persons are merely nominal designations of functions or qualities of the nature of the Godhead.

The Orthodox Church has always maintained that the Persons are unique and real.  We believe in the fundamental concomitant reality of the many and the one.


The emphasis on function is not to limit the Persons to such but to focus in of the specific context of our discussion. If we were having a discussion about the mediation of man before God an emphasis would naturally be placed on the Son who is the One Mediator. That is not to say that the Holy Spirit and Father have no role in mediating (the Father being the one mediated to, etc). It is also not suggest that the Son has no other action as God but to mediate. The conversation is simply focused on a specific topic that has a specific context and therefore a specific focus.

The issue is not how the Persons are who they are it is how procession exists in the first place. Process does not occur within the Godhead it simply is in the Godhead. In the same way light proceeds from the Sun by the nature and definition of its being. Procession is proper to the nature of God to the divine essence, like wetness is proper to liquids or hardness to stone.

If your view were correct and what is natural to the divine essence is common to all the Persons who participate in that same essence then each person would indeifinitely cause the procession (proper to their shared essence) of an infinite number of other persons.

This fallacy comes from the idea of a compositie God unified by the Father. The Church has always maintained that the Father's role is not unity but patrimony; the Root of Divinity, the Fountainhead.

Quote
But in fact, only the Person of the Son is embodied—present tense, by the way: the Incarnate God-Man, Jesus the Christ, the only begotten Son of God did not divest himself of his body when he resurrected and ascended to heaven.  A man, the God-Man, sits on the throne of God in heaven.  The Father did not become incarnate.  The Holy Spirit did not become incarnate.  Only the Son is incarnate, because this is unique to his Person.  The Father sent forth the Son to be incarnate of the Holy Spirit (and the Virgin Mary).  Only the Father sent the Word.  Only the Holy Spirit overshadowed the Virgin.  But the tri-personal God, fully and completely one dwelt in Mary’s womb  in the Person of the Son.

Thus it is that only the Son is eternally begotten of the Father, because being the begotten is unique to the Person of the Son.  The Holy Spirit is not begotten.  The Father is not begotten.

So, yes, there are aspects of the life of the Holy Trinity that is unique to His respective Persons.

1. The first aspects listed are not so due to the natural of the divine essence and therefore are not congenial to God. These things were introduced to the Godhead by way of the incarnation and hence St. Athansius calls the conception of the Word His embarrasment or debasement.

2. I would not have defined procession and begotten as possesions of the Son and Holy Spirit anymore than I would consider promulgation of law a posession or property of law. True promulgation is how the law comes into being but that does not make promulgation apart of the law or what makes the law unique from other laws. In so far as laws participate in reason the uniqueness of particular laws rests in how they express reason differently from one another.

In a like manner if the Son comes to be (for lakc of a better phrase) in the Godhead by being eternally begotten and the Holy Spirit by eternal procession that does not express how each are unique from one another. Though these differences in the divine generation can help what truly makes the Persons unique subsist in how they are and not how they came to be.

Even if we attempted to derive unique meaning from procession and begotten you and trifecta have both failed to determine how the Son's participation in the Holy Spirit's procession diminish the Holy Spirit in anyway.

That thesis only introduces the idea that the Son is inferior to the Father.

Quote
Being/Nature does not act.  It simply is.  Persons act, not beings.  Thus only a Person can cause to process, can beget.  A being/nature simply is.  So procession and begetting are unique to their respective Trinitarian Persons and are not common to the nature.

Yes and the Persons act according to their common nature. What makes them unqiue is how they are and how they behave. How they are is much less translated in the divine revelation than how they behave. That beavhior however is governed by the aspect of their common nature that is primary to them.

Patrimony is proper to the divine nature but it is primary in the Father therefore He is uniquely called the Root of Divinity the Fountainhead. I am not saying, nor is it the Catholic position that patrimony exists only in the Father. Patrimony is a property of the divine essence which is shared by all but it is primary to the Father and so the Father is the Person who acts in accordance with such.

If human nature (prefall) is any reflection of the divine nature then God's nature would consist in some way of active push and pulls of all the aspects therein in a manner similar to man's nature consisting of several drives and passions. God of course would be, unlike man, master of all those aspects and such would endure harmoniously in the divine nature as opposed to being impulses like in man. His will would be driven by the absolute harmony of these perfect properties of the divine essence; partimony (the principle to generate) is the primary of the Father.

The basic point is yes the Persona act but they act in accordance with their nature and that nature is common to all. That would make procession the property of the nature. However how the Father is what He is is predicated on His something in the divine nature being primary to Him not exclusive to Him. His actions result from that primary not from any exclusivity or something that He alone has that the other Persons do not participate in.
« Last Edit: Tue Jan 22, 2013 - 13:56:40 by LightHammer »

Offline LightHammer

  • Defender of the Faith
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8424
  • Manna: 273
  • Gender: Male
  • I.C.T.H.Y.S.
Re: Why the Filioque is incorrect
« Reply #6 on: Tue Jan 22, 2013 - 13:44:13 »
Sorry for the delay you guys.

Offline winsome

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5612
  • Manna: 94
  • Gender: Male
Re: Why the Filioque is incorrect
« Reply #7 on: Tue Jan 22, 2013 - 13:58:32 »


Fascinating, but I need to get my head around this one.




Offline LightHammer

  • Defender of the Faith
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8424
  • Manna: 273
  • Gender: Male
  • I.C.T.H.Y.S.
Re: Why the Filioque is incorrect
« Reply #8 on: Tue Jan 22, 2013 - 14:11:07 »


Fascinating, but I need to get my head around this one.






Let me try to simplify my position.

The principle of procession is rooted not in anything unique to the Father but in the divine nature which is universal to all the Persons. The Holy Spirit and the Son by full participation in the divine nature possesses the principle of procession. The Father and the Son eternally execute the principle of procession because for some reason it is how they are as Persons. That prinicple remains kinetic (at rest or not acted upon) within the Person of the Holy Spirit because that is not how He is as a Person.


Offline winsome

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5612
  • Manna: 94
  • Gender: Male
Re: Why the Filioque is incorrect
« Reply #9 on: Tue Jan 22, 2013 - 14:25:14 »


Fascinating, but I need to get my head around this one.






Let me try to simplify my position.

The principle of procession is rooted not in anything unique to the Father but in the divine nature which is universal to all the Persons. The Holy Spirit and the Son by full participation in the divine nature possesses the principle of procession. The Father and the Son eternally execute the principle of procession because for some reason it is how they are as Persons. That prinicple remains kinetic (at rest or not acted upon) within the Person of the Holy Spirit because that is not how He is as a Person.




Hi LightHammer,

Please don't break off your discussion with CDHealy and trifecta on my account. I just want to sit back and listen and mull over it.

Offline CDHealy

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 4397
  • Manna: 120
  • Gender: Male
Re: Why the Filioque is incorrect
« Reply #10 on: Tue Jan 22, 2013 - 19:04:53 »
The emphasis on function is not to limit the Persons to such but to focus in of the specific context of our discussion. If we were having a discussion about the mediation of man before God an emphasis would naturally be placed on the Son who is the One Mediator. That is not to say that the Holy Spirit and Father have no role in mediating (the Father being the one mediated to, etc). It is also not suggest that the Son has no other action as God but to mediate. The conversation is simply focused on a specific topic that has a specific context and therefore a specific focus.

But here you admit to the principle with which I began replying.  Each person has a unique role in mediation.  By stipulating that the Persons have distinct operations in mediation, you admit to the principle I’m espousing here.

The issue is not how the Persons are who they are it is how procession exists in the first place. Process does not occur within the Godhead it simply is in the Godhead. In the same way light proceeds from the Sun by the nature and definition of its being. Procession is proper to the nature of God to the divine essence, like wetness is proper to liquids or hardness to stone.

If your view were correct and what is natural to the divine essence is common to all the Persons who participate in that same essence then each person would indeifinitely cause the procession (proper to their shared essence) of an infinite number of other persons.

I don’t think you’ve understood how you’ve undercut your own argument here.  This is precisely my point.  That is why the procession of the Holy Spirit is only from the Father.  By espousing a double procession of the Holy Spirit you necessarily do result in a regressus.

This fallacy comes from the idea of a compositie God unified by the Father. The Church has always maintained that the Father's role is not unity but patrimony; the Root of Divinity, the Fountainhead.
Actually, we are talking Persons and operations and nature/being, not composition.  And what you mean is that the Church’s position has always been one of Patriarchy, literally, the Person of the Father (pater) is the source (arche) and unity of the Godhead.  And yes, this is why the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father but not from the Son.
Quote
1. The first aspects listed are not so due to the natural of the divine essence and therefore are not congenial to God. These things were introduced to the Godhead by way of the incarnation and hence St. Athansius calls the conception of the Word His embarrasment or debasement.

2. I would not have defined procession and begotten as possesions of the Son and Holy Spirit anymore than I would consider promulgation of law a posession or property of law. True promulgation is how the law comes into being but that does not make promulgation apart of the law or what makes the law unique from other laws. In so far as laws participate in reason the uniqueness of particular laws rests in how they express reason differently from one another.

In a like manner if the Son comes to be (for lakc of a better phrase) in the Godhead by being eternally begotten and the Holy Spirit by eternal procession that does not express how each are unique from one another. Though these differences in the divine generation can help what truly makes the Persons unique subsist in how they are and not how they came to be.

I think the big issue here is, as it usually is in discussions of the filioque, the confusion of nature/being and person.  Let’s see if I can illustrate this with a crude example.  My friend, Tripp, and I are different and unique persons.  The people who know Tripp and I would never mistake us for one another.  One of the reasons for that is Tripp is married to Trish.  I am an unmarried man.  Tripp and I are distinguishable as persons in that he is married (to Trish) and I am not.  Yet it is common to both of us to have the capacity to love.  We can therefore say it is common to our nature as humans to love, but it is unique to Tripp to be married to Trish.  There is no confusing Tripp and I as persons, but there is also no disputing that we both are human (share in a common human nature).
 
As I say, this is crude, because, as creatures you cannot map Tripp and I as examples onto the Creator.  But hopefully it highlights why we must be careful to distinguish nature and person in the discussion of the filioque.
 
Even if we attempted to derive unique meaning from procession and begotten you and trifecta have both failed to determine how the Son's participation in the Holy Spirit's procession diminish the Holy Spirit in anyway.

So, if causing the Holy Spirit to proceed is common to the Father and to the Son, then it necessarily is common to their nature as God.  But if so, then it must also be common to the Holy Spirit as God.  But no one teaches that the Holy Spirit causes himself to proceed.  Therefore, if this is so, then because the Holy Spirit does not cause himself to proceed, he does not share in the nature of the Father and the Son who cause him (the Holy Spirit) to proceed.  The filioque by logical inference teaches the inferiority of the Holy Spirit.

That thesis only introduces the idea that the Son is inferior to the Father.

Not at all, unless you want to admit that the filioque introduces the inferiority of the Holy Spirit.  On the contrary, each Person is unique and acts in ways unique to that Person: the Father begets the Son and causes the Holy Spirit to proceed, the Son is the only begotten of the Father and is Incarnate God, the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and overshadowed the Virgin who gave birth to the Incarnate God.

Yes and the Persons act according to their common nature. What makes them unqiue is how they are and how they behave. How they are is much less translated in the divine revelation than how they behave. That beavhior however is governed by the aspect of their common nature that is primary to them.

Here you begin to sound as though you're espousing composition to the nature of God, with each person only taking one aspect of the divine nature against the whole.  Furthermore, if the Person is merely the expression of one aspect of the divine nature, we do not have a person in the true sense, but only a nominal designation of a natural quality.

Patrimony is proper to the divine nature but it is primary in the Father therefore He is uniquely called the Root of Divinity the Fountainhead. I am not saying, nor is it the Catholic position that patrimony exists only in the Father. Patrimony is a property of the divine essence which is shared by all but it is primary to the Father and so the Father is the Person who acts in accordance with such.

Firstly, it's more correctly patriarchy (father-source/father-fount), not patrimony (father-dwelling).  But here again, you drift into Sabellianism.  If you affirm that patriarchy is common to the nature, then it is not, properly speaking patriarchy, but monarchy.  And you then have to assert that the Son is the source of the Godhead as is the Holy Spirit.  But if the Persons are the source of the Godhead, then you have polytheism.

If human nature (prefall) is any reflection of the divine nature then God's nature would consist in some way of active push and pulls of all the aspects therein in a manner similar to man's nature consisting of several drives and passions. God of course would be, unlike man, master of all those aspects and such would endure harmoniously in the divine nature as opposed to being impulses like in man. His will would be driven by the absolute harmony of these perfect properties of the divine essence; partimony (the principle to generate) is the primary of the Father.

The Godhead cannot have passions or drives.  And if you ascribe to the Godhead "aspects" as part of the divine nature, you have introduced a composite God.

The basic point is yes the Persona act but they act in accordance with their nature and that nature is common to all. That would make procession the property of the nature. However how the Father is what He is is predicated on His something in the divine nature being primary to Him not exclusive to Him. His actions result from that primary not from any exclusivity or something that He alone has that the other Persons do not participate in.

Again, you are confusing person and nature, and your result is nominalism/Sabellianism or polytheism.

Offline LightHammer

  • Defender of the Faith
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8424
  • Manna: 273
  • Gender: Male
  • I.C.T.H.Y.S.
Re: Why the Filioque is incorrect
« Reply #11 on: Wed Jan 23, 2013 - 07:48:39 »
Quote
But here you admit to the principle with which I began replying.  Each person has a unique role in mediation.  By stipulating that the Persons have distinct operations in mediation, you admit to the principle I’m espousing here.

I have no issue with distinct operations. That wasn't the basis for my objection. What I was at odds with was your suggestion that the persons possesed things that their contemporaries did not.

When I focused on a distinction in roles among the Persons you mistook me for reducing them to a Sabellanian existence.

Quote
I don’t think you’ve understood how you’ve undercut your own argument here.  This is precisely my point.  That is why the procession of the Holy Spirit is only from the Father.  By espousing a double procession of the Holy Spirit you necessarily do result in a regressus.

I think I addressed this already.

Your point was that causing procession was unique to the Father. You are suggesting that He alone performs this action and that if the principle is attributed to the Son it must be to the Holy Spirit as well. You are postulating that procession is rooted in the Father's action and somehow that separates it from the divine nature. Being separate from the divine nature makes the act of causing to proceed unique to Father.

That was your position. My objections were simple.

1. If procession is something that endures eternally in the Godhead then it should not be called an action of the Father but something proper to the divine nature which is also eternal.

2. Even if you want to characterize procession as an action of the Father then it should be rightly understood that procession as every action of God has its origin in His nature for God does not contrary to His divine nature.

Quote
So, if causing the Holy Spirit to proceed is common to the Father and to the Son, then it necessarily is common to their nature as God.  But if so, then it must also be common to the Holy Spirit as God.  But no one teaches that the Holy Spirit causes himself to proceed.  Therefore, if this is so, then because the Holy Spirit does not cause himself to proceed, he does not share in the nature of the Father and the Son who cause him (the Holy Spirit) to proceed.  The filioque by logical inference teaches the inferiority of the Holy Spirit.

As I stated before that is the difference between nature and Perso. As you said nature is while Persons act. You can logically maintain that the principle of procession exists within the divine nature common to all Persons with the Father and Son alone being the ones who act upon that principle.

Processions is an eternal action and a characteristic of God without which God is no longer God. That makes it essential to His nature. Again procession can be rooted as a property of the divine nature while being uqniue to Persons who execute it by their actions.

Let me use another crude example.

Shadrach Meshach and Abednego are a set of triplets. Everything they have, they hold in common including an exceptional fortune that is riddled with unique gems and precious metals. Shadrach uses the sapphires. Meshach uses the gold. Abednego uses rubbies.

They all equally own and participate in everything that is in their vault but because of their nature as persons they all utilize that common wealth in different ways.

The three triplets would be akin to the Trinity and the common wealth would be the divine nature/essence. Shadrach's sapphires would be the Father's unique role as arche and the functions He performs as such. Meschach's gold would be the aspects unique to the Son, Abenego's rubbies the Holy Spirit's uniqueness.

They all possess the divine nature in its fullness in common. So whatever makes them all unqiue can be found in that common nature they all possess. How they are is not rooted in something they don't hold in common. That would divide the Godhead and place one above another substantially. How they are is rooted in how they as Persons execute whatever of the divine nature is primary to them.

Therefore the Holy Spirit does possess the principle of procession but as a Person it is not for/in/of Him to execute that principle. In a similar manner God always had the power to create He simply did not until He wished it.

Therefore the Filioque does not make the Holy Spirit inferior because He does not execute the principle of procession He particpates in by way of the divine nature. No more than the Father and the Son are inferior because they do not execute the aspects unique to the role of the Holy Spirit who is equally a fullness of the Godhead. That is because they all share in the divine nature where all the aspects of God reside if eternally executed separately by the three Persons.
« Last Edit: Thu Jan 24, 2013 - 12:52:27 by LightHammer »

Offline Ohan

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 328
  • Manna: 6
  • Gender: Male
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)chieves (M)ore
Re: Why the Filioque is incorrect
« Reply #12 on: Mon Mar 11, 2019 - 15:54:40 »
The Father ~ The Son ~ The Holy Spirit ~ are One ```