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.
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.