Quick Trinitarian Progression Question

[N/A Gone]

Thanks L_D, so if you are to say "through" which appears to be allowed, then it would work?

Think of a real dad. If a dad let his son help him with a project. The dad taught the son how to use the tools, the dad is there with the son, but they are building it together. Is that image wrong?

Or lets get really graphic and talk about conception. In a good situation the father has love for the son even before the son is made. The son is in a way made from the love the pre-exists his own existence.

Todd, any chance you have read

Golitzin, Alexander . “Adam, Eve, and Seth: pneumatological reflections on an unusual image in Gregory of Nazianzus's "Fifth theological oration".” Anglican Theological Review 83 (2001) 83: 537-546.

let me give you the sparkeynotes.

[quote]Comes from eastern tradition; He is not interested in the hundreds of years of polemic writings. Rather his interest is in eastern spirituality; an example is reflection on the Cappadocian fathers. Gregory Nazianzus fifth oration “On the Spirit”, where the theologian attempts to explain the difference in the spirits procession and the Son's generation; in order to avoid the idea of twins, or the father as grandfather-citing adam(father), Eve(spirit) and Seth(son). Mode of creation conflicts with Augustines mental analogy. Trinity as nucleur family, Spirit as mother of Son

His goal then is to explain modestly why the east reacts as they do towards Augustinian theology and the filioque; Almost “instinctively” The east views the filioque as showing the son sending the spirit, but at the expense of the spirits active role and person, which does not give respect to the scriptural, liturgical, and mystical data that is witness to the Spirits creative and generative powers. In conclusion his desire is to restore a sense of reciprocity between the Son and the Spirit[/quote]

(If you want to read the article I can email it to you)

Goltizin, using Gregory, goes at the classic Augustianian view because of the Spirit not having an active role, but If the spirit "assisted" in the producing of the son, then wouldnt it all be equal? Coffey sites that we know the spirit is "person" but we dont know how. I think this assists that.

Please dont misunderstand me Todd, my view is that we should go back to the creed. And hope some kind of distinction between ekporeusis and proeinai would be fully digested by Roman Catholic theology. But keep the filioque as a viable-non heretical theological possibility. In order to make it non-heretical Im trying to work out some kinks. But I understand it is just a mental exercise. not an impossing of Dogma.

[N/A Gone]

second question.

Can we flat-out ignore florance? Or do we need to work with the language it provides?

"The holy spirit is from the Father and Son together, and procees eternally from both as from one principle and one single spiration"

Personally. I would love an out-clause to not have to give Florance dogmatic authority

[N/A Gone]

[quote]In the last session but one (twenty-fourth of Ferrara, eighth of Florence) Giovanni di Ragusa set forth clearly the Latin doctrine in the following terms: "the Latin Church recognizes [b]but one principle[/b], [b]one cause of the Holy Spirit[/b], namely, the Father. It is [b]from the Father that the Son [/b]holds his place in the 'Procession' of the Holy Ghost. It is in this sense that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father, but He proceeds also from the Son."[/quote]

Interesting. Daddy is the source. Son is part of the process, but only in the Daddy allowing him to be.

[N/A Gone]

bump...guys?

[N/A Gone]

cough*

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Revprodeji' post='1338548' date='Jul 23 2007, 12:15 PM']Thanks L_D, so if you are to say "through" which appears to be allowed, then it would work?[/quote]
I suppose so, but this choice of words would not be enough in itself. The whole point is to affirm the primacy of the Father or the [i]monarchia[/i]. The Father as sole cause of the trinitarian processions. To say that the Father and the Son "produce" the hypostasis of the third Person as two distinct causes is in effect to make the Father and the Son two distinct gods. The language of from the Father [i]through[/i] the Son seems to exclude this scenario but it still remains pretty ambiguous. Catholic dogma says that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as from a single principle which seems, at face value, to be at odds with this notion of [i]through[/i].

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Revprodeji' post='1339244' date='Jul 23 2007, 09:58 PM']second question.

Can we flat-out ignore florance? Or do we need to work with the language it provides?

"The holy spirit is from the Father and Son together, and procees eternally from both as from one principle and one single spiration"

Personally. I would love an out-clause to not have to give Florance dogmatic authority[/quote]
Some in fact attempt to go that route but I personally believe that a truly adequate exposition of the matter would take Florence into account and clarify the meaning of that formulation.