What is the Catholic dogma on the relation between the persons of the Holy Trinity?
The formation of the Trinitarian dogma
249 From the beginning, the revealed truth of the Holy Trinity has been at the very root of the Church's living faith, principally by means of Baptism. It finds its expression in the rule of baptismal faith, formulated in the preaching, catechesis and prayer of the Church. Such formulations are already found in the apostolic writings, such as this salutation taken up in the Eucharistic liturgy: "The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all."81
250 During the first centuries the Church sought to clarify her Trinitarian faith, both to deepen her own understanding of the faith and to defend it against the errors that were deforming it. This clarification was the work of the early councils, aided by the theological work of the Church Fathers and sustained by the Christian people's sense of the faith.
251 In order to articulate the dogma of the Trinity, the Church had to develop her own terminology with the help of certain notions of philosophical origin: "substance", "person" or "hypostasis", "relation" and so on. In doing this, she did not submit the faith to human wisdom, but gave a new and unprecedented meaning to these terms, which from then on would be used to signify an ineffable mystery, "infinitely beyond all that we can humanly understand".82
252 The Church uses (I) the term "substance" (rendered also at times by "essence" or "nature") to designate the divine being in its unity, (II) the term "person" or "hypostasis" to designate the Father, Son and Holy Spirit in the real distinction among them, and (III) the term "relation" to designate the fact that their distinction lies in the relationship of each to the others.
The dogma of the Holy Trinity
253 The Trinity is One. We do not confess three Gods, but one God in three persons, the "consubstantial Trinity".83 The divine persons do not share the one divinity among themselves but each of them is God whole and entire: "The Father is that which the Son is, the Son that which the Father is, the Father and the Son that which the Holy Spirit is, i.e. by nature one God."84 In the words of the Fourth Lateran Council (1215), "Each of the persons is that supreme reality, viz., the divine substance, essence or nature."85
254 The divine persons are really distinct from one another. "God is one but not solitary."86 "Father", "Son", "Holy Spirit" are not simply names designating modalities of the divine being, for they are really distinct from one another: "He is not the Father who is the Son, nor is the Son he who is the Father, nor is the Holy Spirit he who is the Father or the Son."87 They are distinct from one another in their relations of origin: "It is the Father who generates, the Son who is begotten, and the Holy Spirit who proceeds."88 The divine Unity is Triune.
255 The divine persons are relative to one another. Because it does not divide the divine unity, the real distinction of the persons from one another resides solely in the relationships which relate them to one another: "In the relational names of the persons the Father is related to the Son, the Son to the Father, and the Holy Spirit to both. While they are called three persons in view of their relations, we believe in one nature or substance."89 Indeed "everything (in them) is one where there is no opposition of relationship."90 "Because of that unity the Father is wholly in the Son and wholly in the Holy Spirit; the Son is wholly in the Father and wholly in the Holy Spirit; the Holy Spirit is wholly in the Father and wholly in the Son."91
256 St. Gregory of Nazianzus, also called "the Theologian", entrusts this summary of Trinitarian faith to the catechumens of Constantinople:
Here is an interesting article/blogpost presenting the Orthodox point of view: http://www.energeticprocession.com/archives/2005/03/st_gregory_pala.html#comments
St. John Damascene says, in his writing against the Iconoclasts, that the Spirit is the natural image of the Son and the Son is the natural image of the Father. This is, effectively, the procession "filioque", even though the great Damascene said that the Spirit was not "from the Son".
Much of the East's issue with the filioque has to do with proceedure. They see Rome as having unilaterally amending the Nicene Creed by fiat.
Secondly, the Nicene Creed defines God as God the Father: "I believe in one God, the Father Almighty..." The Creed then goes on to define the Son as "eternally begotten of the Father" and the Holy Ghost as "proceeding from the Father". In Eastern theology, "God" means "God the Father". From God is begotten the Son and from God proceeds the Holy Ghost. With that line of reasoning, the Holy Ghost cannot proceed from the Son for the same reason the Son is not eternally begotten of the Holy Ghost. Western theology defines God as God the Trinity. With the implications thereof, the double procession of the Ghost is a must. Eastern Orthodox theologians consider this valid line of reasoning (Augustine of Hippo is considered an Orthodox saint), however it would require a complete rewriting of the Nicene Creed (which was writen in accordance with Eastern theological methods). Given that that great creed came about only after the Emperor locked the bishops in a palace and wouldn't let them out until they solved their differences, I don't see a complete rewrite of the Creed as happening before pigs learn to fly.
It may be best for Western theologians to accept that the Nicene Creed is an inappropriate place to express Augustinian Trinitarianism. Eastern theologians could then compromise by accepting that the Julian Calendar is in error at a rate of 3 days every 400 years and start applying the Nicene formula for setting Pascha to the Gregorian Calendar.
Objection 1. It would seem that the Holy Ghost does not proceed from the Son. For as Dionysius says (Div. Nom. i): "We must not dare to say anything concerning the substantial Divinity except what has been divinely expressed to us by the sacred oracles." But in the Sacred Scripture we are not told that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Son; but only that He proceeds from the Father, as appears from Jn. 15:26: "The Spirit of truth, Who proceeds from the Father." Therefore the Holy Ghost does not proceed from the Son.
Objection 2. Further, In the creed of the council of Constantinople (Can. vii) we read: "We believe in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Life-giver, who proceeds from the Father; with the Father and the Son to be adored and glorified." Therefore it should not be added in our Creed that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Son; and those who added such a thing appear to be worthy of anathema.
Objection 3. Further, Damascene says (De Fide Orth. i): "We say that the Holy Ghost is from the Father, and we name Him the spirit of the Father; but we do not say that the Holy Ghost is from the Son, yet we name Him the Spirit of the Son." Therefore the Holy Ghost does not proceed from the Son.
Objection 4. Further, Nothing proceeds from that wherein it rests. But the Holy Ghost rests in the Son; for it is said in the legend of St. Andrew: "Peace be to you and to all who believe in the one God the Father, and in His only Son our Lord Jesus Christ, and in the one Holy Ghost proceeding from the Father, and abiding in the Son." Therefore the Holy Ghost does not proceed from the Son.
Objection 5. Further, the Son proceeds as the Word. But our breath [spiritus] does not seem to proceed in ourselves from our word. Therefore the Holy Ghost does not proceed from the Son.
Objection 6. Further, the Holy Ghost proceeds perfectly from the Father. Therefore it is superfluous to say that He proceeds from the Son.
Objection 7. Further "the actual and the possible do not differ in things perpetual" (Phys. iii, text 32), and much less so in God. But it is possible for the Holy Ghost to be distinguished from the Son, even if He did not proceed from Him. For Anselm says (De Process. Spir. Sancti, ii): "The Son and the Holy Ghost have their Being from the Father; but each in a different way; one by Birth, the other by Procession, so that they are thus distinct from one another." And further on he says: "For even if for no other reason were the Son and the Holy Ghost distinct, this alone would suffice." Therefore the Holy Spirit is distinct from the Son, without proceeding from Him.
On the contrary, Athanasius says: "The Holy Ghost is from the Father and the Son; not made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding."
I answer that, It must be said that the Holy Ghost is from the Son. For if He were not from Him, He could in no wise be personally distinguished from Him; as appears from what has been said above (28, 3; 30, 2). For it cannot be said that the divine Persons are distinguished from each other in any absolute sense; for it would follow that there would not be one essence of the three persons: since everything that is spoken of God in an absolute sense, belongs to the unity of essence. Therefore it must be said that the divine persons are distinguished from each other only by the relations. Now the relations cannot distinguish the persons except forasmuch as they are opposite relations; which appears from the fact that the Father has two relations, by one of which He is related to the Son, and by the other to the Holy Ghost; but these are not opposite relations, and therefore they do not make two persons, but belong only to the one person of the Father. If therefore in the Son and the Holy Ghost there were two relations only, whereby each of them were related to the Father, these relations would not be opposite to each other, as neither would be the two relations whereby the Father is related to them. Hence, as the person of the Father is one, it would follow that the person of the Son and of the Holy Ghost would be one, having two relations opposed to the two relations of the Father. But this is heretical since it destroys the Faith in the Trinity. Therefore the Son and the Holy Ghost must be related to each other by opposite relations. Now there cannot be in God any relations opposed to each other, except relations of origin, as proved above (28, 44). And opposite relations of origin are to be understood as of a "principle," and of what is "from the principle." Therefore we must conclude that it is necessary to say that either the Son is from the Holy Ghost; which no one says; or that the Holy Ghost is from the Son, as we confess.
Furthermore, the order of the procession of each one agrees with this conclusion. For it was said above (27, 2,4; 28, 4), that the Son proceeds by the way of the intellect as Word, and the Holy Ghost by way of the will as Love. Now love must proceed from a word. For we do not love anything unless we apprehend it by a mental conception. Hence also in this way it is manifest that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Son.
We derive a knowledge of the same truth from the very order of nature itself. For we nowhere find that several things proceed from one without order except in those which differ only by their matter; as for instance one smith produces many knives distinct from each other materially, with no order to each other; whereas in things in which there is not only a material distinction we always find that some order exists in the multitude produced. Hence also in the order of creatures produced, the beauty of the divine wisdom is displayed. So if from the one Person of the Father, two persons proceed, the Son and the Holy Ghost, there must be some order between them. Nor can any other be assigned except the order of their nature, whereby one is from the other. Therefore it cannot be said that the Son and the Holy Ghost proceed from the Father in such a way as that neither of them proceeds from the other, unless we admit in them a material distinction; which is impossible.
Hence also the Greeks themselves recognize that the procession of the Holy Ghost has some order to the Son. For they grant that the Holy Ghost is the Spirit "of the Son"; and that He is from the Father "through the Son." Some of them are said also to concede that "He is from the Son"; or that "He flows from the Son," but not that He proceeds; which seems to come from ignorance or obstinacy. For a just consideration of the truth will convince anyone that the word procession is the one most commonly applied to all that denotes origin of any kind. For we use the term to describe any kind of origin; as when we say that a line proceeds from a point, a ray from the sun, a stream from a source, and likewise in everything else. Hence, granted that the Holy Ghost originates in any way from the Son, we can conclude that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Son.
Reply to Objection 1. We ought not to say about God anything which is not found in Holy Scripture either explicitly or implicitly. But although we do not find it verbally expressed in Holy Scripture that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Son, still we do find it in the sense of Scripture, especially where the Son says, speaking of the Holy Ghost, "He will glorify Me, because He shall receive of Mine" (Jn. 16:14). It is also a rule of Holy Scripture that whatever is said of the Father, applies to the Son, although there be added an exclusive term; except only as regards what belongs to the opposite relations, whereby the Father and the Son are distinguished from each other. For when the Lord says, "No one knoweth the Son, but the Father," the idea of the Son knowing Himself is not excluded. So therefore when we say that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father, even though it be added that He proceeds from the Father alone, the Son would not thereby be at all excluded; because as regards being the principle of the Holy Ghost, the Father and the Son are not opposed to each other, but only as regards the fact that one is the Father, and the other is the Son.
Reply to Objection 2. In every council of the Church a symbol of faith has been drawn up to meet some prevalent error condemned in the council at that time. Hence subsequent councils are not to be described as making a new symbol of faith; but what was implicitly contained in the first symbol was explained by some addition directed against rising heresies. Hence in the decision of the council of Chalcedon it is declared that those who were congregated together in the council of Constantinople, handed down the doctrine about the Holy Ghost, not implying that there was anything wanting in the doctrine of their predecessors who had gathered together at Nicaea, but explaining what those fathers had understood of the matter. Therefore, because at the time of the ancient councils the error of those who said that the Holy Ghost did not proceed from the Son had not arisen, it was not necessary to make any explicit declaration on that point; whereas, later on, when certain errors rose up, another council [Council of Rome, under Pope Damasus] assembled in the west, the matter was explicitly defined by the authority of the Roman Pontiff, by whose authority also the ancient councils were summoned and confirmed. Nevertheless the truth was contained implicitly in the belief that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father.
Reply to Objection 3. The Nestorians were the first to introduce the error that the Holy Ghost did not proceed from the Son, as appears in a Nestorian creed condemned in the council of Ephesus. This error was embraced by Theodoric the Nestorian, and several others after him, among whom was also Damascene. Hence, in that point his opinion is not to be held. Although, too, it has been asserted by some that while Damascene did not confess that the Holy Ghost was from the Son, neither do those words of his express a denial thereof.
Reply to Objection 4. When the Holy Ghost is said to rest or abide in the Son, it does not mean that He does not proceed from Him; for the Son also is said to abide in the Father, although He proceeds from the Father. Also the Holy Ghost is said to rest in the Son as the love of the lover abides in the beloved; or in reference to the human nature of Christ, by reason of what is written: "On whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending and remaining upon Him, He it is who baptizes" (Jn. 1:33).
Reply to Objection 5. The Word in God is not taken after the similitude of the vocal word, whence the breath [spiritus] does not proceed; for it would then be only metaphorical; but after the similitude of the mental word, whence proceeds love.
Reply to Objection 6. For the reason that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father perfectly, not only is it not superfluous to say He proceeds from the Son, but rather it is absolutely necessary. Forasmuch as one power belongs to the Father and the Son; and because whatever is from the Father, must be from the Son unless it be opposed to the property of filiation; for the Son is not from Himself, although He is from the Father.
Reply to Objection 7. The Holy Ghost is distinguished from the Son, inasmuch as the origin of one is distinguished from the origin of the other; but the difference itself of origin comes from the fact that the Son is only from the Father, whereas the Holy Ghost is from the Father and the Son; for otherwise the processions would not be distinguished from each other, as explained above, and in 27.
The Summa Theologica of St. Thomas Aquinas
Second and Revised Edition, 1920
Literally translated by Fathers of the English Dominican Province
Online Edition Copyright © 2003 by Kevin Knight
Nihil Obstat. F. Innocentius Apap, O.P., S.T.M., Censor. Theol.
Imprimatur. Edus. Canonicus Surmont, Vicarius Generalis. Westmonasterii.
APPROBATIO ORDINIS
Nihil Obstat. F. Raphael Moss, O.P., S.T.L. and F. Leo Moore, O.P., S.T.L.
Imprimatur. F. Beda Jarrett, O.P., S.T.L., A.M., Prior Provincialis Angliæ
MARIÆ IMMACULATÆ - SEDI SAPIENTIÆ
The entire section on The Blessed Trinity is worth studying, and will put this question in better context. I usually read two or three sections per day, or at one sitting. Reading the Summa can be exhausting, but is worth the effort 8-)
"What is the Catholic dogma on the relation between the persons of the Holy Trinity?"
Read Frank Sheed's "Theology and Sanity" for one of the best discussions of the Trinity ever written.
This confuses me.
In last week's Gospel, when Our Lord appeared to the Apostles, he breathes on them, filling them with the Holy Spirit.
If the Holy Spirit proceeded directly and only from the Father, why would the Gospel record Christ's ability to transmit the power of the Holy Spirit to the Apostles, in such a manner?
Interesting.
I saw this comment of yours on this thread, and was wondering if you can elaborate. I think, the dual procession of the Holy Ghost is a real difference, as much as I would like this not to be the case.
ping for later
The issues that are not clear to me are:
[1. Distinction between Procession and Sending] Let us hearken, I entreat you, to what will be said with good will and in the fear of God. The procession of the Holy Spirit is one thing, while the sending is another. For on the one hand, the procession is the natural existence of the Holy Spirit, directly alone from the Father, who is the cause. On the other hand, the sending is a sending forth on a mission in time in which the Son also sends the Spirit, as is the case here, and the Spirit also sends the Son, as it is said, "the Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because the Lord hath anointed me; he has sent me to preach glad tidings to the poor" [Is 61:1; cf. Lk 4:181. How then and why do you innovate and say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and from the son? If the Spirit did not proceed from the Father alone, then the Lord would have said concerning the Paraclete, whom I and the Father sent forth just as He frequently said "whom I shall send" [Jn 15:26]. To begin with, then, the undeceiving mouth of Christ declares that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father [cf. Jn 15:26]. Second, even Paul himself in the Epistle to Titus reiterates: "Not because of deeds done by us in righteousness, but in virtue of his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit, which he poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior" [3:5-6]. What is more explicit than this? The Lord has said, "Behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you" [Lk 24:49; cf. Acts 2:14; Jn 14:26; 20:21-23]. Paul subsequently asserts: "which he poured out upon us richly" [Tit 3:6]...[4. Difference between ‘Ek’ and ‘Dia’] ... Moreover, we have previously mentioned that here is a very great difference between the sending to the created world and the procession which is timeless and eternal, in which He alone directly proceeds from the Father, as we said, and as we will more fully explain with the help of God in the course of our exposition. Consequently, the great Athanasios, whom you presented as your advocate, does not help you. Instead, he argues against you for he allies himself with the Lord and with all the God-filled and wise theologians of the Church. Therefore, he ridicules those of contrary opinion, that is, against these pneumatomachs [adverseries of the Spirit], by directing this jest at them: "If the Holy Spirit is not a creature, then He is a son; thus, there will be found to be two sons and brothers, or rather, the Logos will be a son, the Spirit will be a grandson, and the Father will be a grandfather." These are their nonsensical prattlings, and that is why he ridicules them.
[5. The Interpretation by the Theologians of 'Ek' and 'Dia' Is Incorrect] In spite of these things, our humble self is greatly astonished at your sagacity. When you write in your second reply, and we quote: "If there is one who believes that the Holy Spirit alone is from the Father, and through the Son, but does not proceed from the Son, let him know that he believes the impossible; for these are contradictory to each other, and cancel one the other." However, those things which we profess are not impossible, nor do they contradict each other, nor do they cancel one the other, as you say. For the truth never conflicts with the truth. And although not fully treated, this much is sufficient for the present concerning these matters. However, I diligently researched the matter and found but two main differences between us on the subject. First, that you understand the sending and the procession to be one and the same things. And for this reason you say incorrectly: "If the Spirit is sent by the Son, then it follows that He also proceeds from him." ...
As the great ArmEnian calvinist scholar R. J. Rushdoony pointed out, the Eastern church's subtle subordinationism kept the church (the realm of redemption) under the thumb of the state (the realm of creation) for most of Orthodoxy's history. Under the muslims, patriarchs were selected/ordained/recognized by the caliph, after paying the customary bribes. Under the Soviets, the Russian Orthodox hierarchy worked closely with the KGB. The West owes political liberty to the filoque.
The Filioque:Truth or Trivia?
The Filioque: the Vital Orthodox Understanding of the Procession of the Holy Spirit
AUG. If it be asked here whether the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Son also, we may answer thus: The Son is the Son of the Father alone, and the Father is the Father of the Son only; but the Holy Spirit is not the Spirit of one, but of both; since Christ Himself said, The Spirit of your Father which speaks in you (Mat 10:20). And the Apostle says, God has sent the Spirit of His Son into your hearts (Gal 4:6). This indeed, I think, is the reason why He is called peculiarly the Spirit. For both of the Father and the Son separately we may pronounce, that each is a Spirit. But what each is separately in a general sense, He who is not either one separately, but the union of both, is spiritually. But if the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of the Son, why should we not believe that He proceeds from the Son? Indeed if He did not proceed from the Son, Christ would not after the resurrection have breathed on His disciples, and said, Receive you the Holy Ghost. This too is what is meant by the virtue which went out of Him, and healed all. If the Holy Ghost then proceeds both from the Father and the Son, why does Christ say, Who proceeds from the Father? He says it in accordance with His general way of referring all that He has to Him from whom He is; as where He says, My doctrine is not Mine, but His that sent Me. If the doctrine was His, which He says was not His own, but the Father's, much more does the Holy Spirit proceed from Him, consistently with His proceeding from the Father. From whom the Son has His Godhead, from Him He has it that the Holy Ghost proceeds from Him. And this explains why the Holy Ghost is not said to be born, but to proceed. For if He were born, He would be the Son of both Father and Son, an absurd supposition; for if two together have a Son, those two must be father and mother. But to imagine any such relation as this between God the Father, and God the Son, is monstrous. Even the human offspring does not proceed from father or mother at the same time; when it proceeds from the father, it does not proceed from the mother. Whereas the Holy Spirit does not proceed from the Father into the Son, and from the Son into the creature to be sanctified; but proceeds from Father and Son at once. And if the Father is life, and the Son is life, so the Holy Ghost is life also. Just then as the Father when He had life in Himself, gave also to the Son to have life in Himself; so He gave to the Son also that life should proceed from Him, even as it proceeded from Himself.
Catena Aurea John 15