Rorate Caeli

Feature Article

A Refutation of Fr. Cekada’s “Proof” of the Invalidity of the New Episcopal Ordination Rites

Brother Ansgar Santogrossi, OSB *

Since the beginning of the traditionalist movement, various authors have questioned the validity of certain sacramental rituals revised by the postconciliar reform. For the sacrament of Holy Orders, it has been claimed that the apostolic constitutions Apostolicae Curae of Leo XIII and Sacramentum Ordinis of Pius XII demand certain conditions for validity which are absent from the new rites of ordination promulgated by Paul VI in 1968. One of the strongest claims of invalidity of the ordination of bishops in the 1968 rite is the study published by Fr. Anthony Cekada, who is also a sedevacantist. Despite extensive documentation from theological manuals and recent studies of the history of the liturgy, Cekada’s work nevertheless errs by a manifestly exaggerated approach to language, signification and univocity. It also ignores several elements of the Church’s Tradition which are echoed by Paul VI´s formula and which ensure its validity, independently of whether or not one thinks the Roman ordination texts and rituals needed to have been revised in the first place.

The present study, already published in a less complete form in the French monthly Objections and in The Remnant, responds to Fr. Cekada’s original article and his reply, both of which can be found at www.traditionalmass.org.

As mentioned, Fr. Cekada is a sedevacantist. He would not accept the starting point of the present study, namely that in 1968 it was a Pope, protected by the charism of infallibility in the domain of validity of sacraments, who declared a certain form of words to be efficacious for the ordination of a bishop. (Indeed, on the basis of his approach to language and signification, Cekada claims that the act of Paul VI—promulgation of a manifestly invalid sacramental form--would have been sufficient to manifest his lack of papal authority.) By contrast the present author first receives the formula as valid from the Church, and then presents historical, linguistic and theological considerations which plead in its favor and which at the very least refute Fr. Cekada’s purported demonstration of its invalidity.

I

Fr. Cekada’s position is basically quite simple: the Tradition of the Church recalled by Pius XII in 1947 requires that a sacramental formula signify the sacramental effects in a univocal manner, in this case the power of the order conferred and the grace of the Holy Spirit; the part of the traditional episcopal consecratory prayer which Pius XII defined as essential and required for validity, namely “Complete in your priest the fullness of your ministry, and adorned in the raiment of all glory, sanctify him with the dew of heavenly anointing”, provides this univocal signification. Now the formula prescribed by Paul VI, a prayer for the pouring out of the Spiritum principalem, variously translated as “excellent Spirit” or “governing Spirit”, is obscure and equivocal, and in no way signifies the episcopal order’s priestly-sanctifying power (distinct from the power of jurisdiction bestowed by canonical mission). Even if it does signify the Holy Spirit, which he concedes is probable in the context of the new rite, Fr. Cekada considers it nevertheless invalid since it could at most refer to the grace of the Holy Spirit but not the power of order of the episcopate.

The expression “Spiritum principalem” is present in the consecratory prayer for the ordination of a bishop in the Coptic rite, but Fr. Cekada denies that this provides any basis for accepting it as sacramentally efficacious in Paul VI’s rite, since in his view it cannot be sacramentally efficacious by itself even in the Coptic rite. A declaration of the Coptic Catholic Synod of 1898 designates the long consecratory prayer as the form of sacramental episcopal ordination, without stipulating any particular portion of this prayer as essential and necessary for validity, as was done by Pius XII in 1947 for the traditional Roman consecratory prayer and Paul VI in 1968 for his revised rite. Fr. Cekada concludes that a valid ordination results from the entire Coptic consecratory prayer, or at least the parts of it enumerating distinct powers of bishops such as ordaining priests and establishing churches. Even though “Spiritum principalem” can be understood as the Holy Spirit, and even though pre-Vatican II theology manuals (especially after Pius XII’s apostolic constitution of 1947) were already teaching that the essential form of ordination is certainly invocation of the Holy Spirit (and not the formula expressing the power to offer Masses for the living and the dead), Fr. Cekada maintains the invalidity of the phrase for episcopal ordination, since “principalem” can signify any office of authority at all and is therefore equivocal, not univocal as required by Pius XII. Even if it did univocally signify episcopal authority or power of jurisdiction, which comes from canonical mission and not the sacrament, it would still fail to signify the sacramentally bestowed power of order (the power to confirm and ordain) and thus be invalid. Only the traditional Roman formula canonized by Pius XII, with its mention of the fullness (summa) of the ministry, and not “Spiritum principalem”, signifies the power of the order of episcopacy.

At this point in our exposition, it is necessary to bring together in somewhat shotgun fashion a number of aspects of the issue which are neglected by Fr. Cekada. Once these have been set forth, Fr. Cekada’s questionable presuppositions about sacramental signification will be evident.

First, a comparison of Paul VI´s episcopal formula with the formulas for the other orders as they were fixed by Pius XII. Paul VI’s formula for the bishop: “So now pour out upon this chosen one that power which is from you, the governing Spirit whom you gave to your beloved Son, Jesus Christ, the Spirit given by him to the holy apostles, who founded the Church in every place to be your temple for the unceasing glory and praise of your name.” The part of the formula for the priesthood, defined by Pius XII and retained by Paul VI, which is pertinent here: “Give, we ask, omnipotent Father, . . . the dignity of the priesthood (presbyteratus ).” The traditional formula for the diaconate specified by Pius XII: “Send forth in him, we ask, Lord, the Holy Spirit, that he might be sanctified by Him with the gift of your sevenfold grace for the work of faithfully accomplishing your ministry.” We will shortly examine whether the traditional formulas for the priesthood, diaconate and episcopate reach the degree of univocal signification of their effects which Fr. Cekada finds lacking in Paul VI’s episcopal ordination formula.

In Paul VI’s episcopal formula, the adjective “principalem” qualifies the noun “Spiritum”, and it is the Latin translation of the Greek hegemonikon, a word which normally signifies power, dominion or governing. The complete phrase, pneuma (Spirit) hegemonikon, signifies a divine gift in the Greek Psalm 50 and is therefore used in numerous Oriental consecratory prayers for the conferral of offices and blessings. All of these offices have something do with authority, and one finds that the semantic field naturally associated with the concept—the field containing such terms as prince or head—is clearly in the minds of the Fathers and medieval writers when they characterize bishops as “princes”, “first”, or “heads” in the Church. In fact, the Greek and Latin patristic dictionaries cited by Fr. Cekada himself associate hegemonikon and principalis with the episcopal office. Furthermore, the first thing the Council of Trent teaches about bishops as a distinct order (Decree on the Sacrament of Order, chapter 4) is that it is they who belong principally (praecipue) to the hierarchy, and that they have been established by the Holy Spirit to rule the Church—the episcopal duty of government is mentioned before the power to confirm and ordain. And the Introit of the common of Confessor Bishops refers to the holy bishop commemorated with the words “principem fecit eum”—“[God] made him a prince”.

Let us now apply the data of the two previous paragraphs to the question at hand. If one were to apply the principle of univocity of signification to the traditional Latin formulas with all the rigor Fr. Cekada demands for an episcopal ordination formula, one would be forced to draw an absurd conclusion: that Pius XII specified a sacramental form for priestly ordination which cannot be valid. For if the episcopal formula must signify the plenitude of the power of order or sanctification qua distinct from the power of jurisdiction, as Fr. Cekada requires, then the priestly ordination formula would logically have to mention the power to offer sacrifice, or at least sacerdotium. But such is not the case in the traditional priestly ordination formula. The Greek word “presbyter”, found in its derivative presbyteratus in the essential form of ordination, signifies “elder” and not “one who sacrifices” (hiereus in Greek, sacerdos in Latin). While it is true that in both Christian Greek and Christian Latin “presbyter” refers to an office-holder whose principal duty is the Eucharistic sacrifice, it is not simply a synonym for sacerdos. It only signifies sacerdotal power through the idea of office or rank which stands out in the meaning of the word. The fact that presbyters in the Church of Christ have sacerdotal power, a fact known by liturgical practice and other sources in Tradition, does not imply that the word “presbyter” directly signifies sacerdotal power. (An analogy for this: when I say “victor at Austerlitz” I mean Napoleon, but “victor at Austerlitz” cannot be defined as “vanquished at Waterloo”.) The traditional form thus signifies the sanctifying power of order univocally and implicitly, but not explicitly. Cekada observes that the idea of government present in “Spiritum principalem” does not distinguish a Catholic bishop from even his Mormon counterpart, but that is even more true with regard to the word “presbyterate” defined by Pius XII as an essential substantive in the form of priestly ordination. Again, “presbyter” in the Christian context signifies the one who offers sacrifice, and not only generic office placed over a community, but Fr. Cekada’s own patristic dictionary tells him something similar happens with the words hegemonikon and principalis : although originally very general terms for primacy and power, in the Christian context they are capable of a more specific reference to the power of bishops. If by usage and association “dignity of the presbyterate” signifies sanctifying power of order, then “principalis” can signify the power of the prime order of the hierarchy, the episcopate. Fr. Cekada notes that “second rank” also makes the traditional form signify the power of order, but once again the signification involves a certain amount of implicitness which he rejects when it comes to “Spiritus principalis” for the episcopate: why should “second” signify the sanctifying power of a priest if “principalis” cannot signify the sanctifying power of a bishop, first in the hierarchy as he is?

But that is not all: the traditional Latin formulas for the diaconate and episcopate taken together also fall short of Fr. Cekada’s required degree of univocity in a sacramental formula : the deacon is said to receive the Holy Spirit for “the work of the ministry” while the bishop receives the “fullness (summa ) . . . of your ministry”. Even though a bishop receives the plenitude of the sanctifying power of the priesthood, the formula itself does not say “priesthood”, but rather “ministry”, a generic term also used for the non-sanctifying (non-priestly) power of order a deacon receives. According to his own principles, how does Fr. Cekada know that the formula “plenitude of the ministry” univocally signifies a bishop and not an archdeacon, since diaconate is also, and even etymologically (diakonos—minister), ministry? Traditional writings sometimes use ministerium in a sense which excludes priesthood, as when the famous medieval commentator Amalarius justified a certain detail of ordination ceremonies by the observation that a deacon is consecrated “not for sacerdotium, but for ministerium”. It will not do for Fr. Cekada to reply that the theologian who drafted Pius XII’s apostolic constitution wrote in an article that the formula signifies episcopal order, for Paul VI said the same for his new formula by entitling the rite “episcopal ordination”. Not admitting that his requirements for univocity invalidate the traditional rite as well as Paul VI’s, Fr. Cekada points out that in the old Roman formula the consecrator refers to the ordinand as a priest, so that the phrase “plenitude of your ministry” signifies the fullness of priesthood. But still, “fullness of your ministry” does not in itself indicate that this ministerial fullness is specifically different from the non-priestly ministry the same ordinand had once received when he was ordained deacon. So once again we see that Fr. Cekada’s particular understanding of univocity of sacramental signification logically implies that a formula specified by Pius XII does not signify univocally.

Clearly Fr. Cekada’s understanding of the principle of univocity of sacramental signification—total explicitness--leads to absurdity. By contrast, in ordinary communication in the Church, the meaning of a liturgical phrase is often determined by an entire domain of implicit background knowledge not explicitly stated in the formula itself but nevertheless naturally associated, by everyone, at least potentially, with the public intention of the prelate “to ordain a bishop (or priest or deacon)”. We proceed now to show that it is just such a field of implicit significations which gives an episcopal signification to the phrase “Spiritum principalem” when used in the context of a manifest intention to “confer episcopacy”, in the same way that the traditional formula said with the public intention of “conferring episcopacy” confers episcopacy and not archdiaconate. In other words, we will show that as the traditional formulas are not as explicit as Fr. Cekada would like to think, so the Paul VI formula when actually used is not as ambiguous as he claims it to be.

II

Let us recall that everything which is principalis has something to do with primacy, that is to say being first in some respect, which in turn founds the fact of being a source, origin and principle of direction, at least according to traditional perennial philosophy. A principle or a prince directs by his or by someone’s knowledge of the good and of the ways in or through which the good can be accomplished. In the case at hand, we are dealing with a primacy and a power of direction according to the Holy Spirit, in the Church whose end is the supernatural divine Good and whose efficacious means is the divine Word which instructs, commands and efficaciously accomplishes (when the words are sacramental). Therefore the one who receives a spiritual and Holy Spirit-derived character of the first order, or the character which is principalis, becomes the principal source of the Spirit in the Church—even baptism must be conferred in hierarchical communion with the bishop if it is to be legitimately as well as validly conferred. In other words, he is episkopos, bishop, the one who oversees the flock through the light of the divine Word present to his mind, in order to be the Word´s authentic witness and teacher--power of magisterium; in order to bring out prudential laws necessary for putting the Word into practice—power of jurisdiction; in order to apply the Word efficaciously ex opere operato and completely—power of sanctification in the supreme degree which can confirm and ordain. That does not imply that a bishop receives the power of jurisdiction by his consecration alone, and one must admit that deacons and priests can also receive the power to teach publically—in medio ecclesiae—as well as a share in the power of jurisdiction. Nevertheless one must note a point completely neglected by Fr. Cekada, namely the fact that deacons and priests receive their share in teaching and jurisdiction by virtue of a character which is principalis and which they do not have, since their power depends on the consent of a higher order (the bishop), whereas by contrast the bishop receives his canonical power from another bishop, the bishop of Rome who holds a power over the whole Church which Vatican I called episcopal. Thus the episcopal character given by the Holy Spirit in ordination (“established by the Holy Spirit to rule the Church of God,” said St. Paul to his successors in the Acts of the Apostles) is principalis or hegemonikon par excellence--it is the episcopate as such which governs the Church, by divine right;--the pope cannot confer the government of dioceses habitually to simple priests . . . Thus there should be no grounds for doubt about validity when a prelate who manifestly intends “to ordain a bishop”—he is using an official book which says “ordination of a bishop” about the rite-- utilizes the expressions pneuma hegemonikon, Spiritum principalem, esprit qui fait les chefs (French translation), “guide” (initial German translation), or “governing Spirit” (English translation). (Even the provisional English translation, “the excellent Spirit”, could be understood in this light, because in a healthy metaphysics he who possesses something in the degree of excellence is apt to communicate and direct as a first cause in his own order, which is what a bishop does.)

Pius XII required that the formula signify the “power of order” in order to be valid, but Fr. Cekada has his own rigorist interpretation of this, at odds, as we have seen, with the traditional formulas themselves, when he requires that the formula signify the power of order/sanctification separately and qua distinct from rank and the power of jurisdiction received from canonical mission rather than the sacrament alone. In reality, just as sacerdotal power is indirectly signified through the idea of higher rank in the word presbyter, so the bishop’s plenitude of power of order is indirectly signified through the idea of overseeing in the word episcopus (“overseer”) or the idea of primacy in the word “principalis” in the form of ordination. Fr. Cekada is right to distinguish the sacramentally conferred character and power of order from the power of jurisdiction, but he completely overlooks their intimate relation whereby the character and the power of order constitute an aptitude or predisposition to receive power of jurisdiction from the Holy Spirit through the at least tacit designation by the Supreme Pontiff. Thus Pius XII did not say that episcopal power of sanctification has to be named separately, only signified univocally, and the episcopal character is distinguished from the other degrees of Order not only by the “principal” power to ordain and confirm, but also by the aptitude to receive and possess jurisdiction in a “principal” manner--that is to say not receiving it from a higher order—and thus participate in supreme and ordinary government of the Church. Thus by saying “Spiritum principalem”, the ordaining prelate implicitly but really and univocally signifies the episcopal power of order. If Fr. Cekada’s argument to the contrary is valid, then, as we have seen, he is logically forced to reject the formula Pius XII singled out as efficacious for the simple priesthood, since it doesn’t signify the priestly power of order explicitly.

III

It is true that on a page in a theological or patristic dictionary “principalis” and “Spiritus principalis” show multiple meanings. But words which are equivocal in the dictionary are generally rendered univocal in the moment of actual use, thanks to the manifest context and intention of the speaker. It is speakers, using words, who signify, not words by themselves. Consider the equivocal term “bank”: if my mother picks up her account book and says “I´m going to the bank”, this term at this moment univocally signifies the financial institution and not the shore of a river. Something similar though less obvious happens with the biblical and patristic phrase “Spiritus principalis” spoken by a prelate following a rite labeled “ordination of a bishop”: because of the manifest intention to ordain a bishop, it signifies the grace of the Holy Spirit and the power of episcopacy, even though past usage and dictionary entries refer “principalis” and “Spiritus principalis” not only to episcopacy but to a variety of offices and powers.

To clarify and summarize: the form of ordination must signify the grace of the Holy Spirit and the power of order. In Paul VI’s rite, the “governing Spirit” is invoked on the ordinand. Because of the traditional theology of grace and the patristic usage in which “Spirit” and “grace of the Spirit” can be interchangeable in certain contexts, “Spirit” here signifies the sanctifying grace and gifts bestowed on the ordinand. (Catholic theology goes on to teach that this grace is sacramental insofar as together with the impressed character it constitutes a further disposition to receive the graces of state necessary for fruitful exercise of the ministry received.) As for the power of episcopal order, the prime degree of sacred order, it is signified by “principalem” since as often happens with any potentially equivocal word, it is rendered univocal by the context and manifest intention of the speaker. The traditional theology of appropriation of divine works to distinct persons of the Trinity tells us that the “indwelling” Spirit’s holiness makes the just themselves holy, and so likewise the invoked Spirit’s “governing” or being “principalis” causes the episcopal power whereby the bishop is a “prince” in Holy Church.

Far from being ambiguous in a rite manifestly intended to ordain to episcopacy, the expression “Spiritum principalem” actually finds its primary signification in the bishop. Fr. Cekada gives a list of various ecclesiastical meanings of the word hegemonikon: abbot, patriarch and more. But in all these usages, there is a common element: some office of authority and a petition for the corresponding grace of state. Now every office in the Church is an office for the sake of spreading the Gospel Word which is theoretically, practically and sacramentally true and first of all entrusted to the bishops. They are endowed with all the characters which the Spirit can infuse, characters for performing sanctifying or consecrating actions but which are also so many dispositions to sanctifying grace and thereby to the graces of state for the spread of the Kingdom of Christ. (Note that the diaconal character does not involve a sanctifying power, but a “claim” and disposition to receive graces for more perfect accomplishment of official actions. This proves that when Pius XII said that an ordination formula must signify “potestatem Ordinis” he could not have been referring in a fully exclusive sense, as Fr. Cekada requires for a bishop, to the sanctifying power of order, since none exists in the deacon.) They are also obligated to the highest perfection of charity appropriated to the same Holy Spirit. The episcopal character calls upon God, so to speak, for a maximal effusion of the Holy Spirit—it is not for nothing that the signs and discourse of traditional Catholicism emphasize this maximal association of the bishop with the Holy Spirit (as well as associate the priestly character in general with the Holy Spirit: the lay faithful respond “And with your spirit ” because of the Holy Spirit). When we look at the natural order of things in the economy of revelation and salvation, and not only the dictionary, the bishop is seen to be the primary analogate of signification of the biblical and patristic phrase “Spiritum principalem”, since all other duties and authority in the Church, “principal” as they may be in their own domain, are under the oversight of the bishops. Not only is “Spiritum principalem” not ambiguous on the lips of a consecrating prelate; it even finds there its principal signification.

_______________________________

*Brother Ansgar Santogrossi, OSB, a monk of Mt. Angel Abbey in Oregon (USA) taught for eleven years at Mt. Angel Seminary and is temporarily assigned to Monasterio Benedictino Nuestra Señora de los Angeles in Mexico; he teaches at the diocesan seminary of Cuernavaca, Mexico.

_______________________________

RORATE CÆLI note: this is not an editorial, but a feature article sent by a reader. Please, be gracious in your comments.

107 comments:

Anonymous said...

¡Diocesis seminary of Cuernavaca, México! My goodness that is the diocesis of the Liberation Theology Bishop Mendez Arceo. He was a staunch marxist and believed in radical liberation theology. Nothing good can come out that place.

New Catholic said...

Please, for those who wish to discuss the issue (I do not), stick to the essential arguments themselves.

"Can any thing of good come from that place?" (cf. John i, 46)

Boko Fittleworth said...

He didn't come out of that place; he's going in. He's been assigned there.

I've read Fr. Cekada's arguments before and think they're answerable. This article gets at that, although I think there's more that could be said.

What gets me is the fact that this could be an issue. Tampering with the essence of the form! Unbelievable! That anyone, even a Pope (and this wasn't a pope-was it Bugnini?-the pope only signed off on it) would dare! Of course, they did it with the words of Consecration/Institution/whatever it's properly called....

This is one reason I'm against the reform of the reform. Guys that would do this should have no part in shaping the liturgy of the Church.

Anonymous said...

Why did you even bother to post this New Catholic? This doesn't serve any purpose except to cause scandal & division among the faithful.

Brian Day said...

anon,

Why bother?

While this topic is not an issue for me, I do like to have access to articles that one might not see otherwise.

Simon-Peter said...

The conclusion:

"When we look at the natural order of things in the economy of revelation and salvation, and not only the dictionary, the bishop is seen to be the primary analogate of signification of the biblical and patristic phrase “Spiritum principalem”, since all other duties and authority in the Church, “principal” as they may be in their own domain, are under the oversight of the bishops. Not only is “Spiritum principalem” not ambiguous on the lips of a consecrating prelate; it even finds there its principal signification."

With a change here and there, this could almost be refering to protestants, oh, that's right, it is.



Get a grip, is this the first time anyone here has read SV bilge?

What are we? Wicked Witches of the West who shrivel at a drop of filthy SV water?

What ho! Boko...so YOU are the famous FUMARE. Well met.

With Peter said...

This is a very important point of logic and grammar, which it is often overlooked in responses to Cekada.

Paul VI declared that "the form [of ordination] consists in the words of the consecratory prayer, OF WHICH the following BELONG TO the essence and are consequently required for validity..."

Following are the 42 words (in Latin) which are the exclusive object of Cekada's case. He errors in assuming that the rest of the consecratory prayer, which is very explicit about the episcopal office being conferred, is IRRELEVANT. This is a very basic logical error.

If the consecration occurs without the 42 words, the ordination is certainly invalid. But even if - "if" - we concede every one of Cekada's points about the insufficiency of the 42 words, this doesn't mean the ordination is automatically invalid. Why?

Because Paul VI specified the WHOLE prayer of consecration as the FORM for the sacrament. He specified the 42 words as a part that BELONGS TO a greater whole of the essence of the sacrament. In sum, before judging the rite invalid, the whole prayer of consecration needs to be considered, especially the part that says: "YOU HAVE CHOSEN YOUR SERVANT FOR THE OFFICE OF BISHOP."

Cekada made a critical error in the first several paragraphs of his work: A critical error which renders the rest useless and irrelevant.

AmemusAthanasium said...

Rev. Br. Santogrossi OSB might want to give some attention to more elaborate anti-New-Rite arguments and reasoning provided by the (semi-?) sedevacantist website of the „International Committee Rore Sanctifica” on www.rore-sanctifica.org At this website several priests, among them the Rev. Fr. Schoonbroodt from Belgium, and laymen, the most important of them being Dipl.-Ing. Dr. Thilo Stopka (Nantes, France) and Louis Henry Rémy, say they have solid proof that the principalem is something of the Holy Ghost, not something infused in the ordained bishop-candidate by the signification.

They also say there is an invalidating split („more than one Our Father time”) between matter and form due to imposition of the gospel upon the head instead of upon the shoulders during the preface of consecration. They also say the non-extension of hands breaks the matter (imposition).

Their argument that the rite is heretical for denying the Filioque or even Arianist for saying Jesus Christ received the Holy Ghost too, is not logical as Suarez said Christ received the Holy Ghost apart from the hypostatic union of his divinity also again. The „Anglican” argument is silly, as there is no nativa ac indoles spiritus (heretical spirit) denying the summum sacerdotium. In fact, the high priesthood is explicitly mentioned more than once and Leo XIII said that that expression was the Catholic one.

But I would like some theologians and others devoting more time to the Rore Sanctifica Site (in French, English and German) than to Rev. Cekada. Cekada draws from the Rore Santifica Commission (of sedevacantists) not from himself. The Rore Santifica argumentation is more complex and not as short-sighted as the summaries of the same by rev. Fr. Cekada.

See
rore-santifica.org

Please address this too. No matter whether you are diocesan, Novus Ordo, FSSP, SSPX or independent clergy or theologian. Please address this. This matter is essential and the sede arguments are elaborate, too elaborate to refute in one article as several anti-Paul VI-rite arguments are provided by them. Filioque, matter-form break, Arianist attribution to the Son, etc. etc.

Please provide theological refutations of the arguments against the New Ordinations found at that site, which has more readers than Rev. Cekada and traditionalmass.org. And more arguments. Sadly the Avrillé Dominicans did not spend much time to their defense of the Paul VI Rite validity and rather rushed over it. And Angelus no longer has their article online entirely. I do know that (SSPX) Zaitzkofen published some letters saying the heresy claim was nonsense as Suarez holds an attribution to the Son too and that the liturgical use of attribution of the Holy Ghost to the Son from the Father is in line with the Creed of Nicea and not conflicting with the Filioque. Sadly the SSPX and FSSP think that by ignoring the Rore Santifica and sede claims of invalidity, things will fade away. Instead the invalidity proponents are thereby gaining room and more adherents, as no refutation is provided - and Rome itself seems not interested in refuting either.

Another question: Who can explain the so-called conservative document Dominus Iesus (2000) in an orthodox Roman Catholic way. This document alleges eastern schismatic churches are „true particular churches”, which seems to imply them being part of the Church of Jesus Christ, which is thereby alleged to be larger than the Catholic Church of course, while in fact it is dogmatic Church teaching that the Roman Catholic Church and the Church of Christ are „one and the same” (Humani generis, par 27) Thuc line bishop Sanborn in a clear way addresses these matters at traditionalmass.org and says this is heretical (alleges it to be so). But could particular in it not mean partial, or in their own right but still schismatic and outside of the Mystical Body?

These are things which touch upon the essence of the current state of the Roman Catholic Church and the sacred Papacy we all love too. Rome does not care to explain it correctly, sadly enough. Too busy in ecumenism.

Sedes are not the embittered people prejudices of some make them to be still. They do have theological arguments. But these can be refuted in many cases. Lumengentleman.com provided some refutations, but not enough not of all sedevacantist arguments (or errors?).

AmemusAthanasium said...

@withpeter:

The Paul VI Episcopal Ordination/Consecration Rite several times explicitly recalls the summum sacerdotium, the sacrificial high priesthood or full priesthood. That is very Catholic and clear. Not Protestant AT ALL.

But that is not the argument of the sedes (anymore) right now. They went further, more complexely. They allege the Paul VI rite shares the subordinationism alleged to be of St. Hippolyte (subord. is a heresy later on condemned).

The theologians - both sede and pro-new-rite-validity - should focus on signification of the power of order in the context of significatio ex adjunctis, as withpeter stresses.

This significatio ex adjunctis (signification from the rest of the rite and prayers around it) is very essential and a Catholic principle of sacramental theology.

hegemonikos according to the Greek dictionary may refer (nr. 4) also to episcopal functions, though not per se.

Please treat the article of the respected elderly Dom Athanasius Kröger OSB from 1980 or so against the New Episcopal Rite of Paul VI too.

AmemusAthanasium said...

Paul VI said in Pontificalis Romani (18.06.1968, introduced in practice from 15.08.1968 to 1.04.1969), that the form is the consecratory prayer, and that to the nature of the sacrament, for validity and essence the Et nunc effunde etc. Spiritum principalem etc. belongs. But the FORMA is the consecratory prayer, he says. Other than Pius XII explicitly said. So the whole Prayer has to be seen through. And the prayer of consecration as a whole is of course very much Catholic and valid, even if cleros was not correctly translated from the original Hippolytian text, as the new Paul VI (Dom Botte from Louvain) version has „munera” (munera ecclesiastica), which is not very clear. But still, the summum sacerdotium given by the Holy Ghost is explicity mentioned further on.

Like with teh allegations against the unction of the sick in the new rite, this form is quite (too revised) different, but still valid, in my opinion at least!

AmemusAthanasium said...

Pontificalis Romani, Paulus VI, 1968 Junii die 18:
Denique in Ordinatione Episcopi, materia est impositio manuum quae ab Episcopis consecrantibus, vel saltem a Consecratore principali, fit silentio super caput Electi ante precationem consecratoriam; forma autem constat verbis eiusdem precationis consecratoriae, quorum haec ad naturam rei pertinent, atque adeo ut actus valeat exiguntur: Et nunc effunde super hunc Electum eam virtutem, quae a te est, Spiritum principalem, quem dedisti dilecto Filio Tuo Iesu Christo, quem Ipse donavit sanctis Apostolis, qui constituerunt Ecclesiam per singula loca, ut sanctuarium tuum, in gloriam et laudem indeficientem nominis tui.

All words of the consecratory prayer are said to be the form, but the essence and nature spoken of in the Et nunc effunde.

And remember: even Cardinal Ottaviani found nothing against this new rite, even though some minor extra things in questioning the candidate were desired by him.

Simon-Peter said...

amemusasterixobelixgetafixthingummie:

can you summarize in 100k words or less and provide a set of propositions for me to affirm or deny, trusting, in charity, as I know you do, that I am not unfamiliar with your, er, assertions / speculations / conclusions (?).

I love the smell of heretics burning in the morning.

Hint: for the last bloody time, will the perplexed please, please just consider the Abbe de Nantes and the Phalange, if not his / their conclusions, then appreciate his / their reasoning.

You can find the link on my pathetic blog (along with representations of my eldest daughter sticking her finger in the eye of sharia-law Katholiks who haunt this blog).

Erin, you're awesome.

Anonymous said...

The three oldest texts have the prayer of consecration as:

Comple in sacerdotibus tuis mysterii tui summam et ornamentis totius glorificationis instructos caelestis unguenti flore sanctifica.

Mons Duchesne corrects 'flore' to 'fluore'.
So there we have it,
Fluore Sanctifica! And note 'mysterii tui summam' not 'ministerii tui summam'.

Simon-Peter said...

Exactly, and lest we forget:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/htmlContent.jhtml?html=/archive/1999/03/14/nhoke14.html

With Peter said...

The subordinist argument is extremely aspect and a bit ambiguous regarding the precise nature of the analogy. In other words, it is possible to sound like a subordinist without necessarily asserting the same thing. So the very complexity of the argument and its leaps in inductive speculation consists as an argument against its validity. You say, I say, who shall decide between us, especially if one is vacanting the sede?

The very existence of our Catholic disagreement is an a priori argument that the sede is not vacante, but that Christ has provided a visible arbiter to settle our dispute. At any rate, this is how the expressed logic of papal primacy emerged between Chalcedon and Constantinople III.

With Peter said...

I did not mean not "aspect," I meant "abstract." Sorry for the slit, I mean, "slip."

AmemusAthanasium said...

Please provide academical arguments, not philosophical-socializing anecdotes, withpeter.

Please.

Others who are serious about this are invited.

Father Anthony Cekada said...

The foregoing is a burgeoning THIRD version of the same article by Br. Ansgar that appeared first in Objections (June 2006) and then in The Remnant (September 2006). A cursory reading indicates that Brother is trying retroactively to plug the holes I poked into his first two versions.

I know modern theology believes in dogmatic evolution. It’s rare you see it happen before your eyes!

With three versions of the same article already circulating, I hesitate to respond and provoke a fourth — lest modernist theologians one day cite the varying manuscript traditions as evidence that a real “Brother Ansgar” probably did not exist.

AmemusAthanasium said...

Reverend Father Cekada,

You may want to check out the Angelqueen Forum Thread on this discussion. Sadly it was locked due to the Sedevacantism Theory being forbidden there and because the thread was hijacked by a personal exchange by others not on-topic.

If you want, you may send your arguments by PM to me. Or to Rorate Caeli? Maybe NewCatholic Blogger might give to you a droit de réponse?

Angelqueen Thread: "Why the New Rite for Episcopal Consecration ís valid - By Friar Ansgar Santogrossi"

dcs said...

A cursory reading indicates that Brother is trying retroactively to plug the holes I poked into his first two versions.

I know modern theology believes in dogmatic evolution. It’s rare you see it happen before your eyes!


Isn't that the way polite debate works? Someone writes an article, an opponent replies with objections, the original author replies to the objections, and so on?

With Peter said...

athanasium- I don't think this forum is designed for the kind of discourse you desire.

What I wished to point out to you was a thomistic principle of interpretation: Similarity in language is not to be confused with identity of meaning. This principle must especially be applied when you are referring to episodes separated by almost two millennia. Truth does not change but language does and thus must be interpreted very carefully, especially when making an accusation of heresy.

If you need help in applying the principle, I'd be happy to help you, but as I said before (and out of respect for New Catholic), I think we should do it elsewhere.

With Peter said...

Fr. Cekada, what is your basis for setting aside the rest of the prayer of consecration, which Paul specified as the form for the sacrament? How have you inferred that Paul VI considered these words non-essential?

Do you understand how I have concluded that you made very basic logical errors (see my previous posting above)?

With Peter said...

New Catholic- I'd like to answer Athanasium's question about Dominus Iesus and the Catholic interpretation of calling Eastern Orthodox "true particular churches," but I won't do it unless you assent.

AmemusAthanasium said...

With Peter,

I think NewCatholic allows such exchange if shortened to one message.

However the difficulties with Dominus Iesus may also interest bishop Donald Sanborn (Thuc line, adhering to the so-called Cassiciacum Thesis of Guérard des Lauriers O.P., also known as sedeprivationism) who states Dominus Iesus is an expression of the Branch Theory heresy (condemned by the Holy Office). Source: Traditionalmass.org - Ratzinger's Dominus Iesus by D. Sanborn.

But Sanborn apparently does not know this document from 1992 in which the word "particular churches" is used as a technical expression, saying communion with the Pope is constituent necessity for a perfect particular church, and that due to their lack of communion, particular churches ("Teilkirchen", but part - Teil - of what I ask?) in schism (e.g. Jacobites, Constantinople Patriarchate) are "injured" in their existence.

These things are difficult.

The same exegesis of the weird texts of Joseph Ratzinger and other Vatican constitutions etc. after 1964 is necessary or fatal. Like the interpretation of Principalem in the consecration rite.

With Peter said...

Yes, I think I agree with you, but let me try to add onto what you've written. You are absolutely correct that Sanborn (and Cekada) wrongly infer branch theology. The "ecclesiology of Vatican II" - if it can be called that - is built on the nature of the Church as sacrament (i.e. visible expression of invisible reality). This means an extended application of principles given in Mystici Corporis Christi and the Holy Office's letter on Feeneyism (i.e. invincible ignorance -> baptism of implicit desire -> imperfect membership in the Church). The fullness of the invisible reality, however, subsists only in the visible institution of the Catholic Church. Thus this is entirely different from branchism.

The question of speaking of orthodox communities as "churches" is usually invoked as support for Vatican II Branchism. Well, it can be asked, if it isn't branchism, then what is it?

The separated Orthodox are truly particular churches "in a manner of speaking." This manner of speaking refers to the Orthodox retention of a valid Eucharist built on the foundation of a valid Ordination. The presence of the Eucharist - the Body of Christ - essentially justifies their being called "churches" instead of "ecclesial communities." You will find precisely this argument in the 1992 CDF document Communionis Notio 17.

It is the same principle that allows for Protestants to be called "Christians" even though from an absolutely true perspective, they have rejected the doctrine of Christ. The minimum criterion that allows the appellation is an explicit profession of the kinds of beliefs contained in the Apostles Creed.

The same principle can be extended when speaking of the "faith" of Muslims. In the sense that they believe what the Koran and their tradition tells them, it can be describes as "faith." But in the sense of being a response of mind and will to the infallibly revealed truth of God, their beliefs cannot be called faith. But if we can speak of having "faith" in doctors and "faith" in our friends, we can certainly speak of the "faith" of Muslims without being guilty of relativism. It is simply an ordinary, human use of the term vs. the dogmatic, divine use of the term.

Transfered from the minimum criterion necessary to justify the use of a word to the maximum meaning and truth of the word, Muslims do not have "faith," Protestants are not "Christians" and the Orthodox schism means that their buildings and communities are not "churches."

I hope this clears it all up. If Fr. Cekada is still witness, I wish tell him I still have all the same affection and respect that I gained from meeting him with my brother in Milwaukee. I hold you, R, E, P, M, C, B and the new one in my prayers every day.

With Peter said...

New Catholic- In my various communications with Fr. Cekada, he has studiously ignored the argument that I described in this comment page. I don't think he is capable of responding to it. I give you absolute permission to use it or share it with any of your contacts if you believe it will help people realize the truth about sedevacantism. I have no desire for recognition, and if you decide to use what I've written, I give you full permission to edit or change my words as you see fit.

Theo Stuss said...

Some words about Father Cekada's writings:

According to his own intention, Father Cekada's writings are addressed to average Catholic readers and his arguments are simplified for that purpose. This is ok.

Still his studies cannot replace Rore Sanctifica, neither is it possible for the other readers and writers here, to ignore our arguments.

For instance, on the four pages of Brother Santogrossi, Rore Sanctifica answered with about 45 pages. I contributed 11 of them. F. Cekada does not mention one of our main arguments against Santogrossi is the fact that he is based on 2 misquotations of essential forms:

a) He ommits the word "fideliter" in the form for the deacon.

b) he uses a vernacular translation of the essential tridentine form for episcopat, as if it contained "presbyter" and not "sacerdos".

To a): "fideliter" is important, because it indicates that the grace ist not given to make the deacon, but to make him a good deacon. The sacramental power itself resides in the caracter. In our answer to Brother Santogrossi we give all the references of Saint Thomas and the dogmatic book of Diekamp, which is very famous in Germany.

To b)

Bother makes us believe that the traditional form for episcopate contains the word "presbyter", which he regards as ambiguous. In fact the form uses the word "sacerdos", which is not ambiguous at all.

Neither Cekada nor Santogrossi make any reference to the VINDICATION of the English bishops, once published in defense of the decision of Leo XIII.

This document is essential.

Theo Stuss said...

I apologize for my bad English.

For instance, instead of:

"F. Cekada does not mention one of our main arguments against Santogrossi is the fact that he is based on 2 misquotations of essential forms."

I wanted to say that F.Cekada ommitted to mention that B.Santogrossi misquotes 2 essential forms by using vernacular language.

Theo Stuss said...

Open Letter to Father Laguérie.

Important quotaions from the magisterium are already in English language. to make it easier for you. In a nut-shell. The new form of Epiccopal Consecration is agianst the 9th Can. of the Council Ephesus and the 12th Can. of IInd the Council of Constaninople.


Monsieur l’abbé Laguérie
Eglise Saint-Eloi
Rue Saint-James - 33000 Bordeaux

Mr Th. Stopka
24, rue de la reine Astrid
44300 Nantes


Monsieur l’Abbé,



Avant d’en venir à des questions qui pourraient concerner votre souci d’obtenir des confirmations sacramentellement valides pour les enfants qui vous sont confiés, laissez moi tout d’abord vous féliciter avec le père Guy Gilbert pour votre dernière promotion, dont la presse s’est faite généreusement écho.

Nous nous connaissons, monsieur l’abbé, depuis longtemps : C’est vous en effet qui aviez baptisé mon fils aîné à Saint Nicolas.
Bien sûr, de nos jours, cela n’est plus une garantie puisque je connaissais également votre confrère de la Fraternité qui avait assisté à mon mariage, et qui, depuis lors, a défroqué. Du reste, mon ancien directeur de séminaire a lui-même défroqué lui aussi, sans vouloir même mentionner les abbés Barte, Wolf, Buck, et Roscoe, lesquels m’avaient administré aussi les sacrements, et qui ont, à leur tour, déposé leurs soutanes, et sont même à présent devenus pères d’une multiple progéniture.
Aussi pourrait-il me sembler que je porte malheur aux clercs.

J’espère qu’avec vous il en adviendra tout autrement, puisque votre réputation de bon vivant souligne également celle de votre vaillance et de votre rigueur dans la Foi.

Mais trève de préambules et d’anecdotes qui n’avaient pour but que de vous rappeler notre bonne connaissance mutuelle des milieux cléricaux de la Tradition !

Venons-en maintenant in medias res de cette lettre ouverte.

Afin de bien mettre en lumière l’importance fondamentale du problème que soulève la nouvelle forme sacramentelle de Paul VI pour la consécration épiscopale, il faut d’abord avoir en tête quelques actes, décisions et condamnations du Magistère, et vous ne saurez dès lors manquer de réaliser que l’application à cette nouvelle forme en devient évidente :

Denzinger-Hünermann260
Canon 9. “If anyone says that the one Lord Jesus Christ was glorified by the Spirit, as making use of an alien power that worked through him and as having received from him the power to master unclean spirits and to work divine wonders among people, and does not rather say that it was his own proper Spirit through whom he worked the divine wonders, let him be anathema.”


Denzinger-Hünermann 434
Anathemas against the "Three Chapters"

II. Council of Constantinople 12. « If anyone defends the heretical Theodore of Mopsuestia, who said that God the Word is one, while quite another is Christ, who was troubled by the passions of the soul and the desires of human flesh, was gradually separated from that which is inferior, and became better by his progress in good works, and could not be faulted in his way of life, and as a mere man was baptized in the name of the Father and the Son and the holy Spirit, and through this baptism received the grace of the holy Spirit and came to deserve sonship and to be adored, in the way that one adores a statue of the emperor, as if he were God the Word, and that he became after his resurrection immutable in his thoughts and entirely without sin. Furthermore this heretical Theodore claimed that the union of God the Word to Christ is rather like that which, according to the teaching of the Apostle, is between a man and his wife”: Ep 5,31.

11th Council of Toledo. Denzinger-Hünermann 527

“For He (the Holy Ghost) does not proceed from the Father to the Son, nor from the Son to sanctify creatures, but He is shown to have proceeded from both at once, because He is known as the love or the sanctity of both.Hence we believe that the Holy Spirit is sent by both, as the Son is sent by the Father..”


Et maintenant comparons la doctrine énoncée ci-dessus avec la nouvelle forme sacramentelle épiscopale et avec d’autres textes conciliaires.

The French form of Episcopal consecration 1977 :

“So now pour out upon this chosen one that power which is from you, the Spirit who is making leaders and whom you gave to your beloved Son, Jesus Christ, the Spirit given by him to the holy apostles, who founded the Church in every place to be your sanctuary for the unceasing glory and praise of your name.”

French form used during the Episcopal consecration of Mgr Breton in the arena of Dax, 2002 :

“So now pour out upon this chosen one that power which is from you, the sovereign Spirit whom you gave to your beloved Son, Jesus Christ, the Spirit given by him to the holy apostles, who founded the Church in every place to be your sanctuary for the unceasing glory and praise of your name.”



La forme en français, diocèse Auray-Vannes 2005 :

“So now pour out upon this chosen one that power which is from you, the sovereign spirit whom you gave to your beloved son, Jesus Christ, the spirit given by him to the holy apostles, who founded the Church in every place to be your sanctuary for the unceasing glory and praise of your name.”



The Compendium of the new catechism, question N° 47 :

“47. Who is the Holy Spirit revealed to us by Jesus Christ?
243-248
The Holy Spirit is the third Person of the Most Blessed Trinity. He is God, one and equal with the Father and the Son. He “proceeds from the Father” (John 15:26) who is the principle without a principle and the origin of all Trinitarian. He proceeds also from the Son (Filioque) by the eternal Gift which the Father makes of him to the Son. Sent by the Father and the Incarnate Son, the Holy Spirit guides the Church “to know all truth” (John 16:13).”

Je demande ici : est-ce que le Fils reçoit bien la vis spirativa (spirative force) dans l’engendrement, ou cette réception serait-elle complétée, parce que l’hypostase du Père donnerait à l’hypostase du Fils l’hypostase du Saint Esprit ? Est-ce que le Fils est bien, avec le Père, comme dit le Concile de Lyon, un seul principe du Saint Esprit, ou ne serait-il qu’un canal transitoire pour l’Esprit ?

Cette fausse doctrine condamnée, selon laquelle l‘Esprit procèderait du Père vers le Fils, on peut aussi la retrouver dans l’encyclique Dominum et Vivificantem de Jean Paul II :

« 17. Here it must be emphasized that clearly the "spirit of the Lord" who rests upon the future Messiah is above all a gift of God for the person of that Servant of the Lord.”

Lisez les commentaires du Prof. Dörmann concernant cette doctrine étrange de Jean Paul II. dans "Trinitarian Trilogy, Volume II/part III, German edition page 89 - 138) Des idées pareilles se retrouvent aussi dans la Liturgie de Lima, édité par Max Thurian.

(Oraison) “Lord God, gracious and merciful,
you anointed your beloved Son with the Holy Spirit
at his baptism in the Jordan, and you consecrated him prophet, priest and king:
pour out your Spirit on us again that we may be faithful to our baptismal calling,
ardently desire the communion of Christ’s body and blood,…”

(Préface) “He (Christ) accepted baptism and consecration as your Servant
to announce the good news to the poor.”

Avez-vou bien réalisé que la nouvelle forme sacramentelle épiscopale de Paul VI déclare une autre Trinité, une nouvelle Trinité, où le Fils, mineur au Père, devrait recevoir le don du Saint Esprit, sans posséder, ensemble avec le Père, la caractéristique de la spiratio activa. La nouvelle forme nie en effet explicitement et tout simplement le Filioque en tant que principe du Saint Esprit. Et le Compendium dégrade à son tour le Filioque en canal de l’Esprit.

Est-ce là ce que vous aller enseigner à l’Institut du Bon Pasteur ?

Je vous demande à présent ici si un baptême avec la forme suivante pourrait être valide ?
« Je te baptise au nom du Père majeur, et du Fils mineur etc… »

Ou prenez l’exemple suivant ?
« Je te baptise au nom du Père, et du Fils, et du Saint Esprit –le don du Père au Fils. Amen. »

A l’évidence, cette négation explicite du fait que le Fils est, en commun avec le Père, le principe du Saint Esprit, et pas seulement le canal, rendrait ce baptême radicalement nul. Lisez Saint Thomas III q. 60 a.8 ! Il ne s’agit plus de la Trinité authentique de la Révélation ! Il s’agit d’un autre dieu !

Trouve-t-on oui ou non cette hérésie bel et bien exprimée dans la nouvelle forme sacramentelle épiscopale de Paul VI ?
Est-ce que cette doctrine se retrouve dans le Compendium du Nouveau Catéchisme, oui ou non ?
Est-ce qu’on peut rencontrer la même idée dans Dominum et Vivificantem, oui ou non ?
Est-ce que le père Lécuyer, un partisan connu des hésiarques condamnés Théodore de Mopsuestes et Theodoret de Cyre (Trois-Chapitres), était en charge des nouveaux rites de consécration épiscopale, oui ou non ?

SVP, évitez surtout ici d’évoquer ce texte de l’Evangile «l’Esprit du Seigneur se repose sur moi, car je suis l’oint du Seigneur ».
C’est en effet d’abord l’Union hypostatique qui constitue l’« Onction » au sens propre, et le parfum qui sort de cette Onction (Filioque), c’est l’Esprit Saint. Le Can. 9 du Concile d’Ephèse le prouve.

En bref : si vous voulez prouvez la validité du nouveau rite, prouvez la validité d’un baptême tel qu’énoncé ci-dessus, en gardant à l’esprit les définitions du Magistère que j’ai rappelées plus haut. Mais ne faites pas comme les dominicains d’Avrillé qui ont accepté sans sourciller le changement d’un mot par un autre dans le texte des rites rassemblés par Denzinger, « Ritus orientalium », t.2, page 220, où l’on a remplacé « quam » par « quem ».

Vous comprendrez, après cette argumentation, que je vous pose le problème de la validité des confirmations conférées par de tels « évêques » puisque celles-ci ne manqueront pas d’être données dans le cadre de votre nouvel institut. Ainsi, si vous cherchez des confirmations valides pour ces enfants, qu’est-ce qu’il faut faire ? Si vous cherchez des ordinations valides pour vos séminaristes, où les trouve-t-on ?

Votre compétence dogmatique est connue et a déjà passé les frontières.
Profitez de l’occasion qui vous est offerte et prouvez l’orthodoxie de la nouvelle forme sacramentelle épiscopale en rejoignant le « cardinal » Albert Vanoye, un homme dans les idées du père Lécuyer.

Benoît XVI. vous remerciera ! Profilez-vous, et montrez-vous aguerri !

Avec mes salutations distinguées,

Th.Stopka

PS : Et les messes des soi-disant orthodoxes ? Sont-elles invalides ? Cela dépend ! Normalement leurs erreurs théologiques ne se trouvent pas inscrites dans les formes sacramentelles. Et en plus, nulle part ils ne disent que Fils reçoit le Saint Esprit par le Père en tant que don. Les erreurs ne sont pas explicitées dans leur liturgie. Il y a pourtant quelques missels qui nient que les paroles de Notre Seigneur sont la forme de la messe. Mais le texte de leur invocation du Saint Esprit ne nie nulle part explicitement le Filioque. On n’en parle pas, c’est tout ! Par contre la forme de Paul VI correspond à la question 47 du compendium du catéchisme de Benoît XVI. Cette erreur est donc explicitée dans la forme de consécration épiscopale même, et cela met la validité en cause.

AmemusAthanasium said...

Ganz einfach Monsieur Stopka,

War Suarez ein Häretiker, ja oder nein?
Er hätte mit der neuen Formel der Bischofsweihe Pauls VI. keine Probleme....

Theo Stuss said...

Dear Atha,

It is not the question here, if Suarez was a condamned heretic or not.

Someone can have an opinion which is utterly absurd and this doctrine is maybe wrong in itself, as long as he he remains in the disposition to accept admonishment, he is not a heretic.

What the question is here, dear Atha, if this opinion in itself is condamned long time ago by the Council of Ephesus. If it is objectively wrong?

Since you have proofed your utter ignorance on many occasions on "Kreuz.net", dude, you as a 22 year old student of economics without hardly any knowledge on theology, should at least wait for other ones to answer first.

By the way, Suarez at least does not doubt that on the scale of interiour processions, the Father and the Son are numerically one principal of the Holy Ghost. He only claims that the exterior Divine Missions do not take place in analogy to the interiour processions and do rather happen according to God's will, arbitrarily, as he says.

But the Compendium of the new Catechism says that already on the level of the interiour processions the Father is making to the Son the gift of the Holy Ghost. So according to this false doctrine, likewise to the one good of Saint Thomas, there is still an analogy between the interiour Processions and exterious Missions. They just do not coincide on the question of interiour relations, specifically on the Holy Ghost as "Spiratio passiva". According to the new Compendium it seems that the Son has the passive notion of receiving the "Spiratio passiva". This is wrong! Father and Son are all together the one numerical "Spiratio activa" spirating the "Spiratio passiva", the Holy Ghost. If it was not like that, there would be an accidental relation between the Son and the Holy Ghost. In this case the Son would not have as his property the "Spiratio activa", but as an accidental the "Receptatio Spirationis passivae". This is utterly false.

But let's have a look at another doctrine of Suarez concering the Incarnation. Diekamp as being 100% Thomist proofs that Suraez's bewildering theories on the unity of the person of Christ are Nestorian. Prof. David Berger in his German book "Thomismus" shows the same thing and so does "Sempiternus Rex" of Pius XII., widely quoted by Berger.

Only in an improper way we can say that the incarnated Son has received the Holy Ghost from the Father, as I quoted Diekamp in my writings (who himself quotes Saint Thomas), but the Son has sent in a proper way the Holy Ghost to the Apostles. So according to the new Form, an improper mission is the principal of a proper one? This against logic!

Proper speach and proper things can be causes and principals of improper ones.

With Peter said...

Theo Struss- your explanation represents a confusion of the Father and the Son. It can be claimed that your "Son" is not a "Son" at all, but rather a second "Father."

In order for the coeternal Son to be Son, the Father - not the Son - must be the principle and origin of the Trinitarian exchange, i.e. the mutually exchanged Gift of being who is the person of the Holy Spirit.

Despite this, I think I understand and sympathize with your objection. The Compendium question seems to put the Holy Spirit into the Son's place as the second person of the Trinity. Within the procession, the text seems to suggest, the Son seems to follow on the heals of the Holy Spirit, instead of vice versa. No?

I think a more careful analysis will clear up this misconception of the text. "He also proceeds from the Son as the eternal Gift which the Father makes of him to the Son."

The procession of the Holy Spirit is placed after the Gift of the Father to the Son. It is only in the Son's return of the Gift that the procession, personhood and spiration of the Holy Spirit is fully and finally established. The Catechism neither says nor implies otherwise. It represents simply a synthesis of the Filioque with the seeds of truth in the opinion of those who have historically objected to the Filioque.

Hope this helps.

With Peter said...

I left this unsaid, but I think it needs to be said.

The Son's Gift is the reciprocation of the Father's Gift and this mutually exchanged Gift is a person: a Him not an It. This is what justifies the Compendium's language and claim.

Even though the procession and personhood of the Holy Ghost is only fully established with the reciprocation of the Gift, the initial movement from Father to the Son still is called a Him because of the coeternity of the persons.

Theo Stuss said...

Dear Peter,


there is certainly no confusion on my side. And as you say, the Compendium tries to mix Catholic teachings about the Filioque with objections from the side of the so-called Orthodox.

But neither you nor the Compendium make a clear list of the properties of each Divine Person. Having this in mind, the differnce between spiratio activa and spiratio passiva is essential. The list of the properties is making that clear:

Father:

1) principium sine principio
2) generatio activa
3) spiratio activa

Son:

1) generatio passiva
2) spiratio activa

Holy Ghost:

1) spiratio passiva

According to dogma Father and Son are numerically one Spirator and one Spiratio activa, but two Spirantes. This you can see from writings on Rore-Sanctifica.org, or you should consult directly the Dogmatics of Diekamp, one of the best manuals ever. Unfortunately, only Ludwig Ott had been translated into English. Ott as several shortcommings. His major shortcomming: he is simply to short!

Diekamp easily proofs all his teachings by quoting Saint Thomas and he is very polemic in his defense of the Filoque and quite long. All my arguments are from his manual.

So there is no confusion my side. It rather your side and the one of the Compendium where the difference between "Spiratio activa" and "Spirtaio passiva" is unclear and not outspoken enough.

This is why I also recommand to you the lecture of Prof. Johannes Dörmann on this problem. Volume 2/ part 3 of the "Trinitarian Trilogy" was translated into English, but is sold out on Amazon. Father Cekada told me that he managed to get some from the SSPX directly. They sold them on clearing for 1.50$

In the German edition Dörmann consecrates 40 pages to this problem. So we should not be astonished that we find a similar errors in the new form as well, as in the Lima-Liturgy of Max Thurian.

What are the consequences of this error regarding the exteriour Missions? Well, if we take the consequences from the teachings of Scotus and Suarez, we end up at Lécuyer, the maker of the new form, who also published on the question of Incarnation during the 50ies. He was accused by Mgr. Lefèbvre of heresy and Monseigneur tried to open a case at the Holy Office against Lécuyer.

According to Lécuyer Our Lord does not only have a human created nature, but also a created modus substantialis. Of course Lécuyer rejects the distinctio realis between Person and Nature, being and essence, behaving to each other like act and potence.

Those theologians were bewildered by the idea that Our Lord has a created Human Personality and reject that the Human nature was assumpta by the Logos. The uncreated "modus substantials" is thus replacing a created personal mode.

Logically, if somene does not accept that, like Lécuyer, he will try to explain Personal Unity in Christ by the Mission of the Holy Ghost to the supposed created substantial mode being only virtually different from Christs's Human Nature.

For those people Christ's baptism is not only an exteriour manisfestation, but a real interiour growth in Christ.

This has not only a Nestorian taste, but rather a Gnostic smell.

Theo Stuss said...

Dear Peter,


concerning the fact that Father and the Son are only one "Spirator" as a principal, but two "Spirantes", please read the Council of Lyon:

"Spiritus Sanctus aeternaliter ex Patre et Filio, non tamquam ex duobus principiis, sed tamquam ex uno principio, non duabus spirationibus, sed unica spiratione procedit (old Denz. 460)

The Council of Florence repeated this defintion (old Denz. 691). Diekamp in his Dogmatics simply claims it as "de fide". (Volume 1, page 331-332, edition of 1929)

What the Compendium of the new catechism says, is exactly the error of the Greeks, discribed by Saint Thomas as follows:

"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." (I. q.36 a.2, corpus)

Let's have a look at the 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."


And this what Saint Thomas answers:

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" (John 1:33). "

Regarding the difference between Divine Missions properly said and those ones which are improper; consult 1 q.43 a.8:

"I answer that, There are different opinions on this point. Some say that the divine person is sent only by the one whence He proceeds eternally; and so, when it is said that the Son of God is sent by the Holy Ghost, this is to be explained as regards His human nature, by reason of which He was sent to preach by the Holy Ghost. Augustine, however, says (De Trin. ii, 5) that the Son is sent by Himself, and by the Holy Ghost; and the Holy Ghost is sent by Himself, and by the Son; so that to be sent in God does not apply to each person, but only to the person proceeding from another, whereas to send belongs to each person.

There is some truth in both of these opinions; because when a person is described as being sent, the person Himself existing from another is designated, with the visible or invisible effect, applicable to the mission of the divine person. Thus if the sender be designated as the principle of the person sent, in this sense not each person sends, but that person only Who is the principle of that person who is sent; and thus the Son is sent only by the Father; and the Holy Ghost by the Father and the Son. If, however, the person sending is understood as the principle of the effect implied in the mission, in that sense the whole Trinity sends the person sent. This reason does not prove that a man can send the Holy Ghost, forasmuch as man cannot cause the effect of grace."

However, an improper mission cannot be the principal of a proper one, like the new form suggests. And even worse, the Compendium makes us believe, that the there is already a transitional interiour Procession from the Father into the Son taking place, thus giving to him the "Spiratio passiva" (Holy Ghost) who would then rest in the Son. In the contrary: the Son receives the Spirative Force (Spiratio activa) as included while being begotten.

If the Father gave the Spiratio passiva to the Son, instead of the Spiratio activa, this would mean an accidental relation between Son and Holy Ghost. But there are no accidentals in God.

After all, John Paul II. and his Encyclic "Dominum et Vivificantem", Joseph Lécuyer and his new Episcopal Consecration, Benedict XVI. and the New Compendium, Max Thurian and his Lima-Liturgy are all concerned by the critics of Prof. Dörmann as well as they are concerned by the objections of "Rore-Sanctifia.org".

Mixing up the relations of the Holy Trinity in the Essential Form of an Order, makes this rite as unvalid as an act of Baptism, where I would included things improper to the most Holy Trinity.

With Peter said...

Theo Strauss- Your emails are stimulating and pleasurable to read, but have patience with me as I continue to make my case that you are misreading the Compendium, which as a per se doctrinal text will remain the locus of my argument.

You have concluded that the Compendium “implies” that the Son is the “passive spirator” of the Holy Spirit. If I agreed with this conclusion, I think I would have to concede the rest of your argument. But I think your “inference” is not the Compendium’s “implication,” which has no intention to speak with such theological specificity. You mistake this generality for “confusion.” And if the Compendium was designed to address the questions you raise, it would be confusion. If I were to say in response to your points, “God is one” I would be very confused, but if these words were addressed to another point in question, it would not be confusion, but an accurate description of God. Addressing these words to you, I might give the impression of denying the Trinitarian distinction within God. Perhaps I’d make myself appear as an Arian or a Muslim, but this appearance might be incorrect: At the end of the day there is nothing heretical about saying that God is one. To show me the heretic, you’ve got to get me to explicitly say: “There is no distinction of persons in God.”

Bearing this very simple principle in mind, let’s look at your comments and at the Compendium. Let’s begin by looking at the five sentences of the answer to Question 47.

The first two sentences are obviously orthodox (i.e. Holy Spirit is the third person who is one and equal to other persons). The third sentence raises some eyebrows I think. It is dedicated to how the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, making no mention of the Son. At the same time, you will not disagree with the actual words. Does the Holy Spirit proceed from the Father? He proceeds from the Father and the Son therefore indeed we can answer ‘yes’ to this question. Is the Father the principle without a principle and the origin of all Trinitarian life. The Son is generated from the Father and the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, therefore, the Father is the principle without principle (principium sine principio) and the origin of all Trinitarian life. We therefore agree with the sentence. It is true. Let’s then proceed to the third sentence:

“[The Holy Spirit] proceeds also from the Son (Filioque) by the eternal Gift which the Father makes of him to the Son.” This is the pivotal sentence, isn’t it?

The Compendium, you believe, herein implies that the Holy Spirit’s procession from the Son is posterior to his procession from the Father. It is a lukewarm and watered-down procession unworthy of the name. For all intents and purposes, the Holy Spirit already has his existence and being from the Father, the Son is thus relegated to a tertiary role as perhaps a confirmer of the Holy Spirit’s existence. Thus only in a most mitigated sense can we call him spirator. This would pervert the authentic list of properties so that the Son is no longer “spiratio activa.” He is no longer co-primary spirator, but only a dependent, secondary spirator. Applied to the sphere of divine missions, Nestorius’ Christological heresy shows signs of Gnosticism: Putting the Spirit’s existence ahead of the Son, Jesus only becomes Christ at Baptism. I’m trying to translate your contention into a more fluid English: Your logic is sound, but you made an inductive mistake back in the beginning.

The spiration from the Son is not dealt with separately from the Father’s in order to imply that they are two spirations, the Father’s spiration being anterior to the Son’s. It is dealt with separately in order to address the Filioque controversy.

The Spirit proceeds not “next from the Son” but “also from the Son” because it is one active spiration. The Son’s co-equal participation, his property as “spiratio activa,” is a response to the generative Gift from the Father to the Son. Thus in John Paul II’s 1990 catechesis (Nov 7), part of his series on the Holy Spirit, he quotes DS 1301: “This very procession from the Son the Son himself has eternally from the Father, from whom he has been eternally created.” The language of the Compendium – reconciling Greek ‘through’ and Latin ‘and’ – is thus derived directly from the Council of Florence. The spiration from Father and Son is posterior to the generation from Father to Son. This means the procession of the Spirit, as the Council of Florence says, is from the procession of the Son from Father. Thus the Gift spoken of in the Compendium is not the Father’s active spiration which precedes the Son’s passive spiration. The Gift spoken of in the Compendium is the generative procession actively from the Father and passively to the Son. This is the interpretation which directly follows from CCC 245-246, which the Compendium explicitly seeks to summarize: “[The Holy Spirit] is eternally from the Father and Son; He has his nature and subsistence at once (simul) from the Father and the Son. He proceeds eternally from both as from one principle and through one spiration.”

To interpret any part of a “compendium” apart from what it “compendizes” – as you have done – is unacceptable. If you are confused by what the Compendium says, it obligates you to look up the references in the margin of the page. This is where the Compendium itself directs you to seek and find clarification.

God Bless,

With Peter said...

I forgot to address the fifth sentence of Compendium 47, the sentence which is the only one to deal explicitly with the divine mission of the Holy Ghost. “Sent by the Father and the Incarnate Son, the Holy Spirit guides the Church ‘to know all truth’ (Jn 16:13).”

You see, unlike Lecuyer – who’s actual opinion I can neither attack nor defend; here I am speaking only of your description of him – the mission of the Holy Ghost is placed in explicit dependence upon the mission of the Son, i.e. “incarnate” Son.

Now, we’d both object at an inference that the Compendium is thus asserting that the Holy Spirit’s presence and activity was absent from the Son’s mission. But what is significant is the incongruity – I do not say contradiction – of the fifth sentence with the notion that the Son depends upon the Holy Spirit in order to maintain the personal unity of Christ (i.e. at least semi-Nestorian). By putting the “sending” of the Holy Spirit posterior to the Incarnation – indeed, posterior to the Ascension – the Compendium asserts a right and proper relationship both in the Trinitarian processions and in the divine missions.

Rather what I fear is this: Are you not implying your own semi-Apollinarianism as you assert (truly, by the way) the unity of Christ’s personhood? What I mean is this: Do your true words prejudice you to deny the true distinction of Christ’s human soul? Does your Christology allow you to acknowledge the full implication of Christ’s human nature?

Now, I think it would be arrogant and presumptive of me to compare you to Apollinarus – I desire to interpret your words in a Catholic sense (which, sadly, seems more than I can say for your approach to the MAGISTERIUM) – but your discourse does beg the questions that I pose. Therefore I ask them and give you the opportunity to explain yourself. Do you understand and deny the heresy of Apollinarus (and Eutyches)?

Theo Stuss said...

Dear Peter,


the Compendium does not assert a proper relationship regarding interior processions, when ist says:

>>He proceeds also from the Son (Filioque) by the eternal Gift which the Father makes of him to the Son. Sent by the Father and the Incarnate Son, the Holy Spirit guides the Church “to know all truth” (John 16:13).”<<

It may assert a proper relationship in Divine Missions, provided that the processions were already described well, when it says:

>> “Sent by the Father and the Incarnate Son, the Holy Spirit guides the Church ‘to know all truth’ (Jn 16:13).”<<

The problem remains: following the Compendium, on the level of the procesions the Father is making to the Son the Gift of the "Spiratio passiva". This implies the error of the Greek-Heterodox. The Son becomes a "channel" for the Holy Ghost and is thus able to "send" him, without being one principal and one Spirator with the Father.

On the issue of your accuse that what I say is Semi-Apollinarism. This is utterly rediculous. It is obvoius that you are not informed about the different Christologies of Saint Thomas, Scotus and Suarez. Neither are you able to realize what the Thomist difference between being and essence, called the "Distintio realis" is all about. According to this distinction there must also be a real distinction between Person and Nature, like there is between Actus and Potentia. I am really amazed about this ignorance of yours.

Saint Thomas says: "Unio in Person est unio ad Esse."

This means that despite the two Natures in Christ, there is only one Being which uncreated:

"Reply to Objection 2. The eternal being of the Son of God, which is the Divine Nature, becomes the being of man, inasmuch as the human nature is assumed by the Son of God to unity of Person." (III q.17 A.2 ad 2)

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/4017.htm#2

This is not a temerary interpretation from me. I am just copying from Diekamps Dogmatics, Vol.2, page 202. Diekamp, basing his outlines on the Unity of Being in Christ on Saint Thomas, widely refutes Scotus and Suarez, who are unable to differ between being belonging to act) and essence (belonging to potence).

But I am not the only one. This common language of all Thomists, still defended by scolars like Dr. David Berger in his book "Thomismus", who is basically paraphrasing Diekamp.

How can try to answer me, if you don't even know about the real distinction between Person and Nature, being and essence?

Saint Thomas is absolutely clear: despite of Christ's created human Nature, there is no created, being in him. And thus the uncreated "Modus substantialis" is replacing any kind of created substantial mode. The subject of Christ's human nature is directly the Person of the Logos, being the uncreated suppositum of two natures.

Don't try to find this in "Ludwig Ott", he doesn't deal with it. He does not even mention this dispute between Jesuits and Thomists. Follow up the link on the Englisg edition of the Summa. You will see that I am right. But "Sempiternus Rex" of Pius XII., quoted by David Berger, doesn't say anything different.

Or just look at this quotation of Saint Thomas: III q4 a2:

"Reply to Objection 2. Its proper personality is not wanting to the nature assumed through the loss of anything pertaining to the perfection of the human nature but through the addition of something which is above human nature, viz. the union with a Divine Person. "

Please inform yourself at least about the three Christologies of Saint Thomas, Scotus and Suarez.

Afterwards we may discuss.

Theo Stuss said...

Look, Peter, what Pius XII writes in "Sempiternus Rex", DH3905:

"31. These emphasize the state and condition of Christ's human nature to such an extent as to make it seem [2] something existing in its own right (subjectum quoddam sui juris), and not as subsisting in the Word itself."

And another quotation from Saint Thomas: III q. 4 a. 3 resp:

"And hence it cannot properly be said that the Son assumed a man, granted (as it must be, in fact) that in Christ there is but one suppositum and one hypostasis. But according to such as hold that there are two hypostases or two supposita in Christ, it may fittingly and properly be said that the Son of God assumed a man. Hence the first opinion quoted in Sent. iii, D. 6, grants that a man was assumed. But this opinion is erroneous, as was said above (2, 6). "


Saint Thomas openly says that in Incarnation not a man was assumed, but human nature. This human nature has its individuality due to the uncreated personal act of the Logos, without deviation "via" a created act of being.

With Peter said...

Theo stuss- I have no quarrel with your interpretation of St. Thomas and I do understand the real distinction between being and essence, personhood and nature. It is precisely because of my knowledge of this distinction that I asked whether your own Christology here presented did not contain traces of Apollinarianism. To deny human subjectivity in Christ is to fail to understand the consequences of a human nature distinct from divine nature. My friend, I’ve read Suarez, written papers on Scotus (particularly regarding his relationship or non-relationship to nominalism) and taught Christology. I’ve certainly studied my fair share of Augustine, the Areopagite, Peter Lombard and Thomas. Therefore, I feel I meet your criteria for continuing our discussion.

My point was about interpretation: You can certainly see how your non-heretical words are in some respects quite similar (i.e. NOT the same) to the heretical words of Apollinaris, who altogether denied human subjectivity (i.e. a human soul distinct from the divine Logos) in Christ. In speaking of this ‘distinction,’ we are NOT speaking of a real ‘separation’: Christ’s human subjectivity does not exist in its own right, but subsists in the Logos, exactly as Pius XII states. Christ’s human soul is not distinct in hypostasis, but in nature. Thus his experience reflected both his full divinity and his full humanity. Therefore we say he had a real human soul (please think of the Eucharistic formula, “body, blood, soul and divinity”). Because of his true humanity and his human soul, he was thus able to set aside certain aspects of his knowledge qua Logos (e.g. the timing of the second coming) because of their unsuitability to his redemptive mission. If you’ve got a problem with this, take it up with Leo’s Tome.

My questions were not accusatory, but a simple call to differentiate yourself from Apollinaris and thus implicitly acknowledge principle that “similarity is not identity.” I wanted you to say to yourself, “O, I see how somebody could have mistaken what I said here for something I didn’t mean.”

I don’t want to get bogged down in the age old debate about Scotus and Thomas. Suffice to say, I have no quarrel with what you’ve written in this regard. I’ve never had any such quarrel: My questions were pedagogical in nature. The problem: Instead of actually ANSWERING my questions, you balked pedantically at my inferior knowledge and theological expertise. “Go read this! Go read that! Once you are less foolish we will be able to speak!” You obviously missed the point, which is fine. I have no quarrel with your descriptions of Thomas, Scotus or Suarez.

My quarrel is with your description of the Compendium. You continue to depend on the careless and untenable inference that “the Gift” spoken of in the Compendium is the Holy Spirit actively spirated from the Father. As I demonstrated in previous postings, this “Gift” is the Son actively generated from the Father. Re: “The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son by the divine generation that the Father makes to the Son.” When “the Gift” is understood in this sense, your criticism disintegrates. As I showed, this is the implied meaning of the Compendium, which is an extremely brief and simple summary of CCC 243-248. If this was not enough, I referred you to an important catechesis on the Filioque given by John Paul II. If you read the Compendium as a “faithful reflection” (see Benedict’s Motu Proprio of promulgation) of these doctrinal discourses, you will realize that your accusation is completely and utterly without foundation.

With Peter said...

Theo Stuss-

My apologies, I see that in your second response, although you did not use the term "human soul" (which was the source of my confusion), you more than adequately differentiated yourself from Apollinaris and thus answered my questions.

I therefore withdraw and humbly ask your forgiveness for my claim: "instead of answering my questions..." Again: I see that you did indeed answer my questions at the end of your second posting.

With Peter said...

I still take issue with your (mis)reading of the Compendium which does not affirm what you take it to affirm or deny what you take it to deny.

The Gift is the active generation of the Son. As the Compendium reference says: "The Holy Spirit proceeds from one principle and through one spiration."

Theo Stuss said...

Dear Peter,


didn't you write this before?

"The Son's Gift is the reciprocation of the Father's Gift and this mutually exchanged Gift is a person: a Him not an It. This is what justifies the Compendium's language and claim."

And now you say this:

>>The Gift is the active generation of the Son. As the Compendium reference says: "The Holy Spirit proceeds from one principle and through one spiration."<<

This would only proof that the Compendium is contradictory. Once is says:

"He proceeds also from the Son (Filioque) by the eternal Gift which the Father makes of him to the Son."

Now what? Is the Gift the "Spiratio activa", or is it the "Spiratio passiva"?

And now you claim, that the Compendium says somewhere that Father and Son are one principle work through one spiration. But tell me:

Where does the Comdendium say that?

http://www.vatican.va/archive/compendium_ccc/documents/archive_2005_compendium-ccc_en.html

Insert into the search function the phrase of yours:

"The Holy Spirit proceeds from one principle and through one spiration."

Do you find it in the text?

Replace it by "one principle" and then try with "one spiration". Do you find it? I don't!

In Question 47 the remark on the exteriour Missions, >>Sent by the Father and the Incarnate Son, the Holy Spirit guides the Church “to know all truth” (John 16:13)<<, is not enough to correct the impression that Father really confides to the Son the actual Person of the Holy Ghost.

The second part of the Question 47 is not dealing with the processions, but with the missions. Here, it is as you say, Father and Son send the Holy Ghost. But Son can only do it according to the Compendium (and the new essential Form of Paul VI.'s), because he was confided the Person of the Ghost. This what the Greeks say.

This odd impression is even more so in the German version of the text:

"Er geht auch aus dem Sohn hervor (Filioque), weil der Vater ihn dem Sohn als ewiges Geschenk mitteilt"

Translation: "He proceeds also from the Son (Filioque), because the Father communicates him(the Holy Ghost) to the Son as an eternal gift".

http://www.vatican.va/archive/compendium_ccc/documents/archive_2005_compendium-ccc_ge.html

Mind, the German word "ihm" clearly refers to the Person of the Holy Ghost, the Spiratio passiva. It does not refer to the Spiratio activa, included in being begotten.

After all Prof.Dörmann's criticism of "Dominum et Vivificantem" can also be applied to the Compendium and Paul VI.'s new order of bishops.

According to this wrong doctrine, the Son can only send the Holy Ghost with the Father, because he receives the Person of the Ghost from Him. And thus the Son is able to pass the Holy Ghost on to the Apostles. The Greeks would say it like that. The Compendium actually denies for the Son what we call the Spiratio activa. He only seems to have the capability of receiving the Spiratio passiva as a gift.

With Peter said...

The text about the “one principle” and “one spiration” comes, as I said, from the reference in the MARGIN of the Compendium (i.e. Catechism of the Catholic Church 246). As I said before, the Compendium does not stand as an independent, normative text, but as a synopsis of the 2nd edition Catechism. This is why one MUST use the Catechism to correctly interpret the Compendium “of the Catechism.” Let me proceed to my apparent contradiction. Why did I once say: “The Son's Gift is the reciprocation of the Father's Gift and this mutually exchanged Gift is a person: a Him not an It”?

The Trinitarian mystery is the source of many linguistic difficulties, especially when it comes to the personal pronoun. Because of the unity of divine being, we refer to the persons not as “they” or “them” but as “he” or “him.” We refer not to the “names” of the divine person, but the “name” in the singular. This is true in English and German (and French and Spanish, etc.).

It is true that the “mutually exchanged gift” is the Holy Ghost, but it is also the gift of the Father and Son’s personal life, being, substance and nature. The gift is the Father’s gift of himself and the Son’s gift of himself. It is God’s gift of himself. What is not given is ONLY what pertains to the Father qua Father, the Son’s qua Son. The Son is not the Father and vice versa. Thus, as you have said, the Son does not become “principle without principle” or “active generator.”

“This mutually exchanged Gift is a person.” The Holy Spirit/Ghost is the sum of all that is exchanged between the Father and the Son. This is true and even his name reflects this: The Father is Holy. the Son is Holy. The Father is Spirit/Ghost. The Son is Spirit/Ghost. Goodness, Beauty, Power, Truth, Being, Love. The Gift is the Spirit. But it does not follow from this that the Gift is NOT the Father or that the Gift is NOT the Son. The Father DOES give himself totally to the Son and vice versa. Just like the personal pronoun, “the Gift” is a divine property pertaining to each person. Yet, like all these properties, it pertains especially to the Holy Ghost whose personhood more fully corresponds to the mutuality of the other two persons. It is the Holy Ghost who is spirated from the two as from one. This cannot be said of the Father or the Son. The Son is not spirated from the Father and Holy Ghost.

I hope this explains why I did not (and could not) say that the Gift of the Father to the Son is a different Gift from the Son to the Father, which is a different Gift whose identity is the Holy Spirit. This sentence is a gravely confused falsehood. There is one Gift and this Gift is the Holy Ghost. Yet this does NOT mean that the Holy Ghost is spirated less from the Son than from the Father, even though we concede that the Father is the principle without principle. The Holy Ghost cannot be spirated without the active participation and communication of the Son.

Thus this shows that in writing, “The Son’s Gift is a reciprocation of the Father’s Gift and this mutually exchanged Gift is a person,” I did not assert that generation does not follow spiration in Trinitarian sequence. The personhood of the Holy Ghost is established when the Gift is reciprocated. It is only in the mutuality of the Gift that this personhood is distinguished from that of Father and Son. Prior to generation and reciprocation – by ‘prior’ I am not speaking of time, but of order – the Gift is still a person – it is the Gift of the Father to the Son – but it is not the actively spirated Holy Ghost. This does not make for separate “Gifts” or separate “hims,” but it does make for an important theological distinction, which accommodates what I said, what the Compendium says and the truth that you are nobly defending: “The Son does NOT spirate the Spirit in a passive or secondary sense.” You, I, Pope Ratzinger/Benedict, the Compendium, the Catechism and the entire Tradition of the Catholic Church are in absolute agreement on this point.

With Peter said...

Please take a closer look at the doctrinal declarations of the Council of Florence (1439), which clarifies the Greek position in a way that is compatible with Filoque. In other words, the Greeks acknowledged that the Spirit proceeds from one principle and one active spiration "through the Son." Understood in this sense, the Greek position does not constitute a denial either of Filioque or of the Son's property as "spiratio activa."

Speaking strictly, formally and properly - in other words, to speak in ways unaccustomed to those Christians who have not benefited from scholasticism - the "procession" is from the Father THROUGH the Son, the "spiration" is from the Father AND the Son. This is why in the language of the creed ("procedit"), both have been and can be used legitimately.

Check out Denzinger 691.

God Bless,

Theo Stuss said...

Dear Peter,


The Council of Florence is not the problem here, neither the views of contemporary Greeks favouring the Union with Rome, who were themselves only a small minority in comparison to the hostile Greeks at home.

What is the problem here, are the views of those, who are hostile to our doctrine and remained in this attitude until today. And even more so, they are more obstinate than ever.

Neither is it true that they had no understanding of Western scolastic theology. The 14th century knows quite a few Greek Thomists. Of course those theologians were rather favourable for a Union and also fighting against the heresy of Hesychiasm. Writings of Saint Thomas were available in Greek at that time.

What we are dealing with today, are those ideas hostile to the Filioque and that not only for reasons for secondary wordings. The Greek-heterodox Church does not only reject the Filioque, it rejects also the whole Western doctrine which is its base, meaning, the doctrine of interior relations, which they accuse to be in favour of Sabellius:

Quote:
“In Latin theology, the divine Persons were considered as the simple inner relations of the unique essence of the Godhead: hence, if the very existence of the Spirit is determined by its relations to the Father and the Son, the doctrine of the Filioque - or procession of the Spirit from the Father and the Son - becomes a logical, dogmatic necessity, for the Spirit cannot be said to be distinct from the Son if he does not proceed from him. Eastern theologians, on the other hand, remained faithful to the old "personalism" of the Greek Fathers. The doctrine of the Filioque appeared to them, consequently, as Semi-Sabellianism (to use the expression of Photius). [Sabellianism is a heresy dating from the second century attributed to a certain Sabellius, who taught that the divine Persons are simply "modes" or "aspects" of a unique God.] Consubstantial with the Father and the Son, because proceeding from the Father, the unique source of the Deity, the Spirit has his own existence and personal function in the inner life of God and the economy of salvation: his task is to bring about the unity of the human race in the Body of Christ, but he also imparts to this unity a personal, and hence diversified, character. It is with a prayer to the Holy Spirit that all the liturgical services of the Orthodox Church begin, and with an invocation of his name that the Eucharistic mystery is effected. (pp. 195-197)
From: John Meyendorff, The Orthodox Church, Crestwood, NY, 1981. «
http://www.ocf.org/OrthodoxPage/reading/filioque.html
Unquote.

Meyendorff is not anyone. He is a sort of modern icon for the eastern theology. Let me highlight this quote of Meyendorff:

Quote:

“…the Spirit has his own existence and personal function in the inner life of God and the economy of salvation: his task is to bring about the unity of the human race in the Body of Christ, but he also imparts to this unity a personal, and hence diversified, character.”

Unquote.

I am asking, how can one of the Persons of Blessed Trinity have its own existence, sine in God, due to his utmost simplicity, being and essence are one? If there are three acts being within God, there are three gods who are not God. You can see that Meyendorff understood very well, why from our point of theology there has to be the Filioque. He just rejects God’s simplicity according to his views derived from Hesychiasm. Contemporary Greek Thomists of Hesychios attacked him exactly on that point, because of this doctrine with a Gnostic smell.

Further, Meyendorff says: “his task is to bring about the unity of the human race in the Body of Christ, but he also imparts to this unity a personal, and hence diversified, character”.

This is a Jewish Cabalist teaching, if you just replace “Christ” by “humanity”. Obviously the Greeks do not know how to apply the rules of appropriation and take them real acts of the Holy Ghost having a being of his own. But let’s have look at the 11th Council of Toledo, teaching against Cabalist Judaizers of that time.

Why, you believe, it says:

Quote:

“He proceeds not from the Father into the Son, nor from the Son to sanctify creatures; but he is shown to have proceeded from both equally…”

Unquote (The Church Teaches, N° 301, page 129, TAN-Books, old Denz. 277).

What many don’t consider, is that the Jews in Cabalism have a sort of trinity, the upper three branches of the Tree of the Sephiroth. Here the Holy Ghost, ruah ha-kadosh, appears as a female being, a fertilizer and intermediator between creation and the top branch of the Tree of Sephiroth, even outside the supernatural order of grace. It is a sort of Pantheism.

This why the 11th Council of Toledo dealt in its teachings against pseudo-mystical Judaizers and condemned centuries in advance the heresy Hesychiasm.

Now back to John Paul II., Paul VI., and the new form of order for bishops. I say that all those misfits form part of a strategy in order to satisfy the Greek-heterodox and the Jews at once. Especially in mind I have Rabbi Benamozegh, rabbi of Livorno in Italy, 100 years ago.

That the new form of order is did not appear accidentally and is well embedded into a pseudo-theological frame work, you may see from an absolute scandalous declaration of the Pontifical Council for the Unity of Christians, in the Osservatore, published in the German edition of May the 24th 1996 on page 11 – 13. I found that in Dörmann’s “Trinitarische Trilogie”, volume II/3, page 95 – 96. The declaration in Osservatore pretends to quote the Creed of 1st the Council Constantinople in Greek words, but adds a word which does not exist there. The declaration claims that the Holy Ghost is from the Father alone “ek monou tou patros” and inserted the word “monou – alone”.
Quote:

“Der Heilige Geist nimmt daher seinen Ursprung aus dem Vater allein (ek monou tou pateros) auf eine grundsätzliche (prinzipielle), eigentümliche und unmittelbare Weise“.

My Translation: The Holy Ghost thus proceeds from the Father alone (ek monou tou patros) in a definite (principle), proper and immediate kind.

Unquote.

Like Luther invented for his translation of the Letter to the Romans the word “alone”, - “man is saved by faith alone” -, JPII. and his helping hands inserted the word “monou” where it is not be found.

After all it must be said that the new form for Episcopal consecration follows the new mainstream of Frank’nchurch, which is not the Roman-Catholic Church. Frank’nchurch has her own god, her own cabalist trinity and the new order of Frank’nchurch’s episcopes reflects that. Since this new form is addressed to god who does not exist, this order is invalid.

Theo Stuss said...

Erratum:

Instead of:

----This is a Jewish Cabalist teaching, if you just replace “Christ” by “humanity”.----

it must be said:

--- This is a Jewish Cabalist teaching, if you just replace “Christ” by “Jewry”. ---

With Peter said...

I want to make it clear that I absolutely, positively agree with you about the unacceptability of both the Son as "passive spirator" and the Cabalist teaching. Actually I believe Sabellius is a Christian appropriation of the traditional Jewish approach to interpreting Trinitarian passages of the Old Testament. Non-Christian Jews have never acknowledged the Father (e.g. Is 64:8) and the Spirit (e.g. Ps 51:11) as distinct divine persons, but only as "modes of expression."

And this interpretation would be sensible enough IF it weren't for what was revealed in the Gospel and clarified by the early fathers of the Church. But as it is, this interpretation constitutes a denial of divine revelation authoritatively interpreted by the Church: It is thus heretical.

Suffice to say: I am one with you in rejecting these heresies. Where I disagree is "those misfits" (i.e. P6, JP2) have professed these heresies. Thus far we have carefully examined the Compendium of the Catholic Church. It would be superflous to examine an obscure document of a pontifical council, which is of dubious magisterial authority and very poor reason for accusing a pope of heresy. I'd be happy to look with you at disputed passages of Dominum et Vivificantem or from the Rite of Ordination.

I would ask, however, that you refrain from using unnecessary and jingoistic phrases such as "frank'n'church." You have demonstrated far greater integrity than to sink to such levels. If you want to change the subject and discuss the tenuous ecclesiology of Vatican II and post-conciliar document, I'd be happy too. But there's no to abuse anyone with insults.

PS. I strongly agree that it is highly improper to speak of the "Spirit's own existence" since existence itself is a shared attribute of the divine persons. But sometimes we get caught into improper manners of speaking. Does there exist a distinction among persons? Does the Holy Spirit exist as a person distinct from the Father and the Son? These questions must be understood correctly to be answered correctly.

Look at a passage from the Catechism of the Catholic Church, quoting the Council of Florence: "Since the Father has through generation given to the only-begotten Son everything that belongs to the Father, except BEING Father..."

You see? It almost implies that there is a difference in "being" even though this is very improper. The "being Father" spoken of here really refers to the distinction of personhood, the property which is distinct to the Father. It doesn't refer to existence or being in the proper metaphysical sense understood by classical scholasticism (Augustine -> Anselm -> Albert -> Thomas).

Now, I don't know if this redeems Meyendorff or not. If you are correct in your assumption that Meyendorff is referring to existence in the classical sense, your accusation against him is fully justified: "Gnostic smell." But if he is referring to it in the sense of the Council of Florence, your assumption is false and your accusation is unjustified. I know little and care less: I feel called to neither attack nor defend the orthodoxy and reputation of Meyendorff.

Theo Stuss said...

Dear Peter,


when I use "being" refering to the Persons of Blessed Trinity, of course I apply in the sense of "existentia" and "esse" and the ultimate act.

The question you ask about the relation between the Persons and their being is answered by Saint Thomas in I q.39 a.1

Although he is speaking about Persons and their essence, it doesnot matter, since being and essence in God are the same thing. Let's have a look at Objection 1:

>>It would seem that in God the essence is not the same as person. For whenever essence is the same as person or "suppositum," there can be only one "suppositum" of one nature, as is clear in the case of all separate substances. For in those things which are really one and the same, one cannot be multiplied apart from the other. But in God there is one essence and three persons, as is clear from what is above expounded (28, 3; 30, 2). Therefore essence is not the same as person.<<

Answer:

>>There cannot be a distinction of "suppositum" in creatures by means of relations, but only by essential principles; because in creatures relations are not subsistent. But in God relations are subsistent, and so by reason of the opposition between them they distinguish the "supposita"; and yet the essence is not distinguished, because the relations themselves are not distinguished from each other so far as they are identified with the essence.<<

Have a look at the whole article here:

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1039.htm#1

Important is also this article.

Meyendorff refered to being in the sense of act of existence, because he rejects any idea of interior relations, beleiving that this would not suffice to distinguish the Divine Persons.

Besides, Hesychiasm introduces a real distinction between the essence of God and his divine energies. So, this is already against God's simplicity. So we should not be astonished, if Meyendorff and other Hesychiasts believe that each Divine Person has his own existentia as "esse" and not interior relations which are identical with the divine essence.

There is also this article from Saint Thomas which is quite intersting:

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1029.htm#2

Regarding the term Frank'nchurch, I first found it in the writings of Father Cekada and I approve it. If you don't like, let's put it that way:

I don't believe that the conciliar church is the Catholic Church, but an occupation force.

Concerning "Dominum et Vivificantem", instead of waiting for my objections, you may as well buy the English edition of Prof. Dörmann's book "The Trinitarian Trilogy" Volume II/part 3. Although it sold out at Amazon, the SSPX is still selling them on clearing for 1.50$ as F.Cekada told me.

I know from Prof. Dörmann that there are some mistakes in this translation. Still, you can start with that. I am not a genious, of course I have my arguments from somewhere. When it comes to "Dominum et Vivificantem", I stick to Dörmann's book.

Theo Stuss said...

Rabbi Benamozegh about the origin of Christian dogma regarding Trinity. An extract of 8 pages from his book to be republished in soon.


DE L'ORIGINE DES DOGMES CHRETIENS

PAR ELIE BENAMOZEGH

CHAPITRE III CARACTÈRES DU SAINT-ESPRIT

L'étude comparative [qui précède] sur le Saint-Esprit, tout en nous laissant entrevoir son caractère et le rôle qu'il joue dans la théologie chrétienne, tout en faisant défiler sous nos yeux sa riche nomenclature, ne levait le voile qu'à demi, et sa valeur philosophique reste encore à moitié cachée sous cette abondance même de vêtements dont on l'a surchargée.
Nous avons obtenu sans doute, au moins, ce résultat : l'extériorité, les appellations, les symboles avec lesquels on a exprimé le Saint-Esprit restent tout à fait identiques entre la Kabbale et le Christianisme, et l'identité extérieure est un bon augure pour espérer découvrir aussi l'identité intérieure.

Il est temps à présent de l'essayer ; il est temps que nous la contemplions sans voile ; il est temps de voir face à face ses caractères, sa destination, sa valeur enfin philosophique et si par ce biais l'Esprit chrétien se rapproche du type kabbalistique, alors nous aurons complété notre démonstration.

Le premier attribut de l'Esprit, qui attire nos regards soit par ses indications solennelles dans les Évangiles, soit par ses rapports évidents avec la Kabbale, avec son Saint-Esprit, c'est celui de Vie.
Si Paul veut le désigner à son disciple Timothée, il l'appelle la promesse de la Vie qui est en Jésus-Christ. Si saint Jean veut le mettre en rapport avec son Logos, il enseigne qu'en la Parole était la Vie.

Enfin, si Jésus veut d'un seul coup exprimer son identité avec les trois membres de la triade, il dit qu'il est la "Voie, la Vérité et la Vie", et comme par voie et vérité il fait allusion sans doute à la Sagesse (Hokhmah) et au Ti-phereth ainsi appelés, de même il ne peut entendre par vie que l'Esprit, le Royaume (Malkhuth) appelé de ce même nom, comme nous allons le voir.

Car la vie proprement dite, à la différence de la pensée et du sentiment, est le caractère propre, le nom le plus spécial du Royaume des kabbalistes qui est appelé par là, du nom de Hayah (vivante), Nefesch, vie physique, ou même Havah (Ève), la mère de tous les vivants ; il y eut tellement de savants qui confondirent le Saint-Esprit avec la mère de la Vie du système manichéen qui n'est autre chose que le Malkhuth lui-même désigné sous un nom his-torique, la première femme.

Mais ce germe jeté sur le terrain du Christianisme par les Évangiles ne tarde pas à former un tronc et des bran-ches, et la vie va prendre une détermination de plus en plus philosophique et devenir l'âme du monde.

Dans cette deuxième phase, ses analogies, ses grandes analogies avec le Malkhuth des kabbalistes vont de-venir de plus en plus transparentes. Serait-il possible que le Saint-Esprit ne soit autre chose que l'âme du monde ? Assertion, je l'avoue, un peu extraordinaire mais qui va s'éclairer, je l'espère, d'une lumière éclatante.

Je ne parlerai pas des savants anciens ou modernes qui ont jugé ainsi car ce sont des autorités, dans le Chris-tianisme lui-même, que nous cherchons. Il y a un passage de saint Basile déjà remarqué, où ce Père ne fait qu'in-tercaler dans son oraison un morceau étendu des Ennéades de Plotin en se bornant à remplacer le nom païen d'«âme du monde», qui figure dans Plotin, par celui de Saint-Esprit.

Nous pourrions multiplier les citations ; qu'il nous suffise seulement de citer une autorité qui les remplace toutes. L'historien Bergier avoue franchement que les Pères de l'Église ont regardé cet Esprit divin comme l'âme du monde et lui ont attribué les mêmes fonctions que les Platoniciens prétendaient de cette âme imaginaire.

Bergier nie seulement l'origine païenne du Saint-Esprit et nous sommes d'accord avec lui, mais par quel argu-ment la nie-t-il ? Par un argument, j'ose dire, qui tourne entièrement en notre faveur et prouve de plus en plus son origine judéo-kabbalistique, car s'il est vrai, comme il l'observe, que l'Esprit chrétien, à la différence de la Psyché de Platon, non seulement vivifie la nature mais est aussi l'auteur des opérations de la grâce, il n'est pas moins exact de dire que le Malkhuth, le Saint-Esprit kabbalistique remplit les deux missions à la fois car il est en même temps la vie physique et la vie morale, le canal par où la vie se distribue dans toutes les parties de création, et la porte par laquelle les soupirs, les prières, les larmes, les sacrifices, les appels à la justice ou à la miséricorde di-vine, s'élèvent jusqu'au ciel pour retomber par la même porte sur la tête des mortels, convertis en salut, en béné-diction, en faveurs, en grâces et même en punitions.
Nous avons vu que les Évangiles et les Pères de l'Église sont d'accord sur le vrai sens, sur le sens philosophi-que du Saint-Esprit.
Voulons-nous à présent la déposition des esprits indépendants, des témoignages étrangers à l'Église ? À peine mettrons-nous dans ce nombre l'infortuné Abélard qui, comme s'exprime un illustre écrivain, rempli des souvenirs du Timée, réserve au Père et à lui seul l'attribut de la toute puissance, assimile le Fils à l'intelligence suprême et le Saint-Esprit à l'âme du Monde. Mais comment ne pas recevoir la déposition des Gnostiques ? Car dans leur système l'Éon qui occupe la place du Royaume chez les kabbalistes, qui est l'épouse du Logos comme le Royaume l'est du Tiphereth, comme nous avons vu que l'Esprit l'est aussi, selon quelqu'un, de Jésus ; cet Eon, dis-je, porte chez eux le nom de Zoé – Vie - c'est-à-dire le nom par lequel les Évangiles font allusion à l'Esprit et par lequel les kabbalistes dédaignent à la fois la Binah et le Malkhuth, les deux mères, les deux types sur lesquels on a forgé le Saint-Esprit empruntant pêle-mêle les traits de l'un et de l'autre comme nous le verrons encore mieux dans la suite.

Cette idée de l'âme du monde va subir une plus grande et plus précise détermination et en même temps s'ap-procher de plus en plus de son rôle kabbalistique. Elle va se transformer sous nos yeux en siège ou demeure des âmes, et l'Esprit qui nous apparaissait jusqu'ici comme la source de la Vie universelle va s'abaisser jusqu'à notre humanité et devenir la source d'où découlent - et le centre auquel doivent toutes revenir - les âmes des hommes.

Dire que c'est le rôle qu'il joue dans la Kabbale nous paraît superflu, tant cela est proclamé hautement par tous les livres qui en parlent.
Ce qui va paraître plus nouveau et qui trouvera, peut-être, des incrédules, c'est que ce soit là l'un des caractè-res les plus marquants du Saint-Esprit chrétien. Cependant, il n'est rien de plus exact, et j'ajoute que l'auteur et la place où il en est fait mention rendent le témoignage encore plus précieux. C'est un ancien Père qui met la doctrine sur la bouche d'un Juif en y adhérant toutefois complètement, c'est-à-dire qu'il nous donne d'un seul coup l'état de l'opinion entre les Juifs et la doctrine chrétienne, et leur parfaite uniformité là-dessus.
Tryphon, l'interlocuteur Juif, dans les dialogues de Justin, demande à celui-ci si l'âme de l'homme est divine et immortelle, si c'est une partie de l'Esprit royal - regiae mentis particula - si, de même que cet Esprit voit Dieu, nous pouvons espérer voir en l'Esprit la divinité.

Justin répond affirmativement, et ce n'est que par une critique tout à fait arbitraire que Bergier veut restreindre la réponse de Justin à la seule question - si nous pouvons voir la divinité ? - tout en convenant que par Esprit royal Justin n'entend autre chose que le Saint-Esprit.

Mais que d'enseignements dans ce passage ! Non seulement nous y voyons sans aucun doute l'objet principal de nos recherches, l'Esprit considéré comme siège des âmes ; non seulement ce témoignage est encadré au mi-lieu de circonstances valorisantes, mais nous y voyons l'Esprit lui-même décoré d'un épithète qui semble détaché de la couronne dont il est entouré par les kabbalistes, celle d' "Esprit royal" qu'on ne saurait absolument pas com-prendre sans le rapprocher des titres de Reine, de Souveraine, d'Esprit Royal qu'il porte tour à tour dans le style des kabbalistes.

Nous y voyons aussi l'Esprit qui contemple Dieu, idée éminemment kabbalistique, car elle est l'image favorite par laquelle on exprime les communications, les transmissions qui s'opèrent entre les personnages de leur sys-tème, entre tous les degrés de l'être, entre Dieu et le monde.
Enfin, nous avons un interprète de la pensée de Justin dont l'autorité ne saurait être refusée : Tatien, le disciple du même docteur qui nous éclaire sur son vrai sens, dans son ouvrage Contra Græcos lorsqu'il enseigne que l'homme est fait participant d'une portion de Dieu. Or, qu'est-ce que cette portion de Dieu ? Nous ne demandons pas mieux que de souscrire à la définition de Bergier. Par cette portion de Dieu, dit-il, Tatien, comme Saint Justin son maître, entend toujours le Saint-Esprit.
Peut-être se souvient-on d'avoir vu quelquefois le Saint-Esprit et Jésus (comme incarnation du Verbe) se ren-contrer dans quelques-uns de ses attributs ; et nous sommes sur le point d'en avoir de nouvelles confirmations. Et bien, c'est même de cet autre point de vue, c'est-à-dire comme incarnation, comme la chair du Verbe, comme son humanité, que l'Esprit va nous paraître de nouveau le siège des âmes, le centre des esprits, car si les fidèles sont, dans le Christianisme, les membres de Jésus-Christ, ils sont dans la Kabbale les membres de la Shehinah.
Si Paul trouve dans les diverses appellations autant de rapports avec l'un ou l'autre membre du corps humain, les kabbalistes nous apprennent que chacune des âmes tient à un des membres de la Shehinah plutôt qu'à un au-tre ; le cœur le centre vital étant toujours Dieu, le cœur l'Israël comme disent les kabbalistes et les docteurs ésoté-riques dans la Pesikta.

Un caractère approchant aux rôles de vie, d'âme du monde, et de siège des âmes, est celui d'activité ou d'énergie divine que nous allons voir en commun dans l'Esprit kabbalistique et dans celui du Christianisme.

Mais à cette idée est jointe, dans la Kabbale, l'autre corrélative de corps, d'extériorité, d'instrument enfin, par le-quel l'activité intérieure se déploie et agit au-dehors.

Où est la trace du corps dans l'Esprit du Christianisme ? Sans doute on en chercherait en vain une lumineuse indication. Tout ce qu'on peut découvrir de la symbologie kabbalistique n'est qu'une précieuse trouvaille que les fondateurs mêmes du Christianisme avaient grand soin de nous cacher. Pourtant, nous avons tâché d'en rappeler quelques unes à la lumière.

Serions-nous moins heureux dans ce caractère propre au Malkhuth ? D'abord, on ne doit pas oublier que toutes les fois que l'action divine s'exerce dans le monde, c'est par l'Esprit que Dieu se fait sentir à ses créatures, et nous n'en voulons pour preuve que la plus grande de ses opérations est l'incarnation du Verbe opérée par le Saint-Esprit - qu'on n'oublie pas, non plus, - que de deux façons l'Église a conservé le souvenir de cette idée de corps comme l'extériorité du Verbe et son véhicule dans le monde, sans compter une autre idée, à savoir que le Verbe a vécu trente et quelques années ici-bas, d'une vie mortelle.

La première, c'est la transfiguration et enfin la glorification du corps de Jésus, élevé à sa résurrection, avec son âme, à la vie immortelle, et dans laquelle il est toujours assis à la droite du Père ; l'âme, c'est le sacrement de la Cène qui, conçu comme simple symbole commémoratif, ou bien comme véritable transsubstantiation, ne cesse d'une manière ou d'une autre d'exprimer le caractère que les kabbalistes attribuèrent au Saint-Esprit, de corps, d'extériorité, d'instrument du Logos dans la création, sa chair et ses os, comme dit le Zohar, son corps, Guf, comme disent tous les kabbalistes.

Voilà pour ce qui concerne le Christianisme ecclésiastique. Et les hérésies, seraient-elles muettes ? N'auraient-elles conservé aucun fragment de ce côté de la symbologie de l'Esprit ? Peut-être Apollinaire n'est pas le seul qui répond à notre appel. Quoiqu'il en soit, Apollinaire donnait à Jésus-Christ une espèce de corps dont il soutenait que le Verbe avait été revêtu de toute éternité et qui était descendu du ciel dans le sein de la vierge.

Voilà bien des choses à apprendre, un corps éternel qui forme l'extériorité du Verbe, indivisible de lui et qui ne peut être que le Guf des kabbalistes, la chair et les os de leur Verbe.
La conception du Verbe qui dans les Évangiles s'opère - selon Apollinaire - par la vertu de l'Esprit, par la des-cente de ce corps éternel dans le sein de Marie ; c'est-à-dire toujours l'Esprit sous la forme plus spéciale de la théologie kabbalistique.

Mais combien les témoignages ne deviennent-ils pas plus nombreux et plus graves, si nous devenons à notre tour moins exigeants !
Renonçons pour un instant à trouver d'autres mentions de l'Esprit comme Corps du Christ. Contentons-nous de l'idée bien plus simple et plus philosophique de force ou activité divine. Nous avons l'autorité d'Origène qui en-seignait que le Fils était à l'égard du Père ce que la raison est dans l'homme et que le Saint-Esprit n'était que sa force active ou son énergie ; si nous croyons à Mosheim, les chrétiens d'Égypte pensaient comme lui.

Nous avons surtout les déclarations des Évangiles : de Luc, lorsqu'il nous présente l'objet de la dernière pro-messe de Jésus aux disciples comme la vertu qu'il leur enverra d'en haut, et nous savons que c'est le Saint-Esprit ; et enfin des Actes des apôtres, où Jésus précise la nature de cette vertu en l'appelant un baptême par le Saint-Esprit.

Quant au Saint-Esprit kabbalistique, on peut dire hardiment que presque tous les noms, tous les épithètes qui expriment l'action, l'activité, la force, sont convoqués pour en définir la nature.
Force de Dieu, action, précepte et sur la bouche de quelques scolastiques l'intellect actif, et surtout main de Dieu et cent autres de plus en plus expressifs.
Pourrait-on oublier à cette place la grande vertu de Dieu, que Simon voulait faire croire descendue en lui-même, cette autre incarnation qui se rattache elle aussi, qui va chercher elle aussi ses sources, son origine dans le proto-type de toutes les incarnations, dans la véritable perpétuelle et universelle incarnation (Malkhuth) que les kabbalis-tes n'ont cessé d'enseigner ?

Il y a un caractère qui semble singulièrement contraster avec celui dont nous venons de parler, avec celui de la force : c'est le principe, le caractère de l'amour.
Le Royaume, le Saint-Esprit kabbalistique est bien l'amour, l'amour dans son sens le plus philosophique, mais qui descendant de degré en degré s'arrête dans ses dernières personnifications ici-bas, une femme et un enfant, que nous avons trouvées ci-dessus parmi les nombreuses images sous lesquelles on a représenté à l'imagination l'Esprit, le Royaume kabbalistique. Non pas que l'Esprit, le Royaume soit l'unique type de l'amour chez les kabba-listes. Loin de là, car au-delà et au-dessus de cette émanation ils retrouvent encore dans la Binah, la mère supé-rieure, l'amour, toujours l'amour. De sorte que les kabbalistes, à l'instar de Platon, distinguent deux amours, l'un in-férieur, le petit amour (Ahabah Zuta), et c'est le Saint-Esprit, l'autre supérieur, le grand amour (Ahabah Rabba), à savoir la Binah.
Sommes-nous autorisés à en dire autant pour le Christianisme ? Y-a-t-il dans les Évangiles cette idée kabbalis-tique d'un double amour ? Y-a-t-il au moins quelque chose de pareil dans le Saint-Esprit chrétien ?

Quant à ce dernier, nul doute possible. Dès les temps les plus reculés, l'Église l'a toujours retenu : comme le Verbe est engendré par un acte d'entendement ou par voie de connaissance (et par là il est appelé l'image du Père dont il porte plusieurs des attributs dans les Évangiles, et avant eux dans la Kabbale), de même l'Esprit chrétien est produit par l'amour de l'un par l'autre, et j'ajoute qu'il ressemble à plusieurs titres à la mère supérieure, Binah étant elle aussi amour et charité.
C'est pourquoi les Évangiles attribuent principalement au Saint-Esprit les effusions de l'amour divin ; il y est dit que cet amour s'est répandu dans nos cœurs par le Saint-Esprit qui nous a été donné et qu'on dit à la même place : "Je vous conjure par la charité du Saint-Esprit".

Ainsi, les plus grands personnages ont adhéré à cette définition du Saint-Esprit. Dès les temps de saint Augus-tin, il joue dans la formule de la Trinité le rôle de l'amour : Trinitas sapientiæ scilicet et notitia sui et dilectio sui, et ce mot a été répété de siècle en siècle : par Dante, quand il définit la Trinité : "La divina potestate, la somma sa-pienza e il primo amore" ; et enfin dans les temps modernes par Leibniz et Lessing, comme nous l'avons rappelé plus haut.

Serait-il possible d'obtenir une si complète démonstration concernant l'amour, la Charité supérieure ? Nous l'avons déjà plus d'une fois averti ; le Christianisme dès qu'il eut divorcé avec le judaïsme, tant pratique que spécu-latif, dès qu'il résolut de ne garder de la Kabbale que ces lambeaux épars qui étaient strictement nécessaires à construire la théorie du Dieu-Messie, en rejetant, en anathématisant tout le grand corps de doctrine dont ses dog-mes n'étaient que des pierres détachées ; dès lors, dis-je, il n'a pu nous offrir sur tout ce qui est étranger à ses dogmes particuliers, sur tout ce qui n'a point été admis à faire partie de la nouvelle foi, que de pâles images, des réminiscences lointaines et un langage qui rappellent un peu le style et les formes des kabbalistes. C'est précisé-ment ce qui est arrivé dans cette question. Des deux mères, des deux amours que la Kabbale enseignait, le Chris-tianisme ne voulut en garder qu'un seul, l'Esprit, le Malkhuth, ou pour mieux dire, il fondit le second dans le premier en tombant dans une hérésie opposée à celle de Spinoza : il effaça, il noya ce monde dans l'autre, le temps dans l'éternité, la créature dans le créateur.

En vain prêterait-on l'oreille pour surprendre chez les fondateurs du Christianisme une allusion quelque peu étendue, complète, à d'autres émanations, à d'autres Eons, à d'autres rapports. Ces fondateurs s'imposent, par si-tuation autant que par calcul, un silence qu'ils ne rompent que bien rarement et presque malgré eux, forcés, par le style, par le langage que la matière même leur suggérait et les affinités kabbalistiques de la partie même qu'ils vou-laient conserver. Mais enfin, ils le rompent en silence, trahis à quelques reprises par ce mystère, comme nous avons vu plus d'un exemple.

Ce qui suit regarde, disons-nous, cet amour supérieur que le Christianisme reléguait dans l'ombre. Or, je dis que cette notion perce de façon évidente à travers les détours du langage de Paul, quand il nous enseigne qu'à la Charité sont subordonnés tous les dons de l'Esprit.

Sans doute, quiconque ne lit que superficiellement ce passage croit aisément qu'il ne s'agit ici que de la charité pure et simple, l'amour du prochain. Mais qu'il vienne à se demander : comment des dons pour la plupart thauma-turgiques, peuvent-ils être subordonnés à la charité ?
Comment un homme qui distribue tout son bien aux pauvres, qui livre son corps pour être brûlé, peut ne pas avoir de charité ?
Alors un doute surgira dans l'esprit du lecteur, qu'au-dessous de toute cette apparence exclusivement morale, il ne circule peut-être qu'un courant d'idées bien supérieures, parfaitement compatibles avec les applications prati-ques, mais qui constitueraient la théorie suprême et le point d'attache par lesquels les maximes de vertu se lient à la pure spéculation, c'est-à-dire ce qui arrive presque toujours aux écrivains kabbalistes, tellement il est difficile de distinguer dans leur langage si c'est là de la morale toute humaine, une très humble éthique qu'on nous enseigne, ou si ce ne sont pas plutôt les vols plus audacieux de leur métaphysique.

Il se demandera surtout si Paul n'a pas, par hasard, levé en quelques autres endroits un coin du voile qui nous cache sa pensée, si elle n'est pas devenue ailleurs un peu plus transparente ; et j'ose dire que la certitude prendra la place du simple doute dans l'esprit de ce lecteur.

Il y a un passage de l'Épître aux Ephésiens qui est le plus beau, le plus naturel commentaire à cette charité un peu énigmatique dont il raisonne dans cette atmosphère morale ; comme dans l'Épître aux Corinthiens, la Charité est ici entourée d'idées purement métaphysiques qui en rehaussent la valeur au verset 9, "Dieu a créé toute chose par Jésus-Christ" ; au v. 10, "sa sagesse va être donnée à connaître aux principautés, aux puissances, dans les lieux célestes par l'Église" ; au v. 15, "c'est de Dieu le père que toute la parenté est nommée dans les cieux et sur la terre" (précieux verset sur lequel nous avons un instant arrêté le lecteur) ; au v. 17, "Christ va habiter dans leur cœur" ; au v. 18, "afin qu'étant enracinés et fondés dans sa charité ils puissent comprendre avec tous les saints quelle est la largeur, la longueur, la profondeur et la hauteur" et enfin au v. 19, "qu'ils connaissent la charité du Christ et qu'ils soient remplis de toute la plénitude de Dieu."
Isolons un instant ces deux derniers vers pour mieux les étudier.

Ici encore, on parle de charité comme clef universelle, c'est-à-dire selon le même point de vue que dans l'Épître aux Corinthiens, mais dans sens en plus clair et plus précis.
Quelle est donc cette singulière charité qui nous fait comprendre "avec tous les saints" quelle est "la longueur, la largeur, la profondeur et la hauteur".

Nous ne dirons qu'un mot sur la phrase "avec tous les saints" : elle nous peint l'origine kabbalistique de ce genre de spéculations et de ceux qui s'y adonnaient, car le nom de saints donné aux premiers chrétiens n'est qu'un des emprunts que la nouvelle école fit au centre kabbalistique et essénien, où le nom de saint était propre à ses adeptes.
Mais enfin, qu'elle est cette largeur, longueur, profondeur et hauteur ? Ici l'origine kabbalistique saute aux yeux car la première Trinité, la Couronne, la Sagesse, la Prudence, c'est-à-dire celle qui, selon ce que nous n'avons cessé de dire, s'est entrelacée de mille manières avec l'autre Trinité, celle qu'on a combinée, qu'on a fondue avec les trois autres termes inférieurs, est exprimée par les dimensions mathématiques : la Couronne étant la longueur, la Sagesse la largeur et enfin la Prudence y étant appelée la profondeur.
Veut-on mieux en constater et en même temps en apprécier la valeur par des analogies tirées de l'histoire de la philosophie ? Le prince de la philosophie grecque va nous en fournir des exemples : au dire d'Aristote, Platon compose l'animal en soi (le monde intelligible) de l'idée de l'Un ainsi que des premières longueur, largeur et pro-fondeur ; et il va lui-même nous en expliquer le sens. L'unité, dit-il, est l'intelligence (c'est l'Un de Plotin), le nombre deux (longueur-Binah) est la science ; le nombre de la surface (largeur-Tiphereth) est l'opinion, et celui du solide est la sensation (Malkhuth), profondeur.
Déterminer au juste les rapports de chacun de ces termes avec les termes correspondants de la Kabbale et de Paul, serait pour nous une tâche trop délicate et peut-être superflue ; qu'il nous suffise d'entrevoir le sens tout à fait analogue à celui que nous avons attribué à Paul, et par conséquent la probabilité toujours croissante que par chari-té Paul n'ait compris que son sens le plus élevé, que cette même émanation qui en porte le nom et qui est juste-ment le centre où aboutissent la longueur, la largeur, la profondeur et la hauteur, c'est-à-dire la Couronne, la Sa-gesse, la Prudence et enfin le Royaume, la profondeur ; Omek, comme l'appellent les kabbalistes, et qui a son analogie chez Platon dans le solide et la sensation.
Ce dernier nom surtout est celui qu'on donne exclusivement au Royaume dans la Kabbale, où il est appelé monde sensible ou de la sensation, Olam hamurgash.
Que sera-t-il si nous voyons la théologie chrétienne elle-même amenée, soit par d'anciens souvenirs tradition-nels, soit par le développement naturel des idées, à nous peindre les trois membres de la triade sous la triple image de longueur, largeur et profondeur ?
Et bien, c'est ce qui arriva en effet : Bayle nous parle de deux théologiens, l'un français, l'autre anglais, Weus, qui se servirent, pour expliquer la trinité, de la comparaison tirée des trois dimensions de la matière. C'est ce que fit aussi Derkam dans son astro-théologie.

Enfin il y a un passage de l'évangéliste théologien dans son Épître catholique (chap. IV, v. 8) où le mot charité est employé d'une manière bien extraordinaire, bien solennelle ; celui, dit-il, qui n'aime point son prochain n'a point connu Dieu, car Dieu est charité. Mot sublime, mais que l'hébraïsme n'a pas besoin de chercher dans Jean.

Nous l'avons dit, charité au-dessus, charité au-dessous ; la chaîne des émanations s'ouvre et se ferme par la charité. Bien plus, toute l'économie des émanations, Dieu tout entier, s'appelle Charité : "kol ha-atziluth niqrea ahabah". Voilà le grand mot prononcé, voilà le modèle sublime dont Jean le théologien a tracé une copie à l'usage des Gentils.
Nous avons dit que la Binah aussi bien que le Malkhuth contribuent à la formation du Saint-Esprit chrétien. Nous allons le voir aussi brièvement que possible, et le nom et le caractère d'amour, communs à l'un et à l'autre, nous traceront le chemin pour examiner tout ce que la première, la mère supérieure, a pu prêter à la conception du Saint-Esprit.

D'abord, ce nom même est propre à la première non moins qu'à la seconde, et c'est à la première aussi que l'honneur est dévolu peut-être de l'avoir prêté au Christianisme. Ensuite, le rôle que le Saint-Esprit joue dans l'his-toire de Jésus c'est par lui qu'il est conçu ; et à qui pourrait-il convenir ce caractère si ce n'est à l'Esprit supérieur, à la Binah mère du Logos, du Christ, comme la Sagesse en est le Père ?
Et celui-ci n'est pas le seul témoignage des Évangiles. Il y a une circonstance non moins solennelle dans la-quelle l'Esprit tient un langage qui ne peut convenir qu'à la Binah, à la mère de Jésus-Christ, du Logos. La colombe a beau descendre et planer sur sa tête, elle a beau nous rappeler le Malkhuth qui a vraiment cet animal pour sym-bole, mais au même point, une circonstance nous rappelle à un ordre d'émanations supérieures, et la voix qui se fait entendre appelle Jésus son fils, parole que l'Esprit n'aurait jamais prononcée si l'on n'avait compris quelquefois par l'Esprit la Binah, la mère, plutôt que Malkhuth, la fille.

Ce n'est pas tout. Si l'Esprit a une influence, une mission, un rôle tout particulier dans l'Église, c'est la sanctifica-tion. Origène l'a proclamée dès l'origine. Pour lui, l'activité du Père s'étend sur toute la création, celle du Fils sur les êtres raisonnables et celle de l'Esprit sur les saints seulement. Dans une autre partie du monde, et dans une toute autre époque (XVIè siècle), Socin croyait l'Esprit une force divine agissant dans les fidèles et les sanctifiant. Enfin aux XVIIè siècle, les Néosabiliens prétendaient que Dieu est appelé l'Esprit comme sanctifiant les pécheurs. Or, cette action sanctifiante attribuée à l'Esprit, cette source - comme l'on a vu - de toute sainteté, bien loin de rap-peler de près ou de loin le Malkhuth, est la caractéristique de la Binah, de la mère supérieure, peut-être de toute la première triade, car s'il était permis de classifier Binah, Tipheret et Malkhuth selon les degrés de spiritualité que peut parcourir la créature raisonnable, nous prendrions une de leurs appellations et nous dirions que la première est la Sainteté (Qodesh) la deuxième la vérité ('Emeth) et la troisième la foi ou certitude (Emunah).
Il y a un autre genre d'épreuve que nous ne voulons pas négliger : c'est le témoignage des philosophes.

Qu'est-ce que ce témoignage et quelle valeur a-t-il à nos yeux ? Pour nous, c'est la raison appliquée à l'étude des caractères philosophiques, des trois membres de la triade, des rapports qui les tient, des caractères qui les distinguent. Or, si nous pouvons constater que la raison abandonnée à elle-même a défini de telle manière cha-cune des trois personnes, qu'elle a de telle façon déterminé leurs rapports mutuels, que ces résultats, pour ce qui a trait à l'Esprit, aboutissent plutôt à la Binah qu'au Malkhuth, plutôt au rôle, aux caractères de la première que de la seconde, personne ne dira que nous allons trop loin, si nous y voyons des titres de rapprochement entre l'Esprit chrétien et la Binah kabbalistique, si nous plaçons ces résultats à côté des traces qui, dans la théorie du Saint-Esprit, témoignent de la présence de la seconde.

Nous prendrons deux philosophes qui, à différents titres, ont acquis un grand renom dans ces sortes de recher-ches, Schelling et Joseph Salvador.
On connaît le système de Schelling, sa formule suprême, ces trois moments de l'existence : la thèse, l'antithèse et la synthèse. On ne se douterait pas, s'il ne nous l'avait appris, que ce fut là, à ses yeux, la clef pour compren-dre la trinité : Dieu, l'Infini - dit-il - s'objective de toute éternité dans le Fils ou le fini, et rentre dans la conscience de soi-même comme Esprit Saint. Cette dernière phrase nous paraît au plus haut degré convenable à la troisième Sephirah de la triade supérieure, à la Binah. Elle est en termes propres le retour, la conversion (Teshubah), c'est-à-dire, sans nul doute, le retour, la conversion éternelle que Dieu fait sur lui-même, c'est-à-dire sa Conscience.
Une étude approfondie de cette Sephirah nous confirmerait, je n'en doute point, ce résultat ; qu'il nous suffise d'en montrer la voie aux savants.

Nous avons aussi nommé Joseph Salvador. En effet, un mot d'une très grande portée lui a échappé, d'une por-tée encore plus grande de ce qu'il l'a peut-être imaginé lui-même, car j'ai beau chercher dans son passage une jus-tification au langage insolite, en contradiction aux idées reçues, mais très vrai, très exact, je ne la trouve pas. Je trouve, en revanche, que ses paroles acquièrent un grand sens pourvu qu'on les mette en regard de cette part bien légitime que nous assignons à la Binah dans la théorie du Saint-Esprit.
Salvador s'exprime en ces termes : «Tel est en effet le triple élément de toute mythologie orientale, une es-sence des choses ou Père inconnu, une première puissance ou mère créatrice ou Esprit, et une parole divine, un Verbe divin».
Il ne faut pas oublier que c'est à propos de la Trinité chrétienne qu'il tient ce langage, que c'est pour l'expliquer qu'il construit sa théorie générale et que ce serait par conséquent dans le Christianisme qu'on devrait nous en montrer la réalisation.
Mais comment y trouver cet idéal du Saint-Esprit ? Comment serait alors la mère créatrice, l'Esprit qu'on a tou-jours cru subordonné au Fils, et qu'il n'a jamais été envisagé sous son image Maternelle jusqu'ici ? Tout cela s'éclaircit, se justifie pleinement dans notre système, où, par les emprunts faits par l'Esprit chrétien à la Binah, par le mélange opéré par lui entre les traits de la mère et ceux de la fille, le Saint-Esprit est bien, tel qu'il est envisagé, comme identique à la Binah, la mère créatrice, mère du Logos et supérieure à lui.

Grâce à Dieu, une de ces révélations décisives qui viennent mettre le sceau à la vérité d'un système, qui vien-nent encourager de leur radieux aspect des travaux consciencieux, ne nous a pas fait défaut dans notre pénible chemin.
Malgré notre intime conviction, nous ne hasardions que bien timidement l'expression d'une vérité qui semble renverser des opinions depuis longtemps établies. Nous n'osions dire encore que l'Esprit est la mère de Jésus-Christ ; la nouveauté, l'étrangeté de cette manière de parler jetaient le trouble, l'incertitude dans notre Esprit. Dieu merci ! Ce que nous n'osions pas dire, quelqu'un l'a exprimé, et ce quelqu'un est Jésus lui-même.

Nous avons eu l'occasion de citer les Évangiles apocryphes et nous y avons puisé plus d'un renseignement précieux. Ils nous en réservaient un dont l'importance surpasse ceux que nous avons déjà recueillis. Entre ces apocryphes, il y a l'Évangile appelé Évangile des douze Apôtres dont, selon les juifs, se servaient les Nazaréens et les Baïonites.
Saint Jérôme le cite souvent, il le traduisit en latin et en grec et il le met dans les livres ecclésiastiques au com-mencement de son troisième livre contre les Pélagiens. Il est également cité par Eusèbe.

Cet auteur ajoute que les juifs qui avaient embrassé la foi de Jésus s'en servaient volontiers, ou si nous préfé-rons croire plutôt à Le Clerc, ils traduisirent en hébreu ou en chaldéen l'Évangile de Matthieu en y ajoutant quelque chose en divers endroits.
Quoiqu'il en soit, Le Clerc ne peut cacher sa surprise devant un de ses passages, et il s'exprime en ces ter-mes : "On ne voit pas l'hérésie dans les fragments qui nous restent de cet Évangile, mais il y a une étrange ex-pression dans le passage qu'Origène cite dans sa 15è homélie sur Jérémie et au tome 2 de ses commentaires sur saint Jean où Jésus est introduit parlant de la sorte : 'Il y a quelques temps que ma mère le Saint-Esprit me prit par l'un de mes cheveux et me transporta sur la haute montagne de Tabor." Ces dernières paroles n'ont pas besoin de commentaires, Jésus appelle le Saint-Esprit sa mère, et il ne peut être appelé de ce nom qu'à la condition de ré-pondre à l'Éon Binah qui est vraiment la mère du Logos Christ, ou Tipheret.
Nous mettrons seulement en relief une circonstance qui accroît, s'il est possible, la valeur de l'expression de Jésus ; c'est l'origine toute hébraïque de cet Évangile, ou au moins la prédilection qu'avaient pour lui les Judéo-chrétiens, les Nazaréens et les Ebionites, achevant de démontrer ainsi ce que nous n'avons jamais cessé de dire, que là sont plus visibles les empreintes de la Kabbale où le Judaïsme est encore dominant, et que des idées, et un langage étranger au Christianisme canonique mais appartenant incontestablement à la Kabbale, ne se trouvent que chez les chrétiens judaïsants. Preuve entre autre que la Kabbale n'a point été amoindrie dans les symboles définitifs de l'Église sans laisser sur son passage des lambeaux qui en attestent la présence et qui servent à en composer au moins en partie la forme primitive, comme ces animaux dont les ossements épars ci et là se recueil-lent à grande peine, et qui sous la main des Paléontologues retrouvent leur place et leur physionomie primitive.

Une question célèbre se rattache aux considérations qui précèdent, et nous montre en une forme très vive, très sensible, l'incertitude, l'hésitation, ou pour mieux dire la confusion qui s'est vérifiée dans l'Église au sujet de l'Esprit et au modèle kabbalistique qu'on imitait.
Ce balancement continuel entre Binah et Malkhuth, les deux Saint-Esprits, les deux mères juives va se réaliser, s'exprimer de toute sa force dans un schisme resté célèbre dans l'histoire entre Grecs et Latins et dont Photius donna le signal au IXè siècle. On sait que, pour les Grecs, le Saint-Esprit n'émane que du Père, tandis que pour les Latins il émane en même temps du Père et du Fils.
Cette dispute se résume dans le mot "filioque", du symbole de Nicée que les grecs croient ajouté arbitraire-ment au texte primitif et que les Latins vénèrent à l'égal de ses autres déclarations. L'histoire de cette dispute est étrangère à notre sujet ; aussi est-ce à sa signification seulement que nous allons nous attacher.
Quel est le sens, quelle est la valeur de cette contestation, du point de vue où nous nous sommes placés ? On se souvient sans doute de ce qui précède : deux trinités se présentent avec des titres sinon égaux, du moins éga-lement sérieux comme types, comme modèles, qui auraient présidé à la formation de la triade chrétienne.
Nous avons vu le dogme chrétien osciller continuellement entre les deux. Serait-ce par hasard, le schisme en question, rien que l'effet de ce balancement lui-même, des influences rivales des deux trinités ? Pourrait-on, en un mot, y trouver son explication ?
Sans doute le résultat serait assez souhaitable, non seulement pour notre système qui subirait par là trop heu-reusement une contre-épreuve, mais pour l'histoire du dogme chrétien qui s'éclairerait ainsi d'une lumière aussi belle qu'inattendue. Pour nous, après y avoir mûrement réfléchi, nous ne voyons que deux manières possibles d'expliquer une dispute qui, si elle n'est pas un vain verbiage, doit avoir ses racines dans les profondeurs de la pensée chrétienne et par là, tenir de bien près à la question d'origine et des développements de ces dogmes.
La première et la plus simple serait de supposer que, tandis que les Grecs n'envisageaient dans la trinité chré-tienne que la trinité supérieure de la Kabbale, le Couronne, la Sagesse, la Prudence ou Esprit, et que par consé-quent ils croyaient ce dernier émané seulement du Père comme il n'émane que du Père dans cette triade kabbalis-tique parce que la Couronne, le Père des Pères, projette en même temps au-dehors le Fils et l'Esprit, l'un à droite (le Fils) l'autre à gauche (l'Esprit), tandis que, par là même, les Grecs rejetaient le "filioque" car, à la vérité, le Fils (la Sagesse) n'a dans cette triade aucune part à sa la génération ; les Latins, au contraire, partant de l'autre trinité kabbalistique, c'est-à-dire la Sagesse (le Père), le Logos ou Tipheret (le Fils), le Royaume ou Malkhuth (l'Esprit) croyaient être dans le vrai et ils y étaient en effet enseignant que l'Esprit procède à la fois du Père et du Fils ("filio-que"), car c'est ainsi que l'Esprit (le Royaume) procède dans cette triade kabbalistique en même temps du Père (Sagesse) qui engendre un Fils (Logos) et une fille (l'Esprit), et du Fils aussi, le Logos Tipheret dont le Royaume, l'Esprit, sa soeur et son épouse, n'est qu'une côte détachée à l'exemple d'Adam.
Mais il y a, disions-nous, une autre explication possible : dans cette hypothèse, les Grecs et les Latins n'au-raient obéi qu'à une seule influence, n'auraient reconnu qu'une seule trinité, n'auraient imité qu'un seul modèle, la triade kabbalistique supérieure, la Couronne, la Sagesse et la Prudence ; ils se seraient divisés comme les kabba-listes eux-mêmes se divisent (et c'est le point plus intéressant qui arrête le critique) sur la génération ou procession de l'Esprit.

De même qu'il y a des kabbalistes qui placent la Sagesse et la Prudence (l'Esprit) en ligne parallèle, l'une à droite et l'autre à gauche comme deux branches poussées à la fois par le tronc commun, la Couronne, et ne de-vant par conséquent leur naissance qu'au Père commun, de même aussi les Grecs ne faisaient naître l'Esprit que du Père seulement. Mais, ainsi qu'il y a d'autres kabbalistes qui placent la Sagesse et la Prudence en ligne per-pendiculaire, la seconde sous la première, issue d'elle et soumise à elle, de même aussi les Latins enseignaient que l'Esprit émane du Père et du Fils à la fois : "filioque".

Nous ne voudrions pourtant pas qu'on put se méprendre sur nos intentions quand nous disons que les Grecs et les Latins s'attachaient chacun à une triade kabbalistique particulière, ou qu'ils se divisaient sur une question qui constitue encore sujet de débats entre les kabbalistes ; nous sommes bien loin de penser que les uns ou les autres aient eu jamais conscience de ces causes de différence que nous signalons aujourd'hui qu'ils ne se soient jamais aperçus d'obéir à ces motifs que nous assignons à leur division.
Ils étaient chrétiens, rien que chrétiens, ils ne croyaient obéir qu'au pure Christianisme, mais lui-même poussait ses racines jusque dans la profondeur de la Kabbale, elle lui communiquait son Génie, ses doctrines, les causes et les occasions des mêmes débats, des mêmes disputes qui se vérifièrent en son sein, et comme une semence, semée sur un quelconque terrain, déploiera toujours au soleil sa tige, ses feuilles, ses couleurs, ses fruits, tous ses trésors cachés, de même la doctrine kabbalistique, transplantée sur un autre sol, ne manquera pas de parcourir toutes les phases principales qui ont signalé son avènement et son histoire dans le Judaïsme.

Nous pourrions ne rien dire de plus sur cette question, mais au prix même d'une digression nous sommes heu-reux de citer un exemple d'un débat soulevé au sein de la philosophie platonicienne entre Plotin et Porphyre, et qui offre avec le sujet en question de frappantes analogies.
Nous ajoutons, sans crainte, qu'il est de nature à l'éclaircir singulièrement. C'est sur l'âme, la Psyché, que la lutte s'engagea. L'âme, c'est-à-dire le troisième terme de la triade néo-platonicienne, qui répond point par point à l'Esprit chrétien, à l'âme (Nefesh) kabbalistique, l'Esprit, le Royaume, et nous en voulons pour preuve l'oraison de saint Basile où, tout le reste demeurant tel qu'on le lit dans Plotin, le seul nom de Psyché y est remplacé par celui de Saint-Esprit. Le bruit de cette dispute semble l'annonce avant-coureur de la tempête qui se soulèvera tant de siècles plus tard entre Grecs et Latins.
Plotin disait que l'âme tient le troisième rang après le Père et le Fils. Porphyre, au contraire, enseignait que l'âme se positionne au milieu ente les deux autres. Réduisons d'abord les expressions de ces deux coryphées de l'École néo-platonicienne au langage des kabbalistes.

Demandons-nous où est-elle, dans la Kabbale, la triade qui répond à l'Un, au Logos, à la Psyché, c'est-à-dire à la triade néo-platonicienne ?
Est-ce la Couronne, la Sagesse, la Prudence, qui forment la première triade ? Sans doute. Le langage de Plotin serait parfaitement intelligible, nous aurions une âme (quoique ce nom ne convienne à aucune Sephira aussi bien qu'au Royaume kabbalistique), qui occuperait le troisième rang après la Couronne et la Sagesse ; mais peut-on concevoir ce que Porphyre semble y opposer ?

Il veut que l'âme occupe le milieu. Or, jamais la Prudence, la mère supérieure, n'occupera cette place dans la Kabbale ; sa nature même d'objet, de terme de la pensée, de Retour, de réflexion, s'opposant à ce qu'elle précède le sujet, la Pensée, la spontanéité. Il est donc impossible de transporter le débat néo-platonicien sur ce terrain par-ticulier de la théologie kabbalistique.

Il n'y a qu'un seul moyen pour éclairer mutuellement ces deux formes de la même question, la forme philoso-phique et la forme chrétienne : Plotin, à notre avis, aurait vu dans l'âme le Royaume kabbalistique, dans son Logos le Tipheret, dans son Un la Sagesse.
Porphyre, au contraire, ne voyait du Royaume que son côté supérieure, que l'objet idéal, que la mère supé-rieure, en un mot que la Binah et, faisant lui aussi de la sagesse l'Un, du Tipheret son Logos, il était bien naturel qu'il proclamât que l'âme devait occuper la place du milieu car c'est la place même qu'elle occupe dans la Kabbale entre les deux que nous venons de nommer, au lieu que la fille ; car le Royaume ne tient que le troisième rang.
Quant aux analogies avec le débat entre Grecs et Latins, quiconque peut le remarquer. Les Grecs croyaient l'Esprit issu du Père seulement ; or, qu'est-ce, sinon l'opinion de Porphyre qui, plaçant l'âme au milieu, la faisait naître du Père immédiatement ? Les Latins, au contraire, admettaient le «filioque» et ils croyaient l'Esprit issu du Père et du Fils, mais Plotin n'a pas dit autre chose, car lui aussi place l'âme au troisième rang après le Père et le Fils, et par conséquent, tenant de l'un et de l'autre son origine ou sa procession.
Ce qui va paraître plus singulier et qui achève de réaliser nos prévisions, c'est que cette division opérée au sein de l'École et représentée par Plotin et Porphyre, troublera l'Esprit de Plotin lui-même, qui prendra conscience des incertitudes dont l'Église est saisie parfois, et de la double attraction qu'exercent sur son Esprit la Binah et le Malk-huth. Leur affinité, leur extrême ressemblance, quoique chacune trône dans un ordre, dans un empire divers, est de nature à expliquer cette hésitation, cette confusion dans la pensée néoplatonicienne et chrétienne.
C'est Proclus qui nous l'atteste ; Plotin lui-même hésitait. Il considérait l'âme sous deux points de vue différents, en admettant tantôt que l'âme (Binah) est meilleure que l'intelligence (Tipheret, Daat, Logos), tantôt qu'elle est infé-rieure à l'intelligence (c'est-à-dire qu'elle est le Malkhuth des kabbalistes), ou il attribue le premier rang à l'être (Yesh-être-Sagesse), le second à l'intelligence (Logos-Tipheret-Daat) et le troisième à l'animal même (Hayah-animal-Malkhuth).

Quelle que soit la source d'où émane l'Esprit du Christianisme, il y a un fait dont nous devons tenir compte : la forme, le mode de cette émanation. Dès les temps les plus reculés, l'Église a affirmé invariablement une différence entre la génération du Fils et la génération de l'Esprit. Son langage est devenu là-dessus d'une rigueur tout à fait dogmatique tandis qu'elle n'hésite pas à appeler la forme par laquelle le Fils est issu une "génération", alors qu'elle est bien loin de qualifier du même nom l'origine du Saint-Esprit, mais elle veut qu'on le nomme "procession".

D'où provient cette différence ? Nous le demanderions en vain au Christianisme, à ses plus savants docteurs ; saint Augustin répond au nom de tous. Il avoue qu'il ignore la manière de distinguer la génération du Fils de la pro-cession de l'Esprit et que sa pénétration se heurte à cette difficulté.
Nous ne la définirons pas, d'autant plus que nous ne traitons pas ici de la métaphysique du Christianisme mais de son histoire.

Or, il y a quelque chose que saint Augustin ignorait également et que notre système seul est capable de révé-ler : l'origine de cette dénomination. Elle est entièrement dans cette différence entre les autres émanations supé-rieures et le Malkhuth, car, tandis qu'on dit des premières qu'elles sont debout, on dit de la dernière quelle procède, qu'elle va, qu'elle marche : on la nomme en ces termes appropriés, halahah ou halihah, marche, procession ; on dit qu'elle se forme seule à la manière de la déesse égyptienne qui disait : "Je suis venue de moi-même", ce que le nom de don appliqué à l'Esprit par les Évangiles, exprime d'une manière assez heureuse.
Nous renonçons à approfondir ici le sens philosophique de toute cette terminologie. Notre travail n'exige pas, de notre part, une aussi rude tâche ; qu'il nous suffise seulement de pouvoir constater une étonnante conformité d'ex-pressions entre la Kabbale et le Christianisme, une origine toute kabbalistique des phénomènes au premier abord les plus bizarres, des tours les plus capricieux, des distinctions les plus subtiles, dans le langage théologique du Christianisme.
Extrait du livre de Benamozegh qui devait paraître début 2003

Commentaire:

POUR IMPOSER LEUR MONOTHEISME IL LEUR FAUT SUPPRIMER
DEUX PERSONNES DE LA TRES SAINTE TRINITE

APRES AVOIR RAMENE NOTRE-SEIGNEUR JESUS-CHRIST
AU SEUL ROLE DE PROPHETE
IL LEUR FAUT "TUER" LE SAINT-ESPRIT

Mais …on ne se moque pas de Dieu (Gal., 6-7)

With Peter said...

Theo Stuss- I believe we are in full agreement about what constitutes the correct doctrine of the Trinity. Our difference is over whether the B16, JP2 or P6 have denied this doctrine. I do not acknowledge the legitimacy of the inferences you and others have drawn from a selection of their words. I will look into getting Dormann’s book, but you should understand that I am speaking to you: I’m more interested in what you think than what he thinks. Therefore I am more interested in how Theo Stuss understands his argument than how he himself formulates it.

Before obtaining the book, I must note that Dominum et Vivificantem says VERY LITTLE about the Trinitarian procession and the spiration of the Holy Ghost. It is thus difficult to imagine what sorts of errors may have been made in this regard. The document is above all dedicated to the mission of the Holy Spirit in the Church and in the world. And, as you’ve pointed out, this is an area that allows for greater ambiguity because each of the divine persons is deeply involved in the missions of the others. It’s much harder (I do not say it is impossible) to catch a person committing heresy with regard to Trinitarian missions than with regard to Trinitarian processions.

I am a friendly acquaintance of Fr. Cekada and I know his works well. His description of the so-called “novus ordo” as “frank’n’church” is based on his belief that Lumen Gentium, Communionis Notio and Dominus Iesu advocated the ecclesiological heresy of Branchism. You should know that this belief of his is utterly false.

The ecclesiology of Vatican II, which incorporates some non-Catholics through imperfect invisible bonds, presupposes that these non-Catholics are invincibly ignorant of the necessity of the Church. “Hence, they cannot be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it, or remain in it” (Lumen Gentium 14).

Elements of grace and truth outside the Church’s visible confines are not in themselves salvific, they only become instruments of salvation on the condition of invincible ignorance. An invincibly ignorant Lutheran can be saved through valid Baptism and faithfulness to Scripture. An invincibly ignorant Muslim can be saved through professing his belief in one God and through faithfulness to the natural law. They cannot be saved QUA Lutheranism or QUA Islam. Thus: “Among those – who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience – many achieve salvation” (Lumen Gentium 16). The whole thing is based on the Pius IX doctrine of ecclesial invincible ignorance (i.e. “through no fault of their own”).

In Vatican II, there are no separate but equal branches of the true Church. “This is the sole Church of Christ which in the Creed we profess to be one, holy, Catholic and apostolic , which our Savior, after his resurrection entrusted to Peter’s pastoral care, commissioning him and the other apostles to extend and rule it, and which he raised up for all ages as ‘the pillar and mainstay of the truth’” (Lumen Gentium 8).

Aspects of this Church exist outside the Church’s visible confines (LG 8). Likewise, within the Church’s visible confines, there are some who are not of the Church. The final purification will bring the elements outside into the fullness within and will purge all that is not of Christ from the members of his body militant (see LG 17). In history, however, the imbalance remains. The Catholic Church on earth is the sacrament – the visible sign and efficacious instrument – of the Kingdom of Christ in heaven (see LG 1). Nowhere in any of the documents of Vatican II – and I’ve studied these documents long and hard - is this sacramental ecclesiology confused with a branchist ecclesiology. The same holds true for the post-conciliar documents.

Vatican II resolves the dilemma raised by the Feeney affair: How can a person be a non-Catholic, be saved through Baptism of Desire and yet not be considered a member of Christ’s body (i.e. the Church)? Through sacramental ecclesiology (i.e. Church as visible sign), we can understand these people to be mysteriously, extraordinarily belonging to the Church. Nobody receives sanctifying grace without simultaneously being incorporated into Christ’s body, the Church. Problem solved. It is NOT Frankinchurch

Theo Stuss said...

My topic is the Sacrament of Order. It is not that I was Sedevacantist first and then urged by this position to declare the new orders as invalid. It is the opposite: by studying the new orders, especially the consecration of bishops, I realized that they are invalid and then I concluded that they could not have been promulgated by the Roman Catholic Church.

There are many points why the new Episcopal consecration is invalid:


1) There is no moral unity between matter and form within the moral substance of the Sacrament of Order.

To avoid a misunderstanding, I do not demand that the imposition of hands is taking place in exactly the same moment when the form is pronounced. If there is the laying on of hands just before the whole consecration prayer containing the essential form, this should be enough.

But the new order changed the imposition of the Gospel in such a way that a new competing matter is inserted, between the laying on of hands and the prayer. We refer here to the Gospel not just as physical bulk, but matter within in sacrament means something belonging to the class and gender of signs and symbols. Obviously the imposition of the Gospel, if not carried out in the right way, could be taken as a symbol and a sign which is meant to transmit spiritual power. In fact, we have such an example of such an application. For instance, in the apocryphous 8th Book of the Apostolic Constitutions, the “bishop” to be ordained receives the imposition of the Gospel only. There is no laying on of hands. This shall symbolize that the power is coming from God directly and not through the ordaining bishops. In fact they don’t ordain.

We cannot argue that everybody knows that the true matter is imposition of hands and that there is no misunderstanding. A Sacrament is meant to be an effective symbol with integrity. Let’s say, I would baptize someone and poor the water in silence over his head and then I poor in silence as much oil on the head and just after pronounce the form. I am asking: within this order of symbols, does the form refer to the water, or the oil? Moral theology, as well as sacramental theology is absolutely clear, such a baptism is invalid. (All references in the texts of Rore-Sanctifica.org )

Oil was used in ancient times for cleansing like water, especially to take of sticky dirt and has a similar symbolism to the water. If there is the oil applied in the same way like the water, and not just little bit of it floating in the water, the application of the oil can become an imposing symbol. The procedure does not make clear and to be seen that the form concerns the water.

There is no oriental rite where the imposition of the Gospel is intercepting the effect of the laying on of hands. For instance, the Western Syriac rite the hands are on the head and the Gospel is held above the hands by the assistances.

There could be an objection from the Greek rite, because the first laying on of hands is taking place with the stole. And also the stole could be a symbol of power. But it does not concern the second imposition of hands which is really sacramental, followed by the extension of one hand over the head accompanied by a second prayer, the real form.

The next point:
The new prayer for laying on of hands is judaïsing and anti-trinitarian since its beginning. If we look at the French and German vernacular version, the text stars as follows:

German: We praise thee, God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ…

French: God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ…

At least the English text goes like that: God the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ…

The French and the German text give the impression that the Person of Jesus Christ as a God who is the Father, superior to Him. If we look at the Maronite prayer for the inthronisation of a patriarch which had served as an example, we find this in the Latin column of Assemani’s translation:

Deus Pater Domini nostri Jesu Christi….(Denzinger, Ritus Oriental. Vol. 2, page 220).

I’ve checked the Syriac column of Assemani with the help of Gabriel Rabo, University of Göttingen, the Syriac text goes like the Latin one: God the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ…

Let’s also look at the other example, the Coptic texts :

"..., Pater Domini nostri et Dei nostri et Salvatoris nostri Jesu Christi,… ". (Denzinger, Ritus Orientalium, vol. 2, pages 23, 33 and 48)

Is there any smell of Arianism, or subordination of the Son?

But it comes even worse:

"qui praedestinasti ex principio genus iustorum ab Abraham, qui constituisti principes et sacerdotes, et sanctuarium tuum sine ministerio non dereliquisti, cui ab initio mundi placuit in his quos eligisti glorificari:"

"From the beginning you chose the righteous nation descending of Abraham.
You established rulers and priests, and did not leave your sanctuary without ministers to serve you. From the creation of the world you have been pleased to be glorified by those whom you have chosen."

So who are the real priests and ministers of the sanctuary, the Jews?

The official English vernacular version is not as bad as the Latin text but still bad enough:


"From the beginning
You chose the descendants of Abraham to be your holy nation.
You established rulers and priests,
And did not leave your sanctuary without ministers to
serve you.
From the creation of the world
you have been pleased to be glorified by those whom you have chosen."

How does the Syriac example go? It says,

“You chose Abraham who had pleased thee by his faith..”

Neither the Syriac nor the Coptic texts, write about the Jews as righteous as such. Abraham was pleasing to God, not those ones who were under the cloud, marched through the Red Sea, but still were unpleasing to God, as Saint Paul tells us.

About the form and the negation of the Filioque we already have written enough before. Let’s just add that the term “spiritus principalis – spiritus hegemonicus” is also to be found in the benediction of a Coptic abbot with laying on of hands. Still, this is no sacrament. (Denz. Ritus Orientalium, vol. 2, page 17, pdf-counter page 4)

http://www.rore-sanctifica.org/bibilotheque_rore_sanctifica/10-eglises_et_rites_orientaux_et_sources/1864-denzinger-ritus_orientalium/DENZINGER-02-RO-II-1961-JacobitesAlexandrins-pp10-35.pdf


The Coptic texts insist that the Holy Ghost is consubstantiantial with the Son and the Father (Intronisation de patriarche copte, Denz., Ritus orientalium, tome 2, page 49), the Syriac text refers to the Holy Ghost as “one” with the Father and the Son (Intronisation de patriarche maronite, Denz., Ritus orientalium, tome 2, page 221)

Last not least, the Western Syriac and Maronite Inthronisation of a Patriarch, which served as an example for Paul VI.’s new order, is not a sacrament. Elder sacramental versions for candidates who were not yet bishops (before the year 1000) used a preceding imposition of hands with another form, not similar to Paul VI, followed by the prayer of inthronisation and secondary impositions of hands. There were three impositions and only the first one was sacramental. But this latter one did not serve as an example for Paul VI.

It is just a lie that Paul VI.’s new order is based “magna ex parte” on Coptic and Western Syriac Episcopal consecrations.

Let’s come to another sort of text manipulation used in the new order. The manipulation goes back to 1919, when Dom Cagin quoted from Denzinger’s book Ritus orientalium. The quoted text concerned the prayer for the inthronisation of a Western Syriac patriarch and the manipulation took place in a phrase, which served later as an example for the new form of Paul Paul VI. The apocryhous TESTAMENTUM DOMINI was also an example for the prayer of inthronisation and for the new form, too. Among the Western Syriac and the Maronites this prayer was never a sacrament.

But now on the manipulation:

Real text in Denzinger’s book:

"illumina et effunde super eum (chosen Patriarch) gratiam et intelligentiam Spiritus tui principalis, quam tradidisti dilecto Filio tuo, Domino nostro Jesu Christo."

http://www.rore-sanctifica.org/bibilotheque_rore_sanctifica/10-eglises_et_rites_orientaux_et_sources/1864-denzinger-ritus_orientalium/DENZINGER-05-RO-II-1961-Patriarches-pp76-79et100-109et209-227.pdf

(page 220, in the PDF-counter of the browser, page 15)

http://www.rore-sanctifica.org/bibilotheque_rore_sanctifica/10-eglises_et_rites_orientaux_et_sources/eglise_maronite/1758-assemani-codex_liturgicus_(9_et_13)/Assemani_CODEX_No09_064-119.pdf

(Assemani, Codex Liturgicus, page 107, in the PDF-counter of the browser, page 44)

Manipulated quotation in Dom Cagin’s book

"illumina et effunde super eum (chosen Patriarch) gratiam et intelligentiam Spiritus tui principalis, quem tradidisti dilecto Filio tuo, Domino nostro Jesu Christo."

This text was used by the Dominicans of Avrillé in LE SEL DE LA TERRE:

http://www.rore-sanctifica.org/etudes/2006/RORE-2006-02-07-FR-Notitiae-ex-Rore-Tomo3.pdf

(copy of a page of “LE SEL DE LA TERRE” using the manipulation, page 46 in the pdf-file )

Paul VI.’s new form:

"effunde super hunc electum eam virtutem, quae a te est, Spiritum principalem, quem dedisti dilecto Filio tuo Jesu Christo..."

As everybody can see, in a reprint of Denzinger's Latin translation stemming from Assemani, Dom Cagin replaced the word „quam“ by „quem“, which changes the ratio completely. In the real Latin text “quam” refers to “intelligentiam”. I checked the Syriac text of Assemani with the help of Gabriel Rabo (University of Göttingen, Germany) and we found out that a more precise translation should go like that:


"illumina et effunde super eum (chosen Patriarch) intelligentiam et gratiam, quae est a Spirito tuo principali, quam tradidisti dilecto Filio tuo, Domino nostro Jesu Christo."

"anhar w'oshud law sakultonutho w taybutho hoy d-men ruhokh rishonoyo hoy d'ashlemt l-abrokh habibo d-moran yeshu' mshiho"


What is behind this text manipulation and changing “quam” into “quem”, while pretending to have quoted Denzinger correctly? Well, it’s easy to see that now the impression is given that the Son received the Holy Ghost (ruhokh rishonoyo – Spiritus principalis) from the Father and that we have traditional liturgical texts proofing that.

Does the second Aramaic relative pronoun “hoy” which is in feminine gender, really refer to “ruhokh rishonoyo - Spiritus principalis”?

Well, the Aramaic word for spirit is “ruho” and like the Hebrew “ruah” it is normally feminine, that’s true. But here in this phrase it was applied in a masculine transcription. “Ruhokh rishonoyo” is masculine and “hoy” can only refer to “taybutho – grace”. But the manipulators proceeded as if the Holy Ghost is a female being, just like in Cabbala. They ignored the transcription, while the real text means that the Father confided (tradidisti) the treasury of graces to his beloved Son in the mission of Incarnation, the form of Paul the VI. says that the Father gave (dedisti) the Holy Ghost to the Son. This is not the same thing.

The prayer of inthronisation contains also a remarkable improvement in comparison to the apocryphous TESTAMENTUM. In the latter, a text of very doubtful origin, this is to be read:

"Concede him, O God, your Holy Ghost whom you have given to your Holy One - hab ruho haw dilokh, aloho qadisho, haw d-ethiheb l-hasyo dilokh…."

The real liturgical text in use for the inthronisation was improved by the Western Syriac and even the Schismatics say it that way:

Concede him, O God, your Holy Ghost whom you have given to your holy ones - « hab ruho haw dilokh, aloho qadisho, haw d-ethiheb la-hsayo diloch ...( Denzinger, Assemani, Dom de Smet, Synodikon published by Vööbus, page 14, Syriac text )

In the first phrase “The Holy one – l-hasyo” appears in singular, but the second phrase, using plural, is in real liturgical use, (la-hsayo the holy ones instead of l-hasyo). And again, “ruho” is used here in masculine as the masculine relative pronoun “haw” indicates, not the feminine “hoy” is used.

The meaning of l-hasyo can be: the Saint, the Messiah, the Holy One, a saint, bishop, apostle.

In the plural form it can not refer to Christ and in this way it is used to install the patriarch. It refers to the Apostles, like in the Coptic text. The Syriac liturgical text was even purified long time ago from this error, already condemned by the 9th Canon of the Council of Ephesus.

If we have a look at the Coptic texts instead, there is no sign at all, that the Father gave the Holy Ghost to the Son.

http://www.rore-sanctifica.org/bibilotheque_rore_sanctifica/10-eglises_et_rites_orientaux_et_sources/1864-denzinger-ritus_orientalium/DENZINGER-02-RO-II-1961-JacobitesAlexandrins-pp10-35.pdf

Page 23-24, in the pdf-counter, page 7-9

"….nunc effunde virtutem Spiritus tui hegemonici, quem donasti apostolis…"


Does the text say anywhere that the Father gave the Spirit to his Son?


Summary:

1) non-sacramental Syriac text for the inthronisation of a patriarch was used as an example to create a new pseudo-sacrament. And in the promulgation act, we were made believe that this text is still in use "magna ex parte" among the Western Syriac to consecrate bishops.
2) Neither Coptic nor Western Syriac, nor Maronite texts show any evidence of this strange new theology that the Father passed the Holy Ghost to the Son.
3) Text manipulations were used in order to provide false proofs of tradition, in order to fool the avarage Catholic.
4) The manipulators saw the Holy Ghost as a female being in complementary anti-thesis to the male principle, the Father. This is Cabbala. Erotic, dialectic anti-thesis within God.
5) “Spiritus principalis –pneumatos hegemonicus” also turns up in the benediction of a Coptic abbot with imposition of hands. Still this is no sacrament and nobody claims it to be one.
6) This new judaïsing prayer of Paul VI. confuses the whole theology about the Blessed Trinity.
7) In reality, not only Greeks and Romans, but also Christian Semitics like the Syriacs applied grammatical forms of the Holy Ghost in masculine gender in order to avoid the erotic anti-thesis of male and female within God. This is certainly due to the apostles, since there exist also in Hebrew masculine transcriptions of the word “ruah”. This is even to be found in the Old Testament. Unfortunately I’ve lost me list with 5 examples. But I assure that it exists.
8) No unity between matter and form in the new order for bishops.

With Peter said...

Thank you for honoring me with such an impressive and extensive reply. To me it implies the presence of true evangelical charity in your soul. Thank you.

You raise many points and I will try to respond as best as I can. I am heartened that you acknowledge that Sedevacantism is not a default position, it is a sad conclusion which is to be avoided until one must acknowledge the fact that the pope has committed heresy. This seems like a valid summary of what you have said.

The foregoing numbers are based on my own thematic points, not as a response to your numbered points.

1) As a general precursor, I feel obligated to say that the dishonesty or ineptitude that reformers exhibited in borrowing from ancient texts does nothing to invalidate the liturgy. This condemnation by association is not valid. If Tertullian said X and Tertullian was a heretic, does this make X heretical? Of course not. Even if Paul VI purposefully tried to “protestantize” the liturgy – well this would be despicable perhaps – but it would not ipso facto invalidate the liturgy. Even if Paul VI purposefully borrowed from ancient heretical sects and texts, it would not ipso facto invalidate the sacrament. Likewise, the fact that a particular text was taken and “manipulated” from a non-sacramental liturgical text (e.g. enthronization, etc) does not ipso facto invalidate the sacrament. Ex opere operato. Sacraments operate strictly on the basis of the validity of the sign. I understand that in other places in your discourse, you explicitly called this into question (see point 4 below), but in your writing there are a lot of arguments based on the logical fallacy of guilt by association.

2) Similarly, I’ve noticed a habit in your writing to talk about heretical “tendencies” or “smells.” Here is a good example. The context is criticizing the reference to “the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. You ask: “Is there any smell of Arianism, or subordination of the Son?”

The New Testament itself contains many phrases such as this (Rm 15:6, 2 Cor 11:31, Eph 1:3, 1 Thes 3:11, 1 Pt 1:3, Apoc 1:6). It is true that these phrases were often struck from later orthodox vocabulary because of the remembrance of Arian distortions, but this doesn’t mean anathematizing their original usage exemplified in the writings of Peter, John and Paul! Good heavens! Very few passages of the New Testament refer directly to the full divinity of Jesus Christ. No passage explicitly says, “Jesus Christ is God.”

The reason for this is not because the New Testament is Arian! It is because the theology of the New Testament presents the person and ministry of Christ as the interpretive key to understanding the mysteries of God, the universe, the human person, creation, the Old Covenant, sin, suffering and death. God the Father is referred to in the context of he who dwells in unapproachable light and inscrutable mystery, but who is comprehensible in and through the Gospel of Jesus Christ. This is a very different emphasis than later orthodoxy, which describes a deeper Christology designed to polemically confront and refute the misinterpretations of various heresies. Thus it is seen why earlier discourses emphasized the God of our Lord Jesus Christ and why later discourses emphasized Christ’s divinity in its own right.

At the same time, the earlier discourse is not invalid or heretical! These words – in and of themselves – remain orthodox and good. One must demonstrate a heretical understanding in order to infer heresy in the one using these words. This is a case in point of what I see to be an underlying problem in your writing.

3) Old Covenant Priesthood. This is similar to the problem mentioned above. This passage involves a typology which is evidenced in the New Testament and Patristic theology. The Levitical priesthood prepares the way for the new and everlasting priesthood according to the order of Melchizedek. The ancient Ark of the Covenant is a sanctuary that foreshadowed the Eucharistic tabernacle. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with the paragraph to which you take such exception: The paragraph speaks of Old Covenant typology, not of the efficacy of post-synagogue Judaism. Likewise you will see the Scriptures themselves describe Old Covenant Israel as a righteous nation (Esther 11:7-9, Isaiah 26:2). This does not mean that they were sinless or justified in sense of Christ’s redemption, but it means that they were set apart from among all other nations as the chosen people consecrated to God (Isaiah 43:20).

4) You have given me much to read and digest and in time I promise to read all the relevant source material you’ve given me. As a precautionary note, I have grace misgivings about your conclusion that a baptism involving superfluous anointing of oil will *necessarily* invalidate the sacrament. Is the oil understood as “competing” matter or is it simply “superfluous”? When two spouses do that silly candle ceremony during a wedding (taking the two smaller flames and bringing them together with a large central candle, does this invalidate the sacrament of Matrimony? Certainly if essential matter is being “replaced” this invalidates the sacrament, but if it is only set side by side with non-essential matter, does this really invalidate the sacrament? What you describe is AT BEST a valid theological opinion.

Even conceding your theological opinion, asserting that the conferral of the Gospel is “competing matter” within the new rite is untenable. It is simply symbolic of the responsibility to guard and keep the faith handed down from the apostles. Where is it asserted as matter belonging to the essence of the sacrament? What document of the liturgical reform asserts that this action stands equal to the laying on of hands? On the contrary, Paul VI explicitly says in his apostolic constitution Pontificalis Romani Recognitio: “In the ordination of presbyters, the matter is the laying on of hands that is done in silence before the consecratory prayer . . . In the ordination of a bishop, the matter is the laying on of hands on the head of the bishop-elect by the consecrating bishops, or at least by the principal consecrator, that is done in silence before the consecratory prayer.” The matter is clearly and unequivocally delineated as the laying on of hands. The laying on of hands is not “intercepted” by the conferral of the Gospel. There is no confusion. There is moral unity between matter and form within the moral substance of the sacrament.

5) The Holy Ghost: Consubstantial and One with the Father and the Son? Of course he is. Consubstantialis is a valid translation of homoousios: The divine persons are “one in being.” You can’t possibly be criticizing the Copts for calling the Holy Ghost consubstantial and one with the Father and the Son. I must have misunderstood you. You are no tri-theist.

6) The Holy Ghost: from the Father to the Son? The Holy Ghost can be said to be given from the Father to the Son as long as it is not in a sense that makes the Son into less than a co-active spirator of the Holy Ghost. “Because the Son receives from the Father that the Holy Ghost proceeds from Him, it can be said that the Father spirates the Holy Ghost through the Son, or that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father through the Son, which has the same meaning” (Thomas Aquinas, Sum. Theol., I, q36, a3). In reply 3, Thomas further qualifies: “The procession of the Holy Ghost is coeternal with his principle. Hence, the Son was not begotten before the Holy Ghost proceeded.” Even on the level of divine processions, the rite’s language is valid.

7) The rite focuses on missions because missions pertain more closely to the sacraments than processions. His baptism in the Jordan was the manifestation of Christ’s divine authority just as Pentecost was the manifestation of Christ’s promise to hand this authority onto the apostles. Take a good look at Daniel 7 and the prophecy about how the Holy Spirit will be passed from the Ancient of Days to the Son of Man to the Saints of the Most High.

This is much the same point as is raised in our Compendium discussion: You are far too willing to impose a heretical sense on the Magisterium’s valid words. This belies your protestations about how you “reluctantly” became a sedevacantist. Why do you expend such effort to infer heretical meanings? You seem bound and determined to see heresy where there is none.

8) Holy Spirit Feminine? There is no sexuality in God. Sexuality was created as an image of divinity (see Genesis 1:27). On the one hand, this image reflects God in the sense of his relations with humanity, Yahweh’s relations with Israel, Christ’s relations with the Church. On the other hand, sexuality and procreation gives insight into the divine two becoming one. The sign value linking God and man, man and wife, demands that we refer to God according the masculine personal pronouns, he and him. But God is not masculine. God is not made in man’s image! Good heavens! “He is neither man nor woman: he is God” (Catechism of the Catholic Church 239). God and the Holy Spirit very rarely, but sometimes are described in Scripture in feminine ways (e.g. Is 49:14-15, 66:13, Ps 131:2-3, Hos 11:1-3). This is because all things that come from God reflect him in some capacity. And the Holy Spirit – he never she – is responsible for more feminine values in his mission: love, life, compassion, caring, etc. At the same time, he also is responsible for very masculine values: leadership, courage, guidance, protection, etc.

Summary: Here I do not summarize my own points but respond directly to your own:

1. The etymological relationship between the new rite and the Coptic rite does not matter one lick for or against the validity of the sacrament.
2. There is nothing strange or new about the Father giving the Spirit to the Son. The Spirit is exchanged mutually according to St. Augustine and St. Thomas. This means that each gives the Spirit to one another. What is a strange and old heresy is that the Father is an active principle of spiration and the Son is passive. This is heretical and it is missing from Vatican II and post-conciliar liturgical and post-conciliar documents.
3. Supposed text manipulations are irrelevant. Peter and the Church has the authority to bind and loose liturgical discipline in heaven and on earth.
4. You have utterly failed to demonstrate that the liturgical documents (I don’t care one wit about this or that peritus) EVER conceived of the Holy Spirit as a feminine being. On the contrary, the documents ALWAYS and INFALLIBLY refer to the Holy Spirit as “he” and “him”; NEVER “she” or “her.”
5. The origin and alternative uses of the term “spiritum principalem” (governing Spirit) are utterly irrelevant as to the validity of the sacrament. The benediction of Coptic abbots doesn’t make the least bit of difference one way or the other.
6. What you mistake as a “Judaizng prayer” is simply Old Covenant typology, emphasizing the role of the priesthood throughout God’s revelation.
7. If we use a few feminine symbols with reference to the Spirit, it must not be concluded that this means we believe in a masculine-feminine duality in God. Vatican II and post-conciliar documents, especially the Catechism, rigorously deny any such duality in God.
8. The laying on of hands (matter) always immediately precedes the prayer of consecration (form) in the ordination of deacon, priest and bishop. There is thus perfect and explicit unity of matter and form.

All your points regarding the supposed invalidity of the new Episcopal consecration thus come to nothing.

I hope this fills you with confidence in the Providence of the Father, the Promise of the Son and the Guidance of the Holy Spirit. The Church has not failed. The Rock has not faltered. Have confidence and be of good cheer. It is not as it seemed to you! The sede is not vacante!

God bless you with faith,

Theo Stuss said...

Dear Mr. C.S. (With Peter),


thanks for yout long answer. I am afraid that this is one of my last comments, since I hope to start a new work soon 1st of March.

At the moment I don't have much time, so I will just pick some of your objections.

You say that text falsifications don't matter, since the Pope has authority to bind a.s.o.

This is very misleading. A promulgation is as infallible as the ritual promulgated. The promulgation is issued as an Apostolic Constitution and if there are obviously wrong things in the promulgation, both the promulgation and the promulgated rite find themselves in a very odd situation. "Pontificalis Romani Recognitio" asserts that the New Order is used "magna ex parte" by Coptic and Western Syriac to ordain bishops. Regarding the Western Syriac not bishops are sacramentally ordained, but an already bishop is installed as patriarch. Regarding the Coptics, their prayer is not closer to the New Order of Paul VI., than the Tridentine rite to Luther's "mass". Just because the "mass" of the Lutherans knows a preface, a "holy, holy, holy", words of consecration and an anaphora, it does not mean that it’s valid.

I've shown already that the Coptic prayer is clearly following and fulfilling the Council of Ephesus, yes, there is an impact of all the first Councils until Ephesus there. But the New Order wants to reverse back to the time before Nicea.

Regarding the Holy Trinity and the Filioque the 9th Canon of Ephesus and the 12th Canon of the 2nd Council of Constantinople don't seem to make you think. On one side you say that you are one with me, but I feel that there is the real leverage lacking meant to shift certain essentials into your awareness. The same thing I could repeat regarding the difference between “Spiratio active” and “Spiratio passive” which you again omit. Didn’t you agree some time ago that we can only say that the “Spiratio activa” is included in the generation of the Son and not the “Spiratio passiva”?

By the way, did you never read the interpretation of “the Spirit of the Lord is upon me, since the Lord has anointed me” by the holy fathers? Well, the Unction is the Hypostatical Union and the perfume deriving from the Unction is the Holy Ghost according to the Filioque. This you can read in the “The Mysteries of Christianity” of Matthias Scheeben, one of the greatest German theologians of the 19th century.

According to Dörmann “Dominum et Vivficantem” is fostering Photianism.

Your way of arguing on the Blessed Trinity really makes you fall into a Scotist trap. You say that the Father gave the Holy Ghost to the Son and that the procession of the Ghost can only take place after the generation of the Son. Maybe you don't mean "after" in a temporal sense. Still it's wrong, because according to the teaching of Saint Thomas even a “natura prius aut posterius” is absolutely excluded.

Let's use the wordings of Scotus, because they are more precise than yours. He believed that object of the Father’s intellectual understanding by which he generates the Son, is the Divine Essence and its perfections only. Like that the first Person would only see the Son “in potentia” and then begot him “in actu”.

Saint Thomas rejected that decades before Scotus. Object of the Father’s intellectual understanding are not only the Divine Essence and its perfections, but also He Himself and the other Divine Persons as “in actu tota simul.

I q. 34. a. 1 ad 3

“For the Father, by understanding Himself, the Son and the Holy Ghost, and all other things comprised in this knowledge, conceives the Word; so that thus the whole Trinity is "spoken" in the Word;….”

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1034.htm

You may also look up “de veritate q.4 a.4” and “In Ioh. 1,1”

This is very important point, because otherwise the Son and the Holy Ghost would not really be eternal. Everything in the Holy Trinity is “totum simul” and nothing is “prius aut posterius”. (Creed of Athanasius).

The objection that in this case the Son would be his own principle must be rejected, because the Father understands himself only as Father, since he understands himself and the Son together. In fact, Scotus goes very much into the direction of Joachim of Fiore whose error was condemned on the 4th Lateran Council. According to Joachim the last subject of the interior processions is the Divine Essence and not the Persons. This is very close the Cabbala where at the beginning the indefinite Divine Essence “En-Soph” suddenly makes up its mind in order to shape itself. This is the birth of the upper superior Crown of the Sephiroth. By the way, Joachim was a Jewish convert. The Creed of Paul VI. is not far from that, as I’ve shown in RORE SANCTIFICA II.

If we take the teachings of Scotus seriously, then not only the Son would have an aspect “in potentia” and another one “in actu”, but also the Father, because in this case, only by intellectual understanding of the Divine Essence where everything is hidden, the Father “in potentia” is cropping up “in actu”. The same thing would happen for the Son and the Holy Ghost. But none of the Persons have potential aspects. They are all in one act.

You say: The first Person understands himself and then he’s becoming Father by pronouncing the Word.

But it’s not like that: The act of Generation of the Son is already object of the Father’s understanding and thus included in the Word pronounced eternally. The same thing we can apply in analogy to the procession of the Holy Ghost. Since God is “Actus purus” and the “ipsum esse per se subsistens”, we will never ever understand this “totum simul”. But this is exactly the mystery we have to protect. Again, it’s deplorable that Ott is so brief on this topic, so the reader wouldn’t even understand the importance. (TAN-Books, page 66) Diekamp is much more detailed and that for good reasons. Diekamp says that the principle of the generation is not the object of the intellectual understanding, but the one who understands (principium quod) and his understanding (principium quo).

It also can’t be objected that then the Son would be supposed as already existing, although he exists through the generation.
The act of Divine Generation is an interior and spiritual communication and speaking of utter perfection. The Father generates the Son, because the First one is speaking and pronouncing Himself. But you only can pronounce what you understand; so if the Father pronounces Himself, he must understand Himself, too; but He can’t understand Himself without understanding the Son as Person with him, because only by Generation He is Father. Everything is altogether due to the utmost simplicity of God. (Diekamp, Katholische Dogmatik, vol. 1, page 325, edition 1938)

Here you are terribly mistaken and this is the usual rationalist trap for every superficial approach to this most Holy Mystery.

Let’s come to the misunderstanding of texts of the Gospel and the apostles by heretics. I will just choose one example which it’s so typical: 1 Petr. 1,3

Vulgate : "Benedictus Deus et Pater Domini nostri Jesu Christi…."
Greek : « Eulogentos ho theos kai pater tou kyriou hémon Iesou Christou… »
Syriac Peshitta-Bible : « „mbarak haw aloho abuy d-moran yeshu’ mshiho – benedictus ipse Deus Pater D.N.J.Chr….. »

This is very interesting, because the vernacular translations differ a lot from each other. The more they are conservative, the more the translations of the Vulgate equalize the Peshitta. As you remember concerning the first sentence of the new prayer of Paul VI., I only meant that the Latin text is ambiguous, I didn’t accuse the English text and I hold the German and the French text as unambiguously bad.

Let’s continue with 1 Petr. 1,3 but in respect of the New Order. Since Latin does not know articles for nouns, you agree that in languages with articles the sound and sense of the translation can depend enormously on the distribution of inserted articles.

For instance:

1) Dieu, et le Père de Jésus Christ
2) Le Dieu et le Père de Jésus Christ
3) Béni soit Dieu, le Père de Notre Seigneur Jésus Christ

N°3 is in one of the best French Bibles : Abbé Crampon, 1905

Take for instance the German-Latin Alioli-Bible: The German text is exactly like the one of Crampon in French. This I call a real Orthodox translation.

What does the Latin word “et” mean? Is does not only mean “and”, but can also mean “as well, too, also”. The Latin text may be ambiguous, but it can also be understood in the sense of the Peshitta existing since 170 after Christ: “Praised be this (haw) God (aloho), (who is) the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.”

Let’s now come to the Greek text, because here misunderstandings are quite likely. It seems that due to the specific article “ho”, we are obliged to translate “ho theos” as “the God”.

Here it’s important to know that due to an exception in grammar “ho theos” can never be without the article. There is not even a vocative form like for “ho kyrios – kyrie”. The specific article “ho” must always appear. (By the way, I am writing “ho” and not “o”, because with the usual accent you must pronounce “ho”.)

So, when Greeks want to invoke God and they pray “oh, my God”, they’re obliged to say “ho theos hémon”, but they could say “pater hémon” instead. In other words, “ho theos” in English, German and French does not only mean “the God, der Gott, le Dieu”, but also “God, Gott, Dieu”. Of course the ambiguous situation was annoying, since the formula of 1Petr.1,3 was widely used in the oriental liturgies before the Council of Nicea. This Council had a great impact on the liturgical prayers used and it can be felt everywhere. Since the year 325, you only find amplified versions, as:

« Ho theos kai pater tou monogenous …sou tou theos kai soteros hémon » a.s.o.

This latter example is taken from the 8th Book of Apostolic Constitutions. Being itself a pamphlet against the 1st Council of Constantinople, still the impact of Nicea is to be seen.

You can look anywhere you like in Greek and Coptic liturgies, might it be Mass or Orders, everywhere you find formulas like this one:

« Deus omnipotens, Pater Domini Dei nostri et Filii unigenti tui et Salvatoris nostri Iesu Christi… »

The Syriac liturgies did not need this improvement, since the Aramiac formula taken from the Peshitta 1Petr.1,3 was never a cause of misunderstandings. If you have a look into the texts of Assemani, both, Latin and Syriac, you will see that they do not cause any misunderstandings. I’ve checked the Syriac Column with Gabrial Rabo. It goes like the text in the Latin column: :

"…Deus Pater Domini nostri Jesu Christi …”

(Denz., Ritus orientalium, t.2, page 220, Assemani, Codex Liturgicus, page 105)

http://www.rore-sanctifica.org/bibilotheque_rore_sanctifica/10-eglises_et_rites_orientaux_et_sources/eglise_maronite/1758-assemani-codex_liturgicus_(9_et_13)/Assemani_CODEX_No09_064-119.pdf


After all I find it deplorable that the Baltimore-Bible translates 1Petr.1,3 as:

« Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ », especially when the website of Newadvent.org refers to the Vulgate. For such a translation of the Latin text there is no necessity, especially if we have the examples of Alioli, Crampon and the Peshitta.

Can we just reverse to the time before the Council of Nicea? Well, what does Pius XII. say in Mediator Dei?

http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius12/P12MEDIA.HTM
“63. Clearly no sincere Catholic can refuse to accept the formulation of Christian doctrine more recently elaborated and proclaimed as dogmas by the Church, under the inspiration and guidance of the Holy Spirit with abundant fruit for souls, because it pleases him to hark back to the old formulas. No more can any Catholic in his right senses repudiate existing legislation of the Church to revert to prescriptions based on the earliest sources of canon law. Just as obviously unwise and mistaken is the zeal of one who in matters liturgical would go back to the rites and usage of antiquity, discarding the new patterns introduced by disposition of divine Providence to meet the changes of circumstances and situation.”
So, shall we go back to the time of the second century under pretext that we don’t need anymore the councils from the time of Nicea to Vatican I?

And even, if we let start the New Order with a non-compromising formula, as we can read it in the English vernacular version: “Praise to thee, God the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ…” isn’t it dogmatically more up to date to say it like in the Coptic texts:

“O God, Sovereign Lord, the Father of our Lord and God and Saviour Jesus Christ,….”?

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0718.htm

Even more so, if the promulgation “Pontificalis Romani Recognitio”, which is supposed to be an Apostolical Constitution, says that Coptic and Western Syriacs would use this prayer “magna ex parte”?

« ….quaeque, magna ex parte, in liturgia Ordinationis Coptorum et Syrorum occidentalium adhuc servatur. Ita fit ut in ipso Ordinationis actu testimonium perhibeatur de concordia traditionis cum orientalis tum occidentalis, quoad munus apostolicum Episcoporum. »

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_p-vi_apc_19680618_pontificalis-romani_lt.html

Sorry, but exactly this testimony of « Concordia traditionis orientalis tum occidentalis, quoad munus apostolicum Episcoporum” I’m unable to detect?

That there is really something wrong with this new prayer for Episcopal consecration in respect of the Blessed Trinity, you may see from the French text. Up to now I’ve detected three different forms in use:

1)

The French form of Episcopal consecration 1977 :

“So now pour out upon this chosen one that power which is from you, the Spirit who is making leaders and whom you gave to your beloved Son, Jesus Christ, the Spirit given by him to the holy apostles, who founded the Church in every place to be your sanctuary for the unceasing glory and praise of your name.”

2)

French form used during the Episcopal consecration of Mgr Breton in the arena of Dax, 2002 :

“So now pour out upon this chosen one that power which is from you, the sovereign Spirit whom you gave to your beloved Son, Jesus Christ, the Spirit given by him to the holy apostles, who founded the Church in every place to be your sanctuary for the unceasing glory and praise of your name.”

3)

La forme en français, diocèse Auray-Vannes 2005 :

“So now pour out upon this chosen one that power which is from you, the sovereign spirit whom you gave to your beloved son, Jesus Christ, the spirit given by him to the holy apostles, who founded the Church in every place to be your sanctuary for the unceasing glory and praise of your name.”

Finally the “Son” became the “son”, and the “Spirit who is making leaders” became the “sovereign spirit”. This does not ring bell, no?

Another topic:

The New Testament says nowhere explicitly that Jesus Christ is God? How about Rom.9.5?

“Whose are the fathers and of whom is Christ, according to the flesh, who is over all things, God blessed for ever. Amen.”

The Alioli-Bible calls this a proof of Holy Writ that Christ is God.

And what about Tit. 2.13 ?
“Looking for the blessed hope and coming of the glory of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ.”

Diekamp and the Alioli-Bible call it a proof of Christ’s Divinity.

The last thing to write about is the alleged female character of the Holy Ghost. There is nothing specifically female about the Holy Ghost and if you only want to see it only secondarily, why exclude in this case female aspects from the Father or the Son? Don’t they take care for us all together? Still, this would only be in respect of creation, and creation is not necessary. Within God as He is, there is no anti-thesis of male and female, since God is “Actus purus”. And that’s why since the beginning Semitic Christianity used the transcription of “ruho” into masculine gender.

They didn’t want that the Holy Ghost to be mixed up with Rabbi Benamozegh’s Cabbalist mother.

Anonymous said...

Little Erratum:


instead of:

« Ho theos kai pater tou monogenous …sou tou theos kai soteros hémon » a.s.o.

it must be:

« Ho theos kai pater tou monogenous …sou tou theou kai soteros hémon » a.s.o.

Theo Stuss said...

A dogmatic correction of the Prayer for the Imposition of hands once promulagted by Montini, Bugnini and Lécuyer.

The description of the several interventions is justified in this text in German:

http://home.arcor.de/astrid.stopka/kritische%20Korrektur%20der%20neuen%20Bischofsweihe.rtf


Tum Consecrator, accepto libro Evangeliorum, illum apertum, adjuvantibus Episcopis assistentibus, nihil dicens, imponit super cervicem, et scapulas Electi, ita quod inferior pars libri cervicem capitis Electi tangat, littera ex parte inferiori manente, quem unus ex Capellanis Electi, post ipsum genuflexus, quousque liber ipse eidem Electo in manus tradendus sit, continue sustinet.

Deinde Consecrator et assistentes Episcopi ambabus manibus caput consecrandi tangunt dicentes :

"Accipe Spiritum Sanctum."

Quibus finitis, surgunt omnes, et Consecratore ante faldistorium suum cum mitra stante, Electus coram eo genuflectit.

Tum Consecrator, accepto libro Evangeliorum, illum apertum, adjuvantibus Episcopis assistentibus, nihil dicens, imponit super cervicem, et scapulas Electi, ita quod inferior pars libri cervicem capitis Electi tangat, littera ex parte inferiori manente, quem unus ex Capellanis Electi, post ipsum genuflexus, quousque liber ipse eidem Electo in manus tradendus sit, continue sustinet.

Quo facto, Consecrator stans, deposita mitra extensis manibus ante pectus, dicit [1]:

Deus omnipotens, Pater Domini Dei nostri et Filii unigenti tui et Salvatoris nostri Iesu Christi [2], Pater misericordiarum et Deus totius consolationis, qui in excelsis habitas et humilia respicis, qui cognoscis omnia antequam nascantur, tu qui dedisti in Ecclesia tua revelationem per Verbum inseparabilem mentis tuae [3], qui praedestinasti ex principio iustum Abraham [4], qui complacuit tibi per fidem suam [5], qui constituisti principes et sacerdotes, et sanctuarium tuum, Ecclesiam tuam [6] sine ministerio non dereliquisti, cui ab initio mundi placuit in his quos eligisti glorificari. Et nunc effunde super hunc electum eam gratiam [7] Spiritus tui principalis, qui ex Te Verboque procedit, et quem dedisti per dilectum Filium tuum Iesum Christum sanctis Apostolis, [8] qui constituerunt Ecclesiam per singula loca ut sanctuarium tuum, in gloriam et laudem indeficientem nominis tui.


Sequens pars orationis formae ab omnibus Episcopis ordinantibus, extensis manibus ante pectus, profertur, submissa voce tamen, ut vox Episcopi ordinantis principalis clare audiatur: [9]

Da, cordium cognitor Pater, huic servo sacerdotali tuo,
quem elegisti ad Episcopatum, ut pascat gregem sanctum tuum,
et per gratiam Spiritus Sancti summum sacerdotium tibi exhibeat sine reprehensione, serviens tibi nocte et die ; [10]

Prosequitur solus Episcopus ordinans principalis:

Ut incessanter vultum tuum propitium reddat et offerat dona sanctae Ecclesiae tuae; da ut in virtute Spiritus summi sacerdotii adjuvante [11], habeat potestatem dimittendi peccata secundum mandatum suum; et constituat cleros ad sanctuarium [12] secundum praeceptum tuum et conteret omne obstaculum [13] secundum potestatem quam dedisti Apostolis; placeat tibi in mansuetudine et mundo corde, offerens tibi odorem suavitatis, mysterium fidei, novi et aeterni Testamenti [14], per Filium tuum Iesum Christum, per quem tibi gloria et potentia et honor, una [15] cum Spiritu Sancto vivificante et consubstantiali [16] in sancta Ecclesia et nunc et in saecula saeculorum

Anonymous said...

The Holy Ghost is not called Gift, because he is given from the Father to the Son. As the 11th Council of Toledo teaches: the Holy Ghost does not proceed from the Father into the Son.

The Holy Ghost is called Gift due to his aptitude of being given to the creatures and this aptitude He has since Eternity, even if there was no creation.

I q.38 a.1

-----------I answer that, the word "gift" imports an aptitude for being given. And what is given has an aptitude or relation both to the giver and to that to which it is given. For it would not be given by anyone, unless it was his to give; and it is given to someone to be his. Now a divine person is said to belong to another, either by origin, as the Son belongs to the Father; or as possessed by another. But we are said to possess what we can freely use or enjoy as we please: and in this way a divine person cannot be possessed, except by a rational creature united to God. Other creatures can be moved by a divine person, not, however, in such a way as to be able to enjoy the divine person, and to use the effect thereof. The rational creature does sometimes attain thereto; as when it is made partaker of the divine Word and of the Love proceeding, so as freely to know God truly and to love God rightly. Hence the rational creature alone can possess the divine person. Nevertheless in order that it may possess Him in this manner, its own power avails nothing: hence this must be given it from above; for that is said to be given to us which we have from another source. Thus a divine person can "be given," and can be a "gift."

Reply to Objection 1. The name "Gift" imports a personal distinction , in so far as gift imports something belonging to another through its origin. Nevertheless, the Holy Ghost gives Himself, inasmuch as He is His own, and can use or rather enjoy Himself; as also a free man belongs to himself. And as Augustine says (In Joan. Tract. xxix): "What is more yours than yourself?" Or we might say, and more fittingly, that a gift must belong in a way to the giver. But the phrase, "this is this one's," can be understood in several senses. In one way it means identity, as Augustine says (In Joan. Tract. xxix); and in that sense "gift" is the same as "the giver," but not the same as the one to whom it is given. The Holy Ghost gives Himself in that sense. In another sense, a thing is another's as a possession, or as a slave; and in that sense gift is essentially distinct from the giver; and the gift of God so taken is a created thing. In a third sense "this is this one's" through its origin only; and in this sense the Son is the Father's; and the Holy Ghost belongs to both. Therefore, so far as gift in this way signifies the possession of the giver, it is personally distinguished from the giver, and is a personal name.

Reply to Objection 4. Gift is not so called from being actually given, but from its aptitude to be given. Hence the divine person is called Gift from eternity, although He is given in time....

-------

I q.38 a.2

----I answer that.....

....So since the Holy Ghost proceeds as love, as stated above (27, 4; 37, 1), He proceeds as the first gift. Hence Augustine says (De Trin. xv, 24): "By the gift, which is the Holy Ghost, many particular gifts are portioned out to the members of Christ."


Reply to Objection 3. Before a gift is given, it belongs only to the giver; but when it is given, it is his to whom it is given. Therefore, because "Gift" does not import the actual giving, it cannot be called a gift of man, but the Gift of God giving. When, however, it has been given, then it is the spirit of man, or a gift bestowed on man. --------

In other words: the Holy Ghost doesn't have the name Gift, because he is the gift of the Father to the Son, but rather because he has the aptitude of being the gift of the Father and the Son together to rational creatures.

Neither is He the Gift of the Father to the "Person of the Servant of God", as "Dominum et Vivificantem" suggests, because He proceeds from this Person since eternity.

Besides, there is no "Person of the Servant of God". "Servant of God" can only refer to the Christ's human nature, but the Suppositum is no servant, as Adrian I. teaches:

Denzinger:

313 Si ergo Deus verus est, qui de Virgine natus est, quomodo tunc potest adoptivus esse vel servus ? Deum enim nequaquam audetis confiteri servum vel adoptivum : et si eum propheta servum nominasset, non tamen ex conditione servitutis, sed ex humilitatis obœdientia, qua factus est Patri obœdiens usque ad mortem [Phil II, 8].

There is no Person of the Servant of the Lord, but the Person of the Logos disposes via Incarnation of a servile and humble created rational nature and not only of the uncreated Divine Nature.

The heresy of Paul VI. is not only explicit in the new essential form of the new inauguration of rabbis of the goyim-synagogue, but also in the preface of their “cabbalist mass”.

“Vere dignum et iustum est, æquum et salutáre,
nos tibi semper et ubíque grátias ágere:
Dómine, sancte Pater, omnípotens ætérne Deus:

Qui Unigénitum tuum Sancti Spíritus unctióne
novi et ætérni testaménti constituísti Pontificem,
et ineffábili dignátus es dispositióne sancíre,
ut únicum eius sacerdótium in Ecclésia servaretur. “

Not the Holy Ghost is Christ’s unction for priesthood, but the Unction is the Gratia Unionis, which is nothing different than the Hypostatic Union. The fullness of the presence of the Holy Ghost in Christ is not the principle but the consequence of his priesthood. The actual principle is the Gratia Unionis. Christ’s human nature is made single and individual not be created individuality, but as a partaker in the personality of the Word of the Father.

Anonymous said...

Old Covenant Typology?


Dear Mr. C.S.,


The Old Covenant Typology you find in the Syriac Prayer for the Inthronisation of a patriarch. There you can read:

"....qui illuminationem dedisti Ecclesiae per gratiam unigeniti Filli tui, praedefiniens ab initio illos, qui cupiunt aequitatem et faciunt, quae sancta sunt, habitare in masionibus tuis; qui eligisti Abraham qui placuit tibi in fide, et Henoch sanctum thesauro vitae donasti, qui principes et sacerdotes ordinasti in sanctuario tuo altissimo, Domine; qui vocasti eos ad laudandum et glorificandum in loco gloriae tuae nomen tuum et Unigeniti tui..."

This is real Old Covenant Typology changing to New Covenant Typology. Nowhere in this Syriac text it's said that the Jews as such are a righteous nation, neither is the impression given that the Old Covenant is still valid.

How about the Coptic text?

Look up the page 24 in Denzinger’s book, or the pages 33, 34:

http://www.rore-sanctifica.org/bibilotheque_rore_sanctifica/10-eglises_et_rites_orientaux_et_sources/1864-denzinger-ritus_orientalium/DENZINGER-02-RO-II-1961-JacobitesAlexandrins-pp10-35.pdf

You may continue in the Coptic texts on page 48:

http://www.rore-sanctifica.org/bibilotheque_rore_sanctifica/10-eglises_et_rites_orientaux_et_sources/1864-denzinger-ritus_orientalium/DENZINGER-03-RO-II-1961-Complements-pp-32-71.pdf

Everywhere, like in the Tridentine rite, too, you this typology, no question!

But was is the problem with the New Order of Paul VI., is the way how this typology is taking place. In his “infallible” promulgation Coptic and Western Syriac rites have to provide the vindication that the New Order is almost like the ones.

Compare the Coptic and Western Syriac texts with Paul VI.:

“…qui praedestinasti ex principio genus iustorum ab Abraham, qui constituisti principes et sacerdotes, et sanctuarium tuum sine ministerio non dereliquisti, cui ab initio mundi placuit in his quos eligisti glorificari..”

The text gives the impression that those ones in “quos eligisti glorificari” is exclusively the “genus iustorum”. Being righteous is testified not only to Abraham, Moses and some others, but to the Jewish nation as such, while the prophets, Jesus himself and the Apostles give witness, that Abraham cheered, because he saw the day of the Messiah coming, while the other ones “have the devil as their father” and not Abraham. Saint John the Evangelist calls them in the Book of Revelations the “Synagogue of Satan”.

Not even the Episcopalian Prayer, almost like the one of Paul VI. gives this impression:

“God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, Father of mercies
and God of all comfort, dwelling on high but having regard
for the lowly, knowing all things before they come to pass:
We give you thanks that from the beginning you have
gathered and prepared a people to be heirs of the covenant of
Abraham, and have raised up prophets, kings, and priests,
never leaving your temple untended. We praise you also that
from the creation you have graciously accepted the ministry
of those whom you have chosen.
The Presiding Bishop and other Bishops now lay their hands upon the head of the
bishop elect, and say together

Therefore, Father, make N. a bishop in your Church. Pour
out upon him the power of your princely Spirit, whom you
bestowed upon your beloved Son Jesus Christ, with whom he
endowed the apostles, and by whom your Church is built up in
every place, to the glory and unceasing praise of your Name.

The Presiding Bishop continues

To you, O Father, all hearts are open; fill, we pray, the heart
of this your servant whom you have chosen to be a bishop in
your Church, with such love of you and of all the people, that
he may feed and tend the flock of Christ, and exercise
without reproach the high priesthood to which you have
called him, serving before you day and night in the ministry
of reconciliation, declaring pardon in your Name, offering the
holy gifts, and wisely overseeing the life and work of the
Church. In all things may he present before you the acceptable
offering of a pure, and gentle, and holy life; through Jesus
Christ your Son, to whom, with you and the Holy Spirit, be
honor and power and glory in the Church, now and for ever.”

According to the Episcopalian text, we could at lest see in the heirs of the Covenant of Abraham, the Church.


God bless,

Theo

Theo Stuss said...

Dear "With Peter"!


Misunderstood me? Yes, you have!

For instance:

You wrote:

---5) The Holy Ghost: Consubstantial and One with the Father and the Son? Of course he is. Consubstantialis is a valid translation of homoousios: The divine persons are “one in being.” You can’t possibly be criticizing the Copts for calling the Holy Ghost consubstantial and one with the Father and the Son. I must have misunderstood you. You are no tri-theist.---

If you've read carefully, you would have certainly remarked that I don't criticize the Coptic text, rather are they for me a good example.

Then you misunderstood completely what Saint Thomas wanted to say in the Quaestio 36.

You write:

---6) The Holy Ghost: from the Father to the Son? The Holy Ghost can be said to be given from the Father to the Son as long as it is not in a sense that makes the Son into less than a co-active spirator of the Holy Ghost. “Because the Son receives from the Father that the Holy Ghost proceeds from Him, it can be said that the Father spirates the Holy Ghost through the Son, or that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father through the Son, which has the same meaning” (Thomas Aquinas, Sum. Theol., I, q36, a3). In reply 3, Thomas further qualifies: “The procession of the Holy Ghost is coeternal with his principle. Hence, the Son was not begotten before the Holy Ghost proceeded.” Even on the level of divine processions, the rite’s language is valid.---

Yes, the Son receives from the Father in the generation that He can spirate the Holy Ghost together with him. And as Saint Thomas says, in this sence we might say that the Father spirates the Holy Ghost through the Son. But this does not mean that we could say that the Son received the Holy Ghost. The priniple, again and again, is the Spiratio activa. The Spirated One is the Spiratio passiva. Please stop mixing up the notions of Trinity.

Then of course, the Son was not begotten, before the Holy Ghost proceeded. But then you've shortened the quotation: ..."but each of the operations is eternal." This what you've left out.

And then you continue:

"Even on the level of divine processions, the rite’s language is valid."

I think that you have understood exactly the contrary of what Saint Thomas wants to say. You seem to have understood that first the Son must receive the Holy Ghost from the Father and then the Son can continue spirating the Holy Ghost. And you insist that even on this level the new form is right.

But Saint Thomas does not say it like the new form. He insists that everything is altogether and that the object of the Father's understanding is not only the Divine Essence, but also the precise Persons of Himself, the Son and the Spirit. And this is what he expresses in His Word, even if the Word is the Son.

There is another misunderstanding what we have to avoid, when saying with Saint Thomas that the Father spirates the Ghost through the Son. Of course we would not mean that the act of Spiration from the side of the Father needs a perfection from the side of the Son. Neither needs the Son for this purpose a perfection from the side of the Father. It is that that Father and Son are working as numerically as one principle. That the Spiration is from the Father through the Son is not be meant as a channel.

In number 7) you say:

---7) The rite focuses on missions because missions pertain more closely to the sacraments than processions. His baptism in the Jordan was the manifestation of Christ’s divine authority just as Pentecost was the manifestation of Christ’s promise to hand this authority onto the apostles. Take a good look at Daniel 7 and the prophecy about how the Holy Spirit will be passed from the Ancient of Days to the Son of Man to the Saints of the Most High.---


If the new form would just say what you suggest, but it doesn't. It just doesn't say that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father through the Son in the orthodox sense that the generation of the latter is a "medium quo" for the active spiration by the Father and the Son as one principle. It rather says that first the Father gives the Holy Ghost to the Son and then the Son can pass Him on elsewhere.

And even on the level of the missions this is wrong, because also here the Son does not have to receive the Ghost first in order to send him himself afterwards.

In my correction of the New Order I am literally saying that the Father is sending the Ghost through the Son:

"Et nunc effunde super hunc electum eam gratiam [7] Spiritus tui principalis, qui ex Te Verboque procedit, et quem dedisti per dilectum Filium tuum Iesum Christum sanctis Apostolis,..."

In my prayer it is exactly like that. And, of course, it is not the from anymore, but just a sentence in the whole prayer. The form according to the VINDICATION of the English bishops 1898, Apostolicae Curae and Sacramentum Ordinis is in my prayer here to be found:

"Da, cordium cognitor Pater, huic servo sacerdotali tuo,
quem elegisti ad Episcopatum, ut pascat gregem sanctum tuum,
et per gratiam Spiritus Sancti summum sacerdotium tibi exhibeat sine reprehensione, serviens tibi nocte et die"

As long as you continue mixing up Spiratio activa and Spiratio passiva, you will never understand, because even on the level of missions, Father and Son send the Ghost together.

You are victim of an anthropomorphism which could be described like that:

We have two different ways of understanding what "from the Father through the Son" actually means.

I say that the "Generatio activa" is the "medium quo" for the Father and the Son to be numerically one Spiratio activa.

You mean that instead of the Generatio activa (medium quo), rather the "Generatio passiva" is a "causa instrumentalis" for the Spiratio passiva to appear.

Of course in this case you end up with a Son who is a transitory canal for the Holy Ghost. This is what the Greeks say.

Anonymous said...

Hi "With Peter",


do you understand what that French saying means: noyer le poisson?

This is what you are doing!

Theo Stuss is right when he is insisting on the difference between activ Spiration and passiv Spiration (Holy Spirit), between activ Generation (Fatherhood) and passiv generation (Sonhood).

You would be able to declare homousios and homoiousios to be the same thing.

Let's stop this word-twisting and let's with Arianism. Let's stop making a real difference between being and essence, person and nature, then we will have peace with Nestorianism.

Let's stop making a difference between activ spiration and passiv spiration. Let's make peace with Photianism.

Let us stop considering, if all the Divine Persons are part of the Father's intellectual understanding when he pronounces the Eternal Word, or if he's looking at the Divine Essence only. We will make peace with Cabbala.

Tell me, if the Divine Persons aren't object of the Father's understanding, would in this case the pronouncing of the Word be necessary and eternal, or just an "eventum contingente"? Something which could be, or not be?

Spaghetti-Tarzan said...

Hello With Peter,


I don’t understand what was so difficult to understand about Theo Stuss.

He refuses to equal active Spiration and passive Spiration. Is he wrong?

Sometime ago he tried to explain to you what the Greek-Orthodox teach. Did you understand that? Did it any have any consequences?

No! You just answer that you’re perfectly one with him and then you continue as usual.

Again, what is the teaching of Photianism?

They would admit that the Holy Spirit is to be called the Pneuma or even out-flow of the Son, but they refuses to except that the Son is one principle with the Father. They say that either a property of a Divine Person is specific for only one Person, or the share all properties together.

After all the Photianists understand the formula “from the Father through the Son”, as Theo described, as such:

The Son (passive generation) is the instrumental cause for the revelation of the Holy Ghost “ad extra”.

But this is exactly the accusation of Prof. Dörmann against John Paul II.

Dörmann repeats just the Catholic teaching that the formula “from the Father through the Son” is to be taken like that:

The active generation (Fatherhood) is the “medium quo” for the common spiration of the Holy Ghost by the Father and the Son, because the Father cannot spirate the Holy Ghost without the Son. It does not mean that the Holy Ghost passes through the Son like through a canal, neither does it mean that the revelation of the Holy Ghost “ad extra” in the Missions comes to pass after the revelation of the Son in the Passion. Even regarding Missions the Holy Ghost is sent by the Father and the Son altogether, each time when the Son is active, each time when he drives out the devils, each time when is forgiving sins. This is Dörmann’s accusation that John Paul II. is not considering the latter circumstances.

Linked to this error you have another misfit called Milleniarism. First there is an age of the Father, the Old Testament, and an age of the Son which is breaking the way for an age of the Holy Ghost afterwards.

When you read Theo’s correction of the new Episcopal consecration, you can see that he uses the formula “from the Father through the Son” in his Latin text.

In the Compendium the Holy Ghost is called the Gift of the Father to the Son:

47. Who is the Holy Spirit revealed to us by Jesus Christ?
243-248
The Holy Spirit is the third Person of the Most Blessed Trinity. He is God, one and equal with the Father and the Son. He “proceeds from the Father” (John 15:26) who is the principle without a principle and the origin of all trinitarian life. He proceeds also from the Son (Filioque) by the eternal Gift which the Father makes of him to the Son. Sent by the Father and the Incarnate Son, the Holy Spirit guides the Church “to know all truth” (John 16:13).

This is not the teaching of Saint Thomas who says that the Holy Ghost does not have the name “Gift”, because he is given from the Father to the Son, but because he is the Gift of both to the rational creatures and His name is Gift in eternity, because of His eternal aptitude of being given, even if there was no creation: I q.38 a.1
I answer that, The word "gift" imports an aptitude for being given. And what is given has an aptitude or relation both to the giver and to that to which it is given. For it would not be given by anyone, unless it was his to give; and it is given to someone to be his. Now a divine person is said to belong to another, either by origin, as the Son belongs to the Father; or as possessed by another. But we are said to possess what we can freely use or enjoy as we please: and in this way a divine person cannot be possessed, except by a rational creature united to God. Other creatures can be moved by a divine person, not, however, in such a way as to be able to enjoy the divine person, and to use the effect thereof. The rational creature does sometimes attain thereto; as when it is made partaker of the divine Word and of the Love proceeding, so as freely to know God truly and to love God rightly. Hence the rational creature alone can possess the divine person. Nevertheless in order that it may possess Him in this manner, its own power avails nothing: hence this must be given it from above; for that is said to be given to us which we have from another source. Thus a divine person can "be given," and can be a "gift."
This is what Saint Thomas says. In other words we can only say that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and rests in the Son, like the Greek-Orthodox with some Church-fathers say, if we consider that only in respect of Incarnation. Else it is not more a property of the Son that the Holy Ghost rests in Him, than vice versa, since due to “circuminsessio” and perichoresis the Spirit is not more in the Son than the Son is in the Spirit.
That Gift is a personal name for the Holy Ghost only in respect of sanctification of rational creatures, Saint Thomas is repeating that here: I q.38 a.1 ad 4
“Reply to Objection 4. Gift is not so called from being actually given, but from its aptitude to be given. Hence the divine person is called Gift from eternity, although He is given in time. Nor does it follow that it is an essential name because it imports relation to the creature; but that it includes something essential in its meaning; as the essence is included in the idea of person, as stated above (34, 3).”
And again in I q.38 a.2 we see again that the name Gift is in respect of the creatures and members of the Mystical Body of Christ and in respect of the Logos:
I answer that……..So since the Holy Ghost proceeds as love, as stated above (27, 4; 37, 1), He proceeds as the first gift. Hence Augustine says (De Trin. xv, 24): "By the gift, which is the Holy Ghost, many particular gifts are portioned out to the members of Christ."
And here is another example. I q.38 a.2 ad 1:
“….so also, because the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father as love, He is properly called Gift, although the Son, too, is given. For that the Son is given is from the Father's love, according to the words, "God so loved the world, as to give His only begotten Son" (John 3:16).”
He is referring to the world as the creation and not to a supposed gift to the Logos.
And the reply to objection 3:
“Before a gift is given, it belongs only to the giver; but when it is given, it is his to whom it is given. Therefore, because "Gift" does not import the actual giving, it cannot be called a gift of man, but the Gift of God giving. When, however, it has been given, then it is the spirit of man, or a gift bestowed on man.”
The personal name Gift is meant in respect of being given to man, not from the Father to the Logos.
But the Compendium teaches explicitly that the Holy Ghost is the Gift from the Father to the Son. With the following corrected text there would be no problem:

The Holy Spirit is the third Person of the Most Blessed Trinity. He is God, one and equal and consubstantial with the Father and the Son. He “proceeds from the Father” (John 15:26) who is the principle without a principle and the origin of all Trinitarian life. He proceeds also from the Son (Filioque) as being one principle with the Father by the communication of the active spirative force which is included in the generation. Sent by the Father and the Incarnate Son, the Holy Spirit guides the Church “to know all truth” (John 16:13).

It must also be remarked that you only know to answer on our objection derived from the 12th Canon of the 2nd Council of Constantinople as it deals with Christ’s baptism, but to the 9th Canon of the Council of Ephesus you have nothing to say:
“If anyone says that the one Lord Jesus Christ was glorified by the Spirit, as making use of an alien power that worked through him and as having received from him the power to master unclean spirits and to work divine wonders among people, and does not rather say that it was his own proper Spirit through whom he worked the divine wonders, let him be anathema.”
And here again the Creed of the 11th Council of Toledo:
“For He (the Holy Ghost) does not proceed from the Father to the Son, nor from the Son to sanctify creatures, but He is shown to have proceeded from both at once, because He is known as the love or the sanctity of both. Hence we believe that the Holy Spirit is sent by both, as the Son is sent by the Father..”
Does the first part of this sentence have anything to do with the Incarnation? The Holy Ghost does not proceed from the Father to the Son, period!
Neither does he proceed from the Son to sanctify creatures only, period!
Obviously the new form for Episcopal Consecration of Newchurch which is not the Roman-Catholic Church, is imbedded into a new theological mainstream.

Theo Stuss said...

Dear Peter,

Very strange in many respects is also the Creed of the People of God. How does this go together with the condemnation of the 4th Lateran Council against Joachim of Fiore? The Creed does not mention that once. For good reasons?

http://www.ewtn.com/library/papaldoc/p6credo.htm

---We believe then in the Father who eternally begets the Son, in the Son, the Word of God, who is eternally begotten; in the Holy Spirit, the uncreated Person who proceeds from the Father and the Son as their eternal love. Thus in the Three Divine Persons, coaeternae sibi et coaequales,[8] the life and beatitude of God perfectly one super-abound and are consummated in the supreme excellence and glory proper to uncreated being, and always "there should be venerated unity in the Trinity and Trinity in the unity."[9]---

This text is not even a correct translation, because in the Latin text there is not written “proper to uncreated being”, but “proper to uncreated essence”.

“Ita in tribus Personis divinis, quae sunt coaeternae sibi et coaequales,(9) vita et beatitudo Dei plane unius quam maxime abundant et consummantur, summa cum excellentia et gloria Essentiae increatae propria; atque semper unitas in Trinitate et Trinitas in unitate veneranda est.”

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/motu_proprio/documents/hf_p-vi_motu-proprio_19680630_credo_lt.html


So the whole text should be translated like that:

---We believe then in the Father who eternally begets the Son, in the Son, the Word of God, who is eternally begotten; in the Holy Spirit, the uncreated Person who proceeds from the Father and the Son as their eternal love. Thus in the Three Divine Persons, coaeternae sibi et coaequales,[8] the life and beatitude of God perfectly one super-abound and are consummated in the supreme excellence and glory proper to uncreated Essence, and always "there should be venerated unity in the Trinity and Trinity in the unity."[9]---

This text gives the impression that the real principle and subject of the interior Processions is the Divine Essence and by realizing (consummated) this essence is finding its perfection. Again, this is Cabbala. This was condamned by Lateran IV.

With Peter said...

Good gracious! There have been many posts made since my last comment, more I am afraid than I will be able to get to. Thank you, all of you for the care, concern and charity you show me in your responses. Truly there are some people in this world attempting to perform some spiritual works of mercy.

Anonymous & Spaghetti Tarzan- Theostuss and I STRONGLY agree on the distinction between active spiration (Father and the Son) and passive spiration (the Holy Spirit). We disagree on whether the post-conciliar Magisterium has reduced the Son to passive spirator. This language is not used in the documents, so we are debating two interpretations of the language that actually is used. Theostruss says, “yes, the post-conciliar ‘popes’ have committed this heresy and are thus not popes at all.” I say, “no, the post-conciliar popes have not committed this or any other heresy and are indeed true and legitimate popes.”

Theostuss- You’ve got some content here that I consider extremely worthwhile and I want to get to it immediately, but there is this lingering point about supposed falsifications in borrowing certain aspects of the “novus ordo” from ancient Eastern liturgies. What is important is not whether there are falsifications, but whether these supposed falsifications have any bearing on sacramental validity. It is most trivial whether or to what extent the Novus Ordo reflects or does not reflect Coptic, Syrian and Maronite rites. Likewise it does not automatically cause invalidity even if certain elements are imported from Protestant liturgies. What causes invalidity is a definite defect in the minimum essential form or matter of the sacrament. Everything else is in the power of the Church’s Magisterium to change (per the Council of Trent).

Photianism in Dominum et Vivificantem? The encyclical doesn’t explicitly discuss Trinitarian Processions, the Filoque or Petrine Primacy. It seems pretty hard to “foster” Photianism without actually talking about any of the things upon which Photius erred. Besides this, “fostering” is a terribly weak verb. Does John Paul commit the heresy of Photius or not? If so, where? What proposition “is”- this is the operative verb – heretical?

Duns Scotus? I believe you are misinterpreting Scotus, but I don’t want to get bogged down. For the sake of our conversation, let’s assume you are correct about Scotus. Fine. I do not follow him. In God, I agree that potentia (power) and actu (act) are one. In relation to creation, there is a very important distinction between potentia absoluta (God’s absolute freedom) and potentia ordinata (his ordained will). In this instance, God’s potentia and actu are not one.

Jewish priests? The fact of the matter is that Jews haven’t had priests for quite some time. And even if they had, the Old Covenant is no longer operative in itself. The contemporary efficacy assigned to it by Vatican II and the post-conciliar Magisterium depends entirely upon the principle of invincible ignorance. But all of this is irrelevant to the text you bring up, which is not concerned with the efficacy of the synagogue and rabbinical Judaism but rather with the Jerusalem Temple and the Levitical priesthood in the old dispensation (i.e. Old Covenant typology).

Let’s stop scanning the periphery and get to the heart of the matter: the procession of the Holy Spirit. It occurs to me that I have misunderstood you and I need to ask you – all of you – three simple questions:

1. Do you believe it to be possible to affirm – in any sense at all – that the Holy Spirit is the Gift mutually exchanged between the Father and the Son?

2. Do you believe it to be possible to affirm – in any sense at all – that the Father receives the Holy Spirit from the Son and, by the same token, the Son receives him from the Father?

3. Do you believe it to be possible to maintain both that the Father and the Son each and together actively spirate the Holy Ghost (who is thus passively spirated) and that the Father and Son receive the Holy Ghost as the mutually exchanged Gift of being, life and love?

Quite frankly, unless the Holy Spirit is both given and, in some sense, received by the other two divine persons, it seems impossible to affirm the true unity of the three persons. The Holy Spirit would not be truly “in” the Father or “in” the Son. And this is an utterly vile and perverse doctrine. Thus there must be a sense in which these three questions can be answered “yes.”

If, however, there is a sense in which the Holy Spirit is received by the Father and the Son, your criticism of the “novus ordo” falls completely to pieces, since in fact none of these popes ever uttered, much less denied the phrases in question (i.e. active spirator, passive spirator). On the contrary, there are many general passages that affirm the theology of the Fathers and doctors, the traditional understanding of Filioque and the agreement struck at the Council of Florence (all of which prejudice us to understand “the Gift” in a traditional Catholic sense). Re: if you affirm “yes” to the three questions posed above, there is no evidence to suggest that Paul VI or Benedict XVI mean anything other than what you yourselves mean.

C.S.

PS. Please, when leveling an accusation of heresy, stick to propositions. Among sedevacantists, there is way too much “it seems to suggest” and other such tripe. Either the Council and these popes spoke heretical propositions or they did not. There is no need for these wild goose chases and bread crumb theology. Find a dogma and demonstrate that the Council/popes contradicted it or remain silent. There is room for nothing else (except repentance for badmouthing the Holy Father).

Theo Stuss said...

Dear „With Peter“,


I am astonished that you constantly ignore things and answers we have been already talking about. Alas, let’s repeat.

To your question number 1:

“Do you believe it to be possible to affirm – in any sense at all – that the Holy Spirit is the Gift mutually exchanged between the Father and the Son?”

No, not at all! As I’ve been telling you again and again, the notional name Gift for the Holy Ghost is for his aptitude for being given to rational creatures (1 q. 38 a.1 Respondeo). And Saint Thomas adds: “Hence the rational creature alone can possess the divine person.”

Thus it follows that the Holy Ghost is only given to rational creatures dwelling in God’s grace.

Your question number 2)

”Do you believe it to be possible to affirm – in any sense at all – that the Father receives the Holy Spirit from the Son and, by the same token, the Son receives him from the Father?”

No, not at all! The mutual love of the Father and the Son is not notionally expressed by the exchange of a Gift, as stated above, but by a Bond installed. While the name Gift is given to the Holy Ghost in respect of rational creatures “ad extra”, the name Bond is given to him “ad intra”.

1 q.37 a.1

“Reply to Objection 3. The Holy Ghost is said to be the bond of the Father and Son, inasmuch as He is Love; because, since the Father loves Himself and the Son with one Love, and conversely, there is expressed in the Holy Ghost, as Love, the relation of the Father to the Son, and conversely, as that of the lover to the beloved. But from the fact that the Father and the Son mutually love one another, it necessarily follows that this mutual Love, the Holy Ghost, proceeds from both. As regards origin, therefore, the Holy Ghost is not the medium, but the third person in the Trinity; whereas as regards the aforesaid relation He is the bond between the two persons, as proceeding from both.”

The bond consists in the fact that there is only one active Spirator but two Spirantes.
Question number 3)

”Do you believe it to be possible to maintain both that the Father and the Son each and together actively spirate the Holy Ghost (who is thus passively spirated) and that the Father and Son receive the Holy Ghost as the mutually exchanged Gift of being, life and love?”

No! Provided this was so, in this case in addition to the only relations of Paternity, Filiation, Spiration and Procession (1 q.28 a.4) there should have been another one, we could call “Conceptio Doni”. But there is no such relation, neither under another name.

“Conceptio Doni” would either be an accidental relation between the Father and the Ghost and likewise between the Son the Ghost, just being of the same kind regarding species but just realised twofold, which is impossible, for there’re no accidentals within God.
Taken substantially, a “Conceptio Doni” of the Father and the Son should be unique and one like the Spiratio activa, concering Father and Son both together, but there can’t be any passive relation on the side of the Father, as the Conceptio would certainly be, for the Father is the principle without principle. And further, such a notional relation would give rise to a fourth divine person, which is impossible.

You continue:

---Quite frankly, unless the Holy Spirit is both given and, in some sense, received by the other two divine persons, it seems impossible to affirm the true unity of the three persons. The Holy Spirit would not be truly “in” the Father or “in” the Son. And this is an utterly vile and perverse doctrine. Thus there must be a sense in which these three questions can be answered “yes.”----

You provide what you have to proof, when you say “in some sense received”. This is a “petitio principii”.

Of course the Divine Persons are in one another (perichoresis, circuminsessio), but the spiritual acts of understanding and will are sufficient to ensure that. The WORD is the intellectual expression of understanding of the Father who understands the Divine Essence, Himself, the Son and the Holy Ghost; and the Latter One is the expression of Divine Will of both, the Father and the Son, who love the bounty of Divine Essence and all the three Persons.

1 q.42 a.5, Saint Thomas about how the Three Persons penetrate each other:

« I answer that, There are three points of consideration as regards the Father and the Son; the essence, the relation, and the origin; and according to each the Son and the Father are in each other. The Father is in the Son by His essence, forasmuch as the Father is His own essence, and communicates His essence to the Son not by any change on His part. Hence it follows that as the Father's essence is in the Son, the Father Himself is in the Son; likewise, since the Son is His own essence, it follows that He Himself is in the Father in Whom is His essence. This is expressed by Hilary (De Trin. v), "The unchangeable God, so to speak, follows His own nature in begetting an unchangeable subsisting God. So we understand the nature of God to subsist in Him, for He is God in God." It is also manifest that as regards the relations, each of two relative opposites is in the concept of the other. Regarding origin also, it is clear that the procession of the intelligible word is not outside the intellect, inasmuch as it remains in the utterer of the word. What also is uttered by the word is therein contained. And the same applies to the Holy Ghost. »
The Unity and “one in another” of all the Divine Persons is already explained by the name “Bond” for the Holy Ghost “ad intra”, while His name Gift concerns Him “ad extra”. Not the dynamical exchange of a gift between the Father and the Son guaranties there unity, but the fact that only one Spiratio activa of the Father and the Son, results into only one expression of will, the Spiratio passiva, the Holy Ghost, the Bond. And they are regarding one on the level of understanding, because the WORD is the expression of understanding comprehending the Divine Essence and the Three Persons altogether. If the exchange of a gift had to realise the unity, this would mean that both, the WORD and the BOND were imperfect.

Theo Stuss said...

Erratum:

instead of:

"And they are regarding one on the level of understanding,...."

it must be:

"And they are one regarding the level of understanding,...."

Spaghetti-Tarzan said...

Hi WITH,


How about registering at least only once the 11th Council of Toledo ?

“Yet He is called the Spirit not of

the Father alone, nor of the Son alone, but of both Father and Son. For

He does not proceed from the Father to the Son, nor from the Son to

sanctify creatures, but He is shown to have proceeded from both at once,

because He is known as the love or the sanctity of both.”



http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/toledo.txt

You don’t seem to like this text, don’t ya?

On the “one in the other” of the Divine Persons we must consider that there are different conceptions dividing the Greek and the Latin fathers. The first ones departed form the idea that the Father is the “arché, aitìa, pegé” the principle without principle, who communicates to the Son and to the Holy Ghost the fullness of Divine Essence. This is why they used to depart from the idea of a “movement of being” and “communication of essence”. In order to show that this movement wouldn’t destroy the unity of the Divine Being, they used to put the stress on the mutual penetration (périchoresis) of the Persons. Thus the périchoresis became the unifying bond for the Greek.

The Latin fathers emphasized other things, since for them the périchoresis was rather less important. They departed from the uniqueness and unity of the Divine Essence, which they considered as having its final terms in the three Persons due to the Divine Acts of understanding and will. For them the aspect of rest instead of dynamics and movement was far more important. This is why the medieval scholars preferred the expression “circuminsessio” for the Divine Persons, not penetrating each other (movement), but being one in another (esse). (Diekamp, vol. 1, page 354-355)

It is evident that the Latin fathers were more precise and further away from Cabbala than the Greeks. The Cabbala also sees God in a process of movement and self-development.

For the Latins the Holy Ghost is somebody in contemplating rest, a steady bond, and not a dynamic gift, at least not “ad intra”. Just as Theo said, the name gift is applied for the Holy Ghost only outside the inner Divine Life.

With Peter said...

Hi Spaghetti-Tarzan,

Please understood that there were written roughly 24 single spaced pages in response to my last posting. If I skipped certain points or glossed others, please realize that this was the reason. I hold a full time job, have three children under age 5 and a pregnant wife. Please have patience. Let’s proceed to the text in question (the Council of Toledo).

“[The Holy Ghost] does not proceed from the Father to the Son…but from both of them at once.”

The sense of the first statement is directly modified by the corollary. This means that the text of Toledo does not say “In no sense at all does the Holy Ghost proceed from the Father to the Son.” Rather it implies, “The Holy Ghost does not proceed from the Father to the Son in the sense that the Son is a passive recipient and not an active co-protagonist of spiration.” But this point is not contested. My question is whether there is ANY sense that the Holy Ghost can be said to be received as a Gift by the Father from the Son. And if the answer is “no,” is this precise proposition dogmatically condemned (i.e. NOT through implicit corollary)?

Please be assured that my goal here is truly to learn. I am asking questions and proceeding hypothetically because I want the truth.

The term “procession” is really not accurate for what I am trying to establish. As the Holy Ghost proceeds and is spirated (in the very matter we agree upon: F + S = one active principle), is he received by the persons who spirated him or does he remain apart from them? If the Father does not receive the Holy Spirit as Gift in this sense, can the Son be said to “love” the Father? Can the Son be said to “appreciate” what has been given him in generation? And if the Son does appreciate and love the Father without this love and appreciation being the Holy Ghost, it seems we are introducing another element than the Trinitarian persons. Are we introducing a love, life and relationship apart from the Holy Ghost?

Finally, how do you understand the relationship between the generation of the Son – the divine “content” that is given from the Father to the Son – and the distinct personhood of the Holy Spirit who is spirated from the Father and the Son? How is the substance of the Son’s generation involved in the personhood of the Holy Spirit? And when we remove ourselves from all before’s, after’s and becoming’s – which have no place in eternity – is there any sense in which the personhood of the Holy Spirit can be identified with the substance of the Son’s generation?

Bear in mind that your answer to these questions requires no ordinary theological opinion, but established doctrine that meet the requirements of infallible dogma. Do not quote simply a canonist, the interpretive text of some manual or the writings of the saints, even doctors of the Church. We need to see explicit irreformable Magisterial teaching.

In dogmatic theology, it is of the highest importance to go slow and get it right. Therefore if I appear dense, be patient.

God bless,

Theo Stuss said...

Answering for Spaghetti-Tarzan:


Dear Mr C.S.

to which passive Relation should refer a reception of the Holy Ghost?

The only passive relation of the Son is the Filiation (passive generation), the rest is active.

Regarding the Father, there is no passive Relation at all.

So, to explain this unity of both of them, we refer to the Holy Ghost under the name "Bond" (ad intra). The Bond is the Holy Ghost as the proceeded relation and on the side of the origin, it is the One Spirator (Father and Son).

This is why they are one in another regarding will.

Spaghetti-Tarzan said...

Hum, what?

"Do not quote simply a canonist, the interpretive text of some manual or the writings of the saints, even doctors of the Church. We need to see explicit irreformable Magisterial teaching."


Hi With,

please don't forget that the consent of the large majority of the theolgians and their recognized manuals form part of the ordinary magistery. This is a "locus theologicus".

You put in question with your "seeking doubts" what is absoluetly clear.

You have the link on Saint Thomas like. And regarding your remark on the Council of Toledo:

Your source does not "correct" the Council but commenting it. Are you lawyer? I mean, by the way you argue.

This comment on Toledo is absolutely clear. There is no passive notion for the Holy Ghost regarding the Son, period!

Bye,

Sp.-T.

With Peter said...

Theo stuss- the relationships you describe pertain to the eternal origins of the persons. The origin of the Father is “principle without principle” and he relates to the origin of the Son as “active generator” and to the Holy Ghost as “active spirator.” The origin of the Son is begotten from the Father and he relates to the origin of the Holy Ghost as “active spirator.” The origin of the Holy Ghost is spirated from the Father and the Son, proceeding through the Son’s begetting. Neither the Father nor the Son originates from the Holy Ghost. The Trinitarian procession thus describes the eternal origin of each of the three persons. As pertains to his origin, the Father does not receive anything from anyone. It can be said that his origin is without origin. As pertains to his origin, the Son receives from the Father but not from the Holy Spirit. As pertains to his origin, the Holy Spirit receives from the Father and the Son as from one principle.

But this does not necessarily mean that in the eternal life of the Trinity, there is no sense in which the Father receives the Son or that the Father and the Son receive the Holy Ghost, who is said to “search the depths of God,” which indicates an eternal dynamism of at least some sort (although I hesitate to contradict what you wrote about the Holy Ghost as divine rest). Regarding processions (i.e. origins) the divine persons do not receive the Holy Ghost. We are not speaking of a procession into the Father or a procession into the Son, which would by that very fact add to the personhood of each and introduce a principle of change and confusion into Trinity.

I wish to speak instead of the sort of reception that a human father experiences when his daughter gives him an unexpected kiss. This is a creaturely image and it is highly improper to speak of “unexpectedness” in God, but the image has value for what I’m aiming at. A human father places himself passively before his children in order to allow them opportunity for their freedom and virtue. To be complete persons, they too must be allowed to make a gift of themselves. I am still speaking of creatures. But the link between giving oneself and realizing one’s personhood is part and parcel to what it means to be made in the image of God. To love means giving yourself to another person (Jn 15:13).

But according to your schema – your positivism – the Holy Ghost does not give himself to the Father and the Son. He does not love the Father or the Son. In order for the Holy Ghost to love – to give himself meaningfully to a person – it is necessary for God to create, only then is the Holy Ghost finally able to make a gift of himself to others.

Are you actually saying that the gift of the Son to the Father on the Cross has no eternal meaning? “Father into your hands I commend my Spirit!” Are you saying that his ascension to Heaven, his return to the Father in order to together send the Holy Ghost has no eternal correspondence? Does not the Son make a gift of himself to the Father, joining with him in order to become one spirating principle? This gift from Son to Father does not belong to the order of origin or procession, but to the order of love. The Son does not add to the Father’s fatherhood through this gift of self. It is rather a matter of completing his papa’s joy, as it were, by uniting with him in spirating the Holy Ghost, the Trinity’s Delight.

Look more closely at John 17:21. Christ prays that his disciples may be made to share in the divine persons, “even as you, Father, are in me, and I in you.” This last qualifier is necessary. We are not entering the Trinity simply “as the Father entered the Son” (original begetting), but also “as the Son entered the Father,” which has nothing to do with adding to or changing God. Christ does not promise that we will “proceed” into God, but that God will allow himself to be penetrated – one might say pierced – through his own free initiative and the exigencies of love. It is not he who is formed or completed when we give ourselves to him, but it is we who are formed and completed. Unless God allows himself to become the object of our adoration, we will remain unfulfilled.

It is in precisely this sense the Holy Spirit becomes Gift from Father to the Son and from Father to Son. He is also the Gift from himself to each and to both. Not in origin but in love – not in Gift proceeding but in Gift exchanging – each and every divine person is given and received by each and every divine person.

“Mr. C.S.”

PS. Spaghetti- The Council of Toledo is clear, there is no passive relation of the Spirit to the Son in the Son’s origin and procession. Period. Regarding his personhood being searched by the Spirit, St. Paul is clear that there is a passive relation. Period.

With Peter said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
With Peter said...

Spaghetti- In dogmatic theology, "ordinary" will not suffice. There is nothing necessarily dogmatic or intrinsically irreformable about the ordinary Magisterium. And certainly theology manuals enjoy less authority than teaching which explicitly comes from the pope.

My point devolves to this. To denounce the trinitarian theology of Paul VI (rite of ordination), John Paul II (dominum et vivificantem) and Benedict XVI (compendium), we need to base ourselves on infallible dogma. The rest they as popes (!) would have the right to reinterpret or reformulate. I believe theostuss understands and agrees with this point.

Spaghetti-Tarzan said...

Ha, ha, ha

Hi With,


I give you a chance to correct this.

Bye

Theo Stuss said...

Dear „With Peter“,


Council of Toledo:



“This Holy Trinity, which is the one true God, is not without

number; yet it is not comprised by number, because in the relationships

of the persons there appears number, but in the substance of the Godhead

nothing is comprised that could be counted. Therefore they imply

number only in so far as they are mutually related, but they lack number

in so far as they are by themselves (ad se). “

This is kept since ages in the dogmatic resources of the Church.

You may also look up another translation from TCT 304 (Denz. 280), page 130, TAN-Books.

As you can see, the number of the Persons is due to the relations: Paternity (active generation) is opposed to Filiation (passive generation); and these two are as active spiration opposed to passive spiration (Procession). So four relations result in three persons, because the N°1 is opposed to N°2 and N°1 and N°2 form together one N°3, opposed to N°4.

Since all relations within God must be substantial, there can’t be accidental relations. A “Conceptio” of the Holy Ghost as a gift “ad intra” between the Father and the Son, must result in two other opposed relations. If they are taken substantially, this would give rise to one or two other persons. The active spiration is already opposed to passive spiration. This is complete. So, do you want to imply a new supplementary of active spiration and a “Conceptio Doni”? This is absurd. Or do you want to oppose Donator N°1 to a Receiver N°2 and a Donator N°2 to Receiver N°1? In this case you have even four new persons.

Otherwise the perfection of the Father and the Son would undergo an accidental enhancement by receiving the supposed Gift of the Holy Ghost from each other. In this case each, the Father and the Son would be accidentally enriched outside Paternity and Filiation. And maybe even the Holy Ghost would receive more glory than he has from the procession, because he achieves the joy of being a mutual gift between Father and the Son.

We find this nonsense in the books of Hans-Urs von Balthasar:

« C’est comme si (le Fils) dans l’image originelle de sa venue à l’existence avait depuis toujours vécu dans l’attente du Père, et aurait, à présent, enfin, fait son apparition après cet éternel depuis toujours et comme si, de son côté, maintenant qu’Il aperçoit enfin le Père, Il avait assouvi son éternelle attente. Le Fils vit, bien que Lui, l’Éternel, n’avait pas le temps d’attendre, l’accomplissement (lat. consummatio) malgré tout comme la conséquence d’une attente éternelle. Oui tous deux remarquent, par cet accomplissement, la présence d’une attente éternelle (une puissance ?) et par l’attente l’actualité de l’accomplissement... et l’Esprit se sait depuis toujours attendu par le Père et le Fils et les regarde tous deux en quelque sorte dans son propre être comme l’accomplissement parfait de ce qu’il a attendu depuis toujours, de sorte qu’il soit autorisé à leur apporter l’accomplissement total, qui résidait dans leur attente. »

Taken from H.U. von Balth., Theodramatik, footnotes 81 – 82. German passage was translated into French by an acquaintance of mine.

The text shows the life of Trinity as mutual enrichment and enhancement, where act and potential are mixed, like in creatures. The words “l’accomplissement, attente éternelle, par l’attente l’actualité de l’accomplissement, de sorte qu’il (the Holy Ghost) soit autorisé à leur apporter l’accomplissement total », show to the reader the origin of this pseudo-mystical doctrine. God in need of erotic accomplishment and not “Actus purus”, God in expectation of things he longed for; is this really God? Such a God, would he also be need of his creation?

When it comes to the inner divine life, there is no place for anthropomorphism.

Regarding your shameful ignorance on the dogmatic value “de fide” of the ordinary magisterium, I am asking you:

Do you have any dogmatic proof for this? Up to Vat.II infallible declarations of Popes and Ecumenical Councils only confirmed and did not abolish common ordinary teaching. I leave it up to you to find the answer in the first pages of Ludwig Ott. You may discuss this with Father Cekada and join the Feeneyists.

God bless

Anonymous said...

Oh dear With Peter, oh, oh oh...

you say:


"I wish to speak instead of the sort of reception that a human father experiences when his daughter gives him an unexpected kiss. This is a creaturely image and it is highly improper to speak of “unexpectedness” in God, but the image has value for what I’m aiming at. A human father places himself passively before his children in order to allow them opportunity for their freedom and virtue. To be complete persons, they too must be allowed to make a gift of themselves. I am still speaking of creatures. But the link between giving oneself and realizing one’s personhood is part and parcel to what it means to be made in the image of God. To love means giving yourself to another person (Jn 15:13)."

Don't see that you are falling into this anthropomorphism Theo is referring to?

God is pure act. There is no place for unexpected joy and happiness in God. A human person loves by giving himself as a person, because we are not pure act, but always on the way to something, which show that we proceed from imperfection to higher perfection.

But in God the name gift for the Holy Ghost can only be taken as a name (notionally) in respect of rational creatures.

But of course you can use the word gift in God essentially. In this case the Father gives himself to the Son in Generation by passing his substance and the same for the Holy Ghost. All his love you are looking for, as a gift is coming to pass within God essentially and not between persons, who proof there love to each other by accidental gifts.

Theo Stuss said...

Oooooops, now I see what WITH PETER was writing further up.



Dear Mr. C.S.,


No, no, no, sorry this is completely wrong when you are writing about surprising events of love in the Blessed Trinity “ad intra”.

As somebody said before me anonymously, you are mixing up the meaning of love and gift as they are taken notionally and personally on one side, or essentially on the other.

Please, study again 1 q.37 and q.38 of the SUMMA:

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1.htm

With Peter said...

Dear all, I explicitly acknowledged the analogy’s weakness in the element of “unexpectedness” or “surprise.” In doing this, I indicated that there is no unexpectedness in God the Father, but rather in human fathers, which was the image I used to demonstrate a kind of relation and joy that reflects how man has been made in the divine image. Pay attention! Read what I wrote again: “This is a creaturely image and it is highly improper to speak of ‘unexpectedness’ in God.” How did you all overlook this when it was stated so directly?

There is no more anthropomorphism here than there is in the works of Dionysius the Areopagite, whose works were so revered by St. Thomas Aquinas. I very carefully distinguished between what aspect of this human picture images God and what aspect clearly does not.

To be absolutely clear, I expressly reject that there is either “surprise” or “events” in God: these are very temporal words. I suppose one might be able to say that God is one eternal “event,” but to speak of “events” implies temporal sequence of “befores” and “afters.” To speak of “surprise” implies a deficiency of knowledge concerning the future. And since in God there is neither deficiency of knowledge nor is there “future,” there is no surprise. I NEVER ASSERTED THAT THERE WAS. Please, pay attention.

Theo- You are extremely confused. St. Peter wrote that we are made participants in the divine NATURE. Our insertion into the Trinitarian life of God (per Athanasius and Thomas Aquinas) is NOT accidental. Accidental salvation is a Protestant notion (“dung heap covered with snow”), Catholics believe in ESSENTIAL salvation. Our entrance into God is essential. And it reflects the mutual entrance of the divine persons into one another (“as you are in me and I am in you”). This means that in Christ we are enabled to make an essential gift of ourselves to God the Father precisely because the Son makes this Gift of himself. But this Gift (His and ours) does not add anything to the “personhood” of God the Father, which is principio sine principium. “Completing one’s joy,” in the biblical sense, is not adding to one’s personhood, but nevertheless divine joy is essential, not accidental. And when St. John said that he is writing so that “our joy may be complete” (1 Jn 1:4), he was not asserting a previous deficiency in his joy. He was asserting an extension of the infinite joy he had already found in Christ. So also, by analogy we understand the completion of the Father’s joy in receiving the gift of his Son. His “completed joy” is in seeing the Son discover himself through the act of love (i.e. self-donation). The same goes with the Holy Ghost, who in giving himself (essentially) to the Father and Son adds nothing to the personhood of each, rather their joy is made complete through seeing the Holy Ghost make an act of love. This is very basic metaphysics. I am simply amazed by your failure to understand this point.

Again, according to your schema, the Son cannot be said to love the Father and the Holy Ghost cannot be said to love the Father or the Son. This is asinine.

The Summa Theologica treats processions and thus neither affirms nor negates the points being raised here.

With Peter said...

Ordinary Magisterium- You want a source? How about when Jesus gave Peter the power to “bind and loose.” Dogma presents an exception to this rule. Dogma alone prevents Peter from binding and loosing. He only has the power to remain faithful and pass it on exactly as he himself received it. Now the fact is that the content of any given expression of the Ordinary Magisterium contains infallible dogmas. When for instance John Paul II gave a Wednesday Audience on Jesus Christ being “Like us in all things but sin” (Feb 3, 1988), virtually every word was firmly rooted in dogma. In the course of that audience, he explicitly quoted the Second Council of Lyons, the Council of Florence and the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed. He also quoted Scripture directly about 25 times. But what makes this content “de fide” is not the fact of John Paul II’s Wednesday Audience. Any part of this audience which pertains to its being a Wednesday Audience – if there even is such a part – is reformable by the Magisterium.

By the same token, the Magisterium may at some later time elevate some proposition from the Wednesday Audience from the status of material to the status of formal dogma, which would thus change the objective status of denying this proposition from “disobedient” to “heretical.”

Most dogmatic theologican, Ott included, distinguish Theological Grades of Certainty. Thus he says, “If Truths are defined by a solemn judgment of faith (definition) of the Pope or of a General Council, they are ‘de fide definita’” (p. 9). Thus he also says, “With regard to the doctrinal teaching of the Church it must be well noted that not all the assertions of the Teaching Authority of the Church on questions of Faith and morals are infallible and consequently irrevocable” (p. 10). These teachings are binding on the faithful until they are otherwise reformulated or revoked (i.e. “loosed”) by the Teaching Authority. They require complete submission of will and intellect, but they are not “de fide.” Ott clearly and explicitly rejects this notion: “The ordinary and usual form of the Papal teaching activity is not infallible . . . Nevertheless normally they are to be accepted with an inner assent which is based on the high supernatural authority of the Holy See” (p. 10)

Ott is a bit imprecise and ambiguous. If we look at Pastor Aeternus, Lumen Gentium 25 and the CDF document Mysterium Ecclesiae, we see far greater clarity and insight than is provided by the esteemed theologian. Neither Vatican I nor Vatican II admits of any exceptions to the acceptance that must be given to the ordinary and universal Magisterium, but the term “assent” is not used. Rather this teaching requires the faithful “to adhere to it with a ready and respectful allegiance of mind, a loyal submission of will and intellect.” We only conform to this teaching to the extent that inspected by the “manifest mind and intention” of the Magisterium. In other words, we are supposed to follow all that the Church teaches or decides, but we are also supposed to recognize which teachings and decisions can be changed and which cannot. Faith is supposed to be childlike (i.e. full trust, humility, obedience) but it is not supposed to be ignorant or naïve.

I clearly overestimated your knowledge of dogmatic theology, Theo stuss, for this I apologize and ask your forgiveness. Do you mind if I ask if you have been formally instructed in dogmatic theology? Or are you just going on what you have figured out through your own personal study?

With Peter said...

Erratum:

We only conform to this teaching to the extent that inspected by the “manifest mind and intention” of the Magisterium

Should read:

We only conform to this teaching to the extent that is expected by the “manifest mind and intention” of the Magisterium

Theo Stuss said...

Dear Mr. C.S.,


Thank you for your personal estimation. I have good news for you. I will start my new job 1st of April, that means you will have to deal with me for another month.

Let’s start with your surprising affirmations on ordinary and extraordinary magisterium. You say that Ott is ambiguous? In which way is he?

On page 4 (TAN-Books) you can read that the promulgation of a dogma may be maid either in an extraordinary manner through a solemn decision of faith made by the Pope or a general council or through the ordinary and general teaching of the Church. The latter may be found easily in the catechisms issued by the bishops.

On page 299 he writes that the totality of the bishops is infallible, when they, either assembled in a general council or scattered over the earth, propose a teaching of faith or morals as one to be held by the faithful.

And this preposition Ott is naming to be “de fide”. On page 300 he goes further into the details also in respect of the 1st Vatican Council.

The teaching of a single isolated bishop was not the topic here, but the corpus of Catholic bishops in community with the Holy See.

I can assure you that Diekamp in volume 1/page 66 (edition 1938) is teaching the same thing like Ott. Diekamp firmly speaks about the infallibility of the “Ecclesia docens dispersa”. Like Ott he’s referring to liturgical and dogmatic books and writings issued the bishops. Diekamp says, if all liturgies of the occident and the orient coincide in a certain issue of faith, this consent, because this is a consent of the common Church, demands obedience of faith.

Another source: the German “Lexikon für Theologie und Kirche - LTHK”, enjoying the same reputation as the Catholic Encyclopedia of 1907 in your country. In volume 10, keyword “Unfehlbarkeit – unfallibility”, column 377 – 378, the German encyclopedia is just saying the same like Ott, Diekamp and TCT.

Let’s now come to Vatican I, as you can look it up in “The Church Teaches” N°66. There you also find an important link to TCT N° 180.

To your objection: Why are there theological notes?

Well, if a certain teaching is regarded by the large majority of the theologians and the Church as “sententia certa” that means, of course, that I don’t take it infallibly as “de fide” or even worse, as contrary to Catholic faith. But I will take it infallibly as “sententia certa”. Where is the problem? The Church can give with infallibility the degree and certainty of her teachings. The Church cannot only assure infallibly assert an infallible teaching as “de fide”, but tell me infallibly: “This is at least sententia communis!”

And as far as I remember, it was you who refused any proof coming from manuals, recommended theologians, even saints and Church-Fathers. Not one manual is the argument, but if plenty of them agree. Not one theologian is an argument here, but if at least his teaching is generally recommended, like Saint Thomas.
But didn’t you say that Father Cekada is friendly acquaintance of yours? He has interesting writings about the Feeneyists who say that extraordinary declarations are the only trumps which matter.

I give you the link to Father’s writings, you are certainly already aware of. I guess that you them inside out:

http://www.traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php?id=27&catname=2

Section II
Why the Church Requires You
to Believe or Adhere to Doctrines
Commonly Taught by her Theologians.



Now another topic: You accuse me of being confused regarding grace and sanctification and having protestant views.

Is this again one of your trigger-happy keyboard-spits?

I remember that you accused me of Modalism, Apollinarism, you understood that I denied that the Holy Ghost is consubstantial with the Father and so on. The list is getting longer and longer and each time you had to row back.

When I said that in God his happiness is essential then I expect a teacher of religion to understand that I mean in this context, that in God being, essence and beatitude, are the same thing. This is not the case of creatures.

When I say, that in creatures in opposite to God all joy and beatitude is not essential, this does mean that it cannot affect our nature, but that it’s an “accidens” like the motion of a car in movement. The movement has not an “esse”, but an “in-esse” in the car’s nature. It is an act of the car. But of course, it belongs to the nature and essence of the car that it can be in motion. The potential of motion is an essential part of the car’s nature, but not the act. The car remains a car, even if it will remain for ever in the garage.

You referred to “accidens” in a logical way, when you were accusing Protestants. My glasses which I’m wearing are a logical “accidens”, but the wearing of the glasses, my act, is a real accidens, an act carried out by me. As an accidens it’s my act and “accidens non migrat de sujecto in subjectum”, as the logical accidens, the glasses can do. You can wear my glasses.

I did not talk about man’s happiness in a way that it could not affect our nature, but I denied that it’s a non-accidental part of our nature. And the word accidens I want to be understood as an ontological and not a logical accidens. I could not be understood, since I and others pointed out at the fact that God is “actus purus”, but in man “actus and potentia” are mixed. Due to that we explained to you that in man happiness is not essential, which in this context meant that man is what he is regarding nature, with or without beatitude. But you reacted like someone who is just waiting for the trigger to be pulled, like Pawlow’s dog when you say:

“Theo- You are extremely confused. St. Peter wrote that we are made participants in the divine NATURE”

Here you are, we are partakers, like we are partakers of being, while God is the “ipsum esse per se substistens”.

Then you are coming up with comparisons and all sort of analogies and you are constantly mixing up proper proportional analogies (as somebody could talk about the being in God and man), with improper disproportional analogies (when somebody is talking about the “arm” of God).

----“Completing one’s joy,” in the biblical sense, is not adding to one’s personhood, but nevertheless divine joy is essential, not accidental. And when St. John said that he is writing so that “our joy may be complete” (1 Jn 1:4), he was not asserting a previous deficiency in his joy. He was asserting an extension of the infinite joy he had already found in Christ. So also, by analogy we understand the completion of the Father’s joy in receiving the gift of his Son. His “completed joy” is in seeing the Son discover himself through the act of love (i.e. self-donation). The same goes with the Holy Ghost, who in giving himself (essentially) to the Father and Son adds nothing to the personhood of each, rather their joy is made complete through seeing the Holy Ghost make an act of love. This is very basic metaphysics. I am simply amazed by your failure to understand this point.----

Further are you giving the impression that there is one act of love for the Father, one for the Son and one for the Holy Ghost. At least, it sounds like. In God there is only one love and one act, because there is only one being. Saint Thomas is dealing with those problems, sine he is asking in what way a person can be possessed by another one. Here for the fifth or the sixth time: 1 q.38 a.1:

“Now a divine person is said to belong to another, either by origin, as the Son belongs to the Father; or as possessed by another. But we are said to possess what we can freely use or enjoy as we please: and in this way a divine person cannot be possessed, except by a rational creature united to God.”

Then you say that the Holy Ghost would give himself essentially to the Father. Further up you’ve given witness of your ambiguous understanding of the word “essential”. Regarding Blessed Trinty essential means something in ratio with the Divine Nature as such and thus concerning all Persons together. Notionally means something specific for one Person only, or two. What does it in this case mean, if the Holy Ghost is giving himself to the Father essentially?

You could say regarding understanding and the procession of the Word that: 1 q.34 a.1 ad 3

“For the Father, by understanding Himself, the Son and the Holy Ghost, and all other things comprised in this knowledge, conceives the Word; so that thus the whole Trinity is "spoken" in the Word;…”

According to Ott and Diekamp this can be adequately applied to the procession of the Holy Ghost, as if you say:

“For the Father, by loving Himself, the Son and the Holy Ghost, and all other things comprised in this love, spirates the Holy Ghost as one Spirator with the Son; so that thus the whole Trinity is "spirated" in this personal expression of love;…”
As the Son is not only the spoken Word of the Father, but also an object of His understanding, likewise the Holy Ghost is not only the expression of love, but also the object of the act of love. But it is not something which is of “natura posterius” to the spiration, or even the contrary, as if thus the Holy Ghost would become his own principle, as I stated some days ago.

In fact, to make your way out, regarding the gift, you are looking for something which is neither really essential, nor accidental, but still your strange “completion of love” would be of a “natura posterius” by necessity. This is not possible. This remains an accidental term.

But your question gives rise to another one. You are looking for the answer, when you are asking yourself: “Does the Holy Ghost have an expression of inner-godly fertility of his own as his property, like the Father has and the Son, too?”

To answer this question he must consider the “terminus a quo” and “terminus ad quem” of the inner-godly life. Both only differ from each other according to a “distinctio virtualis minor”. Once we’ve described this completely, there is no place for any further termini. Deriving from understanding and will, we have seen that the termini are the Word and the Holy Ghost. Thus as Diekamp says frankly, there is no inner-godly fertility of the Holy Ghost, since there is only a passive notion of his own, being identical with his person. The fact regarding the inner-godly life he is called the Bond, makes it there is further expression of love necessary. By being the Bond personally, he is in the Father and the Son. 1 q.37 a.1

The whole problem deals with the difference between generation and procession.

After all I am astonished that you did not insist more on the Missions, since it seems that from 1 q.43 a.8 you could come up with objections.

“Article 8. Whether a divine person is sent only by the person whence He proceeds eternally?

Objection 1. It would seem that a divine person is sent only by the one whence He proceeds eternally. For as Augustine says (De Trin. iv), "The Father is sent by no one because He is from no one." Therefore if a divine person is sent by another, He must be from that other.

Objection 2. Further, the sender has authority over the one sent. But there can be no authority as regards a divine person except from origin. Therefore the divine person sent must proceed from the one sending.

Objection 3. Further, if a divine person can be sent by one whence He does not proceed, then the Holy Ghost may be given by a man, although He proceeds not from him; which is contrary to what Augustine says (De Trin. xv). Therefore the divine person is sent only by the one whence He proceeds.

On the contrary, The Son is sent by the Holy Ghost, according to Is. 48:16, "Now the Lord God hath sent Me and His Spirit." But the Son is not from the Holy Ghost. Therefore a divine person is sent by one from Whom He does not proceed.

I answer that, There are different opinions on this point. Some say that the divine person is sent only by the one whence He proceeds eternally; and so, when it is said that the Son of God is sent by the Holy Ghost, this is to be explained as regards His human nature, by reason of which He was sent to preach by the Holy Ghost. Augustine, however, says (De Trin. ii, 5) that the Son is sent by Himself, and by the Holy Ghost; and the Holy Ghost is sent by Himself, and by the Son; so that to be sent in God does not apply to each person, but only to the person proceeding from another, whereas to send belongs to each person.
There is some truth in both of these opinions; because when a person is described as being sent, the person Himself existing from another is designated, with the visible or invisible effect, applicable to the mission of the divine person. Thus if the sender be designated as the principle of the person sent, in this sense not each person sends, but that person only Who is the principle of that person who is sent; and thus the Son is sent only by the Father; and the Holy Ghost by the Father and the Son. If, however, the person sending is understood as the principle of the effect implied in the mission, in that sense the whole Trinity sends the person sent. This reason does not prove that a man can send the Holy Ghost, forasmuch as man cannot cause the effect of grace.
The answers to the objections appear from the above. “

With Peter said...

Theo stuss- please forgive me if I expressed myself with too much rhetorical flourish. It was not my intention to be disrespectful or cause offense. On a side note, I am happy to have this conversation with you and I am pleased that you are delayed in taking your new job. This conversation has increased my daily attention and love for the Holy Trinity, which has nothing but positive affects on my life.

We are really engaged in two strands of debate right now. In this posting I will focus on questions regarding doctrinal authority and dogma. I wish to begin by focusing on two aspects of Ott’s page 4 discourse. Firstly, he calls the view you describe “the usual one, which is principally expounded by the Thomists.” In other words, we are speaking of an excellent theological opinion, and not a mandatory way to view dogma. Secondly, he uses the verb “to promulgate,” which is distinct from the verb, “to define.” This begs the question: Are we speaking of authoritative definitions or merely the extension of what has been previously authoritatively defined? Do not you and I “promulgate” dogmas every time we reiterate one of these definitions?

I wish to point out two more distinctions as well. Firstly, we must distinguish between ontology and epistemology. The ontological origin of the Immaculate Conception occurred some eighteen hundred some odd years before the epistemological origin. In other words, on page 4, Ott is referring to how something can BE dogma, not necessarily how something can be RECOGNIZED as dogma. This means that just as we distinguish between material heresy and formal heresy, we must also distinguish between material dogma and formal dogma. Secondly, even if (for the sake of argument) I admit that a dogmas can be FORMALLY defined by the ordinary and universal Magisterium, we must realize that this is not a characteristic proper to the ordinary and universal Magisterium. In other words, “not all the assertions of the Teaching Authority of the Church on questions of faith and morals are infallible and consequently irrevocable . . . the ordinary and usual form of the Papal teaching activity is not infallible” (Ott, p. 10).

And this precisely begs the question, if the ordinary Magisterium is formally defining dogma, is it not meeting the criteria laid down by Vatican I? Isn’t it by this very fact “extraordinary” and “ex cathedra”? It is not infallibility and irreformability the very criterion which causes us to distinguish between ordinary and extraordinary? If we answer yes, we must confess that Ott p. 4 is referring to the promulgation of material, not formal dogma. And if Proposition X has not yet been raised to the status of formal dogma, how can we know with certainty that it is dogma at all? Simply put, if we could know it with certainty, this would make it formal dogma.

Theo stuss- Allow me to strengthen what you are saying with an impressive passage from Vatican II: “Although the bishops, taken individually, do not enjoy the privilege of infallibility, the do, however, proclaim infallibly the doctrine of Christ on the following conditions: namely, when, even though dispersed throughout the world but preserving for all that amongst themselves and with Peter’s successor the bond of communion, in their authoritative teaching concerns matters of faith and morals, they are in agreement that a particular teaching is to be held definitively and absolutely. This is still more clearly the case when, assembled in an ecumenical council, they are, for the Church, teachers of and judges in matters of faith and morals, whose decisions must be adhered to with loyal and obedient assent of faith” (LG 25).

You see? The fact of the bishop’s dispersement makes it empirically impossible to adequately evaluate what they are all believing and teaching. This means that the kind of certainty attached to these teachings is not metaphysical (e.g. explicitly dogmatic definition of a Council or Pope), but moral (i.e. taken to be true until evidence to the contrary is produced). The opinion of one bishop who is neither schismatic nor heretical is enough to disprove the universality of the teaching. And this adds more epistemological difficulty of showing that the bishop is or is not formally schismatic or heretical (to invalidate his opinion, one must not demonstrate that he is in bad standing, but that he has denied formal dogma).

But in the particular case in question, we have the teaching of a supposed pope. If we were speaking of a dogma of only moral certainty, this is in itself enough to call into question whether the proposition is a dogma at all. One cannot depose the pope on moral certainty, which really isn’t certainty in the true sense of the word. The teaching of a pope (!) is enough to transform moral certainty about a proposition into moral uncertainty.

Transferred to the particular subject in question, this means we must formally establish that there is no non-processional giving of self between the divine persons. We must formally disprove what I wrote in the past several posts (i.e. with explicitly dogmatic definitions of Ecumenical Councils or Popes). As a last note, we can happily accept the teaching of any non-ecumenical council IF (1) it meets the criteria for infallibility (i.e. the proposition is explicitly delineated as being: -a- from the beginning; -b- binding on all places; and -c- binding on all times) AND (2) the council is explicitly and authoritatively approved by the Roman Pontiff. There were a good number of these councils in the first millennium when most of the Ecumenical Councils were held in the East.

With Peter said...

Now let’s get to the real object of our conversation. Let’s begin with that passage from St. Thomas that I have not gotten around to addressing:

“Now a divine person is said to belong to another, either by origin, as the Son belongs to the Father; or as possessed by another. But we are said to possess what we can freely use or enjoy as we please: and in this way a divine person cannot be possessed, except by a rational creature united to God.”

The first sentence demonstrates the case I am trying to make. “A divine person can belong to another either by origin” (i.e. the processions) “or as possessed by another” (i.e. not by origin). As pertains to origin, the Son belongs to the Father, but the Father does not belong to the Son. As by possession, they both belong to each other. By origin the Father gives himself to the Father, but the Son does not give himself to the Father. By possession, both give themselves to each other. In using such improper terms as “they, them or themselves” I am speaking notionally. Properly, according to the divine essence and being, we ought to restrict ourselves to such terms as “he, him and himself.”

You ask: “Regarding Blessed Trinity essential means something in ratio with the Divine Nature as such and thus concerning all Persons together. Notionally means something specific for one Person only, or two. What does it in this case mean, if the Holy Ghost is giving himself to the Father essentially?”

When St. Thomas speaks of the two means by which the divine persons belong to each other, he is speaking notionally in both cases. Essentially there is no “another” in God: he is one. So saying that a divine person is “possessed by another [divine person]” is notional. But when we speak of what is possessed, we are speaking of essence. In saying that the Holy Spirit gives himself to the Father in the manner that St. Thomas calls “possession” we are speaking not of accident but of essence. We are speaking about the divine oneness of power and act. But we are NOT speaking about the origin of the persons. In receiving the Holy Spirit, the Father is not receiving anything he does not already have from his personal origin principio sine principium.

You state: “Further are you giving the impression that there is one act of love for the Father, one for the Son and one for the Holy Ghost. At least, it sounds like. In God there is only one love and one act, because there is only one being.”

Let’s turn back to 1 q. 37 a. 2: “we must say that in God ‘to love’ is taken in two ways, essentially and notionally.” Essentially there is one love and one act. Notionally, we can speak of the divine persons each loving each other. And as shown above, within this notionality, we speak of the divine relations pertaining either to origin or to possession.

Let’s return to our quote: “Now a divine person is said to belong to another, either by origin, as the Son belongs to the Father; or as possessed by another. But we are said to possess what we can freely use or enjoy as we please: and in this way a divine person cannot be possessed, except by a rational creature united to God.”

The first half of the second sentence demonstrates the personal properties that enable one to possess a divine person (e.g. freedom, ability to enjoy). In the second half of the sentence we reach our conclusion: because irrational creatures do not have these properties, they cannot be said to possess a divine person. Moreover, if a rational creature is not united to God – if he does not submit his reason and will to the Almighty – he also cannot be said to possess a divine person.

To conclude: Not all the divine persons are given and received in origin, but all are given and received in possession. The Father already has the essence that he receives from the Holy Spirit, who proceeds from the Father and/through the Son. In other words, the Holy Spirit gives himself to the Father, but he has nothing to give that he himself did not receive from the Father. The reception is only for the exigencies of love, which is what I tried to invoke with the “surprise kiss” analogy. In human paternity our joy becomes more divine when we are surprised by the virtue of those we love. In divine relations there is no epistemological deficiency, there is no concern that our loved one will sin. But, in human relations, when we see our children choose the right path in ways we did not anticipate, our hearts overflow with divine joy. Forgive me if I beat the dead horse, but you can sympathize with how I could be truly bothered by the accusation of anthropomorphism.

With Peter said...

Erratum:

"The ontological origin of the Immaculate Conception occurred some eighteen hundred some odd years before the epistemological origin"

Should read:

"The ontological origin of the Immaculate Conception occurred some eighteen hundred some odd years before it became epistemologically certain."

It is not as though nobody had any access to knowledge of the Immaculate Conception. This rewording really better expresses what I was attempting to communicate. I'm sure you understood what I was trying to get at, but I though it nevertheless useful to clarify.

With Peter said...

Erratum:

"By origin the Father gives himself to the Father, but the Son does not give himself to the Father."

Should read:

"By origin the Father gives himself to the Son, but the Son does not give himself to the Father."

With Peter said...

Objections based on Missions

"After all I am astonished that you did not insist more on the Missions, since it seems that from 1 q.43 a.8 you could come up with objections."

Well, I want to be careful here. You raise a good point: Can the divine persons do in time something that contradicts their interaction in eternity?

On the other hand, the incarnational paradox can be used as evidence that the Holy Spirit gives himself only to the Son by virtue of his humanity. And St. Thomas himself raises two points to support this. Relying on Augustine we can say that the Son sends himself to himself. You can respond that the Son's capacity to receive the Holy Spirit is only made possible by his human nature. It's a pretty solid argument.

I did, however, mention and I will still maintain an aspect of this argument. I maintain the cry from the Cross, "Father, into your hands I commend my Spirit" is reflective of the notional relations within the Trinity.

Spaghetti-Tarzan said...

Hello With,


Theo raises this point, because he has already the answer:

Read from page 14 onwards:

http://www.rore-sanctifica.org/etudes/2006/RORE-2006-06-15-FR_Thilo-Stopka_QuelleIdeeLesdomincainssefont-ilsdelaConsecration.pdf

Saint Thomas is finishing the entire Quaestio 43 with the 8th article. Obviously he is making a difference between real Divine Missions as an extension of the interior Divine Procession on one side, and improper missions as appropriations and justified anthropomorphism on the other side.

Theo continues that the new form of Paul VI. consists of a chain of missions, where the improper one is the principle of proper one. Improper wordings become a principle of proper ones. We cannot say properly that the Father has given the Holy Ghost to the Son, as we cannot say properly that the Son was sent by the Ghost into the desert. But we can say properly that the Son had given his Ghost to the Apostles.

We can say properly that like the Father had sent His Son by Incarnation so the Son sent His Apostles by making them partakers in His Priesthood, and that he gave them the Holy Ghost.

The problem of appropriations is that we cannot conclude further. Improper wordings do not allow that. In this case we would have to climb up to the principles in proper wordings and from there we could conclude. As for instance, when we say that Jesus was driven by the Ghost into the desert, it means that the created will of his human nature was moved by the Divine Will of Blessed Trinity and this was appropriated to the Holy Ghost.

When we say that God became man, for man may become God, we mean in reality that the Logos assumed humane nature in order to make man a partaker of Divine Nature by Grace. The improper wordings would not allow a conclusion, as someone might be seduced to say that since man became God, he first has no master anymore.

Now, the new form for episcopate is a chain starting with improper wordings first, making an appropriation the logic principle of a real Divine Mission which follows: the sending of the Spirit to the Apostles by the Son.

You are asking: “Can the divine persons do in time something that contradicts their interaction in eternity?”

Interactions are only between several beings. This is not the case of the Divine Persons. Neither are there relations between them, but the relations are the persons.

On the question of the possession of a person by another one, you misunderstand Thomas when you say:
“To conclude: Not all the divine persons are given and received in origin, but all are given and received in possession. The Father already has the essence that he receives from the Holy Spirit, who proceeds from the Father and/through the Son. In other words, the Holy Spirit gives himself to the Father, but he has nothing to give that he himself did not receive from the Father.”
Sed contra:

The Father is without principle: how can he receive something from the Holy Ghost?

Your wordings imply that there is no real principle without principles at all as it regards persons. Like that the only principle would be the Divine Essence. This is against IV. Lateran Council.

You really seem to be bewildered by the term “interaction”. If you were more considerate of the name Bond the Holy Ghost “ad intra”, there would be less confusion on your side.

With Peter said...

Dear Spaghetti, you have misundersttod the term “interaction.” When we speak of the Trinitarian persons and their relations, we are speaking notionally. We are not speaking of an essential interaction of beings, but only a notional interaction (between-act) of persons within one being. In God, it goes without saying that act, power/ability and being are united. There are none of the divisions and separations of creatures and creaturely relations. But it is permissible to speak in such a manner for notional purposes. So we speak of the Father's act of generating the Son and the Son's act of being generated. This is a "act between" the two persons, an "interaction." Now this pertains to the origins of the persons, which we agree on: No aspect of the Father's origin is owing to anything or anyone. What we disagree on is whether this therefore means that there is no sense in which the Father eternally receives the Holy Ghost.

I have considered and have absolutely no problem with the term “Bond” as a proper name for the Holy Ghost. But it must be remembered that, “Gift, taken personally in God, is the proper name of the Holy Ghost” (1 q38 a2). There is thus nothing improper about using the name “ad intra.” The question is not whether he is or can be called “Gift,” but whether this Gift is received by the other two divine persons or only by rational creatures united to God.

St. Thomas determines two ways that divine persons belong to each other: through origin or through possession (1 q38 a1). This distinction is extremely important, if we hope to answer your question:

The Father is without principle: how can he receive something from the Holy Ghost?

The Father is the principle of what the Father receives from the Holy Ghost. The Holy Ghost is not the principle. I think you are confused by a latent materialism in your thought, which is influencing you to think that for the Father to receive the Holy Ghost, it would mean adding to or changing the Father.

God is not a “thing.” In giving existence to the Son, it is not the case that the Father therefore dies as a result. He remains the source and principle of this existence and all that goes along with it (life, love, truth, wisdom, goodness, justice, beauty, etc). The Son is not given anything that the Father does not already have and keep eternally. The same is equally true for the Holy Ghost. The Father can receive the Holy Ghost because the Father and the Son have given him and the Holy Ghost is a person who loves the Father and Son. But there is no “something” that the Father is receiving from the Holy Ghost apart from the Holy Ghost and divine being, which proceeded from the Father principio sine principium.

So why does the Father (and the Son) receive the Holy Ghost if in fact the Holy Ghost has nothing to give which the Father and Son do not already have? Because the Holy Ghost must be allowed to love in eternity. If the Father does not put himself before the Holy Ghost as the object for his love, the Holy Ghost will be an incomplete person, that is, a person unable to love eternally. The ability/act of loving is inextricable from the notional concept of personhood. This is how and why the Father “receives” the Holy Ghost and this is how and why he “receives” us. Allowing himself to be loved, worshipped and adored is itself part of God’s gift to us. When the Father receives the holy sacrifice of the Mass, does this mean that Jesus Christ, the priest or we become his principle? No of course not. So why would it mean that the Holy Ghost becomes his principle? You keep drawing this inference, but it does not logically follow. I never said and do not now say that the Father has a principle other than himself. This corollary does not logically follow from anything I have written or said.

With Peter said...

Improper missions cannot be the principle of proper ones

I haven’t gotten around to comment on this aspect of the argument, so I thought I might take the opportunity now. Christ was fully human and took care to demonstrate this full humanity. This introduces all kinds of statements whose genuine meaning is easy to obscure: “The Father is greater than I” and the like.

Confronted with evidence from Scripture or pre-Arian crisis traditions, we must constantly ask ourselves, “Does this word or event speak to us about the Son’s divinity or does this pertain to his humanity? If something pertains to Jesus qua humanity, we could easily draw false conclusions about Trinitarian reality. This is why “Improper missions cannot be the principle of proper ones.”

Faced with the distinction I am presenting between the relations of divine persons in origin and the relations in possession, the question becomes a bit more difficult.

To say that Jesus’ baptism represents an “improper” mission is petitio prinicipii, that is, this remains to be proved. The Son’s reception of the Holy Spirit certainly does not describe the personal origin of the Son, such as is described by the Father’s words, “This is my beloved Son with whom I am well pleased.” These words in time reveal the Son’s begetting from all eternity. But does it mean that the Son’s reception of the Holy Ghost is improper? Does it mean that this only pertains to Jesus’ human nature while not revealing anything about the divine relationship? What a strange conclusion to draw from such a Trinitarian event! Perhaps it is a proper that which describes the twofold manner in which the divine persons eternally give themselves (notionally) to one another.

The same can be said of the Son’s gift of the Holy Ghost to the Father on the cross. “Father into your hands I commend my Spirit.” Is this an improper mission? Does it have no eternal correspondence to the Son’s co-spiration of the Holy Ghost (origin) and the Father’s reception of him (possession)?

Theo Stuss said...

Dear Mr C.S.


I didn’t have much time recently. Here I am.

Let’s come back to the point that according to the new form the donation of the Holy Ghost to the Son is supposed to effect the latter’s supreme priesthood, like the Son is supposed to continue a succession of gifts of the Holy Ghost to the apostles and then to the bishops.

As I said some time ago repeatedly: Christ’s priesthood does not consist in the fullness of the Holy Ghost, neither His created graces in Christ’s human soul. All this is a consequence but not the principle of His priesthood.

As I told you before, - and you accused me of Apollinarism-, His priesthood consists in the fact that the Divine Being of the Logos assumed a human nature. From the perspective of Christ’s humanity his uncreated Divine Being and Personality assuming the humanity, is called the Gratia Unionis. And this is why Christ is Highpriest. No visible sending of the Holy Ghost during Christ’s baptism which was directed to him, neither any invisible sending of the Holy Ghost to Christ’s human nature in the moment of conception is the principle of his priesthood, rather is it its consequence. The perfect holiness of the hypostatical union communicates also the indwelling of the Holy Ghost and with him the fullness of created graces, too.

The same thing is to be said for the priesthood and episcopate of the apostles and their successors: the priestly power is identical with the imprinted character (suppl. Q.34 a.2 ad2) and all graces of the Holy Ghost are only given for the congruent use of the ministry (suppl. Q.35 a.1). The character made the apostles partakers in the mystery of the hypostatical Union. Even in the case of the apostles the graces of the ministry, which are linked to sanctifying grace, are not the priesthood itself but the consequence of a fertile reception. In Christ, of course, the fullness of graces and the indwelling of the Holy Ghost can never be lacking. For the apostles there was a special gift in addition to priestly graces, so they would not loose sanctifying grace. But for any other bishop this is not the case. The character sanctifies the person and the grace the nature.

I would like to point out at other important topics of the 1 q. 43:

It is absolutely clear that Saint Thomas is speaking about the Christ’s human nature, whenever he applies the word “Christ”. But in the 8th article he is strictly speaking of the person of the Son, because he changes evidently in his wordings from “Christ” to “Son” for good reasons.

Further, the new form is speaking about the “beloved Son Jesus Christ” thus focussing on the person. The new form is reminding the reader of the baptism in the Jordan in such a way, as if the Son had actually received the Holy Ghost, while Saint Thomas and Holy Writ are speaking about the direction of a visible sending only, in respect of indwelling of the Holy Ghost, received in Christ’s human nature in the moment of conception. To direct a visible sending is not the same like receiving the Holy Ghost. Visible direction is something very secondary:

(1 q. 43 a.6 ad 3)

“Reply to Objection 3. The invisible mission is directed to the blessed at the very beginning of their beatitude. The invisible mission is made to them subsequently, not by "intensity" of grace, but by the further revelation of mysteries; which goes on till the day of judgment. Such an increase is by the "extension" of grace, because it extends to a greater number of objects. To Christ the invisible mission was sent at the first moment of His conception; but not afterwards, since from the beginning of His conception He was filled with all wisdom and grace.”
(1 q.43 a.7 ad 6)
“…..however, that the visible mission made to Christ should show forth the invisible mission made to Him, not at that particular time, but at the first moment of His conception. The visible mission was directed to Christ at the time of His baptism by the figure of a dove, a fruitful animal, to show forth in Christ the authority of the giver of grace by spiritual regeneration; hence the Father's voice spoke, "This is My beloved Son" (Matthew 3:17), that others might be regenerated to the likeness of the only Begotten.”
In other words, an extension of Christ’s graces, created or uncreated, do not take place from the moment of his conception onwards. (Sententia communis, Diekamp, vol. 2, page 251), and this direction of a visible sending does not make Christ a priest, but makes it evident.
In the article N°8 Saint Thomas is clearly speaking about the Son as a person. That’s why the article is named:

“Whether a divine person is sent only by the person whence He proceeds eternally?”

Let’s remark that this article is not dealing with the question, if the Holy Ghost can be given to the Son as a gift, but if for instance the Son could be sent by the Holy Ghost instead. The Quaestio N°8 has the following title:

“Whether a divine person is sent only by the person whence He proceeds eternally?”

Then he continued:

“I answer that, There are different opinions on this point. Some say that the divine person is sent only by the one whence He proceeds eternally; and so, when it is said that the Son of God is sent by the Holy Ghost, this is to be explained as regards His human nature, by reason of which He was sent to preach by the Holy Ghost. Augustine, however, says (De Trin. ii, 5) that the Son is sent by Himself, and by the Holy Ghost; and the Holy Ghost is sent by Himself, and by the Son; so that to be sent in God does not apply to each person, but only to the person proceeding from another, whereas to send belongs to each person.”

And at the end he is not opposed to the one or the other opinion:

“There is some truth in both of these opinions…”

Theology since that time has advanced and divine persons are considered to be properly sent only by the one whence He proceeds eternally. The other opinion belongs clearly to the appropriations.


Now it’s “sententia communis” that the order of Divine Missions follows the order of the Eternal Processions. (Diekamp vol 1, page 351), and if the Bible sometimes gives the impression that it’s not, like in the case when Jesus was driven by the Ghost into the desert, then we must take such an act as improper, since the distinction of the Summa already suggests that, but later Thomists were clearer on this point.
Coming back to the new form of Paul VI., someone could say that God had sent the Holy Ghost to Christ, since this refers to humanity, but we can never say that the Father had given the Holy Ghost to the Son. But this does the new form. The Bible, as I said before, only gives the impression that a visible sending is directed to Christ (the human nature) in order to confirm his hypoastasis as beloved Son. When Saint Thomas refers to Christ in this Quaestio 43 outside article 8, it’s really the human nature and not the person. Also Saint Thomas speaks of directing a visible sending. That the Father gave the Holy Ghost to the Son, he is not even thinking about.

After passing through all the articles of Summa 1 q. 43, Diekamp and Ott, I must state that:

1) The Holy Ghost was sent invisibly to Christ’s human nature in the moment of conception together with the Incarnation, which is the sending of the Son into the flesh.

2) There was no increase of graces afterwards and no further invisible mission to Christ’s human nature.

3) In the moment of baptism in the Jordan a visible sending of the Ghost was directed to Him, not given to him.

4) The new form declares actually that the Holy Ghost was given to the Son, the person, - it does not say that the Holy Ghost was sent invisibly to Christ’s humanity in conception, neither only directed to him in a visible sending of the Holy Spirit only.

5) The Gospel and Saint Thomas only speak about a direction. This direction, whatever, is not the principle of Christ’s priesthood.

6) The Holy Ghost in the new form is even identified with the power of God, although the power (dynamis) is an attribute of the abstract Divine Nature as such. That would exceed the rules of appropriation. Power cannot be a name for the Holy Ghost. Power belongs equally to all the three persons. We can speak of the power of the Holy Spirit, but not say: power equals Holy Spirit.

7) This resembles to the error of Denis of Alexandria who took the Holy Ghost as the Father’s power in a formal sense. He was admonished by Pope Denis of the same name: three powers would mean three divinities. The Greek-Orthodox still maintain the same error. They just believe that the three powers unite and join in the same divine energies, the latter ones being really different from the Divine Essence. This is against the simplicity of God.

8) The new form gives the impression that also the sacramental power of high-priesthood is the Holy Ghost. But this sacramental power is the character. The latter can even exist without the graces of the Holy Ghost, when some received the ordination in mortal sin. Still he would become deacon, priest or bishop, because sacramental power resides in the character.


Just before I forget:

I just noticed that you misunderstood Saint Thomas in 1 q. 38 a.1:

Sorry, do you want to pull my leg?

You write:

“St. Thomas determines two ways that divine persons belong to each other: through origin or through possession (1 q38 a1). This distinction is extremely important, if we hope to answer your question:”

For fifth time: this is what Saint Thomas really says:

“Now a divine person is said to belong to another, either by origin, as the Son belongs to the Father; or as possessed by another. But we are said to possess what we can freely use or enjoy as we please: and in this way a divine person cannot be possessed, except by a rational creature united to God.”

He is exactly excluding what you suppose, Mr. C.S.

He saying that “in this way a divine person cannot be possessed, except by a rational creature united to God.”

Possession belongs to rational creatures! Did you get it, yes?

So, and now I’m fed up. You will now recognize that Saint Thomas is exactly denying that a Divine Person can possess another Divine Person. He says that a Divine Person can only belong to another one due to origin. Only a rational creature in grace can possess a Divine Person.

I think you are pulling my leg. Common this is a waste of time for me.

So long, Buddy!

With Peter said...

I am NOT pulling your leg.

St. Thomas explicitly asserted that a divine person can be possessed by another divine person. He is denying that either an irrational creature or a rational creature separated from God can possess a divine person. Look at the very next sentence:

“In this way a divine person cannot be possessed, except by a rational creature united to God. OTHER CREATURES can be moved by a divine person, not, however, in such a way as to be able to enjoy the divine person.”

St. Thomas explicitly affirms that, in a notional sense, the Father and the Son love EACH OTHER by the Holy Ghost, that is by love proceeding (1 q. 37 a. 2).

This is in accord with right reason and the deposit of faith. Your schema, which goes against both, directly undermines the traditional theology of the Mass, whereby the Son offers himself and us to the Father in the Holy Spirit. This worship adds nothing to the glory of the Father, but giving ourselves to him and being received by him is for our sake. To give ourselves to him is itself his gift. We are not employing our freedom to invent something apart from what he has given us. Our love for him and gift to him is one with and a function of his love for us and gift to us. This is true for man only because he is created and re-created in the image and likeness of God. Through the Mass, we are drawn into the worship eternally offered by the Son and the Holy Ghost to the Father.

The rest of what you wrote is irrelevant. If we do not agree about the truth of God’s love in the Trinity, it will not be possible for us to meaningfully discuss the Rite of Ordination.

If you persist in the erroneous view that I am pulling your leg and that you are wasting your time, I bid you farewell. I thank you for your conversation and I wish you well. You will be in my prayers and I will always stand ready to welcome you once again back into the one, true Church on earth.

New Catholic said...

Spaghetti-Tarzan, no need for name-calling here, even in relation to theologians whose orthodoxy one may doubt...

Anonymous said...

"Proceeding" means belonging to another person be origin and not by possession. And this what Saint Thomas says. Don't lie! The Divine Persons are not free to proceed or not to proceed. But no possession is necessary but contingent, thus only rational creatures possess Divine Persons by grace.

Theo and Sp.-Tarzan pointed at Hans-Urs von Balthasar. Is this your reference, WITH PETER?

Spaghetti-Tarzan said...

Hi With,

Then I say it like that:


Your claim that Jesus expired the Holy Ghost while dying on the cross is simply a Gnostic heresy from the second and third century.

I wonder where you’ve got that stuff from. From Hans-Wurs von Balthasar and his prophetess Adrienne von Speyr?

Here are some testimonies of the fathers against that:

Hilarius, de Trin. X.61

Who then, I demand, was it Who died? Surely He Who gave up His Spirit? but Who gave up His Spirit? Certainly He Who commended it to His Father. And if He Who commended His Spirit is the same as He Who gave it up and died, was it the body which commended its soul, or God Who commended the body's soul? I say 'soul,' because there is no doubt it is frequently synonymous with 'spirit,' as might be gathered merely from the language here: Jesus gave up His 'Spirit' when He was on the point of death.

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/330210.htm


Origen, contra Celsum III, 32

But my Jesus said regarding His own soul (which was separated from the body, not by virtue of any human necessity, but by the miraculous power which was given Him also for this purpose): "No one takes my life from Me, but I lay it down of Myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again." For as He had power to lay it down, He laid it down when He said, "Father, why have You forsaken Me? And when He had cried with a loud voice, He gave up the ghost," anticipating the public executioners of the crucified, who break the legs of the victims, and who do so in order that their punishment may not be further prolonged

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/04163.htm

Saint Austin, de Trin. XIV, 16, 22

The soul of man is also called spirit, whence are the words in the Gospel, "And He bowed His head, and gave up His spirit;" by which the death of the body, through the spirit's leaving it, is signified.

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/130114.htm

You may also look up:

Saint Gregory the Great taken from “Catena Aurea in Iohannem” by Saint Thomas

Theolphylactus taken from “Catena Aurea in Lucam” by Saint Thomas.
Saint Cyrill of Alexandria taken from the same source
Tell von Balthasar’s lies to kids but to us.

Anonymous said...

Gosh, mind your fingers on the keybords Tarzan, when you leave aout words:

"not to us" it should be, no?

Spaghetti-Tarzan said...

With, you're not honnest!

When I go through Theo's postings, he never never denied that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the notional love of the Father and the Son.

He just interpretated Saint Thomas correctly. The name gift is due to the aptitude of the Holy Ghost to be given "ad extra" and not "ad intra". Inside, the name bond is to be appllied and that is also due to the notional love. Did Theo say anything different?

Theo just emphasized that between Father and Son there is no gift of "surprise", or whatever implies surplus or change in God. But "bond" really ensures that this love is eternal. Your misunderstandings of other posters are becoming malvolent. There is no other word for it.

And what concerns your claim that Jesus sacrifices Himself and us "in the Holy Ghost", read well the rules of approproation:

1 q.39 A.8

"According to the fourth consideration, i.e. God's relation to His effects, there arise appropriation of the expression "from Whom, by Whom, and in Whom." For this preposition "from" [ex] sometimes implies a certain relation of the material cause; which has no place in God; and sometimes it expresses the relation of the efficient cause, which can be applied to God by reason of His active power; hence it is appropriated to the Father in the same way as power. The preposition "by" [per] sometimes designates an intermediate cause; thus we may say that a smith works "by" a hammer. Hence the word "by" is not always appropriated to the Son, but belongs to the Son properly and strictly, according to the text, "All things were made by Him" (John 1:3); not that the Son is an instrument, but as "the principle from a principle." Sometimes it designates the habitude of a form "by" which an agent works; thus we say that an artificer works by his art. Hence, as wisdom and art are appropriated to the Son, so also is the expression "by Whom." The preposition "in" strictly denotes the habitude of one containing. Now, God contains things in two ways: in one way by their similitudes; thus things are said to be in God, as existing in His knowledge. In this sense the expression "in Him" should be appropriated to the Son. In another sense things are contained in God forasmuch as He in His goodness preserves and governs them, by guiding them to a fitting end; and in this sense the expression "in Him" is appropriated to the Holy Ghost, as likewise is "goodness." Nor need the habitude of the final cause (though the first of causes) be appropriated to the Father, Who is "the principle without a principle": because the divine persons, of Whom the Father is the principle, do not proceed from Him as towards an end, since each of Them is the last end; but They proceed by a natural procession, which seems more to belong to the nature of a natural power."

You don't take this speach as appropriation, seemingly. People like you make me tired. Where did you study? At a Franciscan University? Are they fond of this Gnostic way of love-speach and solidarity-kenosis there? This is well von Balthasar, no? Come on, name your sources!

Aquinatizer said...

Dear "With Peter",


when you are referring to mass, and also regarding your former postings, you don't seem to make a distinction between "gloria interna" and "gloria externa".

Theo said correctly that the gloria interna is identical with the Divine Essence and cannot achieve any enhancement. Even Christ's sacrifice only increases the gloria externa only.

If a Divine Person can belong to another one by possession, this would mean that possession supposes the persons constituted. Anyway this would be an accidental relationship and not substantial. But Divine Relationships are the Persons, because they are substantial.

There is no way out.

I've been following this discussion a long time and this is all I have to say.

You are beating the dead horse.

Sorry for you!

Anonymous said...

Someone does not know how to read in this blog:

1 q.38 a.1

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1038.htm

"Hence the rational creature alone can possess the divine person."

And Saint Thomas continues:

"Nevertheless in order that it may possess Him in this manner, its own power avails nothing: hence this must be given it from above; for that is said to be given to us which we have from another source. Thus a divine person can "be given," and can be a "gift."

Since Saint Thomas says clearly "alone", I wonder what With Peter wants to proof?

His Gnostic teaching that the Lord "gave" the Holy Spirit back to the Father while dying on the Cross?

Is With Peter just revealing a little bit of his Gnostic initiation? Maybe he should tell more to us, who are profane,

ha, ha.

Spaghetti-Tarzan said...

This is where your rubbish of suffering in God is coming from, WITH PETER:

http://www.mrrena.com/2004/suffer.shtml

We don't adore the same God and one of us is not Christian.

Weinandy mentions Jean Galot SJ. His book about priesthood should be interesting. Those guys even dare to speak of "new orthodoxy":

quote:

Among Catholic theologians, while they may differ as to the exact manner and extent of God’s passibility, one nonetheless finds a strange mix of theological bedfellows. They include, among others, Raniero Cantalamessa, Jean Galot, Hans Urs von Balthasar, Roger Haight, Elizabeth Johnson, Hans Küng, Michael Sarot, and Jon Sobrino. Of course one must add the host of Process Theologians who, following the lead of Albert North Whitehead and Charles Hartshorne, hold, by the very character of their philosophical position, that God is by nature passible and so can suffer. This theological shift has been so overwhelming, so thorough, and has been achieved with such unquestioned assurance that Ronald Goetz has simply, and in a sense rightly, dubbed it the “new orthodoxy.”

unquote.

And that you call love? You're just Gnostic! Shame on you!

With Peter said...

It’s been a while since I posted. I will respond to each post one at a time.

Anonymous- I agree with you. “Proceeding means belonging to another person by origin and not by possession.” The Rite of Ordination, the Compendium and I are not speaking of Gift qua “procession” (i.e. origin), but qua “possession” (i.e. mutual love).

The question is whether the processions are the only manner in which the divine persons give and receive one another. And if so or if not, what is the basis for our belief?

To the second part, no. I never referred to von Balthasar. I am not familiar with this aspect of his theology. I find his writing style extremely insipid and this prevents me from accurately commenting on his orthodoxy or lack there of.

With Peter said...

Spaghetti- I accept that you may believe I am very confused or otherwise in error, but I assure you that I am honest. I do believe what I am writing. Ultimately, however it is not for you – or even for me – to judge my honesty or yours. Let’s judge one another’s words and actions and leave the rest to God.

If you reread what I wrote, you will discover that I never, never asserted Theo denied the procession of the Holy Ghost from the notional love of the Father and the Son. My comment was not about Theo, but about St. Thomas, who asserted that the Son loves the Father by the Holy Ghost.

Thomas explicitly asserts that Gift is the proper name ad intra when he says, “Gift, taken personally IN GOD, is the proper name of the Holy Ghost” (I, q.38, a.2). I have no quarrel with calling him “Bond” which is quite complementary with the name “Gift.”

If I have misunderstood you or other posters, I apologize. But this needs to be shown to me. I consider myself somewhat intelligent and somewhat well educated, but I know that I am a fallen man, prone to mistakes. Please be patient with me and not too hasty in condemning me.

It’s actually a bit ironic that you accuse me of misunderstanding other posters, since my analogy of a human father’s surprise has been consistently and expressly explained as only an analogy and not as an assertion of any surprise or change in God. I don’t conclude, however, your misunderstanding of me was “malevolent.” I assume that it was innocent.

Appropriation. In this passage that you quote, St. Thomas is explaining why each of the three prepositions are properly appropriated to the different divine persons. “From” to the Father because he is the principle without principle. “By” to the Son because his the Word and Wisdom “by” which all things were made. “In” to the Holy Ghost because he preserves, governs and guides all things. Thus Thomas’ relates the prepositions to the divine missions, which themselves reflect the Trinitarian relations.

My point is that through the Mass we are caught up into the “ad intra” life of God. We enter into the Son and Holy Ghost’s worship of the Father. On a logical point – which you seem intent on ignoring – the Mass demonstrates the possibility of the Son and Spirit giving themselves to the Father without adding anything to the Principle without Principle. “You have no need of our praise, yet our desire to thank you is itself a gift. Our prayer of thanksgiving adds nothing to your greatness.” This prayer says it all.

My sources? My argument has developed in the course of this conversation. If you scroll through my postings, you will see it take shape and gradually define itself. I assure you that I have borrowed nothing from von Balthasar. Please stop prying into my life and insulting me. Try to stay on topic.

With Peter said...

Anonymous- The “alone” in this sense refers to the rationality of the creature, not the creatureliness of the creature. An irrational creature cannot possess a divine person. This is why when you look two sentences up, St. Thomas says, “OTHER CREATURES” (i.e. those who are irrational or disunited from God) cannot be moved by a divine person “in such as way as to be able to enjoy the divine person.”

If you look four sentences up, you will discover that the divine persons can possess each other. You call me a Gnostic, but you give human beings a power (i.e. to power to enjoy the divine persons) that the Holy Ghost himself does not have!!!! This is totally irrational.

The last two sentences of the paragraph, which you quote, refer to how men – as beings distinct from God – can possess divine persons. The divine persons, however, are not beings distinct from each other. Thus it is obvious that these sentences to not apply to the manner in which the divine persons possess one another.

I neither believe nor assert Marcion’s interpretation of the text, which was that in saying “Father, into your hands I commend my Spirit,” the Son was showing that he was not commending his flesh. Marcion claims that this text proves that Jesus Christ was not truly human, but only appeared to be one.

I believe the words reflect the two great mysteries of faith: The Trinity and the Incarnation. They simultaneously indicate (1) Jesus placing his human trust in the Godhead and surrendering his soul to the Father’s care AND (2) the Son’s eternal gratitude to the Father who begat him. No Gnostic would affirm this.

You accuse me of Gnosticism, but you can’t tell Gnosticism from the nose on your face! I am left with the conviction that, lacking a genuine argument you have resorted to cheap and ineffectual name-calling.

With Peter said...

Spaghetti- in the strongest possible terms, I ardently reject that there is ANY passability and/or suffering in God. God is one, eternal, perfect and unchanging. Period.

I believe in all the truths that the Holy Catholic Church has taught from the time of the Apostles until now and in this faith I hope to live and die.

Please desist in your cruel and nefarious effort to put words in my mouth which you know I expressly and repeatedly reject.

ANSWER THIS QUESTION, PLEASE STOP IGNORING IT:

IF IN THE MASS WE CAN GIVE OURSELVES TO THE FATHER WITHOUT THEREBY ADDING TO HIM AND BECOMING HIS PRINCIPLE, WHY CAN THE SON AND THE HOLY GHOST DO THIS IN ETERNITY?

YOUR REPEATED FAILURE TO ANSWER THIS QUESTION SHOWS THE VACANCY OF YOUR POSITION, WHICH INCREASINGLY RESORTS TO THE BASIST AD HOMINEM INSULTS IN ORDER TO JUSTIFY AND UNJUSTIABLE POSTION.

With Peter said...

Aquinatizer- I respect your post more than all the rest. You raise an excellent point which is quite difficult (but not impossible) to answer. This is why I address it last. You are the first to bring up the distinction between gloria “interna” and “externa.” If I don’t seem to be making the distinction, this is why: It has not come up until now.

Following the words of Christ, it is clear that it is only in giving oneself that one truly finds oneself. This means that the fulfillment of one’s personhood depends on love, upon making a gift of one’s personhood. If Theo and Spaghetti are correct, then, this would mean that creation is necessary for the Holy Ghost to be a complete person. But I hold that the divine persons are eternally complete in the Trinity. Let’s proceed to your comments:

Your first sentence does not appear complete. I think you are saying: “If a Divine Person can belong to another one by possession, this would mean that possession supposes the persons constitute [distinct essences].” But I hold that the Holy Ghost’s gift to the Father is itself the gift from the Father and the Son. Because of this – because it is not independent of the Holy Ghost’s origin – it is neither accidental nor a new procession. The same can be said of the Son’s gift to the Father, the Father’s gift of the Holy Ghost to the Son (I, q.37, a.2), etc.

Thus possessing persons in God is not the same as possessing persons in man, which always involves a distinction of substance (as you say). In God, there is no accidental relationship or distinction of substance. Our possession of God is analogous in the sense that it is itself a Gift from God which adds nothing to his greatness. But it is un-analogous in the sense that we, by nature, share the same substance as the one who we possess. Our sharing of this substance is the result of grace added to us. This is the gloria externa, the transfer of the eternal deity into new beings.

I hope this helps you solve your dilemma. I beat no dead horses, but appeal to living souls. And, with God's help, I will persevere in this effort until my dying day.

With Peter said...

Erratum:

ANSWER THIS QUESTION, PLEASE STOP IGNORING IT:

IF IN THE MASS WE CAN GIVE OURSELVES TO THE FATHER WITHOUT THEREBY ADDING TO HIM AND BECOMING HIS PRINCIPLE, WHY "CAN'T" THE SON AND THE HOLY GHOST DO THIS IN ETERNITY?

YOUR REPEATED FAILURE TO ANSWER THIS QUESTION SHOWS THE VACANCY OF YOUR POSITION, WHICH INCREASINGLY RESORTS TO "BASE" AD HOMINEM INSULTS IN ORDER TO JUSTIFY "AN" UNJUSTIABLE "POSITION."

With Peter said...

As I reread the postings addressed to me, I see that I accidentally skipped one, actually the best one that Spaghetti-Tarzan addressed to me.

I do not claim that Jesus expired the Holy Ghost while dying on the cross. I claim that his words, which refer to the expiration of his human soul, reflect and reveal the truth about the Trinitarian relations, namely, that although the Holy Spirit does NOT proceed from the Son to the Father, he is the love by which the Father and Son notionally give themselves to and possess one another (St. Thomas, Sum Theo, I, q.37, a.2). I am disturbed by your absurd attempt to empty this passage of all Trinitarian meaning. In doing this you go WELL beyond anything you quote from the fathers of the holy Catholic religion.

For the record, if I did hold that Jesus’ human soul was the Holy Ghost, this would not be the heresy of gnosticism, but either the heresy of modalism or else the heresy of Apollinarianism. Actually, I think Tertullian and the Montanists held this proposition. Say what you want about them, they were NOT Gnostics.

I agree with all the testimonies of the Fathers that you cite, which affirm that the spirit is Jesus’ human soul, but none of which assert what you assert. It can refer immediately to Jesus’ human soul and ALSO refer ultimately to the Trinitarian relations. Find a single Father of the Church who says otherwise. You can’t! The Fathers all agreed that Jesus’ humanity was the visible sign or sacrament of the Godhead.

I forget where I saw it or what language it was in, but I believe I remember one saint and doctor describing “Into your hands I commend my Spirit” together with “It is finished” as the completion of Jesus’ public ministry, when he received the Holy Ghost from the Father at his Baptism. In giving the Ghost back to the Father, Jesus demonstrated that he was faithful until the end. He had finished the race and kept the faith in its entirety. Thus he gave back the very same Ghost, which he himself had received. This is itself a model for disciples to follow in handing on Tradition in its integrity.

This doesn’t really relate to my interpretation of the text, but it shows the falsity of your positivism, which says that the words can only have one valid meaning. Your exegesis is clearly wrong on this point: Scripture has multiple senses that are compatible with each other. Even in the literal sense of many passages (i.e. that which was intended by the sacred writer), there can be double or triple meanings.

Look, I’ve tried to read both von Balthasar and von Speyr, but they bore me to tears. I’ve got a number of their books on my shelf in totally new condition. Any similarity between my ideas and theirs is purely accidental. One wonders how you became such an expert? At any rate, even if I did borrow these ideas, which I didn’t, and even if these sources are as dubious as you say, this doesn’t prove anything but that you are engaging in profoundly illogical arguments.

Instead of engaging in such immature guilty-by-association tactics, why don’t you use valid inductions and deductions to disprove me? This is what Theo always tried to do before he impugned my honesty and stormed out.

Aquinatizer said...

Dear With Peter,


If you look at the whole 1 q.38 a.1 ad 4, you will be able to see that your wrong regarding your interpretation of the name gift:

"Reply to Objection 4. Gift is not so called from being actually given, but from its aptitude to be given. Hence the divine person is called Gift from eternity, although He is given in time. Nor does it follow that it is an essential name because it imports relation to the creature; but that it includes something essential in its meaning; as the essence is included in the idea of person, as stated above (34, 3). "



http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1038.htm

You admit that Saint Thomas only calls the Holy Ghost gift regarding His eternal aptitude for being given in time. As regards the eternal processions "ad intra", he can only be called bond.

Since Saint Thomas is strictly limitating the name gift ad extra, this name can not refer to the Holy Ghost as a gift from the Father to the Son.

You stressing the question of mass:

We are never ourselves principles of the Holy Ghost, but channels, if we are in a state of grace. We achieve the indwelling of the Holy Ghost by grace and we grow in perfection. Regarding the eternal perfection of the Divine Persons the name bond is absolutely fitting for the Holy Ghost ad intra.

In inner-trinitarian life the Divine Persons have nothing further to give, because everything is already unlimited reality. A growth in perfection is excluded. This, of course, is not our case.

By!

Anonymous said...

Thank you Aquinatizer. I indeed see what you are saying. And I think you have forced me to either abandon my premise or depart from St. Thomas. Well done. Perhaps you can help me make my choice.

I invoked a liturgical principle in support of my premise that the Holy Spirit is "gift ad intra" and this principle continues to have merit in my eyes. "The gift we offer is itself a gift from you." God can receive a gift without being changed in any way. He receives this gift for our sake, knowing that a person can only find himself through giving himself.

The problem with the passage you quote (I,38,1,ad 4) is that it introduces a break between potentia ("aptitude to be given") and actu ("actually being given") whereas in God potentia and actu are indivisible.

Therefore, I am lead to respectfully depart from St. Thomas and maintain that the procession of the Holy Ghost includes both the potentia and act of the Holy Ghost loving his spirators, without in any way introducing to their personhoods something that was not already there.

Regards,

With Peter