subordinationism

[little_flower10]

I'm wondering, what exactly does the Church teach on this?

(It's the idea that the Son and the Holy Spirit are subordinate to the Father).

is it taught they're equal, but the Son obeys the Father?

thanks

[aquinas138]

The early heresies condemned as subordinationism all implied or openly asserted that the Son and the Spirit are lesser deities than the Father; this of course is a form of tritheism, and in flagrant disagreement with the faith of the Scriptures and the Apostles.

The Athanasian Creed sums it up nicely.  The only differentiation in the Trinity is in the differentiation between the Divine Persons (the opera ad intra): the Father alone begets, the Son alone is begotten, and the Holy Spirit alone proceeds from the Father through the Son.  These actions do not do injury to the co-eternity and co-equality of the three Divine Persons, but merely differentiate them from one another.

All activity that is not internal but directed towards creation (the opera ad extra) is common to all three Persons, though in consideration of God's economy, certain actions are fittingly ascribed to one or another of the Divine Persons (creation to the Father, redemption to the Son, sanctification to the Spirit).

[little_flower10]

Thanks! if I've understood correctly, - the Persons of the Holy Trinity are equal, and eternal, but have different 'actions'.

In the East it's considered to be very important that the Father is the only "cause" of the Son and the Holy Spirit, - is this in the West as well? I don't mean procession as in the Filioque, but the original cause - there are Greek words the differentiate between this more clearly, not so much in Latin... (if this question is unclear I can include the words, I read about this on Wikipedia lol).

Can it also be said that the Son does the will of the Father, and since the Son is begotten of the Father, - that the Father is somehow first (relationally speaking) - though they are also equal?

I'm just trying to understand this teaching without falling into any heresies lol

[little_flower10]

This is where I got the information about the "cause" or "principle" of the Holy Spirit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filioque

There are two Greek words, one is referring to the first origin of the Holy Spirit (ἐκπόρευσις) and the other referring to the Holy Spirit's coming (προϊέναι, or processio in Latin, used in the Filioque).

Is it Catholic teaching that although the procession (προϊέναι) of the Holy Spirit can include the Son (as in: "through the Son", and the Filioque) - the first origin (ἐκπόρευσις) is the Father?

This paragraph seems to imply this as well:

"The Roman Catholic Church holds, as a truth dogmatically defined since as far back as Pope Leo I in 446, who followed a Latin and Alexandrian tradition, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son.[33] It rejects the notion that the Holy Spirit proceeds jointly and equally from two principles (Father and Son) and teaches dogmatically that "the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son, not as from two principles but as from one single principle".[98] It holds that the Father, as the "principle without principle", is the first origin of the Spirit, but also that he, as Father of the only Son, is with the Son the single principle from which the Spirit proceeds.[49]

It also holds that the procession of the Holy Spirit can be expressed as "from the Father through the Son". The agreement that brought about the 1595 Union of Brest expressly declared that those entering full communion with Rome "should remain with that which was handed down to (them) in the Holy Scriptures, in the Gospel, and in the writings of the holy Greek Doctors, that is, that the Holy Spirit proceeds, not from two sources and not by a double procession, but from one origin, from the Father through the Son."[49][91]

The Roman Catholic Church recognizes that the Creed, as confessed at the First Council of Constantinople, did not add "and the Son", when it spoke of the Holy Spirit as proceeding from the Father, and that this addition was admitted to the Latin liturgy between the 8th and 11th centuries[33] When quoting the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed, as in the 6 August 2000 document Dominus Iesus, it does not include Filioque.[99] It views as complementary the Eastern-tradition expression "who proceeds from the Father" (profession of which it sees as affirming that he comes from the Father through the Son) and the Western-tradition expression "who proceeds from the Father and the Son", with the Eastern tradition expressing firstly the Father's character as first origin of the Spirit, and the Western tradition giving expression firstly to the consubstantial communion between Father and Son; and it believes that, provided this legitimate complementarity does not become rigid, ìt does not affect the identity of faith in the reality of the same mystery confessed.[49]

The monarchy of the Father is a doctrine upheld not only by those who like Photius speak of a procession from the Father alone. It is also asserted by theologians who speak of a procession from the Father through the Son or from the Father and the Son. Examples cited in the book The Filioque: History of a Doctrinal Controversy by A. Edward Siecienski[100] include Bessarion,[101] Maximus the Confessor,[102] Bonaventure,[103] and the Council of Worms (868),[104] The same remark is made by Jürgen Moltmann.[105] The Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity also states that not only the Eastern tradition, but also the Latin Filioque tradition "recognize that the 'Monarchy of the Father' implies that the Father is the sole Trinitarian Cause (αἰτία) or Principle (principium) of the Son and of the Holy Spirit."[89]

The Roman Catholic Church recognizes that, in the Greek language, the word used in the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed (ἐκπορευόμενον, "who proceeds") to signify the proceeding of the Holy Spirit cannot appropriately be used with regard to the Son, but only with regard to the Father, a difficulty that does not exist in other languages.[89] For this reason, even in the liturgy of Latin Rite Catholics, it does not add the phrase corresponding to Filioque (καὶ τοῦ Υἱοῦ) to the Greek text of the Creed containing the word ἐκπορευόμενον.[89]

Eastern Catholic Churches are in full communion with Rome, which accepts the Filioque in its liturgy as well as in its dogma, but they do not have to include the Filioque in their versions of the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed. Indeed, the Holy See encourages even those Eastern Catholic Churches, not of Greek tradition, that in the past have incorporated the Filioque into their recitation of the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed to omit it.[106]

[aquinas138]

Thanks! if I've understood correctly, - the Persons of the Holy Trinity are equal, and eternal, but have different 'actions'.

In the East it's considered to be very important that the Father is the only "cause" of the Son and the Holy Spirit, - is this in the West as well? I don't mean procession as in the Filioque, but the original cause - there are Greek words the differentiate between this more clearly, not so much in Latin... (if this question is unclear I can include the words, I read about this on Wikipedia lol).

Can it also be said that the Son does the will of the Father, and since the Son is begotten of the Father, - that the Father is somehow first (relationally speaking) - though they are also equal?

I'm just trying to understand this teaching without falling into any heresies lol

Latin theology avoids the term "cause" generally, but I - being a Latin - don't really think West and East are saying anything different.  The Greeks are concerned that the Latin avoidance of "cause" ignores the act of will on the part of the Father in begetting and spirating.  They often criticize St. Augustine's equation of the relationships with the Persons as an impoverished understanding of Person.

As you suggest also in terms of the Son's obedience, just thinking about what the distinctive opera ad intra are indicates that the Father has a "priority" (in a relational, not temporal, sense) over the other two Persons, but one obviously has to be very careful about this language. 

[little_flower10]

Thanks! do you happen to know, did a council in the West ever address the issue of the Father being the one cause? Was this affirmed?

[Azurestone]

Thanks! do you happen to know, did a council in the West ever address the issue of the Father being the one cause? Was this affirmed?

The Decree from the Council of Florence does.

Since we Latins and Greeks have met in this sacred Ecumenical Council, we have in common been at great pains, that that article about the Procession of the Holy Spirit should be discussed with great care and assiduous investigation.

After, then, the production of texts from the divine Scriptures and very many quotations of the holy Doctors of both Western and Eastern, some indeed affirming that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and from the Son, while others, from the Father through the Son, and after perceiving that all bore the same meaning though expressed differently;

We Greeks declared that what we say, namely that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, we do not say with the intention of excluding the Son; but, because we believed that the Latins say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and from Son as if from two principles and two spirations, we refrained from saying that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son.

We Latins, however, assert that what we say, namely that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, we do not say with the intention of excluding the Father from being the source and principle of the whole of divinity, namely of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, nor by saying that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son, that the Son does not receive this from the Father; nor thereby do we assert that there are two principles and two spirations, but we declare that there is only one principle and a single spiration of the Holy Spirit, as we have hitherto maintained.

[Resurrexi]

Thanks! do you happen to know, did a council in the West ever address the issue of the Father being the one cause? Was this affirmed?

The Decree from the Council of Florence does.

Since we Latins and Greeks have met in this sacred Ecumenical Council, we have in common been at great pains, that that article about the Procession of the Holy Spirit should be discussed with great care and assiduous investigation.

After, then, the production of texts from the divine Scriptures and very many quotations of the holy Doctors of both Western and Eastern, some indeed affirming that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and from the Son, while others, from the Father through the Son, and after perceiving that all bore the same meaning though expressed differently;

We Greeks declared that what we say, namely that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, we do not say with the intention of excluding the Son; but, because we believed that the Latins say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and from Son as if from two principles and two spirations, we refrained from saying that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son.

We Latins, however, assert that what we say, namely that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, we do not say with the intention of excluding the Father from being the source and principle of the whole of divinity, namely of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, nor by saying that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son, that the Son does not receive this from the Father; nor thereby do we assert that there are two principles and two spirations, but we declare that there is only one principle and a single spiration of the Holy Spirit, as we have hitherto maintained.

Yes, there is a single spiration of the Holy Spirit from both the Father and the Son.

[spasiisochrani]

Yes, there is a single spiration of the Holy Spirit from both the Father and the Son.

Or, as the Eastern Fathers said, from the Father through the Son.  The two expressions are complementary and are not opposed to each other.

[Azurestone]

Yes, there is a single spiration of the Holy Spirit from both the Father and the Son.

Or, as the Eastern Fathers said, from the Father through the Son.  The two expressions are complementary and are not opposed to each other.

What Resurrexi said would never be accepted in an eastern church.