And the Son

[teachccd]

I’ll just put this part briefly, since I don’t have too much time and it may not be necessary to go into detail.

A principle, in Latin philosophical and theological language, is “that from which something comes”. So a chair would have at least two principles: the wood, and the designer.

With the Holy Spirit there is only one principle: the Spiration, or breathing forth. This single breathing forth is shared by the Father and the Son so that the Holy Spirit isn’t a composite of two distinct “efforts”, but one single action shared between two Persons.

That being said, the Father and Son don’t have an identical relation to this single procession. The Father alone is the Source of the Spiration, the foundation and “beginning” logically speaking (since it’s an eternal action it can’t have a beginning in terms of time, but can have a “first step” in terms of foundation upon which the whole is instantly and eternally “built”). The Son participates in the Spiration, receiving the action of “breathing forth” at the same “time” He receives the Divine Nature; obviously the Holy Spirit doesn’t receive it since He can’t be the principle of Himself, and likewise He doesn’t receive the Begetting, the principle of the Son, since He is logical “after” the Son, receiving from the Son, and therefore can’t “contribute” to the Son any more than you could contribute to the existence of your parents when they were children.

So the Father alone is the Source of the Holy Spirit, but breathes Him forth in such a way that the Son is united at once and eternally with the procession of the Holy Spirit, albeit in a “secondary” way. This doesn’t mean that the Son “contributes less”, since He’s sharing in a single action, but rather that He is not the Source of that action, and is going along with the Father, so to speak.

Since the procession, or moving forward, of the Holy Spirit is from both the Father and the Son as one single “breath”, it can be said that He proceeds “from the Father and the Son”. The reason this isn’t said in Greek is that the word used for “proceed” in the Greek doesn’t mean “moving forward”, as it does in the Latin, but rather “coming from the source”, and that can ONLY be said of the Father. It’s important to note that the filioque is NOT permitted in the Greek versions of the Creed even in the Catholic Church; it would be an error to say it the way the words are in Greek. Latin, and most other languages, lack the distinction between two different words for “moving forward from” and “coming out of the source”, so it’s not an issue in most other cases.

So the Latin understanding is actually very well described in the thread linked by Mardukm, with St. John of Damascus’ description of the spring (Father), the river (Son), and the sea (Holy Spirit). The spring is the source of the river, and is the only source of all water (Divinity, in this case), but the sea receives water from the river and the spring all at once and in a single “motion” (as from a single principle). The river is not the SOURCE of the sea, but it is an equal and necessary “partner” in the water going to the sea; the spring retains its place as ultimate source of all water without any difficulties or contradictions, and the river doesn’t contribute anything the sea that isn’t received from the spring.

As you can see from the other thread, this understanding is utterly Patristic, even with Eastern Fathers, and that is why it will NOT be rejected by the Catholic Church even if it is agreed that the Filioque addition itself may have been imprudent. It is the orthodox tradition of the Faith that the Person of the Holy Spirit comes forth from the Father, through the Son, in a single eternal “motion” which we call the Spiration.

Hope that helps! Peace and God bless!

Very well said. Sometimes semantics can have a adverse effect even when ideas seem to mirror each other. Thank you for your explanation…Seems to me that Filioque was the straw that broke the camel’s back in 1054 with previous surmounting issues. It’s hard to believe that the Church would divide over this theological understanding or misunderstanding depending on how one sees this. Papal authority seems to be the issue here but I’m not too keen on how this all unraveled.

I’m just always saddened when I hear of any kind of division since our Lord cohorts us to be one…God Bless…teachccd

 

[yeshua]

Once, the Maronites were required to insert filioque into the Creed. But that was not a unilateral move by the Pope, but was rather in response to the desire of the Maronite hierarchs’ desire to be in communion with Rome (in any case, as you may have seen in another thread, the use of filioque is not absent from the Syrian Tradition). All your other claims are bereft of any merit.

Though I know this won’t cure the peculiar historical revisionism on this sub-forum…

The **one **case you are probably referring to was the papacy of Pope Leo X. Out of curiosity, his sent his legates to the Maronites though the report back contained, among other things, a deficient lack of the filioque being recited. To respond, Pope Leo X refused to offer the Pallium to the next Patriarch unless he offered his agreement to enforce the clause and other “theological corrections.”

Forgive me, Brother Marduk, but that was certainly not out of a sincere Maronite Patriarch desiring communion, it was coercion into keeping communion.

It should also be noted that the filioque was not practiced unilaterally even after Pope Leo’s actions, for the laity did not outright accept it. It was not until after the Council of Trent when the Papacy issued both decree and legates onto the Maronites, and the Jesuits thoroughly “fixed” the Maronite tradition from the monasteries up.

Subsequent Synods of the Maronite Church would come to acknowledge the clause as a part of Maronite practice, led by hierarchs trained by the Maronite College in Rome (this college coming out of Rome’s desire of theological and liturgical correction). Other Synods (some were approved, later overturned) were to correct these Latinized heirarchs and their motives. Perhaps here, Brother Marduk, is where you are confusing the Maronite’s reception towards the clause, though this came far after the original Papal coercion and sometimes violent Latinization.

Peace and God Bless.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Yeshua,

Though I know this won’t cure the peculiar historical revisionism on this sub-forum…

The **one **case you are probably referring to was the papacy of Pope Leo X. Out of curiosity, his sent his legates to the Maronites though the report back contained, among other things, a deficient lack of the filioque being recited. To respond, Pope Leo X refused to offer the Pallium to the next Patriarch unless he offered his agreement to enforce the clause and other “theological corrections.”

Forgive me, Brother Marduk, but that was certainly not out of a sincere Maronite Patriarch desiring communion, it was coercion into keeping communion.

It should also be noted that the filioque was not practiced unilaterally even after Pope Leo’s actions, for the laity did not outright accept it. It was not until after the Council of Trent when the Papacy issued both decree and legates onto the Maronites, and the Jesuits thoroughly “fixed” the Maronite tradition from the monasteries up.

Subsequent Synods of the Maronite Church would come to acknowledge the clause as a part of Maronite practice, led by hierarchs trained by the Maronite College in Rome (this college coming out of Rome’s desire of theological and liturgical correction). Other Synods (some were approved, later overturned) were to correct these Latinized heirarchs and their motives. Perhaps here, Brother Marduk, is where you are confusing the Maronite’s reception towards the clause, though this came far after the original Papal coercion and sometimes violent Latinization.

I am always happy to see your handle here. I completely respect and defer to your statements, and forgive me for any misrepresentations.

I would like to offer two considerations, one which I have brought up before, and another which is new relative to the information we have received from our Assyrian brethren in this thread:

1. Is it possible for the Maronite language to have accomodated filioque without any theological heterodoxy?
2. Is it possible that, given the use of filioque in the Syrian Tradition,from the fifth century, the Pope sincerely thought that he was simply asking (commanding?) the Maronites to return to their original roots? Given that the Maronites were “cut off” for a good amount of time, this seems like a likely scenario. What do you think?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Alethiaphile]

The Latin understanding of “and the Son” is not really what the East was accusing the West of in centuries past. It is really more akin to the Eastern understanding of “through the Son.”

That was true prior to the schism; the filioque was able to be interpreted in an orthodox manner, even in the west, which is why St. Maximos approved its use. However, unfortunately, the western councils of Lyons and Florence both dogmatically defined that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son “eternally”, “equally”, and “as from one principle”. That clearly means more than “through the Son” or “resting on the Son”, it clealry makes the Son as well as the Father an arche of the Spirit. There is really no way around that. Joe

 

[Alexius]

I’ll just put this part briefly, since I don’t have too much time and it may not be necessary to go into detail.

A principle, in Latin philosophical and theological language, is “that from which something comes”. So a chair would have at least two principles: the wood, and the designer.

With the Holy Spirit there is only one principle: the Spiration, or breathing forth. This single breathing forth is shared by the Father and the Son so that the Holy Spirit isn’t a composite of two distinct “efforts”, but one single action shared between two Persons.

That being said, the Father and Son don’t have an identical relation to this single procession. The Father alone is the Source of the Spiration, the foundation and “beginning” logically speaking (since it’s an eternal action it can’t have a beginning in terms of time, but can have a “first step” in terms of foundation upon which the whole is instantly and eternally “built”). The Son participates in the Spiration, receiving the action of “breathing forth” at the same “time” He receives the Divine Nature; obviously the Holy Spirit doesn’t receive it since He can’t be the principle of Himself, and likewise He doesn’t receive the Begetting, the principle of the Son, since He is logical “after” the Son, receiving from the Son, and therefore can’t “contribute” to the Son any more than you could contribute to the existence of your parents when they were children.

So the Father alone is the Source of the Holy Spirit, but breathes Him forth in such a way that the Son is united at once and eternally with the procession of the Holy Spirit, albeit in a “secondary” way. This doesn’t mean that the Son “contributes less”, since He’s sharing in a single action, but rather that He is not the Source of that action, and is going along with the Father, so to speak.

Since the procession, or moving forward, of the Holy Spirit is from both the Father and the Son as one single “breath”, it can be said that He proceeds “from the Father and the Son”. The reason this isn’t said in Greek is that the word used for “proceed” in the Greek doesn’t mean “moving forward”, as it does in the Latin, but rather “coming from the source”, and that can ONLY be said of the Father. It’s important to note that the filioque is NOT permitted in the Greek versions of the Creed even in the Catholic Church; it would be an error to say it the way the words are in Greek. Latin, and most other languages, lack the distinction between two different words for “moving forward from” and “coming out of the source”, so it’s not an issue in most other cases.

So the Latin understanding is actually very well described in the thread linked by Mardukm, with St. John of Damascus’ description of the spring (Father), the river (Son), and the sea (Holy Spirit). The spring is the source of the river, and is the only source of all water (Divinity, in this case), but the sea receives water from the river and the spring all at once and in a single “motion” (as from a single principle). The river is not the SOURCE of the sea, but it is an equal and necessary “partner” in the water going to the sea; the spring retains its place as ultimate source of all water without any difficulties or contradictions, and the river doesn’t contribute anything the sea that isn’t received from the spring.

As you can see from the other thread, this understanding is utterly Patristic, even with Eastern Fathers, and that is why it will NOT be rejected by the Catholic Church even if it is agreed that the Filioque addition itself may have been imprudent. It is the orthodox tradition of the Faith that the Person of the Holy Spirit comes forth from the Father, through the Son, in a single eternal “motion” which we call the Spiration.

Hope that helps! Peace and God bless!

An excellent explanation, thank you!

Prayers and petitions,
Alexius

 

[Alexius]

That was true prior to the schism; the filioque was able to be interpreted in an orthodox manner, even in the west, which is why St. Maximos approved its use. However, unfortunately, the western councils of Lyons and Florence both dogmatically defined that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son “eternally”, “equally”, and “as from one principle”. That clearly means more than “through the Son” or “resting on the Son”, it clealry makes the Son as well as the Father an arche of the Spirit. There is really no way around that. Joe

 

[Alethiaphile]

So the Father alone is the Source of the Holy Spirit, but breathes Him forth in such a way that the Son is united at once and eternally with the procession of the Holy Spirit, albeit in a “secondary” way. This doesn’t mean that the Son “contributes less”, since He’s sharing in a single action, but rather that He is not the Source of that action, and is going along with the Father, so to speak.

If the Son is “united… with the procession of the Holy Spirit” (I’m not sure what “united with a procession” means, but leaving that aside) “secondarily” then He does not process the Spirit “equally” as Florence says. I don’t see any way you can reconcile “equally” and “secondarily”; they are pretty much antonyms. Lyons and Florence are pretty clear that the Father and the Son are both to be considered “one principle” of the Holy Spirit. That is not reconciliable with the monarchy of the Father. Joe

 

[Ghosty]

If the Son is “united… with the procession of the Holy Spirit” (I’m not sure what “united with a procession” means, but leaving that aside) “secondarily” then He does not process the Spirit “equally” as Florence says. I don’t see any way you can reconcile “equally” and “secondarily”; they are pretty much antonyms. Lyons and Florence are pretty clear that the Father and the Son are both to be considered “one principle” of the Holy Spirit. That is not reconciliable with the monarchy of the Father. Joe

Actually, the Council of Florence says this:

The Latins asserted that they say the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son not with the intention of excluding the Father from being the source and principle of all deity, that is of the Son and of the holy Spirit, nor to imply that the Son does not receive from the Father, because the holy Spirit proceeds from the Son

The Father alone is the Source of Deity, of the Son and Holy Spirit, and the Son simply receives the procession of the Holy Spirit not as a Source, but as a participant.

Nowhere is the term “equally” used, though that could be understood in an orthodox way if “equally” simply referred to the fact that the Father and Son don’t contribute two different things to the Holy Spirit, but rather together contribute one thing. Equal, in that case, would refer to the unity of Spiration that both Father and Son share, and not that the Father and the Son have an identical relationship to that Spiration, which the West has ALWAYS denied even at Florence. I wouldn’t use the term “equal” just because it implies two equal parts, IMO, which would mean two principles and not one, but it can be understood as orthodox if someone DID use it.

Again, “one principle” simply refers to the fact that the Holy Spirit comes at once in one Spiration, which has its Source in the Father and is shared by the Son, just as the sea comes at once from one flow of water, having its source in the spring, and flowing through the river. It doesn’t mean that the Father and Son have to be identical, just as the spring and the river are not identical just for having the sea flow eternally from both.

The Latins have covered this many, many times, and their position has always withstood attacks. At Florence they even used the Patristic texts the Greeks themselves brought with them to prove their position, as Bessarion and the records of the Council attest.

Alexius: I’m glad the explanation helped a bit.

Peace and God bless!

 

[teachccd]

Actually, the Council of Florence says this:

The Father alone is the Source of Deity, of the Son and Holy Spirit, and the Son simply receives the procession of the Holy Spirit not as a Source, but as a participant.

Nowhere is the term “equally” used, though that could be understood in an orthodox way if “equally” simply referred to the fact that the Father and Son don’t contribute two different things to the Holy Spirit, but rather together contribute one thing. Equal, in that case, would refer to the unity of Spiration that both Father and Son share, and not that the Father and the Son have an identical relationship to that Spiration, which the West has ALWAYS denied even at Florence. I wouldn’t use the term “equal” just because it implies two equal parts, IMO, which would mean two principles and not one, but it can be understood as orthodox if someone DID use it.

Again, “one principle” simply refers to the fact that the Holy Spirit comes at once in one Spiration, which has its Source in the Father and is shared by the Son, just as the sea comes at once from one flow of water, having its source in the spring, and flowing through the river. It doesn’t mean that the Father and Son have to be identical, just as the spring and the river are not identical just for having the sea flow eternally from both.

The Latins have covered this many, many times, and their position has always withstood attacks. At Florence they even used the Patristic texts the Greeks themselves brought with them to prove their position, as Bessarion and the records of the Council attest.

Alexius: I’m glad the explanation helped a bit.

Peace and God bless!

Very well stated! I’m learning so much from such a simple question. I just want information so as not intending for anyone to be at odds with anyone else here. But this is controversial and each side states their case very well.

Oh and Ghosty, December 3rd is my dad’s birthday. He was born in 1928, God rest his soul…teachccd

 

[yeshua]

Peace Brother Marduk,

I am always happy to see your handle here. I completely respect and defer to your statements, and forgive me for any misrepresentations.

Happy to be back. The tone of the forum has changed ever so slightly that maybe I can participate again without feeling barraged. Your presence certainly warms me to that.

I would like to offer two considerations, one which I have brought up before, and another which is new relative to the information we have received from our Assyrian brethren in this thread:

1. Is it possible for the Maronite language to have accomodated filioque without any theological heterodoxy?

I can certainly grant that the discussion over the filioque is not over, and I find merits in both sides. I must cede that the current practice of the Maronite Church is to recite the filioque, as the most “ancient” of Maronite missals is one that is a Syriac translation (and adaptation) of the then current Roman Rite of the 16-17th century. Bearing this in mind, you will not find a text without the clause. For all intents and purposes, the Maronites have found that the clause comfortable and not heterodoxy, though it has come from historical adaptation and not theological discussion.

1. Is it possible that, given the use of filioque in the Syrian Tradition,from the fifth century, the Pope sincerely thought that he was simply asking (commanding?) the Maronites to return to their original roots? Given that the Maronites were “cut off” for a good amount of time, this seems like a likely scenario. What do you think?

First, it MUST be understood on this forum that when we speak of the Syriac tradition broadley we are tredding on sketchy ground (though heaven knows I do it more than anyone). It is not like the Byzantine tradition where there is a general unilateral understanding across nationalities and churches. The Syriac tradition is very large, and what one might consider “Syriac” in tradition, another won’t. Take for example the Ninevah fast, certainly Syriac, though only East Syriac.

In regards to the supposed origins of the clause as Syriac, I must say I find it difficult to see in practice considering all non-Catholic Syriac Churches pratice and encourage without it. If it is indeed Persian, then I am not surprised the Churches of the East will be receptive to it, since their Churches are far more Persian that the West Syriac heritage of my people. What we do know is that the Maronites were vehmently against practicing it until the Jesuit tragedy, and this can’t be seen as isolated when compared to the Maronites sister churches who also did not practice it unless enforced/encouraged do so by Rome.

So, it is rather not likely that the Pope knew of the Syriac practice, for it is not a Western Syriac practice, nor was the discussion of the inclusion of the clause ever framed in the context of it as Maronite tradition. Rather, it was dictated as “correct theology” of that of the Roman Church, and in her role of fixing the Maronites to conform to her theologically. If Pope Leo X was genuinely interested in “bringing the Maronites back to tradition,” there was no mention of this intent, nor would HH be bringing any original West Syriac tradition back to the Maronites.

Also bear in mind the Maronites being “cut off” is an entirely separate issue, though their isolation was certainly used by Popes as justification for Latinizating the church. The only thing deemed heresy that the Maronites adopted, by modern standards and not by the standards issued by ancient Popes (such as the enforcement of unleavened bread), is the monotheletism heresy (a claim that Maronites deny, contrary to contemporary scholarship).

Peace and God Bless.

 

[ronyodish]

Shlomo Yeshua!

I would like to hear your comments on the understanding of the West Syriac Philoxenus of Mabbog on the procession of the Holy Spirit.

Specifically:

If you have time, can you check this section of a book on the Procession of the Holy Ghost. The section is only 2 and half pages. I’m specifically interested in your understanding on the last paragraph of the section that starts with “There is no need…”

God bless,

Rony

 

[yeshua]

Shlomo Yeshua!

I would like to hear your comments on the understanding of the West Syriac Philoxenus of Mabbog on the procession of the Holy Spirit.

Specifically:

If you have time, can you check this section of a book on the Procession of the Holy Ghost. The section is only 2 and half pages. I’m specifically interested in your understanding on the last paragraph of the section that starts with “There is no need…”

God bless,

Rony

Shlama Rony!

Mor Philoxenus is quite the interesting character, isn’t he? Born of East Syriac heritage, educated at Edessa (the bastion of Western Syriac), I like to call him The Universal Syriac; a bridge between East and West Syriac, and a bridge between the Greeks and Syriacs.

In any case, to address your quotation, though before I begin, I must admit I am still “in limbo” when it comes to the filioque matter; much prayer is still needed on my part.

However, I find the book you refer to peculiar, specifically on the issue of where there is contradiction. The author clearly states two examples of Mor Philoxenus’ belief in the Holy Ghost proceeding from the Father. Personally, I believe it is a tad of a scholarly stretch to claim that since the second account (De Triniate et Incarnatione) only *implys *that the Holy Ghost indeed does not proceed from the Father and the Son, that it does not deny that the procession from both is possible. And to be frank, I do not believe it is implied at all, but that Mor Philoxenus is clearly stating that the Holy Ghost is of the Being, which previously was blatantly correlated as the Father.

I find the third account to be along the same lines of scholarly charity when it states that simply because there is no discussion regarding procession of the Holy Ghost other than the Holy Ghost is never the Father and never the Son, that the proceeding powers of both the Son and the Father are assumed for both. It is also much more clear to see that the first two accounts actually due support the third when the procession powers are not assumed, yet this denigrates the authors point.

In reference to your particular emphasis, I am not familiar with the original Syriac account, as this is the only place where the author brings in the original Syriac wording—not that I do doubt the scholarship of this particular discussion in the book, but the previous accounts have made me skeptical, and it’s always good to be picky about translation claims . If indeed there is a reference to the nature of God and not the nature of both, then this becomes a mute issue, but if men kayana is taking place, then there is a problem of accountability on Mor Philoxenus’ part.

If the fourth account really is not stating a procession from the Father and the Son, then I see no issue and the Western Syriac’s tradition lacking the clause unthreatened. But I will give the author the benefit of the doubt and assume he is correct. With that, what I see is a contradiction between the first three accounts described by the author and the one final one used to buttress his argument. I say perhaps there is an explanation for the discrepancy due to the East and West Syriac heritages that Mor Philoxenus thrived in. However, this little sinner is known for being wrong.

Peace and God Bless!

 

[ronyodish]

Thank you yeshua for your comments.

God bless,

Rony

 

[Ghosty]

Yeshua wrote:

What we do know is that the Maronites were vehmently against practicing it until the Jesuit tragedy

What is the indication that they were vehemently against practicing the use of the filioque? Was there an argument over it at the time, and if so what were the terms of the argument? I’m curious for historical reasons.

Peace and God bless!

 

[yeshua]

Yeshua wrote:

What is the indication that they were vehemently against practicing the use of the filioque? Was there an argument over it at the time, and if so what were the terms of the argument? I’m curious for historical reasons.

Peace and God bless!

In hindsight it might have been inappropriate to say “vehemently,” but since time after time the clause was asked to be put to practice, the monasteries (and thus laity, considering the monastic tradition of the Maronites) did not practice it. I used “vehemently” because of this historical stubbornness.

I would *assume *that this stubbornness in not adapting the clause meant that no matter how insistent, the clergy were not going change. What I stray from concluding (in many respects thanks to your insights on the matter ) is whether the Maronites were resistant to the clause simply because it was theologically innappropriate from their perspective, or whether they simply didn’t want it because it was not apart of their normal practice (though saw the clause as theologically acceptable). Records from that time period could answer this dire question of mine, but sadley none survive.

Interestingly enough, the Maronite presence at Florence supported the Council, though the community in Lebanon would not practice with it. Whether or not there existed a particular dialogue, or whether the Council’s decrees did not matter to the Maronites, is left to history. What is chronicled is Papal decree consistently asking/commanding/enforcing for the clause to be practiced, and Maronites not practicing up until its enforcement by the Papal delegation of Jesuits.

Peace and God Bless!

 

[ronyodish]

Brothers Ghosty, Yeshua, and Marduk,

Perhaps we should continue this subject on the Filioque in this thread: And the Son, so as to keep this thread focused on the Assyrians’ election to come into full communion.

Just a suggestion

In any case, I am going to be posting in that thread some further info., and questions.

God bless,

Rony

 

[Alethiaphile]

Ghosty wrote:

Actually, the Council of Florence says this:
Quote:
The Latins asserted that they say the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son not with the intention of excluding the Father from being the source and principle of all deity, that is of the Son and of the holy Spirit, nor to imply that the Son does not receive from the Father, because the holy Spirit proceeds from the Son

Actually, the Council of Florence did not say that. As the quote indicates, that was an assertion in one of the speeches made at the Council. It did not make it into the decrees of the Council, and has no official status.

Nowhere is the term “equally” used,

I quote: “The Father alone has, of his own substance, begotten the Son, the Son alone has been begotten of the Father alone, the Holy Spirit alone proceeds from the Father and equally from the Son.”

though that could be understood in an orthodox way if “equally” simply referred to the fact that the Father and Son don’t contribute two different things to the Holy Spirit, but rather together contribute one thing. Equal, in that case, would refer to the unity of Spiration that both Father and Son share, and not that the Father and the Son have an identical relationship to that Spiration, which the West has ALWAYS denied even at Florence. I wouldn’t use the term “equal” just because it implies two equal parts, IMO, which would mean two principles and not one, but it can be understood as orthodox if someone DID use it.

“Equal” and “equally” are quantitative terms. By far the most natural reading is that neither the Father and the Son are any more the principle or cause of the Spirit than the other, which precludes a reading of the Son as a “secondary” or “derivative” cause. The Fathers of Florence were learned, articulate men, who knew how to make their meaning clear. And, I submit, they did. Joe

 

[yeshua]

Brothers Ghosty, Yeshua, and Marduk,

Perhaps we should continue this subject on the Filioque in this thread: And the Son, so as to keep this thread focused on the Assyrians’ election to come into full communion.

Just a suggestion

In any case, I am going to be posting in that thread some further info., and questions.

God bless,

Rony

An excellent idea, my apologies for drifting away.

Maybe the moderator(s) can accomodate and put our conversation into the And the Son thread.

Peace and God Bless.

 

[ronyodish]

The discussions on the Filioque that have developed in the Assyrian thread have led me to search the net for some (name removed by moderator)ut on this issue as it relates to Syriac Christianity.

I came across this paragraph, on the bottom of the page, and I would like to have some comments on the way the confession of the Holy Spirit is presented in the prayer of the Syrian Orthodox Church of South India:

---

When we say ‘Father’, the Son and the Holy Spirit come from him. When we say ‘Son’, the Father and the Holy Spirit are known through him. When we say Ruho (Spirit), the Father and the Son are perfect and complete in him. The Father is the Creator, not begotten; the Son is begotten, not begetting; the Holy Spirit (Ruho) proceeds from the Father, taking the person and the nature of the Father from the Son.​

I’m curious how this would be received by the Greek Catholics, and by the Eastern Orthodox, in that the Holy Spirit’s procession from the Father is understood as a reception from the Son the Father’s person and nature.

Yeshua, would you say that this is similar to the general Maronite understanding?

Latin Catholics, what do you think of this formulation?

God bless,

Rony

 

[Catherine_Grant]

Maybe the moderator(s) can accomodate and put our conversation into the And the Son thread.

As you wish.

Ten posts on the filioque were moved from the thread about the Assyrians to here.