Debating the filioque

[frjohnmorris]

Bless, Father.

I would agree that Father Seraphim is not an infallible authority (for example I don’t believe in Toll Houses). In my Jurisdiction, men like Elder Paisios, Porphyrios and Iakovos are held in a high esteem that in some corners could lend itself to the same. Forgive me for this slight tangent.

I wanted to say that I am happy that you are here, and this exchange has been very educational.

Thank you. I must say that discussions with Catholics are much more cordial than discussions with Calvinists. I posted for a while on a continuing Anglican site, but stopped because of the anti-Orthodox attitude of some of the posters, especially the Calvinist ones.
The whole Toll House controversy is caused by confusing a metaphor for the particular judgment with the doctrine of the Church. Remember Rose never attended an Orthodox seminary. I just did a search on my computerized copy of On the Orthodox Faith by St. John of Damascus. He never mentioned Toll Houses. I did the same on the works of St. Basil the Great, St. Cyril of Jerusalem, St. Gregory of Nyssa and St. Gregory the Theologian and could find no references to toll houses. If great Orthodox theologians like these did not mention Toll Houses, it is not an Orthodox doctrine.
For our Roman Catholic brothers and sisters forgive me for mentioning an inter-Orthodox controversy here. The controversy over Toll Houses is caused by some monastics like Rose who teach that we must pass through Toll Houses where we will have to give an account for various sins as we ascend to Heaven after we die. "According to this doctrine, "following a person’s death the soul leaves the body, and is escorted to God by angels. During this journey the soul passes through an aerial realm, which is inhabited by wicked spirits (Eph 6:12). The soul encounters these demons at various points referred to as ‘toll-houses’ where the demons then attempt to accuse it of sin and, if possible, drag the soul into hell."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerial_toll_house

Archpriest John W. Morris

 

[tdgesq]

But I had never once encountered a single Catholic who actually believed that the Father and Son together are the Source of the Holy Spirit - UNTIL NOW.

Well, unfortunately whoever asserts that proclaims something in direct contradiction to the teaching of the Catholic Church- namely:

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, nor that they posit two principles or two spirations; but they assert that there is only one principle and a single spiration of the holy Spirit, as they have asserted hitherto. Florence.

If this is the result of filioque, I will state something I have never stated before:

Though I still maintain and believe with all my heart that removal of filioque should not be a condition for reunion ((the Latins should do it themselves gradually and freely), I do now believe it would be best if it was removed.

Nah. Conceptual confusion on issues relating to the Trinity occur all the time, including among the EO. This is all despite the clear teachings of the Catholic and Orthodox Churches on these matters. I once had an EO poster claim that the filioque destroyed the two natures of Christ. I didn’t take it seriously. Hang in there brother; you are doing a good job.

 

[QNDNNDQDCE]

I’d like to ask you a question, because I know you know Catholics and Lutherans have, at long last, come to the realization that their differences over justification stem largely from a difference of emphasis and terminology rather than actual technical details. IOW, they appear to be saying the same thing, but going about it in diffferent ways.

You ought to reappraise the situation of the Catholic-Lutheran disagreement on justification. There remain real differences that are not just a matter of emphasis (like the Byzantine and Latin doctrines of original sin) or language but contradictory and irreconcilable statements. The Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification is valuable for emphasizing the similarities between Lutherans and Catholics, such as the utter gratuity of justification, but it goes too far in asserting that the remaining differences are not fundamental and and a barrier to communion. This debate is not over something obscure and utterly beyond understanding such as the “processions” within the Holy Trinity, but basic things like whether justification is purely external to the sinner and so on.

The response of the CDF was the Response of the Catholic Church to the Joint Declaration. This document acknowledges the excessive optimism of the Joint Declaration and brings up the existence of signficant contradictions. Here’s a short sample.

1. The major difficulties preventing an affirmation of total consensus between the parties on the theme of Justification arise in paragraph 4.4 The Justified as Sinner (nn. 28-1,0 ). Even taking into account the differences, legitimate in themselves, that come from different theological approaches to the content of faith, from a Catholic point of view the title is already a cause of perplexity. According, indeed, to the doctrine of the Catholic Church, in baptism everything that is really sin is taken away, and so, in those who are born anew there is nothing that is hateful to God (3). It follows that the concupiscence that remains in the baptised is not, properly speaking, sin. For Catholics, therefore, the formula “at the same time righteous and sinner”, as it is explained at the beginning of n. 29 (“Believers are totally righteous, in that God forgives their sins through Word and Sacrament …Looking at themselves … however, they recognize that they remain also totally sinners. Sin still lives in them…”), is not acceptable.

This statement does not, in fact, seem compatible with the renewal and sanctification of the interior man of which the Council of Trent speaks (4). The expression “Opposition to God” (Gottwidrigkeit) that is used in nn. 28-30 is understood differently by Lutherans and by Catholics, and so becomes, in fact, equivocal. In this same sense, there can be ambiguity for a Catholic in the sentence of n. 22, “… God no longer imputes to them their sin and through the Holy Spirit effects in them an active love”, because man’s interior transformation is not clearly seen. So, for all these reasons, it remains difficult to see how, in the current state of the presentation, given in the Joint Declaration, we can say that this doctrine on “simul iustus et peccator” is not touched by the anathemas of the Tridentine decree on original sin and justification.
vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/documents/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_01081998_off-answer-catholic_en.html

I encourage you to read the entire document. It’s quite short, far shorter than the Joint Declaration.

For comparison, here is a Lutheran (LCMS) response to the Joint Declaration which is also quite critical, and in more detail.
lcms.org/Document.fdoc?src=lcm&id=339

I have not read Jimmy Akin’s article, but I imagine like “A Tiptoe through TULIP” it does not say so much that the Catholic and Protestant doctrines so much as that the differences are not so great as they are commonly portrayed or at least not for the same reasons.

 

[QNDNNDQDCE]

I would also like to add my thanks for Markdum’s explanations. They have been helpful for me to understand these disputes over terminology.

 

[frjohnmorris]

You ought to reappraise the situation of the Catholic-Lutheran disagreement on justification. There remain real differences that are not just a matter of emphasis (like the Byzantine and Latin doctrines of original sin) or language but contradictory and irreconcilable statements. The Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification is valuable for emphasizing the similarities between Lutherans and Catholics, such as the utter gratuity of justification, but it goes too far in asserting that the remaining differences are not fundamental and and a barrier to communion. This debate is not over something obscure and utterly beyond understanding such as the “processions” within the Holy Trinity, but basic things like whether justification is purely external to the sinner and so on.

The response of the CDF was the Response of the Catholic Church to the Joint Declaration. This document acknowledges the excessive optimism of the Joint Declaration and brings up the existence of signficant contradictions. Here’s a short sample.

1. The major difficulties preventing an affirmation of total consensus between the parties on the theme of Justification arise in paragraph 4.4 The Justified as Sinner (nn. 28-1,0 ). Even taking into account the differences, legitimate in themselves, that come from different theological approaches to the content of faith, from a Catholic point of view the title is already a cause of perplexity. According, indeed, to the doctrine of the Catholic Church, in baptism everything that is really sin is taken away, and so, in those who are born anew there is nothing that is hateful to God (3). It follows that the concupiscence that remains in the baptised is not, properly speaking, sin. For Catholics, therefore, the formula “at the same time righteous and sinner”, as it is explained at the beginning of n. 29 (“Believers are totally righteous, in that God forgives their sins through Word and Sacrament …Looking at themselves … however, they recognize that they remain also totally sinners. Sin still lives in them…”), is not acceptable.

This statement does not, in fact, seem compatible with the renewal and sanctification of the interior man of which the Council of Trent speaks (4). The expression “Opposition to God” (Gottwidrigkeit) that is used in nn. 28-30 is understood differently by Lutherans and by Catholics, and so becomes, in fact, equivocal. In this same sense, there can be ambiguity for a Catholic in the sentence of n. 22, “… God no longer imputes to them their sin and through the Holy Spirit effects in them an active love”, because man’s interior transformation is not clearly seen. So, for all these reasons, it remains difficult to see how, in the current state of the presentation, given in the Joint Declaration, we can say that this doctrine on “simul iustus et peccator” is not touched by the anathemas of the Tridentine decree on original sin and justification.
vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/documents/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_01081998_off-answer-catholic_en.html

I encourage you to read the entire document. It’s quite short, far shorter than the Joint Declaration.

For comparison, here is a Lutheran (LCMS) response to the Joint Declaration which is also quite critical, and in more detail.
lcms.org/Document.fdoc?src=lcm&id=339

I have not read Jimmy Akin’s article, but I imagine like “A Tiptoe through TULIP” it does not say so much that the Catholic and Protestant doctrines so much as that the differences are not so great as they are commonly portrayed or at least not for the same reasons.

The largest Lutheran Churches in America and Europe ordain women and bless same sex unions. I represented the Orthodox Church in a dialogue with North American Lutherans. We a did not agree on justification because we never got there. We grounded over the Lutheran denial of free will, which is almost Calvinistic. Finally, the Lutherans suspended the dialogue because it became clear to them that we are not going to enter into Communion with them until we reach complete doctrinal agreement. Like the Catholic Church, we cannot accept woman’s ordination. I once got the Lutherans very upset because I mentioned our opposition to abortion.

Archpriest John W. Morris

 

[Richca]

As you define it, it would be a matter of linguistic differences rather than a matter of doctrine. However, as other Catholics define the procession of the Holy Spirit it is a matter of doctrine. Catholics have expressed two different and conflicting interpretations of the filioque clause during this discussion. One group of Catholics see the filioque as equivalent to “through the Son.” Others, however, see the filioque as teaching that the Holy Spirit has it origin from both the Father and the Son. That is why the phrase is confusing and should be eliminated. If I look at a text in the Bible and try to understand its original meaning, I look at the original Greek text. We should do the same with the Creed, where the word used, ἐκπορευόμενον, means proceeds from one single source. Augustine’s definition of the Holy Spirit as the love between the Father and the Son also should be jettisoned because it implies that the Holy Spirit is not a co-equal person of the Holy Trinity.

hello frjohnmorris,
When catholics say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son or “through the Son” the meaning is this: the Holy Spirit receives his subsistent being from both the Father and Son. From the Father immediately or principally, from the Son mediately.
“Father and Son” connotes the idea of acting jointly together. “Through” connotes the idea of the Father acting through the Son for the Son is from the Father.

The greek word ἐκπορευόμενον translated as proceed I must admit throughout this discussion has seemed mysterious to me, almost as mysterious as the Trinity. It seems I have seen as many meanings to this mysterious word that at one point I thought it may very well have the same meaning as proceed which can connote the idea of origin of any kind. I think not a few figures of history may have contributed to this seemingly mysteriousness too.

If we take your definition above, you say it means proceeding from a single/sole source/origin. Since it refers to the Father in the Trinity, I believe it means that the Father is the principle without principle and sole source of the Godhead. Maybe the key to unlocking the mystery surrounding this greek word is this: this word does not exclude the Holy Spirit from receiving the divine substance from or through the Son. For the Son is not the origin of the Trinity. And in proof of this, one can inquire into the writings of the greek fathers (latin fathers too for that matter) and it can begin with St Athanasius:
“The peculiar relationship of the Son to the Father, such as we know it, we will find that the Spirit has this to the Son. And since the Son says “everything whatsoever the Father has is mine” we will discover all these things also in the Spirit, through the Son. And just as the Son was announced by the Father, who said, “This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased,” so also is the Spirit of the Son; for as the Apostle says, “He has sent the Spirit of His Son into our hearts, crying Abba Father.” …Hence if the Son, because of His peculiar relationship to the Father, and because of His being the Offspring of the Father’s own substance, is not a creature, but is of the same substance of the Father, then neither is the Holy Spirit a creature. To say otherwise were impious, because of His peculiar relationship to the Son, and because out of Him He is given to all, and what He has is of the Son.” (Four letters to Serapion of Thmuis)

St Basil the Great:
“Even if the Holy Spirit is third in dignity and order, why need He be third also in nature? For that He is second to the Son, having His being from Him and receiving from Him and announcing to us and being completely dependent on Him, pious tradition recounts; but that His nature is third we are not taught by the Saints nor can we conclude logically from what has been said.” (Against Eunomius 3:1 in PG 29:655A)

Bishop St. Epiphanios of Salamis:
For just as “No one knows the Father except the Son, nor the Son except the Father” [Mt 11:27], so I dare to say that no one knows the Spirit except the Father and the Son, that is, the one from Whom He proceeds and the one from Whom He receives, and that no one knows the Son and the Father except the Holy Spirit, He Who truly glorifies, Who teaches all things, Who is from the Father and the Son. (The Well-Anchored Man )

St Gregory of Nyssa:
Where in each case activity in working good shows no diminution or variation whatever, how unreasonable it is to suppose the numerical order to be a sign of any diminution, or any variation with respect to nature. It is as if a man were to see a divided flame burning on three torches (and we will suppose that the cause of the third light is the first flame, kindling the end torch by transmission through the middle one), and were to maintain that the heat in the first exceeded that of the others; that that next it showed a variation from it in the direction of the less; and that the third could not be called fire at all, though it burnt and shone just like fire, and did everything that fire does. But if there is really no hindrance to the third torch being fire, though it has been kindled from a previous flame, what is the philosophy of these men, who profanely think that they can slight the dignity of the Holy Spirit because He is named by the Divine lips after the Father and the Son? ( Against the Macedonians on the Holy Spirit 6)

If I’m not mistaken, the greek fathers liked to see the transmission of the divine substance in a sequential order: the Son receives from the Father, and the Holy Spirit receives from the Son.

I have yet come across a father of the church who does not say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son or from the Father through the Son. The Holy Spirit is always associated with the Son as the Son with the Father.

blessings and peace, Richca

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Richca,

"Through" connotes the idea of the Father acting through the Son for the Son is from the Father.

It should be noted that one of St. Photius’ objections is that this statement can (though not necessarily) mean that the Father NEEDS the Son to spirate the Holy Spirit, thus making the Father an incomplete First Cause. It should be made explicit that when this statement is made, the Latin Church does not mean that the Son is a NECESSARY agency, but rather the Son is the NATURAL agency of the Father.

Maybe the key to unlocking the mystery surrounding this greek word is this: this word does not exclude the Holy Spirit from receiving the divine substance from or through the Son.

If I may be so bold, I would say Fr. John would definitely not agree with this statement (if I am wrong Fr. John, please correct me). The error here is the idea that the terms “through” and “from” can be equated. In fact, this notion was anathematized by the Synod of Blacharnae. In distinction, the correct Catholic position, as clarified and defined by the Council of Florence, is not that “through” and “from” can be equated, but rather that “and” and “through” can be equated.

the Son receives from the Father, and the Holy Spirit receives from the Son.

This would be acceptable, with the qualification and constant understanding that the Son is NOT the source of the Substance/ousia of the Spirit.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

I would like to thank all the Latin Catholics in this thread who have come out in support of the Traditional magisterial teaching of the Church on the matter. I think when a Latin Catholic hears something from a non-Latin Catholic, he is more likely to become defensive. The case is different if he hears it from his fellow Latin Catholics.

Like Fr. John said, we have no authority in these matters, but perhaps our own humble contributions on the grassroots level can be of much help in the road to reunion.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Maybe the key to unlocking the mystery surrounding this greek word is this: this word does not exclude the Holy Spirit from receiving the divine substance from or through the Son.

If I may be so bold, I would say Fr. John would definitely not agree with this statement (if I am wrong Fr. John, please correct me). The error here is the idea that the terms “through” and “from” can be equated. In fact, this notion was anathematized by the Synod of Blacharnae. In distinction, the correct Catholic position, as clarified and defined by the Council of Florence, is not that “through” and “from” can be equated, but rather that “and” and “through” can be equated.

I wanted to add the following to my previous post, but time ran out:

I believe this evinces the inherent difficulty in attempting to describe the role of Son singularly in the matter of the Procession. We use phrases like “The Holy Spirit receives from the Son,” and inadvertently, it causes the assumption in one’s mind that “from” and “through” are being equated, which is an erroneous assumption. Of course, this is a linguistic matter, not doctrinal. Though dogmatically, it is the terms “and” and “through” that are being equated, not the terms “from” and “through,” it is grammatically improper and altogether strange in common parlance to say “The Holy Spirit receives and the Son” instead of “the Holy Spirit receives from the Son.”

 

[LionHeart777]

mardukm,

If I understood you correctly in a previous post, you were seeming to say that you agreed with Bonocore’s explanation of the Filioque. I assume you were referring to this citation I gave. Am that you agree with his explanation there?

Thanks

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Richca,

Maybe the key to unlocking the mystery surrounding this greek word is this: this word does not exclude the Holy Spirit from receiving the divine substance from or through the Son. For the Son is not the origin of the Trinity.

Judging from this comment from you, you are still laboring under the impression that the Son can be considered the source (along with the Father) in the Procession. Certainly ,you admit that the Son is not the origin of the Trinity, but it has exactly been your apparent insistence that the “origin of the Trinity” can be different from the “origin of the Procession” that has caused our disagreement. In truth, fact, and dogma, there is absolutely NO difference between the origin of the Trinity and the origin of the Procession. This origin is the Father and Father alone. It is not that the origin of the Trinity (who is the Father) is different from the origin of the Procession (who is the Father and Son).

Here is what the Council of Florence asserted:
“some saying the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, others saying the procession is from the Father through the Son. All were aiming at the same meaning in different words.”

Do you understand that the Council was not equating “through” and “from,” but rather equating “through” and “and?” This should evince to anyone that the Council of Florence was not intending to apply the idea of origin/source/first cause to the Son in any way.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

If I understood you correctly in a previous post, you were seeming to say that you agreed with Bonocore’s explanation of the Filioque. I assume you were referring to this citation I gave. Am that you agree with his explanation there?

Yes, I agree with Mark Bonocore’s explanation.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother RIchca,

One last thing. I notice that you in your rhetoric, you consistently admit that the Father is the source of the Son, but somehow immediately jump to the strange conclusion that the Father and the Son are the source of the Spirit.

I believe you have missed something very pertinent in the Decree of Florence. Permit me to repeat the relevant portion (thanks, brother tdesq, btw):
“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…”

The lengthiness of the statement has perhaps hidden the obvious, so permit me to abridge it for the sake of clarification:
“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…of the holy Spirit…”

I hope that helps.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[LionHeart777]

Yes, I agree with Mark Bonocore’s explanation.

Blessings,
Marduk

Thanks

 

[frjohnmorris]

hello frjohnmorris,
When catholics say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son or “through the Son” the meaning is this: the Holy Spirit receives his subsistent being from both the Father and Son. From the Father immediately or principally, from the Son mediately. (I have omitted the rest of Richca’s statement to meet the limits of the number of words that can be posted.)

 

[Richca]

Dear brother RIchca,

One last thing. I notice that you in your rhetoric, you consistently admit that the Father is the source of the Son, but somehow immediately jump to the strange conclusion that the Father and the Son are the source of the Spirit.

 

[Richca]

I would also like to point out another verse that undermines the doctrine of the double procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son.
We already know about St. John 15:26 “But when the Counselor comes, whom I shall send to you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, he will bear witness to me;” I do not know what can have greater authority than the words of Christ directly from the Gospels, which clearly teach that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and is sent by the Son. To me that should end the debate, because the divinely inspired Scriptures take precedence over any proclamation by the Bishop of Rome or statement by a local council of the Western Church.

Hello frjohnmorris,
I do not have much time right now. However, I would like to propose this question:

When Christ said “who proceeds from the Father,” can anyone here provide a text from scripture, the latin or greek fathers, or Church councils that He meant to exclude himself?

blessings and peace, Richca

 

[Randy_Carson]

As you define it, it would be a matter of linguistic differences rather than a matter of doctrine. However, as other Catholics define the procession of the Holy Spirit it is a matter of doctrine. Catholics have expressed two different and conflicting interpretations of the filioque clause during this discussion. One group of Catholics see the filioque as equivalent to “through the Son.” Others, however, see the filioque as teaching that the Holy Spirit has it origin from both the Father and the Son. That is why the phrase is confusing and should be eliminated. If I look at a text in the Bible and try to understand its original meaning, I look at the original Greek text. We should do the same with the Creed, where the word used, ἐκπορευόμενον, means proceeds from one single source. Augustine’s definition of the Holy Spirit as the love between the Father and the Son also should be jettisoned because it implies that the Holy Spirit is not a co-equal person of the Holy Trinity.

“Not one West Roman Father ever said that the Son is either “cause” or “co-cause” of the Holy Spirit. This appears in Latin polemics and was promulgated as dogma at the council of Florence. This Filoque is a heresy, both as a theologoumenon and as a dogma.” John Romanides en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filioque
“When the Eastern Church first noticed a distortion of the dogma of the Holy Spirit in the West and began to reproach the Western theologians for their innovations, St. Maximus the Confessor (in the 7th century), desiring to defend the Westerners, justified them precisely by saying that by the words “from the Son” they intended to indicate that the Holy Spirit is given to creatures through the Son, that He is manifested, that He is sent — but not that the Holy Spirit has His existence from Him. St. Maximus the Confessor himself held strictly to the teaching of the Eastern Church concerning the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and wrote a special treatise about this dogma.” .Orthodox Dogmatic Theology: A Concise Exposition Protopresbyter Michael Pomazansky St Herman of Alaska Brotherhood press 1994 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filioque

Archpriest John W. Morris

The Catechism of the Catholic Church says:

246 The Latin tradition of the Creed confesses that the Spirit “proceeds from the Father and the Son (filioque)”. The Council of Florence in 1438 explains: "The Holy Spirit is eternally from 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. . . . And, since the Father has through generation given to the only-begotten Son everything that belongs to the Father, except being Father, the Son has also eternally from the Father, from whom he is eternally born, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son."75

247 The affirmation of the filioque does not appear in the Creed confessed in 381 at Constantinople. But Pope St. Leo I, following an ancient Latin and Alexandrian tradition, had already confessed it dogmatically in 447,76 even before Rome, in 451 at the Council of Chalcedon, came to recognize and receive the Symbol of 381. The use of this formula in the Creed was gradually admitted into the Latin liturgy (between the eighth and eleventh centuries). The introduction of the filioque into the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed by the Latin liturgy constitutes moreover, even today, a point of disagreement with the Orthodox Churches.

248 At the outset the Eastern tradition expresses the Father’s character as first origin of the Spirit. By confessing the Spirit as he “who proceeds from the Father”, it affirms that he comes from the Father through the Son.77 The Western tradition expresses first the consubstantial communion between Father and Son, by saying that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son (filioque). It says this, “legitimately and with good reason”,78 for the eternal order of the divine persons in their consubstantial communion implies that the Father, as “the principle without principle”,79 is the first origin of the Spirit, but also that as Father of the only Son, he is, with the Son, the single principle from which the Holy Spirit proceeds.80 This legitimate complementarity, provided it does not become rigid, does not affect the identity of faith in the reality of the same mystery confessed.

Which portion of this would you disagree with and why?

 

[frjohnmorris]

frjohnmorris;11338229:

I would also like to point out another verse that undermines the doctrine of the double procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son.
We already know about St. John 15:26 “But when the Counselor comes, whom I shall send to you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, he will bear witness to me;” I do not know what can have greater authority than the words of Christ directly from the Gospels, which clearly teach that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and is sent by the Son. To me that should end the debate, because the divinely inspired Scriptures take precedence over any proclamation by the Bishop of Rome or statement by a local council of the Western Church.

Hello frjohnmorris,
I do not have much time right now. However, I would like to propose this question:

When Christ said “who proceeds from the Father,” can anyone here provide a text from scripture, the latin or greek fathers, or Church councils that He meant to exclude himself?

blessings and peace, Richca

Can you provide a text from the Holy Scriptures or the Greek Fathers, that could lead one to conclude that the Son meant to include Himself when He spoke of the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father. Your argument does not make sense. If Our Lord had meant that the Holy Spirit also proceeds from Him, He would have said it. I only am interested in Greek Fathers, because it has been shown that Latin Fathers such as Augustine did not base their conclusions on the original Greek text of the Holy Scriptures, but on an error filled Latin translation. Had those who translated the Creed into Latin made an accurate translation that expressed the intent of the Fathers of the Ecumenical Councils by correctly translating the Greek word ekporeuetai which means to proceed from one source. Instead, they used the Latin word procedit which can mean to proceed through a mediator. Using the Latin word procedit can mean that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and is mediated through the Son. The problem is that the original Creed was not written in Latin using the word procedit. It was written in Greek using the word ekporeuetai that means to proceed from one source.
It seems to me that the filioque only adds confusion. Some Roman Catholics argue that it only means through or sent by the Son, but others teach the doctrine of the double procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son. Sound Trinitarian theology teaches the monarchy of the Father who is the origin of both the Son and the Holy Spirit. The Son is not the source of the Holy Spirit, but sends the Holy Spirit as the Bible clearly teaches. Remember the original Greek word of the text of St. John 15:26 and the Creed is ekporeuetai which means to proceed from one source.

Archpriest John W. Morris

 

[QNDNNDQDCE]

Fr. Morris, your dismissal of our Bible as “error-filled” is unnecessarily polemical and uncharacteristic of your usual civility. The Latin Bible is not a perfect translation, but it is not riddled with errors and heresies as you seem to suggest. Moreover, no one dismisses the Greek fathers out of hand because they relied on the Septuagint, which is certainly an imperfect rendering of the original Hebrew.

Furthermore, it remains to be seen that “procedit” is really faulty translation of John 15:26. You have said that “ekporeuetai” can only mean to proceed from a single source. However, it is a fact that it is impossible for any individual thing to proceed from a single source at a single time in any single respect. I am skeptical that there is any real distinction between the Latin and Greek words on this point inherent in their usual definitions rather than in their particular usages in Trinitarian theology. I have also heard it said that “ekporeusis” denotes the origin of the Holy Spirit from the Father immediately as an initial principle. However this too looks like a distinction with its origin more in theology than in common language. For example, Mark 13:1 mentions that Jesus coming out of (“ekporeuomenou”) the Temple, which is not to say that the Temple was in no way a mediate location in his movement.

Finally, Revelation 22:1 uses the verb “ekporeuomenon” with reference to the Son (with the Father), so it does not appear at all the verb is used univocally in the Scriptures and must be taken in John 15:26 as an exact assertion of the “ek tou Patros” of the Creed. Frankly, such an argument is just as convincing to my ears as “Matthew 16:18, therefore papal infallibility” is to your ears.

I mean nothing in this post either way regarding the Catholic and Orthodox doctrines on the procession of the Holy Spirit, only on the assertions about language.