Debating the filioque

[twf]

I am consultant on Baptism and the reception of converts to the Assembly of Canonical Orthodox Bishops in North and Central America. We had our meeting at a Carmelite retreat center. The nuns looked and acted like real nuns completely different from some nuns that have dealt with. They had a sense of peace and joy about them. It was a wonderful and spiritual experience being there. I remember I was asked to advise the local cable TV company on religious programming. The Catholic nun on the committee was violently against the company carrying Eternal Word Network. In another place a group of Franciscan nuns came to the clergy association to tell us about their plans to open a retreat center. They showed us the site plan. I asked where the chapel was. One of the nuns replied, “They will not let us nuns celebrate Mass so we will not have a chapel.”

Archpriest John W. Morris

How horrifying. Yet EWTN was founded by the very holy and orthodox Mother Superior, Mother Angelica. Her sisters certainly act like real nuns! She also wasn’t scared to call out bishops when they strayed from orthodoxy…
The Kingdom of Heaven has both wheat and weeds growing side by side.

 

[spina1953]

To frjohnmorris: Some 800 years ago on Mount Carmel, there were lay men who asked for guidance in whaat they were doing, which was praying and being silent so as to as Elijah who lived in the presence of God, seeking Him in silence and solitude, remembering that it was Elijah who felt the presence of God as He walked by as a gentle breeze. They asked for guidance and St. Albert Patriarach of Jerusalem gave them what is called the rule of St. Albert. At some point in time; middle agesI think it became a religious order of Frairs and lay people. The Descalced Carmelites are a reformed Order that started with St. teresa of Avila and St. John of the Cross to go back in a manor of St. Alberts rule. In a way we are somewhat a semi hermits or anchorites though we go into the world by example to bring God into a worlf that is in desperate need of God. To be sure in a way our Order is much in the manor of Orthodox monasticism, yet we have always benn Catholic.

 

[Richca]

St John Damascene says “And we speak also of the Spirit of the Son, not as though proceeding from Him, but as proceeding through Him from the Father. For the Father alone is cause.” ( An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith 1:12). This seems to contradict what St Basil says which I posted in a previous post when he says that the Holy Spirit is from the Son. However, if you read it closely, Damascene doesn’t really contradict St Basil. He just doesn’t make the distinction that “from” and “through” can be equivalent. Basically, Damascene says that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son, the Father being the sole origin of the Trinity of persons.
There seems to be some confusion as to what “proceeding through the Son” means. In regard to the generation of the Son, the fathers never say that the Son proceeds from the Father through the Holy Spirit. However, in regard to the procession of the Holy Spirit, they say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and Son or through the Son. This is because of the trinitarian order of persons of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The Son comes after the Father, and the Holy Spirit after the Son. The Son is from the Father alone, while the Holy Spirit is from both.

I’d like to offer an illustration of what I believe is meant when the fathers say “proceeding through the Son.” From the book of genesis, we know that Adam was the first human being and man. Eve came from Adam as she was made from the rib of Adam and Adam said “This one shall be called ‘woman,’ for out of man this one has been taken.” Abel is from Adam and Eve. Adam represents the Father, Eve the Son, and Abel the Holy Spirit.
So, it is true that Abel proceeded from Adam through Eve since Adam was the first human being. It is also true to say that Abel proceeded from Adam and Eve. Either way, Abel came from both Adam and Eve.

Here is another illustration. Suppose we have three light bulbs in series numbered 1-2-3 representing the persons of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The light represents the divine substance. The first light bulb has light of itself, the Father. The second bulb, the Son, receives the light from the first bulb and the third bulb receives the light from the second bulb. Thus, the light of the third bulb proceeds from the first bulb through the second bulb to the third bulb. It could also be said that the light of the third bulb proceeds from the first and second light bulbs as the latins would say.

Thus, St Basil says “According to the order of the words delivered in baptism, the relation of the Spirit to the Son is the same that the Son has to the Father.” (The Holy Spirit).

Further, he says concerning the Trinity “the goodness of nature, the holiness of nature, and the royal dignity reach from the Father through the Only-begotten to the Holy Spirit.” (The Holy Spirit).

And St John Damascene “The Son is the Father’s image, and the Spirit the Son’s, through which Christ dwelling in man makes him after His own image.” ( An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith 1:13).

Further Holy Scripture says “yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom all things are and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things are and through whom we exist” (1 Corinthians 8:6).

I offer as an hypothesis that the greek word which we translate as proceed came to acquire the meaning in the greek fathers that the Father is the origin or sole origin of the Trinity is because they believed that the Holy Spirit doesn’t proceed from the Father alone but as proceeding from the Father through the Son.

blessings and peace, Richca

 

[spina1953]

To Richca: I like the explaination you gave on the Blessed Trinity. it makes much sense. Your post #379. Because the Trinity is a mystery and will aalways be just as God is and will aways be a mystery as well as Jesus a mystery in that He is both human having a human nature and having a Divine nature being God- the Son of God begotten not made. there just no human words in any language to express it in a way that is perfect in that all will agree upon. However the explaination is the best so far in this forum.

 

[tdgesq]

I’d like to know how you get the idea that the Son is the origin of the procession from these words of the creed “I believe in the Holy Spirit…who proceeds from the Father and the Son?” Normally, a father does not come from a son but a son comes from a father.

I think you are confused about what I wrote. I’m specifically denying that the Son is the Origin of the Procession of the Holy Spirit. The Father is.

The Father and Son together are the origin of the Holy Spirit but since the Son comes from the Father, the Father is the first origin of the Spirit but this should not be considered according to time as God lives in an eternal present.

Well, that’s what you keep stating, and I keep asking for a Church Council, Pope or ECF that supports your view. Can you cite to something, anything, a Magisterial document even, that describes the Holy Spirit as having its origin from the Father and the Son together?

If not, then you are just engaging in theological speculation. What everybody is trying to determine is what the Roman Catholic Church actually teaches on this issue. The Council of Florence (the Father is the source and principle of all deity), the Official Vatican Clarification (the Father is the sole origin of the Spirit) and the Cappadocian Fathers (from the Father, and through the Son) - they all contradict your position.

 

[Richca]

Richca;11350787:

St John Damascene says “And we speak also of the Spirit of the Son, not as though proceeding from Him, but as proceeding through Him from the Father. For the Father alone is cause.” ( An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith 1:12). This seems to contradict what St Basil says which I posted in a previous post when he says that the Holy Spirit is from the Son. However, if you read it closely, Damascene doesn’t really contradict St Basil. He just doesn’t make the distinction that “from” and “through” can be equivalent. Basically, Damascene says that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son, the Father being the sole origin of the Trinity of persons.
There seems to be some confusion as to what “proceeding through the Son” means. In regard to the generation of the Son, the fathers never say that the Son proceeds from the Father through the Holy Spirit. However, in regard to the procession of the Holy Spirit, they say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and Son or through the Son. This is because of the trinitarian order of persons of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The Son comes after the Father, and the Holy Spirit after the Son. The Son is from the Father alone, while the Holy Spirit is from both.

I’d like to offer an illustration of what I believe is meant when the fathers say “proceeding through the Son.” From the book of genesis, we know that Adam was the first human being and man. Eve came from Adam as she was made from the rib of Adam and Adam said “This one shall be called ‘woman,’ for out of man this one has been taken.” Abel is from Adam and Eve. Adam represents the Father, Eve the Son, and Abel the Holy Spirit.
So, it is true that Abel proceeded from Adam through Eve since Adam was the first human being. It is also true to say that Abel proceeded from Adam and Eve. Either way, Abel came from both Adam and Eve.

Here is another illustration. Suppose we have three light bulbs in series numbered 1-2-3 representing the persons of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The light represents the divine substance. The first light bulb has light of itself, the Father. The second bulb, the Son, receives the light from the first bulb and the third bulb receives the light from the second bulb. Thus, the light of the third bulb proceeds from the first bulb through the second bulb to the third bulb. It could also be said that the light of the third bulb proceeds from the first and second light bulbs as the latins would say.

Thus, St Basil says “According to the order of the words delivered in baptism, the relation of the Spirit to the Son is the same that the Son has to the Father.” (The Holy Spirit).

Further, he says concerning the Trinity “the goodness of nature, the holiness of nature, and the royal dignity reach from the Father through the Only-begotten to the Holy Spirit.” (The Holy Spirit).

And St John Damascene “The Son is the Father’s image, and the Spirit the Son’s, through which Christ dwelling in man makes him after His own image.” ( An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith 1:13).

Further Holy Scripture says “yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom all things are and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things are and through whom we exist” (1 Corinthians 8:6).

I offer as an hypothesis that the greek word which we translate as proceed came to acquire the meaning in the greek fathers that the Father is the origin or sole origin of the Trinity is because they believed that the Holy Spirit doesn’t proceed from the Father alone but as proceeding from the Father through the Son.

blessings and peace, Richca

I’d like to offer an illustration of what I believe is meant when the fathers say “proceeding through the Son.”

Actually, this is just not what I believe, but what the Catholic Church says what the fathers meant when they said that the Holy Spirit proceeds “through the Son.” It’s equivalent to “Father and Son.”

 

[spina1953]

To tdgesq: tto answer your question as to what theCatholic Church teaches please see CCC #254 which I think will answer the question from your post #381

 

[frjohnmorris]

Richca;11354662:

Actually, this is just not what I believe, but what the Catholic Church says what the fathers meant when they said that the Holy Spirit proceeds “through the Son.” It’s equivalent to “Father and Son.”

It is when you use the Latin word procedit but not when you use the Greek word ἐκπορευόμενον.
Since ἐκπορευόμενον was the original word used by the Holy Fathers of the Ecumenical Councils, the translation of the Creed into Latin, English or any other language should avoid the filioque or and the Son to preserve the meaning of the original Creed as written and approved by the Ecumenical Councils.
Although the East protested the filioque clause, the East did not break Communion with Rome over the issue. However, one of the charges that Cardinal Hubert’s used to justify his declaration of excommunication was the false accusation that the Patriarchate of Constantinople had taken the filioque out of the Creed.

Archpriest John W. Morris

 

[frjohnmorris]

I have come across Orthodox Christians on the internet who describe the Church as a “hospital for sinners” and contrast this to the “legalistic, judicial” understanding of the Latin Church…well, in actuality, I have often come across the “hospital for sinners” analogy in modern Latin contexts - most recently by Pope Francis himself. I find that in many of these discussions the biggest issue is that those outside of the Latin Church try to paint Latin Catholicism with a single brush…and that simply does not work.

I think that from the outside the Roman Catholic Church does seem legalistic. I remember once sitting on a panel on divorce and remarriage at a Catholic College. I approached the issue in pastoral way with my chief concern being helping the person who is divorced put their life together and get another chance to get marriage right. The Catholic priest approached it purely according to the rules of the Catholic Church as requiring an annulment which is a declaration that the failed marriage was not really a marriage. That does seem rather legalistic to us. Doctrines such as temporal punishment and purgatory do seem overly legalistic to us.
However, Protestants definitely are legalistic. They consider justification in legalistic terms and call it forensic justification. They react in horror to any theology that does not draw a sharp distinction between justification and sanctification. Because they believe that justification is a change in status not a change in condition. Some even call it a legal fiction. Luther used the phrase at the once justified and a sinner. Orthodox cannot separate justification from sanctification or more correctly deification. We believe that God not only declares us righteous, but that He makes us righteous.

Archpriest John W. Morris

 

[mardukm]

I think you are confused about what I wrote. I’m specifically denying that the Son is the Origin of the Procession of the Holy Spirit. The Father is.

I think brother Richca has given the best indication so far in his latest post about the source of his confusion.

Whereas the Official Clarification explicitly specifies that the term “through” should mitigate the misunderstanding that the phrase “and the Son” means that the Son is the Source together with the Father, he thinks that the terms “from” and “through” should be equated so that the full significance and distinction of the term “through” is utterly obliterated!:nope:

Of course, this contradicts the teaching of the Council of Florence which did not equate the terms “from” and “through,” but rather the terms “and” and “through.” Oh well.

Never mind that St. Thomas Aquinas (which he seems to take as his sole authority in the matter) dedicates a whole section in his Summa to insist that “proceeds from the Father and the Son” actually means from the Father THROUGH the Son;
never mind that St. Thomas never actually calls the Son the Origin of the Holy Spirit (though certain statements can be used to extrapolate such a thought);
never mind that in a certain place, St. Thomas specifically states that taking away the distinct property of a hypostasis obliterates the hypostasis;
never mind that in another place, St. Thomas specifically states that the Persons are to be distinguished by their relations, not origin;
never mind that in his analogy of Love, St. Thomas never calls the Son the Lover, but rather the Father is the Lover and the Son the Beloved;
etc., etc.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[frjohnmorris]

I think brother Richca has given the best indication so far in his latest post about the source of his confusion.

Whereas the Official Clarification explicitly specifies that the term “through” should mitigate the misunderstanding that the phrase “and the Son” means that the Son is the Source together with the Father, he thinks that the terms “from” and “through” should be equated so that the full significance and distinction of the term “through” is utterly obliterated!:nope:

Of course, this contradicts the teaching of the Council of Florence which did not equate the terms “from” and “through,” but rather the terms “and” and “through.” Oh well.

Never mind that St. Thomas Aquinas (which he seems to take as his sole authority in the matter) dedicates a whole section in his Summa to insist that “proceeds from the Father and the Son” actually means from the Father THROUGH the Son;
never mind that St. Thomas never actually calls the Son the Origin of the Holy Spirit (though certain statements can be used to extrapolate such a thought);
never mind that in a certain place, St. Thomas specifically states that taking away the distinct property of a hypostasis obliterates the hypostasis;
never mind that in another place, St. Thomas specifically states that the Persons are to be distinguished by their relations, not origin;
never mind that in his analogy of Love, St. Thomas never calls the Son the Lover, but rather the Father is the Lover and the Son the Beloved;
etc., etc.

Blessings,
Marduk

Could someone please explain to me what you mean by describing the Holy Spirit as the love between the Father and the Son. I know that it comes from Blessed Augustine, but what exactly does it mean? To me it seems to lower the Holy Spirit to the level of a somewhat lesser person in the Holy Trinity. Please explain to me why I am wrong.

Archpriest John W. Morris

 

[Richca]

To tdgesq: tto answer your question as to what theCatholic Church teaches please see CCC #254 which I think will answer the question from your post #381

Hi Spina,
Good post . Tdgesq could also see CCC#246 and this too would answer his question.

blessings and peace, Richca

 

[Anthony86]

Could someone please explain to me what you mean by describing the Holy Spirit as the love between the Father and the Son. I know that it comes from Blessed Augustine, but what exactly does it mean? To me it seems to lower the Holy Spirit to the level of a somewhat lesser person in the Holy Trinity. Please explain to me why I am wrong.

Archpriest John W. Morris

Perhaps the following will help. It’s from the already quoted Official Clarification:

What is this Trinitarian character that the person of the Holy Spirit brings to the very relationship between the Father and the Son? It is the original role of the Spirit in the economy with regard to the mission and work of the Son. The Father is love in its source (2 Cor 13:13; 1 Jn 4:8, 16), the Son is “the Son that he loves” (Col 1:14). So a tradition dating back to St Augustine has seen in the Holy Spirit, through whom “God’s love has been poured into our hearts” (Rom 5:5), love as the eternal Gift of the Father to his “beloved Son” (Mk 1:11, 9:7; Lk 20:13; Eph 1:6).

The divine love which has its origin in the Father reposes in “the Son of his love” in order to exist consubstantially through the Son in the person of the Spirit, the Gift of love. This takes into account the fact that, through love, the Holy Spirit orients the whole life of Jesus towards the Father in the fulfillment of his will. The Father sends his Son (Gal 4:4) when Mary conceives him through the operation of the Holy Spirit (cf. Lk 1:35). The Holy Spirit makes Jesus manifest as Son of the Father by resting upon him at baptism (cf. Lk 3:21-22; Jn 1:33). He drives Jesus into the wilderness (cf. Mk 1:12). Jesus returns (“full of the Holy Spirit” (Lk 4:1). Then he begins his ministry “in the power of the Spirit” (Lk 4:14). He is filled with joy in the Spirit, blessing the Father for his gracious will (cf. Lk 10:21). He chooses his apostles “through the Holy Spirit” (Acts 1:2). He casts out demons by the Spirit of God (Mt 12:28). He offers himself to the Father “through the eternal Spirit” (Heb 9:14). On the Cross he “commits his Spirit” into the Father’s hands (Lk 23:46). “In the Spirit” he descended to the dead (cf. 1 Pet 3:19), and by the Spirit he was raised from the dead (cf. Rom 8:11) and “designated Son of God in power” (Rom 1:4).12 This role of the Spirit in the innermost human existence of the Son of God made man derives from an eternal Trinitarian relationship through which the Spirit, in his mystery as Gift of Love, characterizes the relation between the Father, as source of love, and his beloved Son.

The original character of the person of the Spirit as eternal Gift of the Father’s love for his beloved Son shows that the Spirit, while coming from the Son in his mission, is the one who brings human beings into Christ’s filial relationship to his Father, for this relationship finds only in him its Trinitarian character: “God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying Abba! Father!” (Gal 4:6). In the mystery of salvation and in the life of the Church, the Spirit, therefore, does much more than prolong the work of the Son. In fact, whatever Christ has instituted — Revelation, the Church, the sacraments, the apostolic ministry, and its Magisterium — calls for constant invocation (ἐπίκλησις) of the Holy Spirit and his action (ἐνέργεια), so that the love that “never ends” (1 Cor 13:8) may be made manifest in the communion of the saints with the life of the Trinity.

 

[spina1953]

To Antony 86: I like the quote you used. I to look to the Blessed Trinity a love between the Father and the Son and the Son to the Father. I do not pretend to understand as to how there are three distinct persons in one God. It is a complete mystery , yet I believe it is so. The problem as I see it is that we are trying to understand in human terms the mystery of how the Holy Spirit works which human terms will never be able to explain. Personally, I am not concerned about whether or not the Holy Spirit proceeds from only the Father or from the Father to the Son, or from the Father and the Son not the terms "through, proceeds, and from, or where the Holy Spirit comes from as all are eternal with the Father. To me, God is “One” Father, Son, Holy Spirit, three distinct fully God but one God. In the end, no matter how one tried to explain it, there is no one who will be able to understand the mystery of the God, and the Blessed Trinity.

 

[twf]

I think that from the outside the Roman Catholic Church does seem legalistic. I remember once sitting on a panel on divorce and remarriage at a Catholic College. I approached the issue in pastoral way with my chief concern being helping the person who is divorced put their life together and get another chance to get marriage right. The Catholic priest approached it purely according to the rules of the Catholic Church as requiring an annulment which is a declaration that the failed marriage was not really a marriage. That does seem rather legalistic to us. Doctrines such as temporal punishment and purgatory do seem overly legalistic to us.
However, Protestants definitely are legalistic. They consider justification in legalistic terms and call it forensic justification. They react in horror to any theology that does not draw a sharp distinction between justification and sanctification. Because they believe that justification is a change in status not a change in condition. Some even call it a legal fiction. Luther used the phrase at the once justified and a sinner. Orthodox cannot separate justification from sanctification or more correctly deification. We believe that God not only declares us righteous, but that He makes us righteous.

Archpriest John W. Morris

An outsider to Christianity might say that the Orthodox position on fornication as immoral is legalistic…it is all relative. A Catholic might argue that the Orthodox absolute limit on three marriages is legalistic, as a Catholic woman who is widowed, say, four times can marry four times. The Catholic Church considers valid sacramental marriages for life without exception. Separation is sometimes necessary, but the spiritual bond cannot be broken. We all have our crosses. If my future wife left me (heaven forbid), I could never personally feel comfortable taking another wife - my vows before God, made in good faith, remain vows regardless of whether she keeps hers. St. Paul teaches that husbands must love their wives as Christ loved the Church - my love must be unconditional no matter what. Christianity has always had rules. St. Paul lays out rules / guidelines for the early Church, and the bishops of both the Catholic and Orthodox Churches have continued to do so for the good of the faithful. We can argue over whether particular canons are necessary, but I think we both agree that the bishops have this right by virtue of the power of binding and loosing.

In regards to justification, we are certainly on the same page. This is one of the biggest issues between Catholicism and Protestantism. I often note that the propers of the mass and divine office according to the Roman Rite are full of references to deification…it comes up, implicitly or explicitly, as one of the most central themes of our liturgy. At every mass the priest prays “By the mystery of this water and wine may we come to share in the divinity of Christ who humbled himself to share in our humanity.”
It is for this reason that I am often shocked to hear from some Orthodox Christians that the West abandoned the patristic understanding of deification. To my mind, nothing could be farther from the truth. Protestants abandoned this teaching, not Catholics. When Latins speak of sanctifying grace, we are referring to the indwelling of the divine life within the soul…when we are baptized, we truly “put on Christ” and become holy at that very moment. I once attended a daily mass celebrated by a Dominican priest. During the homily the priest said to the congregation “You are gods.” To those outside of the Dominican spirituality this may sound shocking, even heretical, but it simply refers to the Church’s teaching that by virtue of the sacraments, especially baptism and the eucharist, we truly participate in the divine life in such a profound sense that we become “like gods”. This is especially true of the saints…our veneration of the saints would be madness (as Protestants think it is), if we did not have this understanding of deification. If we understand the Church to be the mystical extension of the Incarnation - the marriage of Man and God, everything else falls into place.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church says:

460 The Word became flesh to make us “partakers of the divine nature”:“For this is why the Word became man, and the Son of God became the Son of man: so that man, by entering into communion with the Word and thus receiving divine sonship, might become a son of God.” “For the Son of God became man so that we might become God.” “The only-begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods.”

 

[Anthony86]

To Antony 86: I like the quote you used.

I do too. I think the Official Clarification nicely shows how Latin Trinitarian theology is not a denial of the Monarchy of the Father (as the East fears), but complements that dogma with an elaboration of the relationship between Son and Spirit within the Trinity.

In the end, no matter how one tried to explain it, there is no one who will be able to understand the mystery of the God, and the Blessed Trinity.

Agreed. It’s probably best if all those involved in the debate remain conscious of our incapacity to fully grasp the mysteries of God.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I am sure that is true today, but I am not sure about the past. I have always found it curious that when the West rediscovered Aristotle, they did so using translations from Arabic texts found during the reconquest of Spain instead of reading the original Greek texts. The major person who shaped a distinctive Western theology was Augustine who could not understand Greek. Besides who better understood Greek the Greek Fathers for whom it was their native language or Latin Fathers and later theologians? Obviously the Greek Fathers. Could Thomas Aquinas or any of the Scholastics understand Koine Greek?
There is also no doubt that the court of Charlemagne and his successors were interested in distancing themselves as far as possible from the Eastern Roman Empire. Therefore they fostered a uniquely Latin theology and were very anti-Greek. That is why the filioque was so important to the Franks. They used it accuse the East of heresy, because the filioque was not in the Creed used in the East. In 1014 it was Henry IV who pressured Pope Benedict VIII to begin using the filioque in the Creed at Rome.

Archpriest John W. Morris

You have a point, Fr. John. So, allow me to apply your logic in my own way.

Who better to understand the papacy than those to whom the gift has been given?

If God set up the institution of the papacy, which group was He more likely to guide into a correct understanding of it: the group that possessed it or the group that was in separation from it?

 

[Richca]

Could someone please explain to me what you mean by describing the Holy Spirit as the love between the Father and the Son. I know that it comes from Blessed Augustine, but what exactly does it mean? To me it seems to lower the Holy Spirit to the level of a somewhat lesser person in the Holy Trinity. Please explain to me why I am wrong.

Archpriest John W. Morris

Hello frjohnmorris,
Holy Scripture says " the love of God has been poured out into our hearts through the holy Spirit that has been given to us." (Romans 5:5). We give the name Love as a proper name of the Holy Spirit.
St John says “God is love.” (1 John 4:8). The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit all have love, rather they are love. When we say that the Holy Spirit is Love, this does not mean that the Holy Spirit is the only person in the Trinity that has love as if the Father and Son themselves don’t have love. The Father is the source of all love. The Holy Spirit is love personified. The mutual love of the Father and Son is personified in the Holy Spirit. The mutual love of the Father and Son for each other actually produces another divine person and this love is personified in the Holy Spirit.
If the Holy Spirit is called or is Love in the Trinity, what else can this be but that the Holy Spirit is the personified Love of the mutual love of the Father and Son for each other. And if the Holy Spirit is the personified Love of the mutual love of the Father and Son for each other then the Holy Spirit must proceed from both Father and Son.
Similarly, in regard to the mutual love of a man and woman for each other in married love, we see that that love becomes personified in a son or daughter.

Mutual love is said to be a unitive bond so the Holy Ghost is said to be the bond of the Father and Son. This mutual unitive bond which is love is personified in the Holy Spirit.

The Song of Songs, meaning the greatest of songs, is really a story about love, and specifically the mutual love of the Lord and his people. “Let him kiss me with kisses of his mouth; more delightful is your love than wine.” (1:2). It is described in terms of married love, the most intimate love between human beings. In Christian tradition, the Song has been interpreted in terms of the union between Christ and the Church, and particularly by St Bernard, St Teresa of Avila, and St John of the Cross as the union between Christ and the individual soul. Whether or not this Song has been applied to the mutual love of the Father and Son in Christian tradition, I do not know off hand. Maybe St Augustine did. However, the Church does teach that the Holy Spirit is the personified Love of the mutual love of the Father and Son. So, since it is a song of love, I do not see why it couldn’t be applied to the mutual love of the Father and Son for each other in one way or another.

In a general audience on Nov. 20, 1985, Pope John Paul II said the following concerning our present topic:
“Therefore, by means of generation, in the absolute unity of the divinity, God is eternally Father and Son. The Father who begets loves the Son who is begotten. The Son loves the Father with a love which is identical with that of the Father. In the unity of the divinity, love is on one side paternal and on the other, filial. At the same time the Father and the Son are not only united by that mutual love as two Persons infinitely perfect. But their mutual gratification, their reciprocal love, proceeds in them and from them as a person. The Father and the Son “spirate” the Spirit of Love consubstantial with them. In this way God, in the absolute unity of the divinity, is from all eternity Father, Son and Holy Spirit.”

blessings and peace, Richca

 

[Randy_Carson]

Agreed. It’s probably best if all those involved in the debate remain conscious of our incapacity to fully grasp the mysteries of God.

It is this very point that causes me to think that of ALL the many reasons the EO give for remaining separated from Rome, the filioque may be the weakest.

 

[Randy_Carson]

What is a Discalced Carmelite?
I do not know anything about Carmelite spirituality. I only know that the nuns had a sense of spirituality and serenity about them that one does not see much of any more from most Catholic nuns that I have encountered. An Orthodox nun wears what you call an habit and looks and acts like a nun.

Archpriest John W. Morris

Whoa.

Fr. John, you do realize that the Catholic Church has considerable monastic tradition of our own, right? The contemplative cloistered orders include the Carthusians, the Cistercians, the Carmelites, among others.

Surely Orthodox do not believe that Mt. Athos is the only place where monks and hermits live?