Diferences on the Trinity between the EO and Rc

  • Thread starter Thread starter Miguel25
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

Miguel25

Guest
Can you tell if there is someone. I mean not having filiquoe makes a understanding of a more monarchiest trinity.
 
more sense of the role of the father as the God head. The role of each person. and putting the father in “higher” place at the time to give the spirit
 
Trinitarian theology is not my forte, but I’ll try to take a crack at this. Matthew 11:27:
All things have been delivered to me by my Father; and no one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and any one to whom the Son chooses to reveal him.
Click to expand...
John 16:15:
All that the Father has is mine; therefore I said that he will take what is mine and declare it to you.
Click to expand...
So then, if the Holy Spirit belongs to the Father, does the Paraclete therefore then belong to the Son? Is it not possible that the Father gave the Son the Holy Spirit?
 
All is posible but Father sends thru the son. The one who sends is the father if im not wrong
 
Miguel25 said:
Can you tell if there is someone. I mean not having filiquoe makes a understanding of a more monarchiest trinity.
Click to expand...
The Monarchy of the Father is a belief of the Latin Church also:
“the principle without principle”, is the first origin of the Spirit.
Click to expand...
Catechism
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.
Click to expand...
 
Miguel25 said:
more sense of the role of the father as the God head. The role of each person. and putting the father in “higher” place at the time to give the spirit
Click to expand...
You’re aware that in meetings with the Orthodox, the Pope recites the creed in greek without the Filioque, aren’t you? And that it’s on the plaque on the doors of the basilica this way?

And that the Orthodox don’t deny the temporal procession of the Spirit through the Son?

And that the greek word used in the original of the creed specifically means “proceeds in origin”? And that the notion the Spirit proceeds in origin from the son is either heretical or close to it in western theology?

The whole Filioque bit is a non-issue; an artifact of the differences between latin and greek, and what polemicists turned that into instead of listing to what the “other side” was saying.

EO and RC are in violent agreement about the trinity.

hawk
 
I’m pretty sure the filioque if also omitted in the Eastern Catholic Churches.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top