M
marywarfield
Guest
Then ( this is a serious question as I’m not joking
when I say I don’t understand it) why isn’t their
one and perfect when it comes to the sending of
the Holy Spirit?
- Status
when I say I don’t understand it) why isn’t their
one and perfect when it comes to the sending of
the Holy Spirit?
M
mardukm
Guest
I don’t understand why you don’t understand. As brother MorEphrem states, it is the Father who is the Source since he is GIVING the power to judge to the Son.
In the same way, there is oneness and perfection between the Father and the Son in the sending of the Holy Sprit. But one cannot confuse the fact that it is the Father alone who is the Source in that sending.
Blessings,
Marduk
Q
QNDNNDQDCE
Guest
I think perhaps some confusion arises over the phrase “through the Son” because people imagine the procession of the Holy Spirit geometrically. You have two separate points, the Father and the Son) and the Holy Spirit flows from the Fathe, through empty space, into the Son, through the Son, and out through the Son into the world. Of course this is misleading. God is not a set of points lying in a plane. God is one and there is no separation between the Divine Persons. If the Spirit proceeds through the Son, it would be geometrically as if he proceeded from both Father and Son as a single principle. Thus the Council of Florence states,
In the name of the holy Trinity, Father, Son and holy Spirit, we define, with the approval of this holy universal council of Florence, that the following truth of faith shall be believed and accepted by all Christians and thus shall all profess it: that the holy Spirit is eternally from the Father and the Son, and has his essence and his subsistent being from the Father together with the Son, and proceeds from both eternally as from one principle and a single spiration. We declare that when holy doctors and fathers say that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son, this bears the sense that thereby also the Son should be signified, according to the Greeks indeed as cause, and according to the Latins as principle of the subsistence of the holy Spirit, just like the Father.
In the name of the holy Trinity, Father, Son and holy Spirit, we define, with the approval of this holy universal council of Florence, that the following truth of faith shall be believed and accepted by all Christians and thus shall all profess it: that the holy Spirit is eternally from the Father and the Son, and has his essence and his subsistent being from the Father together with the Son, and proceeds from both eternally as from one principle and a single spiration. We declare that when holy doctors and fathers say that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son, this bears the sense that thereby also the Son should be signified, according to the Greeks indeed as cause, and according to the Latins as principle of the subsistence of the holy Spirit, just like the Father.
S
spina1953
Guest
It seems to me that since Jesus said (Jn.14:10) “I am in the Father and the Father is Me.” that Jesus and the Father are one of the same Essence, and that the Holy Spirit being of the same Essence of the Father and the Son, then the Holy Spirit is with both the Father and the Son, as God the Father is one, yet there are three distinct persons in one God who is the Father and the source of the Son and the Holy Spirit. To say that the Holy Spirit only comes from the Father but not the Son is to say that the Son is somehow separate which cannot be so since it was Jesus Himself who said that the Father and Jesus are one. Jesus also said He sees and does what the Father sees and does and Jesus does not do or see anything different than what the Father sees and does.
Code:
The Father is the origin and the source. Jesus said that everything He has the Father gave to Him and everything that the Son has is given to the Father. Jesus said also that he would ask the Father to send the Holy Spirit in His name. This suggests that the Holy Spirit comes not only from the Father but also from the Son, because both the Father and the Son share in everything.
I am not to sure that the Father would do something different from the Son or the Holy Spirit because if that were so then the Son and the Holy Spirit are not one with the Father as the Father nor the Son nor the Holy Spirit can deny themselves or each other, for to do so would mean that God is not God. So it seems to me that God the Father can send the Holy Spirit who precedes from Him, but also through the Son, as the Holy Spirit is one in being with the Father and the Son.
M
marywarfield
Guest
I will tell you why I don’t understand it. And your
response sounding like, just like all RCs and Orthodox
are toons and morons for NOT understanding it
is this:
I’m an RC. I have no problem with the Apostles
Creed. And I have no problem with the Nicene
Creed with or without the Filioque.
But the moment- the first instant- anyone begins
to explain the Filioque, contained in almost every
explanation is the innuendo that somehow the
Holy Spirit or the Son are the Fathers lackey boys.
Just as in the earlier explanation above where one thing Father
and Son are united and perfect leaving the suggestion
that in other things perhaps Christ or the Holy
Spirit is not quite so perfect and need the Father
to pick up the slack.
If- and this is HUGE- something is required for
the average layman to recite as a matter of faith,
then it should be something more reasonably
simple to explain like the Immaculate Conception-
easily explained even in the face and especially in the face
of a bunch of Protestants with scripture from Romans
memorized word for word.
The Filioque is not like that Immaculate Conception and it makes the
Creed and Trinity subject to misunderstanding and misrepresentation.
I’m an an RC as I said and even though I admit
the Church’s right to insert the Filioque, and believe the
Creed, I don’t believe it should ever have been added.
So excommunicate me- I’m a roob. Unlike the Orthodox
I believe in the infallibility of papal statements-
but just because they CAN speak infallibly doesn’t
mean they necessarily should exercise that right in
all incidences. Not if it leads to major confusion
of key faith.
M
marywarfield
Guest
I mean it really doesn’t NEED to be there does it?
We aren’t having issues with the Pneumatomachi
these days so why try to keep resurrecting them?
U
UbiCaritas15
Guest
M
mardukm
Guest
After some thought, I will have to second brother Michael’s appreciation for sister MaryWarfield’s approach (I don’t recall if he did it in this thread or another one). I have come to realize (from an Oriental perspective) that the Latin approach to this matter is MUCH MORE apophatic than the Eastern approach. In truth, St, Thomas Aquinas delved into the matter of Origin, Lyons delved into the matter of Origin, and Florence delved into the matter of Origin, ONLY because the Easterns were making an issue about it.
Otherwise, the focus on the consubstantiality of God would have been sufficient for the Latins in order to defend the divinity of the Holy Spirit. (To be frank, it is sufficient for me as an Oriental, as well).
I don’t say that with any intention of disrespect to my Eastern brethren. I respect your approach just as much as I respect the Latin approach. It is just that I believe their approach is more apophatic than yours.
Blessings,
Marduk
Otherwise, the focus on the consubstantiality of God would have been sufficient for the Latins in order to defend the divinity of the Holy Spirit. (To be frank, it is sufficient for me as an Oriental, as well).
I don’t say that with any intention of disrespect to my Eastern brethren. I respect your approach just as much as I respect the Latin approach. It is just that I believe their approach is more apophatic than yours.
Blessings,
Marduk
R
Richca
Guest
Where is the confusion? The procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son is an article of faith for the Catholic Church as we recite it every Sunday at Mass in the creed. The Catholic Church has definitively decided on this matter to leave no room for confusion or doubt.
M
marywarfield
Guest
No confusion? No arguing for a thousand years?
While maybe you are not confused I’m not willing
to write off a good half of the original Catholic Church
as a bunch of numbskulls who just don’t get it.
Obviously there is a problem- schism.
M
marywarfield
Guest
Yes thank you very much. It is true. And we all know
when we begin to describe something so uniquely beyond
our understanding as the actions of the Trinity we can only
be apophatic not Cataphatic and even then it will almost
ALWAYS lead to false statements.
As opposed to a concept as I said earlier, like
the Immaculate Conception, that can be described
both positively and negatively therefore it is much
simpler.
With the Filioque though I believe any attempt
to force an kinder standing should be OFF the table
due to the strong possibility of misrepresenting
any one of the Three Persons described.
While it is understandable that at times in our history
it has been necessary for Rome to be “in your face” so
to speak with this theological mystery to combat
here seizes such as the Combaters of the Holy Spirit,
the moment that is dealt with the Filioque should be
removed as it creates too much divisiveness.
That only leaves then the schism over Papal infallibility
to be dealt with since for the most part the Orthodox and
RC are teaching the same thing ABOUT the procession
except in different terminology. There really is not
a huge discrepancy about how the Spirit proceeds- that is a misconception-
the problem lies in HOW to actually word it and who
should do the speaking.
While it is true that certain theologies have sprung
up around misunderstood terms that is also solve able
by simply returning to what we DO know and always did.
S
spina1953
Guest
I know that it has been awhile since anyone has responded to this thread and I know also that there have been threads debating the Fililoque yet, I would like to add something from the Gospel of St. John chapter 15 verse 16 which says" When the Paraclete comes, the Spirit of Truth who comes from the Father---- and whom I myself will send from the Father,( notice that Jesus says that the Spirit of Truth that comes from the Father is the Spirit that He Jesus will Himself will send) He will bear witness on my behalf. You must bear witness as well for you have been with me from the beginning. Now in chapter 16 verse 7 Jesus says" Yet I tell you the sober truth; it is much better for you that I go, if I fail to go, the Paraclete will never come to you, whereas if I go, I will send Him to you. When He comes He will prove to world wrong about sin. … verse 13 When He comes,(Holy Spirit) however, being the Spirit of Truth, He will guide you all truth, but will speak only what He hears, and will announce to you the things to come. In doing this He will give glory to Me, because He will have received from Me what He will announce to you, All that the Father has belongs to Me. That is why I said that what He will announce to you He will have come from Me.
It sure sounds to me that Jesus is saying that the Holy Spirit while it comes from the Father just as He Jesus comes form the Father, The Holy Spirit also comes from Jesus Himself. So this tells me that the Holy Spirit proceeds not just from the Father but also from the Son. Somehow the Orthodox have missed that passage from St. John’s Gospel. or if they haven’t then they are not wanting to recognize it and want to stick to a belief that is only half correct.
It sure sounds to me that Jesus is saying that the Holy Spirit while it comes from the Father just as He Jesus comes form the Father, The Holy Spirit also comes from Jesus Himself. So this tells me that the Holy Spirit proceeds not just from the Father but also from the Son. Somehow the Orthodox have missed that passage from St. John’s Gospel. or if they haven’t then they are not wanting to recognize it and want to stick to a belief that is only half correct.
R
RyanBlack
Guest
Of course the Orthodox haven’t missed this passage, and it isn’t the case that they don’t “recognize it.” They believe it refers to the role of the Son in the temporal mission of the Spirit, but not to the eternal procession of the Spirit.
N
Nine_Two
Guest
Nope, we haven’t missed that passage. That passage is exactly what we believe in regards to the Holy Spirit. Originating with the Father and sent by the Son. It is because of this that most Orthodox will agree that the Filioque CAN be interpreted in an Orthodox manner. The issue is that very few have much faith that this is how it is being interpreted. You yourself seem to be interpreting it as originating with both the Father and the Son, which is way beyond anything the passage says.
S
spina1953
Guest
Hi Ryan Black: Thanks for your response. I had not thought of it in that way as you stated. Yet, it seems to me that if it is to be understood in a temporal manor
then the passage has no real meaning and it becomes why would St. John write this is the meaning is what Orthodox say it is as to what I think St. John himself is saying and understanding?
S
SyroMalankara
Guest
Not only Orthodoxy, but Catholicism - East and West, as well!
S
spina1953
Guest
Hi Nine Two: I and happy to know that the Orthodox did not miss the passage. I understand where you are coming from in that the Holy Spirit originating from the Father and sent by the Son. It does make sense if one understands that Jesus said that the Father and I(Jesus) are one and that everything that the Father has I(Jesus) have, as then the Holy Spirit much then come from both since both the father and the Son are one in substance so in effect the Holy Spirit then not only comes from the Father but also from the Son, otherwise if the Holy Spirit come only from the Father is like saying that the Son has no Spirit and that somehow the Holy Spirit while of the same substance as the Father is not of the same substance as the Son which I think you will agree that it is not so.
H
HB11
Guest
just want to keep this thread coming to me.
S
SyroMalankara
Guest
Mm. Quite the dilemma, except, neither including or excluding the phrase speak of substance of the Holy Spirit, but you’ve now created another dilemma. If the Son comes from the Father, and the Spirit from the Father and Son - according to your stated view - then doesn’t the Spirit seem dependent or subordinate to both?
Q
QNDNNDQDCE
Guest
Is the Son subordinate to the Father?
- Status