Hi Richca: I agree with you and I was taught this as a Catholic and believe in it. it is just that when it comes to trying to explain this mystery of the Trinity and why as Latin rite Catholic’s we as the 4th Lateran Council, Confession of Faith you quoted is a good reason why we have what is called the Fililque. While not prefect, it sure does a good job in understanding the Holy Spirit in the Trinity
For most people who are not theologians, but faithful people seeking to live their daily lives in a way that it is pleasing to God, it’s probably of little practical importance. However, these teachings were developed in response to denials of the divinity of Christ and of the Holy Spirit. The teaching of the monarchy of the Father has always been maintained. When the question of how the Son of God can be eternal, “begotten” was used as a term to describe the eternal generation of the Son from the Father. Questions of the origin of the Holy Spirit quickly arose as well. Church Fathers such as St. Gregory the Theologian, following Holy Scripture, used the language of procession to show a distinction in the manner of the origin of the Holy Spirit from the Father. This dealt with the objections of those who accepted the divinity of the Son, but denied that of the Spirit. One such objection is that if both the Son and the Spirit are eternal and both take their origin from the Father, then there are two Sons, or a Son and a “grandson.” The teaching that the Son and the Spirit both take their origin from the Father, but that they originate from the Father in different manners safeguards the monarchy of the Father, and safeguards against modalism as well.
Hi Ryan Black: Thanks for your response I too understood this from my own reading of the history of the early Church. Yet, for most people as you said of little practical importance except to theologian and exegetes. Still there is the problem in the understanding of the Trinity since there are those who hold that the Holy Spirit comes only from the Father as in the Nicene Creed, while in the West the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. The problem as I am trying to understand it is somehow by saying that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father only and not the Son seems to make the Son not part of the Holy Spirit or that the only the Father has the Holy Spirit and not the Son and therefore not consubstantial.
But if we say that only the Father begets the Son, and the Holy Spirit has no part in the begetting of the Son (which we do say), then do we not have a similar problem, viz., only the Father has the Son and not the Holy Spirit, and therefore the Holy Spirit is not consubstantial with the Father? I think the Orthodox response to your question is that the consubstantiality of the Son with the Father is to be attributed to the fact that the Son eternally receives his being from the Father, not that the Son shares with the Father in the procession of the Holy Spirit. Likewise, the fact that the Holy Spirit does not share in the begetting of the Son does not mean that the Holy Spirit is not consubstantial with the Father because the Holy Spirit is consubstantial with the Father because he eternally proceeds from the Father.
Hi Ryan Black: My understanding is that the ECF’s said that the Son is begotten from the Father as was accepted as such in the early ecumenical council debating it. I agree that the Son eternally receives His being from the Father. I also agree that the Holy Spirit is consubstantial with the Father because He eternally proceeds from the Father. I guess what I am trying to say is the Holy Spirit a part of the Son as He is with the Father? Does not the Son have the same Spirit as the Father, or is that somehow separate? The Holy Spirit as I understand it is the spirit of truth and of love and can not deny the truth and love of the Father and the Son. Am I somehow so misunderstanding this mystery that I am off the beam?
Hello ByzantineHeart; Love your call nameHaving returned to the Catholic (Roman) church from Orthodoxy, I simply cannot say the filioque during the recital of the Creed at mass. I just can’t in conscience. I’m silent as everyone else says “and the Son.” I’m still a Byzantine at heart, as the username says.
I posted this on another thread maybe St. Hilary can help you here;Hi Gabriel of 12: Thanks so much for your post! I have to say that it is the best explanation so far on the fililoque. I tried to explain with the understanding that I have but could not quite put into words in a way that you have just done.Hello ByzantineHeart; Love your call name
Remember the reason for the filioque is to proclaim Jesus Christ as the Logos, God incarnate. The filioque defeats an Eastern heresy of Arianism which tried to infect the West that Jesus was not God. The filioque defeated the heresy and protected the flock Jesus commissioned Peter to tend and feed.
The Orthodox never attempt to define the “filioque” the way the Catholic Church teaches and proclaims this divine revelation with in the Nicene Creed.
The Orthodox invent their own opinion of the filioque outside of the professed Creed, that falsely invents created deity’s and divides the Blessed Trinity with rigid terms from their misunderstood approach from the Greek terminology that misses the Latin expression of the Catholic faith.
John 13:20 “Truly, truly I say to you, he who receives anyone whom I send receives me; and he who receives me, receives Him who sent me”
I think St. Hilary sums it up for the Orthodox here; “When the advocate has come whom I will send you from the Father, the Spirit of Truth who proceeds from the Father, He will bear witness of me” (Jn.15:26). “The advocate will come and the Son will send Him from the Father”
The CCC agrees with St. Hilary, because St. Hilary does not apply rigidity to the filioque here; “He who sends manifests His power in that which He sends”…( The Father distinctly sends because he is the source; the Son distinct from the Father also sends with His power the Father gives the Son)…“Nor will I infringe upon anyone’s liberty of thought in this matter, whether they may regard the Paraclete Spirit as coming from the Father or from the Son”… (St. Hilary adds Jn. 16:12-15)… “Many things yet I have to say to you, but when the Paraclete comes He will reveal them to you”, “Consequently (the Spirit) he receives from the Son who has been sent by Him and who proceeds from the Father”. St. Hilary asked the question? “Whether it is the same to receive from the Son as to proceed from the Father?”…“We shall have to admit that it is the One and the Same, to receive from the Son as it is to receive from the Father”…(parenthesis mine).
When the Orthodox define the flioque outside of the revealed Creed they invent a monster. When the filioque is defined within the professed Creed it holds to what God has revealed in the Son.
The Holy Spirit eternally proceeds from the Father and the Son from one principle through one Spiration in Love.
St. Augustine; “But only the Spirit of the Father and of the Son all are co-equal. The Spirit from the divine economy is the same Spirit that proceeds from the Father and of the Son. The Holy Spirit proceeds from the one who begets and from the one who is begotten of the Father. There can be no division from what is co-equal in what is Consubstantial, this substance of the divine all three persons being one God. Yet it is from the distinct persons from the economy divine which reveals the Holy Spirit eternally proceeds from the Father and the Son”.
Peace be with you
Tennis anyone?
Im eastern catholic. We dint say the filioque. The filioque is a non issue amongst most scholars on both sides. Met kallistos ware states it can be interpreted orthodox. For me as an orthodox convert to catholicism, its really just semantics.Having returned to the Catholic (Roman) church from Orthodoxy, I simply cannot say the filioque during the recital of the Creed at mass. I just can’t in conscience. I’m silent as everyone else says “and the Son.” I’m still a Byzantine at heart, as the username says.
Stick around spina1953, hopefully their will be more to come, we just got started; God willing
The Orthodox are by far one of the best intellectuals in regards to the mysteries of God. We just have to learn to speak their language, because pride prevents them from learning anything Latin.Well I think if we say the Spirit proceeds from ONLY the
How on earth do you come to that conclusion?
Ah, just read Gabreil of 12’s misrepresentation of Orthodoxy. I’m guessing you got it from there
Those who live in glass houses ought not throw stones. We Catholics are no less prone to pride, as has been proven countless times on this very forum.Stick around spina1953, hopefully their will be more to come, we just got started; God willing
Peace be with you
I don’t agree. Furthermore, if we keep insisting that the Spirit must proceed from the Father and the Son because to say otherwise is to deny the consubstantiality of the Son with the Father, or somehow take some dignity from the Son, then what of the Spirit? We do not-nor do the Orthodox-believe that the Son is begotten both by the Father and the Spirit, yet I hear no one (Catholic or Orthodox) protest that this somehow denies the divinity or dignity of the Spirit.
Allow me to be the first to acknowledge that I am a sinner, pray for me.
I think not but makes the will of the Father.
Did your “Teacher at University” explain to you, if there was a difference in the procession?