Filioque and Eastern Christian Trinitarian understanding

[Aris]

To Jprejean, Father Ambrose:

I apologize for not replying earlier. It has been hectic since the Easter holidays.

I will reply to your unanswered questions.

 

[Aris]

“Ditto to Fr Ambrose. This statement is wrong:

Quote:
3) We believe that each Person is distinct from the other by their relationship, The Father is the unbegotten, the Son is begotten and the Holy Spirit proceeds.

The Son and the Spirit are not distinct from one another by their relationship to one another, but by their respective modes of generation by the Father. It is the difference between being begotten and proceeding that distinguishes the hypostases. The idea that each person must be distinct from the other by relationships comes from the idea that Persons are relations within the divine essence, which is erroneous.” - Jprejean

My reply:
The CCC states:
252 The Church uses (I) the term “substance” rendered also at times by “essence” or “nature” to designate the divine being in its unity, (II) the term “person” or “hypostasis” to designate the Father, Son and Holy Spirit in the real distinction among them, and (III) the term “relation” to disgnate the fact that their distinction lies in the relationship of each to the other.
253 The Trinity is One. We do not confess to three Gods, but one God in Three persons, the “consubstantial Trinity.” The divine persons do not share the divinity among themselves but each of them is God whole and entire.
254 The divine persons are really distinct from one another. “Father”, “Son”, and “Holy Spirit” are not simply name designating the modalities of the divine being., for they are really distinct.
255 The divine persons are relative to one another. Because it does not divide the divine unity, the real distinction of the persons from one another resides solely in the relationships which relate them to one another:

The statement therefore stands that each person is distinct by their names and their relationship with each other. Is this something the Greek Orthodox do not agree with?

 

[Aris]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aris
“I think it is best to go back to our list.3) We believe that each Person is distinct from the other by their relationship, The Father is the unbegotten, the Son is begotten and the Holy Spirit proceeds.Please let me know which you think is biblically unsound. And I will bring out the verse to support the statement.”

“(3) is scripturally unsound. The Scripture is clear that the Holy Spirit does not proceed (and full stop.) Scripture is explicit that the Spirit proceeds from the Father.” – Father Ambrose

My reply:

The point of the statement (3) is not “the Holy Spirit proceeds (and full stop)” but that the three persons are distinct and the real distinction of the persons resides in their relationships to one another.

Your question is actually answered in statement #12.

Statement three is therefore sound or you do not agree with the point of statement three, Father Ambrose. I am surprised Father Ambrose, for all the replies you’ve made, it has not been shown that the Filioque is unscripturally sound. And Father, scripturally sound does not mean it has to be explicit or literally be in the Bible. 2 Thessalonian 2:15

 

[Aris]

I am willing to look at the quotes, and I am sure Prodromos is too, and we shall look at how the Orthodox understand them. I supoose what is of uppermost importance is not the quotes which for the first 11 - but for No. 12. That is the cruncher. Wouldn’t it be shocking if there is proof in the New Testament that the Spirit is caused by the Son and yet the Greeks, who after all have the advantage of reading the NT in the original language, have completely overlooked it for 2000 years!!! - Father Ambrose

1.You have asked for scriptural proof and yet you have not answered the scriptural passages given to you. You have not clarified what Scripture means when the Holy Spirit is indicated as the “Spirit of the Son”. There are more but we can start with that one.
2. “Spirit is caused by the Son” What do you mean by this? That the Son is the sole origin of the Spirit? This is definitely not taught by the Catholic Church and I would challenge you to find it in our Church documents. Please see CCC 254 “It is the Father who generates”
3.I am sorry but History is on the side of the Catholic Church, from Early Chruch Fathers to the councils there has been no disagreement within the Church regarding the Filioque. Trouble and disunity was only stirred up when the Constantinople Patriarch Photius, in order to further his political agenda, falsely accused Rome of inserting false doctrine which is the Filioque. However a closer study of Church history would show that the Filioque has been around far longer than most people think. the Filioque was expressed as early as 447 AD by St Leo I, more than 400 years before Photius. And all that time the Church was united and in harmony only to be broken up by the ambitions of one man. It has also been expressed in numerous councils in the intervening years between St Leo and Photius.

 

[Aris]

“But we won’t move from what we see as the scriptural and patristic teaching.” - Father Ambrose

Aren’t we being selective here, Father? What about the patristic writings and scriptural passages, and councils predating the Schism that support the Filioque? “The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son”. When we were one church there was no disagreement that this is true. Do you Father Ambrose deny this statement to be true?