J
JohnVIII
Guest
It says, “He has his nature and subsistence at once (simul) from the Father and the Son”, so does that mean that the Holy Spirit is human as well as divine?
- Status
J
jam070406
Guest
Was the Word human from all of eternity?
J
JohnVIII
Guest
Answer a question with a question.Was the Word human from all of eternity?
I can do that!
Does the the Holy Spirit proceed from the Son ‘within time’?
BTW, the Orthodox, at least at one time, said that the ONLY way the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father & the Son is ‘within time’ and not ‘eternally’!
J
jam070406
Guest
Did Jesus breathe the Holy Spirit onto the Apostles?Does the the Holy Spirit proceed from the Son ‘within time’?
G
Ghosty
Guest
No more than the Father is human, since He and Jesus Christ are “of one substance” according to the Creed.
Peace and God bless!
J
JohnVIII
Guest
The Creed says that the Son is one in essence with the Father before it says He, through the virgin became man. After the incarnation we confess that the Son is “inseparably” both God and man. So if the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son after the incarnation the nature of the Holy Spirit would be both human and divine.No more than the Father is human, since He and Jesus Christ are “of one substance” according to the Creed.
Peace and God bless!
Maybe the answer is that the Holy Spirit only proceeds from both the Father and the Son from eternity and not in time. If this answer is acceptable to Roman Catholic dogma then I think we can chalk up another difference between RC & EO.
Sorry if my tone still seems very much EO since I am uniting with Rome. I really do want to conform with RC dogma (in reality, not just blindly). Is there anything that goes against the teaching of the Church if I confess that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son in eternity only and not in time?
S
sidbrown
Guest
I thought it was an eternal procession according to RC belief?Answer a question with a question.
I can do that!
Does the the Holy Spirit proceed from the Son ‘within time’?
BTW, the Orthodox, at least at one time, said that the ONLY way the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father & the Son is ‘within time’ and not ‘eternally’!
S
SonCatcher
Guest
Way back in post #2 we saw this quote from the CCC:
All 3 persons of the Trinity are eternal, existing from before all time. It is only Jesus’ human nature that is created within time.
G
Ghosty
Guest
The Creed says that Jesus Christ is consubstantial with the Father, and Jesus Christ is the human name; the Son didn’t cease being consubstantial with the Father when He became man, after all. This is really a facetious point, however, as all I’m really trying to indicate is that when theology speaks of Divine consubstantiality (as in the case of the Son, and the filioque), the human nature of Christ doesn’t enter into it.
The actual EO argument regarding procession in time is that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son ONLY in time, and not eternity. Scripture explicitely states that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son in time, so that much isn’t a matter of debate.
Peace and God bless!
V
Vico
Guest
- ekporeusis: The Father is the Cause (aita) of the Son and Holy Spirit. Everything the Father has he communicates to the Son, except being Father (paternity, Cause, aita).
- proinai: It belongs to the Father that the Holy Spirit proceeds (proinai) from him, therfore, he also communicates that to the Son. So it follows that the Holy Spirit also proceeds (proinai) from the Son.
A dogma of Fourth Lateran Council of 1215: “The substance does not generate, is not begotten, does not proceed; but it is the Father who generates, the Son who is begotten, the Holy Spirit who proceeds: so that there is distinction in persons and unity in nature. Although other (alius) is the Father, other the Son, other the Holy Spirit, they are not another reality (aliud), but what the Father is the Son is and the Holy Spirit equally; so, according to the orthodox and catholic faith, we believe that they are consubstantial. For the Father, generating eternally the Son, has given to him his substance (…) It is clear that, in being born the Son has received the substance of the Father without this substance being in any way diminished, and so the Father and the Son have the same substance. So the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, who proceeds from them both, are one same reality” (DS 804-805).
P
patricius79
Guest
would this be the best place to discuss the Joint Declaration on the Filioque from the North American Orthodox-Catholic Consultation?
A
Alexander_Roman
Guest
Dear Friends,
Discussions on the Filioque can, and have, filled many volumes!
That being said, we are blessed to live in irenical times. The great work of Father Francis Dvornik on the East-West divide has brought to light a number of important things that were lost in the previous centuries of polemical infighting (most notably, that Photios, Patriarch of Constantinople, died in union with Rome and he is honoured today as a saint by many Eastern Catholics as well as by Orthodox).
On one level, there is the issue of the inclusion of the Filioque in the Nicene Creed. Perhaps both East and West could agree on the original text of the Creed that did not have the Filioque. The Venerable Pope John Paul II would leave the Filioque out whenever he served the Mass in Greek. The removal of the Filioque by the West would in no wise mean that the West is giving up its legitimate theological heritage on this point either.
Both East and West agree that the Holy Spirit proceeds in time from both the Father and the Son. They both send the Spirit. Eastern texts proclaim that the Holy Spirit “Proceeds from the Father and rests on the Son” or “Proceeds from the Father and is sent by Jesus Christ” etc.
With respect to the eternal procession of the Spirit, even if it can be demonstrated from the Scholastic perspective that the Spirit proceeds from the Son as He does from the Father - there is still the need for a qualifier with respect to His procession from the Son. I’ve read Roman Catholic texts that indicate that the Spirit proceeds “passively” from the Son but “actively” from the Father (similar to the “from the Father through the Son” in the East although this term refers entirely to the Spirit’s temporal procession).
Where the discussion tends to break down is on the point of whether an explicit acknowledgement of the Spirit’s procession f(in eternal terms) from the Son is necessary in order to maintain the “distinctiveness” of the Spirit from the Son. The West has traditionally affirmed this while the East has disagreed. However, both East and West agree that the manner of the Son’s being Begotten of the Father and the Spirit’s procession from the Father are distinctly different - if completely mysterious and unknown as to the “how.” The East is content to leave the matter as a mystery, while the West would prefer to go further.
In that case, since there already is agreement on this point - why not use that as the basis for unity and leave all else to the theologoumenon traditions of each Church? The Filioque can be understood as a theological viewpoint in the West which is simply that and something that should not be required of the Eastern Churches for unity on the important issue of Triadology/Trinitarian theology.
Alex
Discussions on the Filioque can, and have, filled many volumes!
That being said, we are blessed to live in irenical times. The great work of Father Francis Dvornik on the East-West divide has brought to light a number of important things that were lost in the previous centuries of polemical infighting (most notably, that Photios, Patriarch of Constantinople, died in union with Rome and he is honoured today as a saint by many Eastern Catholics as well as by Orthodox).
On one level, there is the issue of the inclusion of the Filioque in the Nicene Creed. Perhaps both East and West could agree on the original text of the Creed that did not have the Filioque. The Venerable Pope John Paul II would leave the Filioque out whenever he served the Mass in Greek. The removal of the Filioque by the West would in no wise mean that the West is giving up its legitimate theological heritage on this point either.
Both East and West agree that the Holy Spirit proceeds in time from both the Father and the Son. They both send the Spirit. Eastern texts proclaim that the Holy Spirit “Proceeds from the Father and rests on the Son” or “Proceeds from the Father and is sent by Jesus Christ” etc.
With respect to the eternal procession of the Spirit, even if it can be demonstrated from the Scholastic perspective that the Spirit proceeds from the Son as He does from the Father - there is still the need for a qualifier with respect to His procession from the Son. I’ve read Roman Catholic texts that indicate that the Spirit proceeds “passively” from the Son but “actively” from the Father (similar to the “from the Father through the Son” in the East although this term refers entirely to the Spirit’s temporal procession).
Where the discussion tends to break down is on the point of whether an explicit acknowledgement of the Spirit’s procession f(in eternal terms) from the Son is necessary in order to maintain the “distinctiveness” of the Spirit from the Son. The West has traditionally affirmed this while the East has disagreed. However, both East and West agree that the manner of the Son’s being Begotten of the Father and the Spirit’s procession from the Father are distinctly different - if completely mysterious and unknown as to the “how.” The East is content to leave the matter as a mystery, while the West would prefer to go further.
In that case, since there already is agreement on this point - why not use that as the basis for unity and leave all else to the theologoumenon traditions of each Church? The Filioque can be understood as a theological viewpoint in the West which is simply that and something that should not be required of the Eastern Churches for unity on the important issue of Triadology/Trinitarian theology.
Alex
S
sidbrown
Guest
Your explanation is very good and makes a lot of sense to me. Thanks.
- Status