How does the single phrase of: “and the son” in regards to the procession of the Holy Spirit add to all the Christology already present in such a manner that it was impossible to remove the wolves from consuming the faith unless it was added?
To remove any doubt that might arise if it was otherwise absent. If the Holy Spirit is said to proceed only from the Father it implies the Son is somehow less than the Father in his divinity, rather than only being distinct in relationship. It removes the argument altogether.
Invention, developed, introduced applied to the Nicene Creed appear to be a negative but spoken with the mind of the Church who possesses the mind of Christ, the negative reveals the positive. For example the doctrine of infallibility is a negative doctrine.
I agree with SteveVH post. I would like to add here, something that St. Augustine addressed distinctly between the Greek and the Latins. We both believe and possess the same faith. Yet, our expressions of that one holy Catholic and Apostolic faith has never changed, and is expressed differently with words.
Because saying that Jesus is the only begotten Son of the Father and being consubstantial with the Father and that the Son and the Holy Spirit is to be adored and glorified is not enough?
This thread seems to be evidence enough that one cannot be “too clear”.Because saying that Jesus is the only begotten Son of the Father and being consubstantial with the Father and that the Son and the Holy Spirit is to be adored and glorified is not enough?
This has to do with Christ’s relationship with the Father, not his divinity. This is the only area in which a distinction can and should be drawn between the Father and the Son. They are equal in all other ways.
Honestly this seems like a very odd train of thought to me. Saying that the Son is begotten and the Spirit proceeds somehow diminishes the Son. So we have to say the Spirit proceeds from the Father and Son in order to properly elevate the Son. But following that logic are you not subordinating and diminishing the Spirit? Shouldn’t you also have to say that the Son is begotten of the Father and the Spirit to make sure the Spirit is not diminished?
Sorry, can’t view it. What is the citation?
No citation there either, just a repeat of what you said.
No, for the simple reason that the Second Person of the Trinity was not begotten by the Holy Spirit. Each Person of the Trinity has elements that are proper only to them as far as relationship is concerned. The Father begets, the Son is begotten and the Spirit proceeds. The Holy Spirit is, essentially, the Love between the Father and his only begotten Son.
From the CCC
It’s odd to both of us who never deny Jesus divinity. But to those heretics transmitting the Latin expression singles out the Father from the Son to support the heterodox view that Jesus is not God eternally. The filioque expressed within the Nicene Creed proves our faith that Jesus is eternal God because the Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son.
The flioque never diminishes the Spirit. Because the filioque expressed without rigidity and holding to what is already professed within the Nicene Creed Is proclaiming the divine presence of God which is revealed in Trinity.
No, with that logic you attempt to change the Nicene Creed. Because the Creed already has the Spirit proceeding from the Father and the Son is the only begotten of the Father.
I guess I should have expected that you would try to confuse the existence of the Son, who is eternally begotten of the Father, with his incarnation. These events are of a different order; one occurring in eternity and the other in time. Begotten does not mean “born”. That is why the Son is “eternally begotten of the Father.” In time, Jesus was “born” of the virgin Mary by the power of the Holy Spirit. He was not begotten of the Holy Spirit. Mary gave birth to the Father’s only begotten Son.
Amen; Everything the Father has, the Son has, because the Father gives everything to the Son except being Father. When the Word became flesh the Father anoints the flesh of the Son to fulfill the will of His Father to die for us. So that the Son can send us the Spirit from the Father. No one goes to the Father except through the Son.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I remember reading a dialogue on the Filioque where it was said that there is agreement in that the Father is the cause for both the Son and the Spirit. I don’t remember the term exactly but it had to do with how the Latin and the Greek express it. And that while the Son and the Father are one - in like manner, the Holy Spirit is one with the Father and the Son.
That is simply not true. St Basil, in his Against Eunomius, concedes to Eunomius that the Father is greater than the Son (Jn. 14:28), but only with respect to causality. The Father is not greater than the Son with respect to nature, but that definitely does not mean that the only interpretation of Jn. 14:28 is that Jesus speaks only of His human nature (a solution which is borderline Nestorian).
This is sidestepping the issue. You said that positing that the HS proceeds from the Son is necessary to safeguard the Son’s divinity. By that logic, we must also posit that the Son proceeds from the Spirit to safeguard the Spirit’s divinity.
In relation to the divine economy not Essence. The Father is the principle without principle? or the principle source from which the divine procession begins the revelation in presence in the Trinity of persons distinct from one another without division, separation or confusion.
Consubstantial relates to the One God. Trinity relates to the divine economy of how God reveals His presence (in procession) distinctly in the persons of the Trinity one God in Essence. When the eternal Essence of God is not revealed in space and time.
The early Church Fathers teach that the Father is the creator, and the Son is the Creative cause, from this eternal procession the visible and invisible things come into existence when the Holy Spirit eternally proceeds from both, is the Lord the giver of life.
To me the Churchs in both regards are defending the divinity of Jesus Christ which is how the conversation in history started. And to me they are saying one of the same thing in a different way. And I also think Maximus the Confessor later works on this and the east-west language problems and understanding.