S
shliahgaossimyacob27
Guest
I am a Roman Catholic, but I live in greece, so I am so unlucky. Here are many Orthodoxes who are trying to convince me. So, I need some help, please.
Last edited:
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
If the Holy Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son, then why Saint John 15:26 says that the Paracletus proceeds from the Father alone?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
N
Neithan
Guest
“He who is to befriend you, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send on my account, will in his turn make everything plain, and recall to your minds everything I have said to you.”
Where does it say alone?
If someone acts “on account” of another, or in their name, there is a dual agency: it can be said that both people act.
Where does it say alone?
If someone acts “on account” of another, or in their name, there is a dual agency: it can be said that both people act.
Last edited:
S
shliahgaossimyacob27
Guest
I meaned Saint John 15:26.
N
Neithan
Guest
[Oops, the topic originally stated 14:26.]
“Well, when the truth-giving Spirit, who proceeds from the Father, has come to befriend you, he whom I will send to you from the Father’s side, he will bear witness of what I was;”
Where does it say alone?
Note the words, “he whom I will send to you from the Father’s side” — both the Father and the Son send the Holy Spirit.
“Well, when the truth-giving Spirit, who proceeds from the Father, has come to befriend you, he whom I will send to you from the Father’s side, he will bear witness of what I was;”
Where does it say alone?
Note the words, “he whom I will send to you from the Father’s side” — both the Father and the Son send the Holy Spirit.
Last edited:
S
shliahgaossimyacob27
Guest
Orthodoxes says that if this verse does not mention the Son, that means that Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone.
N
Neithan
Guest
Yes it’s an ancient dispute, but clearly, the Son is speaking, and saying that He will send the Spirit “from” the Father. The Orthodox are correct that the Spirit proceeds from the Father, but incorrect to say “alone”. That is inserting a word into the sacred text and limiting the meaning.
Last edited:
D
Dan_Defender
Guest
I thought they maintain that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son, following St Basil.Orthodoxes says that if this verse does not mention the Son, that means that Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone.
B
Beryllos
Guest
There are verses elsewhere in the Gospel of John that hint that the Holy Spirit is the love between the Father and the Son, therefore proceeding from both.
John 17:26
“I made known to them your name and I will make it known, that the love with which you loved me may be in them and I in them.”
John 17:22-23
“And I have given them the glory you gave me, so that they may be one, as we are one, I in them and you in me, that they may be brought to perfection as one, that the world may know that you sent me, and that you loved them even as you loved me.”
There may be other verses and a better exposition than I have provided here.
John 17:26
“I made known to them your name and I will make it known, that the love with which you loved me may be in them and I in them.”
John 17:22-23
“And I have given them the glory you gave me, so that they may be one, as we are one, I in them and you in me, that they may be brought to perfection as one, that the world may know that you sent me, and that you loved them even as you loved me.”
There may be other verses and a better exposition than I have provided here.
Last edited:
G
Godfollower
Guest
John 16:7.But I tell you the truth: it is expedient to you that I go: for if I go not, the Paraclete will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you.
The Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son.
M
Montrose
Guest
That is the view of a schismatic group.Orthodoxes says that if this verse does not mention the Son, that means that Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone.
A
AlNg
Guest
Yes and this was emphasized in the Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs 1848 where it was stated:Orthodoxes says that if this verse does not mention the Son, that means that Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone.
§ 5. The new doctrine, that “the Holy Ghost proceedeth from the Father and the Son,” is contrary to the memorable declaration of our LORD, emphatically made respecting it: which proceedeth from the Father (John xv. 26), and contrary to the universal Confession of the Catholic Church as witnessed by the seven Ecumenical Councils, uttering “which proceedeth from the Father.” (Symbol of Faith).
i. This novel opinion destroys the oneness from the One cause, and the diverse origin of the Persons of the Blessed Trinity, both of which are witnessed to in the Gospel.
ii. Even into the divine Hypostases or Persons of the Trinity, of equal power and equally to be adored, it introduces diverse and unequal relations, with a confusion or commingling of them.
iii. It reproaches as imperfect, dark, and difficult to be understood, the previous Confession of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.
iv. It censures the holy Fathers of the first Ecumenical Synod of Nice and of the second Ecumenical Synod at Constantinople, as imperfectly expressing what relates to the Son and Holy Ghost, as if they had been silent respecting the peculiar property of each Person of the Godhead, when it was necessary that all their divine properties should be expressed against the Arians and Macedonians.
v. It reproaches the Fathers of the third, fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh Ecumenical Councils, which had published over the world a divine Creed, perfect and complete, and interdicted under dread anathemas and penalties not removed, all addition, or diminution, or alteration, or variation in the smallest particular of it, by themselves or any whomsoever. Yet was this quickly to be corrected and augmented, and consequently the whole theological doctrine of the Catholic Fathers was to be subjected to change, as if, forsooth, a new property even in regard to the three Persons of the Blessed Trinity had been revealed.
vi. It clandestinely found an entrance at first in the Churches of the West, “a wolf in sheep’s clothing,” that is, under the signification not of procession, according to the Greek meaning in the Gospel and the Creed, but under the signification of mission, as Pope Martin explained it to the Confessor Maximus, and as Anastasius the Librarian explained it to John VIII.
vii. It exhibits incomparable boldness, acting without authority, and forcibly puts a false stamp upon the Creed, which is the common inheritance of Christianity.
continued
Last edited:
A
AlNg
Guest
continued
viii. It has introduced huge disturbances into the peaceful Church of God, and divided the nations.
ix. It was publicly proscribed, at its first promulgation, by two ever-to-be-remembered Popes, Leo III and John VIII, the latter of whom, in his epistle to the blessed Photius, classes with Judas those who first brought the interpolation into the Creed.
x. It has been condemned by many Holy Councils of the four Patriarchs of the East.
xi. It was subjected to anathema, as a novelty and augmentation of the Creed, by the eighth Ecumenical Council, congregated at Constantinople for the pacification of the Eastern and Western Churches.
xii. As soon as it was introduced into the Churches of the West it brought forth disgraceful fruits, bringing with it, little by little, other novelties, for the most part contrary to the express commands of our Savior in the Gospel—commands which till its entrance into the Churches were closely observed. Among these novelties may be numbered sprinkling instead of baptism, denial of the divine Cup to the Laity, elevation of one and the same bread broken, the use of wafers, unleavened instead of real bread, the disuse of the Benediction in the Liturgies, even of the sacred Invocation of the All-holy and Consecrating Spirit, the abandonment of the old Apostolic Mysteries of the Church, such as not anointing baptized infants, or their not receiving the Eucharist, the exclusion of married men from the Priesthood, the infallibility of the Pope and his claim as Vicar of Christ, and the like. Thus it was that the interpolation led to the setting aside of the old Apostolic pattern of well nigh all the Mysteries and all doctrine, a pattern which the ancient, holy, and orthodox Church of Rome kept, when she was the most honored part of the Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.
xiii. It drove the theologians of the West, as its defenders, since they had no ground either in Scripture or the Fathers to countenance heretical teachings, not only into misrepresentations of the Scriptures, such as are seen in none of the Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church, but also into adulterations of the sacred and pure writings of the Fathers alike of the East and West.
xiv. It seemed strange, unheard of, and blasphemous, even to those reputed Christian communions, which, before its origin, had been for other just causes for ages cut off from the Catholic fold.
continued
viii. It has introduced huge disturbances into the peaceful Church of God, and divided the nations.
ix. It was publicly proscribed, at its first promulgation, by two ever-to-be-remembered Popes, Leo III and John VIII, the latter of whom, in his epistle to the blessed Photius, classes with Judas those who first brought the interpolation into the Creed.
x. It has been condemned by many Holy Councils of the four Patriarchs of the East.
xi. It was subjected to anathema, as a novelty and augmentation of the Creed, by the eighth Ecumenical Council, congregated at Constantinople for the pacification of the Eastern and Western Churches.
xii. As soon as it was introduced into the Churches of the West it brought forth disgraceful fruits, bringing with it, little by little, other novelties, for the most part contrary to the express commands of our Savior in the Gospel—commands which till its entrance into the Churches were closely observed. Among these novelties may be numbered sprinkling instead of baptism, denial of the divine Cup to the Laity, elevation of one and the same bread broken, the use of wafers, unleavened instead of real bread, the disuse of the Benediction in the Liturgies, even of the sacred Invocation of the All-holy and Consecrating Spirit, the abandonment of the old Apostolic Mysteries of the Church, such as not anointing baptized infants, or their not receiving the Eucharist, the exclusion of married men from the Priesthood, the infallibility of the Pope and his claim as Vicar of Christ, and the like. Thus it was that the interpolation led to the setting aside of the old Apostolic pattern of well nigh all the Mysteries and all doctrine, a pattern which the ancient, holy, and orthodox Church of Rome kept, when she was the most honored part of the Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.
xiii. It drove the theologians of the West, as its defenders, since they had no ground either in Scripture or the Fathers to countenance heretical teachings, not only into misrepresentations of the Scriptures, such as are seen in none of the Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church, but also into adulterations of the sacred and pure writings of the Fathers alike of the East and West.
xiv. It seemed strange, unheard of, and blasphemous, even to those reputed Christian communions, which, before its origin, had been for other just causes for ages cut off from the Catholic fold.
continued
A
AlNg
Guest
continued
§ 6. This heresy, which has united to itself many innovations, as has been said, appeared about the middle of the seventh century, at first and secretly, and then under various disguises, over the Western Provinces of Europe, until by degrees, creeping along for four or five centuries, it obtained precedence over the ancient orthodoxy of those parts, through the heedlessness of Pastors and the countenance of Princes. Little by little it overspread not only the hitherto orthodox Churches of Spain, but also the German, and French, and Italian Churches, whose orthodoxy at one time was sounded throughout the world, with whom our divine Fathers such as the great Athanasius and heavenly Basil conferred, and whose sympathy and fellowship with us until the seventh Ecumenical Council, preserved unharmed the doctrine of the Catholic and Apostolic Church. But in process of time, by envy of the devil, the novelties respecting the sound and orthodox doctrine of the Holy Ghost, the blasphemy of whom shall not be forgiven unto men either in this world or the next, according to the saying of our Lord (Matt. xii. 32), and others that succeeded respecting the divine Mysteries, particularly that of the world-saving Baptism, and the Holy Communion, and the Priesthood, like prodigious births, overspread even Old Rome; and thus sprung, by assumption of special distinctions in the Church as a badge and title, the Papacy. Some of the Bishops of that City, styled Popes, for example Leo III and John VIII, did indeed, as has been said, denounce the innovation, and published the denunciation to the world, the former by those silver plates, the latter by his letter to the holy Photius …xv. It has not yet been even plausibly defended out of the Scriptures, or with the least reason out of the Fathers, from the accusations brought against it, notwithstanding all the zeal and efforts of its supporters. The doctrine bears all the marks of error arising out of its nature and peculiarities. All erroneous doctrine touching the Catholic truth of the Blessed Trinity, and the origin of the divine Persons, and the subsistence of the Holy Ghost, is and is called heresy, and they who so hold are deemed heretics, according to the sentence of St. Damasus, Pope of Rome, who says: “If any one rightly holds concerning the Father and the Son, yet holds not rightly of the Holy Ghost, he is an heretic” (Cath. Conf. of Faith which Pope Damasus sent to Paulinus, Bishop of Thessalonica). Wherefore the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, following in the steps of the holy Fathers, both Eastern and Western, proclaimed of old to our progenitors and again teaches today synodically, that the said novel doctrine of the Holy Ghost proceeding from the Father and the Son is essentially heresy, and its maintainers, whoever they be, are heretics, according to the sentence of Pope St. Damasus, and that the congregations of such are also heretical, and that all spiritual communion in worship of the orthodox sons of the Catholic Church with such is unlawful. Such is the force of the seventh Canon of the third Ecumenical Council.
N
Neithan
Guest
From CCC 248:Yes and this was emphasized in the Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs 1848 […]
In any case, the Holy Spirit does not proceed from the Father alone.At the outset the Eastern tradition expresses the Father’s character as first origin of the Spirit. By confessing the Spirit as he “who proceeds from the Father”, it affirms that he comes from the Father through the Son. The Western tradition expresses first the consubstantial communion between Father and Son, by saying that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son ( filioque ). It says this, “legitimately and with good reason”, for the eternal order of the divine persons in their consubstantial communion implies that the Father, as “the principle without principle”, is the first origin of the Spirit, but also that as Father of the only Son, he is, with the Son, the single principle from which the Holy Spirit proceeds. This legitimate complementarity, provided it does not become rigid, does not affect the identity of faith in the reality of the same mystery confessed.
Last edited:
K
kapp19
Guest
I think our friend @AINg is Orthodox - or at least sympathetic to their rejection of the filioque.
The basic question is this: what distinguishes the Son from the Holy Spirit? It can only be procession, eh? So, whence comes the Holy Spirit? From the Father? Okay, why is He different from the Son? Because He comes from the Father AND from the Son.
The basic question is this: what distinguishes the Son from the Holy Spirit? It can only be procession, eh? So, whence comes the Holy Spirit? From the Father? Okay, why is He different from the Son? Because He comes from the Father AND from the Son.
A
AlNg
Guest
The Holy Spirit has His ultimate origin (ἐκπόρευται) in the Father alone. It is, however, correct to speak of a τὸ προϊέναι of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son because the Holy Spirit receives the Divine Essence from the Father through the Son but the Son receives the Divine Essence from the Father alone.The basic question is this: what distinguishes the Son from the Holy Spirit?
K
kapp19
Guest
You are quoting this:The Holy Spirit has His ultimate origin (ἐκπόρευται) in the Father alone. It is, however, correct to speak of a τὸ προϊέναι of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son because the Holy Spirit receives the Divine Essence from the Father through the Son but the Son receives the Divine Essence from the Father alone.
I don’t know why you wouldn’t cite your source…?
How about I quote Thomas:
https://www.newadvent.org/summa/1036.htm#article3
A
AlNg
Guest
Does he make a distinction between ἐκπόρευται and τὸ προϊέναι ?How about I quote Thomas:
K
kapp19
Guest
You tell me.
H
Hodos
Guest
John doesn’t say that the Spirit proceeds from the Father alone. John affirms that the Father will send the Holy Spirit in John 14:26, but he will do so in the Son’s name. However, John also affirms that Jesus will send the Holy Spirit from the Father in John 15:26 and 16:7. This is why we can confidently confess the filioque in the Nicene Creed. The Orthodox I think are more upset that the Creed was not amended through an ecumenical counsel than they are about the content of the change.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.