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?

[EloyCraft]

Here is an image of the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father and Son.

Rev. 22
22 Then the angel showed me the river of the water of life, as clear as crystal, flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb.

 

[AlNg]

You tell me.

It has been explained already as you know.

 

[phil19034]

This is a problem with the TRANSLATION in Greek vs. the TRANSLATION in Latin.

The word “proceeds” means two totally different things in Greek vs Latin.

If a Latin Catholic says the Holy Spirit proceeds from both The Father and The Son in the Greek language, then that is heresy. The Catholic Church recognizes this. You cannot say that in Greek.

But in Latin, the word has a different meaning, and it is correct to say.

This is a very good article regarding this:

https://www.catholicbridge.com/orthodox/catholic-orthodox-filioque-father-son.php

God Bless

 

[phil19034]

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.

Well… the fact is that in the Greek language, you cannot use the filioque. If you attend a Roman Rite Mass in Greek today, we do not use the filioque.

For the past 1000 years, the average Greek speaking Greek could not understand how one statement can be heresy in Greek but not heresy in Latin. But in their defense, most people around the whole world, esp those who do not understand languages, have a hard time understanding this too.

For an example, think of it like this:

• In English, if I say “Don’t touch my eggs,” it has one meaning. We all know what I mean. But if I say that in Spanish, it has multiple meanings - some of which has nothing to do with food.

So there are MANY phrases that can be said in one language that cannot be said in another one.

This is a main ROOT of this issue.

 

[kapp19]

No it has not been explained - what has been done is that you quoted some random website at us after you tried to convince people that the filioque is a made up doctrine that needs to be purged from Christianity by using a rather problematic summary of arguments, which was also quoted from outside. Do you have any thoughts of your own?

 

[Bithynian]

what has been done is that you quoted some random website

In all fairness to @AlNg, the distinction between ἐκπόρευσις ekporeusis and προιέναι proienai is longstanding within Eastern Christianity, and it has been used in inter-Catholic-Orthodox theological discussions (e.g. The Greek and Latin Traditions Regarding the Procession of the Holy Spirit published by the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christianity Unity).

In addition, the Christianity subforum at the stackexchange website is a useful repository of technical and scholarly information. The specific stackexchange thread that was linked was also answered by a Catholic priest.

 

[kapp19]

That’s all fine - but the motive seems clear enough, based on the extended quotation of an anti-Catholic encyclical by Eastern patriarchs.

I’m happy to talk all day about the processions… but let’s just have some honesty about it.

Thomas, by the way, goes through all this stuff and more… in the Question linked to (all the Articles).

 

[Hodos]

Well… the fact is that in the Greek language, you cannot use the filioque.

I know, however, the phrase has always been called the filioque because it originated in the Latin. But if it makes you feel better, I don’t have a problem saying Και του υιου when I confess the creed either. I don’t consider either version of the Nicene Creed to be heretical, both are correct; however, the addition of the filioque provides additional doctrinal clarification that was not present at the time the third paragraph of the Creed was amended at the Council of Constantinople. Again, though, I don’t think there is necessarily an issue with the doctrine being confessed as much as there is an issue with how the change came to be adapted.

 

[Lunam_Meam]

John 15:26 says the Paraclete “proceeds from the Father”, not “the Father alone”. The Paraclete proceeds not only from the Father, but also the Son (see John 14:26/16:7).

To conceive of God comparisons to created beings must not be made. God is not compared to. He is. In being there is everything, but being has no body, and the eternal Being has no body.

Look: God is light. This is the only thing that can represent God without being antithetical to His spiritual Essence. The light exists, and yet it is incorporeal. You see it, but you cannot touch it. It exists.

Their Trinity is light. And unbounded light. The Source of Itself, living by Itself, and acting in Itself. The universe’s greatness does not equal its Infinity. Its essence fills the Heavens, glides over creation, and holds sway over the infernal caverns. It does not penetrate you — that would be the end of Hell — but it overwhelms them with its glowing, which is beatific in Heaven, comforting on Earth, and terrifying in Hell. Everything is threefold in them (the Trinity). Forms, effects, and powers.

God is light. A vast, majestic, and peaceful light is given by the Father. An infinite circle which has embraced all Creation since the moment when “Let there be light” was said until forever and forever for God, who existed and will continue to embrace all that — in the final form, the eternal one, after the Judgement — will remain in Creation. He will embrace those are eternal with Him in Heaven.

Within the eternal circle of the Father there is a second circle, begotten by the Father, working differently, and yet not working in contrary fashion, for the Essence is one. It is the Son. His light, more vibrant, not only gives life to bodies, but gives Life to souls that had lost it by means of His sacrifice. It is a flood of powerful, gentle rays which nourish your humanity, and instruct your mind.

Within the second circle, produced by the two workings of the first circle, there is a third circle with even more vibrant, inflamed light. It is the Holy Spirit. He is the Love produced by the relations of the Father and the Son, the intermediary between the Two, and a consequence of the Two, the wonder of the wonders.

Thought created the Word, and Thought and Word love one another. Love is the Paraclete. He acts upon your spirit, your soul, and your flesh. For He consecrates the whole temple of your person, created by the Father and redeemed by the Son, created in the image and likeness of the Triune God: the soul. The Holy Spirit is the chrism upon the creation of your person, made by the Father; He is grace to benefit from the Sacrifice of the Son; He is Knowledge and Light to understand the Word of God. A more concentrated Light, not because it is limited in comparison to the others, but because it is the spirit of the spirit of God, and because, in its condensation, it is most powerful, as it is most powerful in its effects.

That is why Jesus said, “When the Paraclete comes, He will instruct you” (John 14:26). Not even, Jesus, who is the Father’s Thought that has become the Word, can make you understand what the Holy Spirit can make you understand with a single flash.

 

[phil19034]

phil19034:

Well… the fact is that in the Greek language, you cannot use the filioque.

I know, however, the phrase has always been called the filioque because it originated in the Latin. But if it makes you feel better, I don’t have a problem saying Και του υιου when I confess the creed either. I don’t consider either version of the Nicene Creed to be heretical, both are correct; however, the addition of the filioque provides additional doctrinal clarification that was not present at the time the third paragraph of the Creed was amended at the Council of Constantinople. Again, though, I don’t think there is necessarily an issue with the doctrine being confessed as much as there is an issue with how the change came to be adapted.

OK. However, it didn’t change because of Doctrine. It changed because of translation. In Greek, the translation is perfect and explains what is happening perfectly.

But in Latin, without the Filioque, is seems to imply that The Holy Spirit is from The Father only WITHOUT The Son at all.

Sometimes when we translate one word to a different language we have to add another word(s) in order to maintain the correct meaning or content.

The Creed was written in Greek and is perfect in Greek. But, again, the translation to Latin was imperfect without the Filioque.

NOW: If one wants to argue that perhaps the English translation (or any other language) should be closely re-examined, sure. That’s a better debate. What I mean, is should we always be translating the Creed from the Latin into other languages, or should we always be translating from the Greek (with the Latin in mind)?

That’s a debate I understand. However, the Latin translation has been discussed for centuries & should be put to bed.

 

[Genesis315]

The Council of Florence reasonably settled this as follows:

For when Latins and Greeks came together in this holy synod, they all strove that, among other things, the article about the procession of the holy Spirit should be discussed with the utmost care and assiduous investigation. Texts were produced from divine scriptures and many authorities of eastern and western holy doctors, some saying the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, others saying the procession is from the Father through the Son. All were aiming at the same meaning in different words. The Greeks asserted that when they claim that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, they do not intend to exclude the Son; but because it seemed to them that the Latins assert that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as from two principles and two spirations, they refrained from saying that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. The Latins asserted that they say the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son not with the intention of excluding the Father from being the source and principle of all deity, that is of the Son and of the holy Spirit, nor to imply that the Son does not receive from the Father, because the holy Spirit proceeds from the Son, nor that they posit two principles or two spirations; but they assert that there is only one principle and a single spiration of the holy Spirit, as they have asserted hitherto. Since, then, one and the same meaning resulted from all this, they unanimously agreed and consented to the following holy and God-pleasing union, in the same sense and with one mind.

The problem is, for many EOs, their first dogma has basically become Rome is wrong no matter what. No matter how much we deny double spirations or double principles, it doesn’t change their view of us. Giorgios Scholarios, an EO Patriarch who was more open than most to Western schools of thought at the time, said the following about our explanations:

for as long as they profess the Filioque in the Creed, even though they deny ten thousand times the Dyarchy (alt. trans; the two principles of Godhead) and Sabellian-like teaching, and other such things, or even should they renounce or state their intent of renouncing their teachings at some point, but still retain the Filioque, they still remain what they are.

There’s no reasoning with that kind of prejudice.

 

[John_Martin]

God’s Name is ‘I AM’, Father is ‘I AM’, Son is ‘I AM’, the Spirit is ‘I AM’.
On Earth, the Son was given the human name ‘Jesus’, combining his divine identity with his human vocation, so his name was given, ‘I AM SAVING’ (yeshua, or Jesus in English)

There is one God. When you look at a person, your eyes see only the person you look at; you see no other persons, but the one you see is all there is in your world (unless you are fickle) at that Now of Time.
“If you have seen me, you have seen the Father” - you are looking at one person, the Son, hearing the Son, but you are also seeing the Father, and you are in the presence of the Spirit, whom the Son, Jesus on Earth, can breathe onto you from out of himself, or is it the Father breathing out, whom you are seeing when you are seeing the Son???

You can only deal with one person at a time as a human, unless you are not eye to eye, but observing people in a group from the outside at a distance, but we have been called to be Face to face, personally. You meet Jesus, Face to face, and he leads you to approach the Father directly, Face to face, and the Will of God (the Holy Spirit) which is the Will of the Father and the Will of the Son, fills you with the Supernatural Habits of your own will (the Infused Virtues of Grace) by which light your will now moves you virtuously.

BTW: “para” in Greek literally means “alongside”; an alternate way to read John 15:26 can be: “When the Paraclete comes, whom I, alongside the Father, will send you, the Spirit of Truth, who goes forth alongside the Father, this One will bear witness about me.”

 

[Hodos]

That’s a debate I understand. However, the Latin translation has been discussed for centuries & should be put to bed.

I am not sure you understand the issue surrounding the filioque. The words “and the son” were not in the original version of the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed. They were added in the 6th Century to the Latin version of the Creed. It isn’t an issue of translation at all, but of addition. The Eastern Churches later cried foul because the addition was made without the authority of an ecumenical counsel.

 

[Todd_Easton]

The Catholic Encyclopedia article, “Holy Ghost,” might be helpful as it includes a lengthy section on “Procession of the Holy Ghost” that references the New Testament and the Church Fathers in support the Catholic understanding of the double procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son.

 

[phil19034]

phil19034:

That’s a debate I understand. However, the Latin translation has been discussed for centuries & should be put to bed.

I am not sure you understand the issue surrounding the filioque. The words “and the son” were not in the original version of the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed. They were added in the 6th Century to the Latin version of the Creed. It isn’t an issue of translation at all, but of addition. The Eastern Churches later cried foul because the addition was made without the authority of an ecumenical counsel.

I’m actually 100% aware of this. I know “and the Son” was added.

But this is because of the meaning of the word “proceeds.”

In Greek (not in English), by saying “proceeds from the Father” does NOT mean that that the Holy Spirit proceeds ONLY from the Father. In the Greek, it clearly can mean from the Father and Through the Son.

However, in Latin (again not in English), by saying “proceeds from the Father” EXCLUDES the Son. The word “proceeds” in Latin has a very finite definition & cannot be used to mean the same as it does in Greek.

This is why the words “and the Son” were added. In Greek, the Creed does NOT imply that The Son has nothing to do with the Holy Spirit. However, in Latin, without adding the words “and the Son,” the transition implied that The Son has nothing to do with The Holy Spirit.

So it is a translation issue with the word “proceeds” because “proceeds from the Father” means one thing in Greek and means something else in Latin.

 

[Hodos]

In Greek (not in English), by saying “proceeds from the Father” does NOT mean that that the Holy Spirit proceeds ONLY from the Father. In the Greek, it clearly can mean from the Father and Through the Son.

However, in Latin (again not in English), by saying “proceeds from the Father” EXCLUDES the Son. The word “proceeds” in Latin has a very finite definition & cannot be used to mean the same as it does in Greek.

I don’t think this is true at all. In Greek, the verbal system doesn’t indicate whether the antecedent (the Holy Spirit) proceeds from one source or more than one source. This is indicated by the prepositional phrase from the father. I agree, this doesn’t necessarily preclude the Holy Spirit from proceeding also from the Son, it just doesn’t speak specifically to the Son’s role in sending the Holy Spirit. The same holds true for Latin. Again, this isn’t a translational issue, it is a doctrinal statement wherein additional detail was included in the Latin version because scripture provides that the Holy Spirit is also sent by the Son.

Just not seeing your point because it is factually incorrect concerning the Greek.

 

[shliahgaossimyacob27]

Or the Holy Trinity is not equal to each other?

 

[Hodos]

Or the Holy Trinity is not equal to each other?

When we say that the persons of the Trinity are equal, we mean so on an ontological level. This means that each shares equally in the divinity. In other words, no person of the Trinity is any less “divine” than any other member of the Trinity. They are of the same substance. This is not a comment on how the persons of the Trinity serve to work out their roles within salvation history.

 

[Wesrock]

The persons of the Trinity are equal. Why would proceeding from the Father and the Son make the Holy Spirit less?

 

[Bithynian]

@shliahgaossimyacob27, στο άλλο σας νήμα είπες ότι ζεις στην Ελλάδα. Συνιστώ να διαβάσετε αυτήν τη μελέτη που γράφτηκε από Ορθόδοξους και Καθολικούς θεολόγους στην Αμερική.