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?

[Vico]

Or the Holy Trinity is not equal to each other?

Catechism of the Catholic Church

246 The Latin tradition of the Creed confesses that the Spirit "proceeds from the Father and the Son (filioque) ". The Council of Florence in 1438 explains: "The Holy Spirit is eternally from Father and Son; He has his nature and subsistence at once ( simul ) from the Father and the Son. He proceeds eternally from both as from one principle and through one spiration. . . . And, since the Father has through generation given to the only-begotten Son everything that belongs to the Father, except being Father, the Son has also eternally from the Father, from whom he is eternally born, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son."75

75 Council of Florence (1439): DS 1300-1301.

 

[shliahgaossimyacob27]

Is this written to prove the filioque or to reject?

 

[Bithynian]

Is this written to prove the filioque or to reject?

To demonstrate that it is consistent with Orthodox theology. If you’re attempting to discuss the Filioque with Orthodox Christians in a historically Orthodox language (like Greek or Russian), then half the problem is attempting to re-articulate Western theological terminology and concepts into their own languages in a way that’s intelligible. The aforementioned study is very useful in bridging that language gap.

 

[phil19034]

Sorry, I got it backwards

The Greek word is actually the one that is very ridged, which is why you cannot use the “and the Son” because the word “proceeds” in Greek only means origin.

But in Latin, the word proceeds is more fluid and can mean “proceeds from the Father and through the Son”

Point is: the filioque is heresy in Greek, but due to the different meaning of word used for “proceeds” in Latin, it’s not an issue.

Think of it like this:

The Creed was written in Greek. The Latin translation is a kind of a Dynamic-Equivalent Translation of the Creed, and not a word for word translation.

This is no different than prayer translated from Latin into other languages, where additional words need to be added in order for the prayer to continue to convey the same meaning.

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

 

[jochoa]

Or the Holy Trinity is not equal to each other?

God is the Creator of everything.

The Creator of everything exists as three distinct persons.

1. The Father is the Creator of everything.
2. The Son is the Creator of everything by means of eternal generation.
3. The Holy Spirit is the Creator of everything by means of eternal spiration.

Therefore, even though there is procession, each person is still fully the Creator of everything.

 

[Vico]

Is this written to prove the filioque or to reject?

English version for those not reading Greek:
http://www.usccb.org/beliefs-and-te...ox/filioque-church-dividing-issue-english.cfm

It contains a recommendation:

that Orthodox and Catholic theologians distinguish more clearly between the divinity and hypostatic identity of the Holy Spirit, which is a received dogma of our Churches, and the manner of the Spirit’s origin, which still awaits full and final ecumenical resolution;

 

[shliahgaossimyacob27]

Say that they are 3 brothers. These three brothers got anything for their life: the one got a house, the other one a villa, and the other one got nothing from their parents.

Oh I can’t anymore with these orthodoxes…

 

[Hodos]

Point is: the filioque is heresy in Greek, but due to the different meaning of word used for “proceeds” in Latin, it’s not an issue.

No it isn’t. I am not sure where you are getting your linguistic information from, but it isn’t true. The verbal participle translated as “who proceeds from” literally means just that, the one proceeding or going forth or departing from. A participle refers to the object it is representing, meaning the Holy Spirit. It gives no reference whatsoever to the Father or the Son, which is why you have the prepositional phrase that follows, “from the Father”, to which was later added “and the Son.” It is not a heretical statement any way you slice it because scripture teaches that the Holy Spirit did in fact go forth at the behest of the Father and the Son.

 

[phil19034]

phil19034:

Point is: the filioque is heresy in Greek, but due to the different meaning of word used for “proceeds” in Latin, it’s not an issue.

No it isn’t. I am not sure where you are getting your linguistic information from, but it isn’t true. The verbal participle translated as “who proceeds from” literally means just that, the one proceeding or going forth or departing from. A participle refers to the object it is representing, meaning the Holy Spirit. It gives no reference whatsoever to the Father or the Son, which is why you have the prepositional phrase that follows, “from the Father”, to which was later added “and the Son.” It is not a heretical statement any way you slice it because scripture teaches that the Holy Spirit did in fact go forth at the behest of the Father and the Son.

Did you read the article I posted? In the Greek language, the Filioque is heresy.

 

[Bithynian]

linguistic information from

@phil19034 is articulating longstanding Eastern Christian (Eastern Orthodox, Eastern Catholic, etc.) understandings of ἐκπορεύεσθαι. In the East, the theological conceptualisation of ἐκπορεύεσθαι has historically been distinguished from προιέναι: the former has a semantic emphasis on the point of origination (ἡ ἀρχή) of a passive movement, whilst the latter focusses on the moving thing itself. Compare this with προβάλλειν which emphasises the active mover (sometimes the movement itself).

It is possible and orthodox to say, in Greek, that τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦμα ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ διὰ τοῦ υἱοῦ πρόεισιν. This is generally the sense with which the Catholic Church interprets filioque procedere in the Latin translation of the Nicaeno-Constantinopolitan Creed.

Conversely, to say that τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦμα ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ ἐκ τοῦ υἱοῦ ἐκπορεύεται is understood as heretical.

You also have about fifty billion (a slight exaggeration!) other Eastern pneumatological terms like προέρχεσθαι, ἔκχειν, προβάλλειν, προβολή, ἀναβλύζειν, χορηγεῖσθαι, ἐκλάμπειν, πνεῦσις, each with their own particular theological nuance and emphasis (sometimes the exposition of these terms varies between theologians). Western Christianity, to a large extent, rarely differentiates between these semantic variances and simply uses processio or procedere to capture all valencies.

 

[AlNg]

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.

Is it true that it was forbidden to add anything to the creed?

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

Many Church Fathers (also recognized by Orthodoxy) that Spirit also comes through the Son:

What the Early Church Believed: Filioque | Catholic Answers Tract

Biblical basis:
Galatians 4:6 - Because you are his sons, God sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, the Spirit who calls out, “Abba, Father.”
Romans 8:9- But you are not in the flesh; you are in the Spirit, since the Spirit of God dwells in you. Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him.
Philippians 1:19 - for I know that through your prayers and the help of the Spirit of Jesus Christ this will turn out for my deliverance.
Titus 3:5-7 - he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit, whom he poured out on us generously through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that, having been justified by his grace, we might become heirs having the hope of eternal life.

Because Bible calls Holy Spirit also “Spirit of the Son”, “Spirit of Jesus Christ” and “Spirit of Christ”, case is pretty clear. Holy Spirit is also Spirit of the Son.

 

[JanR]

The Holy Spirit has been described as the Love between the Father and the Son. I would say that is important and certainly NOT decreasing.

 

[FrostArcana]

The only thing to distinguish the persons is their relationships (generation, spiration and procession) so yes they are unequal in this. That’s the point.

 

[Bithynian]

@shliahgaossimyacob27, you have two other recent and currently open threads on the topic of the Holy Spirit and the Flilioque (here and here). Many other users have posted useful responses to your questions in those threads. It’s helpful if you post your questions in one thread to avoid unnecessary reduplication.

 

[Maximian]

From the Preface for Trinity Sunday:

“For that which we believe from Thy revelation concerning Thy glory, that same we believe also of Thy Son, and of the Holy Ghost, without difference or separation. So that in confessing the true and everlasting Godhead, we shall adore distinction in persons, oneness in being, and equality in majesty.”

It sounds even better in Latin:

“Quod enim de tua gloria, revelante te, credimus, hoc de Filio tuo, hoc de Spiritu Sancto sine differentia discretionis sentimus…”

 

[FrostArcana]

Yeah I was thinking of something like this. Glory is equal, so are nature (being) and majesty, but distinction in persons is by default a sort of inequality. 1 isn’t the same as 2, and neither are the same as 3, etc, it is distinct. The Father is the “source” of being for the others, and is utterly self-sufficient. The Son receives from the Father, so is unequal in that. The Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son, reliant on them both, so is unequal. The Son does not proceed, and neither do the Father. The Son didn’t grasp equality but humbled Himself, so there is inequality there.

who, existing in the form of God,
did not consider being equal with God something to be grasped,

so from eternity in the Trinity there is a form of inequality, based entirely on distinctions and sufficiency.

 

[Maximian]

The fact that they are different doesn’t mean they are not equal. A general is equal to an admiral.

 

[Hodos]

Did you read the article I posted? In the Greek language, the Filioque is heresy.

I did read the article, and if you read it, it is not making the argument from a linguistic point. The Greek grammar and vocabulary has nothing to do with the author’s point. He is making the case that for some reason, saying that the Holy Spirit is sent by the Father and the Son makes the Holy Spirit as somehow lesser in the Trinity. This is a misunderstanding of the doctrine of the Trinity itself, which is why his argument is flawed. When we say the persons of the Trinity are co-equal, this is making an ontological statement that all three members of the Trinity and equally divine. We don’t believe in henotheism where there are lesser gods. This does not mean however, that all three members of the Trinity act in the same way in the oikonomia or economy of salvation. As we see in scripture, the Son submits to the Father’s will, and the Holy Spirit is sent by the Father and the Son. Each person of the Trinity fulfills a specific role in the working out of the salvation of mankind, maintaining the unity of the Godhead in their role. If you have this understanding of the Trinity, which Novatian and Hippolytus, Basil and Gregory of Nyssa and Gregory of Nazianzus held, then the addition of the Filioque is not heretical in any way, shape, or form.

 

[Hodos]

Is it true that it was forbidden to add anything to the creed?

I don’t see any reason to think this. The Nicene Creed itself was formulated from an earlier creed proposed by Eusebius of Caesarea (which actually bore a resemblance to the Apostle’s Creed). This pre-existing creed was modified to clarify the relation between the Father and the Son to refute the Arian heresy. It was again modified during the Council of Constantinople to include more detail to refute those who rejected the Holy Spirit as a person of the Trinity. So from that standpoint, there is no evidence that would indicate that a creed cannot be modified to address heresies that spring up. It goes back to how the creed was modified. And the main complaint historically given by the Eastern Church is that it was not done so via ecumenical counsel. I am not unsympathetic to this argument by the way, I just reject the idea floated by another on this thread that the addition of the filioque clause is heretical, when clearly it is substantiated by scripture.