Jesus said that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father. That is what I read in Scripture. Jesus did not say the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and from the Son.
In two separate verses Jesus states that the Holy Spirit proceeds at the behest of the Father and the Son. We showed those verses above. The issue is not the location, the issue is who sent the Holy Spirit.
I don’t see the word proceeding being used in those verses. Sending is not the same word as proceeding.
The word translated as send means to dispatch from the subjective view of departure. In other words, if I am sending you, you are departing from me. This word is also used to mean to send forth to perform a temporary errand. Proceed means to depart from, to go forth from. In one statement he says when the helper comes whom I will send to you from the Father, in the other case the Holy Spirit will not come unless Jesus goes and sends Him. They are not two different concepts. Jesus links the two explicitly in the two verses I provided.
He might be linking things, but in my Bible Jesus does not say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and from the Son. And BTW, AFAIK, the Orthodox Church does not accept your explanation, but uses the Nicene Constantinople creed as it was originally written, without adding the filioque.
I didn’t say they are the same, I said they are not two different concepts and that Jesus explicitly links them. Although, since Jesus had to return to his Father, the point of origin to which you are referring, to send the Holy Spirit, then by logic the Holy Spirit does proceed from the Father and the Son. And yes, this is consistent with what Jesus said.
I didn’t say they did. I said there is nothing heretical about the filioque clause and that I have no issue with confessing it because it is true. As I also said though, I am sympathetic to the argument that the creed should have been revised via ecumenical council.
And yet you confess that the Father and the Son are of the same substance, which wording is found nowhere in scripture, yet completely consistent with the teaching of scripture. The issue is whether this teaching is consistent with scripture, and as demonstrated above, it is.
I don’t see why I should not use the words that Jesus spoke and not add anything to it? If the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and from the Son, why did Jesus say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father?
This, my friend is where the translation issue comes into play.Hodos:
I don’t see the word proceeding being used in those verses. Sending is not the same word as proceeding.
Where does Jesus use the word proceeding and say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and proceeds from the Son?
Sending and proceeding from are not the same. They are two different concepts as explained above.
On the contrary, jesus says that the Holy Spirit proceeds from
The word in Greek has several meanings. In fact I had several to choose from in the accordance and lexicons I checked. This is why I keep telling you that you are ignorant on the linguistic issues.
I think it’s worth consulting a theological dictionary in order to examine the nuances of terminology in Nicene and Patristic usage, especially within an Eastern theological setting. For example in Lampe’s Patristic Greek Lexicon, one can find a plethora of words derived from ἑκπορεύεσθαι including ἐκπορευτής, ἐκπορευτικός, ἐκπορευτικῶς, etc. Very useful is a citation of ἐκπορευτής to Leontius Hierosolymitanus (6th century) and his Contra Nestorianos:
Leontius uses ἐκπορευτής in the sense of ‘one who causes or is the source (ἡ ἀρχή) of ἐκπορεύεσθαι’. Important to note that he does not apply the same term to the Son, but instead uses διαπορθμευτής.
I don’t think so at least according to both the Council of Lyons II and according to Denzinger
John 16:7phil19034:
I don’t think so at least according to both the Council of Lyons II and according to Denzinger
we read that “the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son, not as from two principles but as from one single principle”.
I don’t see where sending is part of the teaching ? It is proceeding eternally, is it not?
Denzinger, Heinrich; Hünermann, Peter; et al., eds. (2012). “Compendium of Creeds, Definitions, and Declarations on Matters of Faith and Morals”.
It says " If…, then I will send Him to you."
The best analogy I’ve heard this explained is like this (from Catholic Answers).phil19034:
It says " If…, then I will send Him to you."
Will send denotes an action which will happen in the future. AFAIK, that is not the Roman Catholic teaching on the filioque. The Roman Catholic teaching AFAIK says that the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son, not that the Son will send the Holy Spirit sometime in the future.
Please read
- the Council of Lyons II and
- Denzinger, Heinrich; Hünermann, Peter; et al., eds. (2012). “Compendium of Creeds, Definitions, and Declarations on Matters of Faith and Morals”.
This is why Orthodox Christians teach that the Holy spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son.
And we agree with this statement.