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?

  • Thread starter Thread starter shliahgaossimyacob27
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
phil19034 said:
And we agree with this statement.
Click to expand...
But the creed says filioque. If Catholics want reunion with the Orthodox and both agree that through the Son is acceptable, but the Orthodox object to filioque, why not change the filioque in the creed to per filium and everyone would be happy?
 
AlNg said:
40.png
phil19034:
And we agree with this statement.
Click to expand...
But the creed says filioque. If Catholics want reunion with the Orthodox and both agree that through the Son is acceptable, but the Orthodox object to filioque, why not change the filioque in the creed to per filium and everyone would be happy?
Click to expand...
Because that change will not make everyone happy. Most Orthodox scholars know that Filioque is not in error, because the Church taught it plenty before and after the Creed was written. They know it’s an issue with semantics.

The main issue regarding the Filioque is because it is an ancient example of the power of the Pope.

If we changed the Latin (which has been that way for over a 1000 years), the debate still would not go away because the Orthodox would still claim that the Pope didn’t have the power to altar the Latin translation in the first place.

It’s a never ending debate.
 
Last edited:
@shliahgaossimyacob27 this might help answer your question:

“And he showed me a pure river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding from (ἐκπορεύομαι) the throne of God and of the Lamb.” (Revelation 22:1)

This same Greek root word for “proceeding from” (ἐκπορεύομαι) used to describe the “river of living water” proceeding from BOTH God AND “the Lamb” (ie: the Son) is also used in John 15:26 to describe the HOLY SPIRIT “proceeding from” the Father in John 15:26:

“When the Helper comes, whom I will SEND to you from the Father, that is the Spirit of truth who proceeds from (ἐκπορεύομαι)THE FATHER, He will testify about Me.”

One chapter earlier in John’s gospel, Jesus states:

“But the Helper, the HOLY SPIRIT, whom the FATHER will SEND in MY NAME, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you.” (John 14:26)

Despite Jesus not saying the Holy Spirit “proceeds from” the Son also, in both verses, Jesus says the Holy Spirit is “SENT” by BOTH the Father AND the Son, once the Son returns to the Father. So, the Holy Spirit is “proceeded” by BOTH the Father AND the Son, because the Holy Spirit is the “river of the water of life” from Revelation 22:1, which is “preceeded from” (ἐκπορεύομαι) BOTH God AND the Lamb.

We know the Holy Spirit is the “river of life,” because earlier in John 7:38-39, Jesus states:

“He who believes in Me, as the Scripture said, ‘From his innermost being will flow RIVERS OF LIVING WATER.’’ But this He spoke of THE SPIRIT, whom those who believed in Him were to receive; for the Spirit was not yet given, because JESUS WAS NOT YET GLORIFIED.”

This is the same “living water” Jesus told the Samaritan woman about earlier in John 4:10 - the HOLY SPIRIT. As long as the text is exegetically understood that the “river of water of life” in Revelation 22:1 which is "proceeded from" God AND the Lamb (ie: the Son) is the HOLY SPIRIT, Who is the “river of life” in John 7:38-39 & “rivers of living water” in John 4:10, then the HOLY SPIRIT is “proceeded from” BOTH the Father AND the Son, not just the Son only.

Hope this helps. 😀
 
Last edited:
The argument from the Orthodox position about the filioque, typically does not address the political atmosphere from which it becomes a matter of faith.
  1. The Arian heresy which infected and ruled over some of the Eastern Church’s came into power for a time. Until political powers were able to allow the True Orthodox faith to combat the Arian heresy and defeat it.
  2. This same Arian heresy which came from the East vied to infect the Western Church and attacked the Latin translation of the Nicene Creed. The Arians in the West claimed that Jesus cannot be God because the (Latin expression of faith) Nicene Creed does not have the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Son.
  3. Thus the Pope inserted the long out dated filioque. Back in the East when the Church was battling the Arian heresy, the filioque is mentioned but was not contested among the early Church Fathers at the time or the filioque was not a matter of contested faith. Although later the Eastern Patriarch who were vieing for the Political powers from Rome and the Pope accused the Pope of heresy to gain Political support against the Pope of Rome. Needless to say the Eastern Patriarch or the Patriarch of Constantinople has already usurped the powers from the Bishop of Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria etc.
  4. When it comes to changes in the Nicene Creed. The Orthodox have forgotten that the Eastern Councils had made changes to the Nicene Creed after the no change rule was put in place.
  5. When the Pope inserted in the filioque into the Latin faith expression in the Nicene Creed, it did not change the Nicene Creed but enhanced the profession of faith already professed in the Creed that the Son is Consubstantial with the Father. Upon the Pope’s action the Arian heresy which tried to infect the West was defeated.
    Cont;
 
Last edited:
Cont;
Opinion and Challenge; The Orthodox expression of faith always professed that the Father is the Primate or the Source of the Holy Spirit, which the Western Church never swayed from this faith. The Father being the Primate of the Holy Spirit keeps the Orthodox in a box, thus they are “Orthodox”. When the Word of God became flesh, was crucified, died and resurrected, the Word of God now has a body in space and time. Now that God has joined eternity (resurrected Jesus) with space and time (Word of God made flesh), the filioque keeps the Father and Son eternally Consubstantial. When the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the resurrected Son. Just as From the beginning the procession of the Blessed Trinity has never changed. In the creation story recorded in Genesis, the Father who eternally lives and speaks, sends His Word and the Holy Spirit proceeded from the Voice (Father) and the Word (Son) to give life and creation in the wind (Breath of God). Each person (or Presence) is distinct from one another but remain ONE GOD undivided. I ask the Orthodox faithful, What man can separate the Voice the Word and the Breath of God? That life giving Breath from God cannot make us all Children of God, unless the Breath (Holy Spirit) proceeds from the Voice (Father first who speaks) and the Word (Son). Because we are all made in the image of God. Why don’t you try and separate your voice and the word heard from your voice from the breath that proceeds from them both?

Peace be with you
 
Last edited:
I believe St. Hilary (fourth century Father who defended the Trinity) said it best.

"The Advocate will come and the Son will send Him from the Father…He who sends manifests His power in that which He sends…Nor will I now infringe upon anyone’s liberty of thought in this matter, whether they may regard the Paraclete Spirit as coming from the Father or from the Son. The Lord has left nothing uncertain, since He spoke as follows in the same discourse; “Many things yet I have to say to you,’ etc (Jn. 16:12-15)…and I raise the question whether is it the same to receive from the Son as to proceed from the Father? But, if we must hold that there is a difference between receiving from the Son and proceeding from the Father, then, certainly, WE Shall Have To ADMIT that is ONE and the SAME to RECEIVE FROM THE SON as it is to RECEIVE FROM THE FATHER” bk8, Chap 19 on the Trinity all caps mine.
Peace be with you
 
kapp19 said:
Do you have any thoughts of your own?
Click to expand...
I do. The Orthodox use an argument from absence, which is a fallacy since we are told that there is more truth to be revealed after the Holy Spirit comes. Since Jesus said that there was more to come, and since we are told there is other teaching not in the Gospels, absence is not only possible, it is certain. Therefore an argument from absence is a fallacy.

Or, if you have to add a word to Jesus (or Paul, in the case of Martin Luther) to tweak the Bible to fit your theology, it is your theology that needs tweaking.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top