Orthodox views on the Holy Spirit

[Darryl_B]

I have recently been on another post where an orthodox catechumen (not an orthodox yet) stated point by point exactly what the Catholic Church had to do in order to be acceptable to the orthodox church. I found this rather surprising because it is not teaching affirmatively, it is teaching negatively. What I found most interesting is that he was a catechumen, being taught the orthodox basics, who then reiterates those basics boldly against the Catholic Church. Obviously this disagreement is taught at the very basic level. It is almost like one of the first things you are taught, and in order to become orthodox you have to be able to reject Catholic teaching (right now give it a go).

Have I got this right my orthodox friends.

 

[Cavaradossi]

I have recently been on another post where an orthodox catechumen (not an orthodox yet) stated point by point exactly what the Catholic Church had to do in order to be acceptable to the orthodox church. I found this rather surprising because it is not teaching affirmatively, it is teaching negatively. What I found most interesting is that he was a catechumen, being taught the orthodox basics, who then reiterates those basics boldly against the Catholic Church. Obviously this disagreement is taught at the very basic level. It is almost like one of the first things you are taught, and in order to become orthodox you have to be able to reject Catholic teaching (right now give it a go).

Have I got this right my orthodox friends.

It is no more teaching negatively than teaching that we must reject monophysitism, Nestorianism, Eutychianism, Iconoclasm, Arianism, Sabellianism, etc. In fact, catechumens who are coming from another Christian tradition are supposed to renounce the heresies associated with their former confessions before joining the Orthodox Church (this being ordained by the canons of the ecumenical councils). Furthermore, it is not just Roman Catholics who profess the filioque. Protestants too profess the filioque, and they too should renounce this before joining the Orthodox Church.

 

[Darryl_B]

It is no more teaching negatively than teaching that we must reject monophysitism, Nestorianism, Eutychianism, Iconoclasm, Arianism, Sabellianism, etc. In fact, catechumens who are coming from another Christian tradition are supposed to renounce the heresies associated with their former confessions before joining the Orthodox Church (this being ordained by the canons of the ecumenical councils). Furthermore, it is not just Roman Catholics who profess the filioque. Protestants too profess the filioque, and they too should renounce this before joining the Orthodox Church.

Thanks Cavaradossi. So the orthodox position is that the Catholic Church is a heresy?

I haven’t yet heard the orthodox argument. I asked for it some posts back but noone was forthcoming. I guess it is easier to be against something than for something? It is easier to exist with an enemy than to exist with a friend.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Thanks Cavaradossi. So the orthodox position is that the Catholic Church is a heresy?

I haven’t yet heard the orthodox argument. I asked for it some posts back but noone was forthcoming. I guess it is easier to be against something than for something? It is easier to exist with an enemy than to exist with a friend.

Argument against what? The filioque?

The argument is that the Father and the Son cannot both be different causes and principles of the Holy Spirit because this would violate the monarchy of the Father. On this the schoolmen (scholastics) were in agreement, which is why they always asserted that the procession of the Holy Spirit is from both the Father and the Son as one principle.

This answer, however (of procession from one principle) is unsatisfactory from the Eastern perspective, because to argue that the Father and the Son act as one principle of the Holy Spirit creates a problem. Either causality is a property of the divine nature, or it is a property of the Father. If it is a property of the divine nature, then the Spirit is subordinated into a creature for not possessing causality. If it is a property of the Father, then asserting that the Son shares in this property would be an improper confusing of the two hypostases of the Father and of the Son.

 

[Darryl_B]

Argument against what? The filioque?

The argument is that the Father and the Son cannot both be different causes and principles of the Holy Spirit because this would violate the monarchy of the Father. On this the schoolmen (scholastics) were in agreement, which is why they always asserted that the procession of the Holy Spirit is from both the Father and the Son as one principle.

This answer, however (of procession from one principle) is unsatisfactory from the Eastern perspective, because to argue that the Father and the Son act as one principle of the Holy Spirit creates a problem. Either causality is a property of the divine nature, or it is a property of the Father. If it is a property of the divine nature, then the Spirit is subordinated into a creature for not possessing causality. If it is a property of the Father, then asserting that the Son shares in this property would be an improper confusing of the two hypostases of the Father and of the Son.

Cavaradossi, I ask for something exact.

I do not ask for your argument against any other, I ask for your argument for and from your own position. Do not argue against the Catholic Church position. Pretend that position does not exist for a moment and prove instead your argument, and please include Scripture. Give your position independent of an “enemy”. Let your argument stand on its own.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Cavaradossi, I ask for something exact.

I do not ask for your argument against any other, I ask for your argument for and from your own position. Do not argue against the Catholic Church position. Pretend that position does not exist for a moment and prove instead your argument, and please include Scripture. Give your position independent of an “enemy”. Let your argument stand on its own.

Might as well throw out the Nicene Creed, and the Ecumenical Councils if you are interested in seeing positions which are not taken against an opposing view.

The Spirit receives hypostatic existence from the Father alone (as is evidenced by the dispute between Ss. Theodoret and Cyril, and in accord with John 15:26), is sent by the Son (same verse), and receives from the Son (John 16:26), and is the Spirit of the Son (Galatians 4:6), but is not the Spirit from the Son (St. John of Damascus, Orthodox Faith 1.8.), and is thereby said to proceed (ἐκπορεύεται) from the Father and through the Son, but not from the Son.

 

[Darryl_B]

Might as well throw out the Nicene Creed, and the Ecumenical Councils if you are interested in seeing positions which are not taken against an opposing view.

The Spirit receives hypostatic existence from the Father alone (as is evidenced by the dispute between Ss. Theodoret and Cyril, and in accord with John 15:26), is sent by the Son (same verse), and receives from the Son (John 16:26), and is the Spirit of the Son (Galatians 4:6), but is not the Spirit from the Son (St. John of Damascus, Orthodox Faith 1.8.), and is thereby said to proceed (ἐκπορεύεται) through the Son, but not from the Son.

Thanks Cavaradossi. I will ignore your initial remark and consider the argument you present.

 

[Cavaradossi]

I will ignore your initial remark

It was not intended as a slight or anything. I just do not see how it is sound to throw out arguments against other positions, because those arguments are precisely what give a position its definition in an apophatic manner. It is much easier and much more accurate to say that we understand Father, Son, and Holy Spirit to be identical ontologically, contrary to the teachings of the Arians, and ontologically distinct contrary to the teachings of the Sabellians, rather than going into the history of the meanings of ousia and hypostasis, and then giving the very misleading (but common) analogy that we understand God to be three persons in one Godhead (which ignores the fact that our understanding of both concepts differs from how they were understood in the patristic era).

Similarly, it is much more accurate to say that we do not believe that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son either as one or as two principles in conjunction with the affirmation that we believe the Spirit to proceed from the Father alone, and to proceed from the Father through the Son, because if anything, this clears up some confusion as to whether we believe ‘procession through’ to be identical with ‘procession from’ (which we do not).

 

[dvdjs]

It’s generally considered poor form in polite conversation to respond to a question by asking a question (except asking for a clarification of the original question). I would still like an answer to my question.

The question was meant to be illuminate the false assumption embedded in your question.

I will go ahead and say this: if you’re trying to draw a comparison between Christ not stating explicitly in scripture that he was consubstantial with the Father and the Spirit and the statement we were discussing, I think the comparison is not remotely an apt one. Christ never explicitily said he was consubstantial with either the Father or the Son. In the statement we were discussing, he states that the Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father, and left off the Son. Therefore the two cases are not comparable.

Argument from silence is not compelling, particularly in light of so much other silence.
But that is only a didactic point. The reality is that in terms of the origination/source there is no disagreement between the CC and EO churches.

 

[dvdjs]

You may be bound to accept whatever intepretations the CCC places on a dogmatic statement by the Fourth Lateran Council, but an Orthodox Christian such as myself is not.

You may attach your own interpretation, t may be totally foreign to the CC, you may then turn around and claim that your interpretation is the Catholicf teaching, then criticize the CC for that teaching. Sounds like fun.

If you are going to have a frutiful discussion with a non-Roman Catholic, you cannot start out with the premise that any current RC statements as to what a past council or pope meant have to be taken as authoritative.

First, I have no expectation of fruitful discussion, particularly when the discussion is straw man arguments that are not Catholic teaching, Second, I produced recent statements as a point of departure; it was not intended, pretty obviously I think, as exhaustive documentation. But they reflect a continuous teaching going back to Aquinas and his antecedents. Please don’t project your pseudomorphosis onto the CC.

I have a pretty clear idea what the Lateran IV was saying.

Actually you don’t. Search for filioque and the username Ghosty, where the authentic Cathoic teaching is very nicely explained.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Cavaradossi;10990368

The Spirit receives hypostatic existence from the Father alone

Can’t be, if the Spirit is recieving then the Spirit is not God. God is eternal, God is, God does not recieve of himself. God proceeds in Love.

Cavaradossi; The argument is that the Father and the Son cannot both be different causes and principles of the Holy Spirit because this would violate the monarchy of the Father.

The Catholic filioque is not addressing two different causes and two different principles of the Holy Spirit. That is your mistake. The Creed is speaking of what is eternal existing, from which the Holy Spirit proceeds from God =consubstantial. The Creed clearly professes that the Father and the Son are consubstantial. Pulling this out of the whole context of the professed Creed is your downfall and mistake, because the Creed professess that the Holy Spirit is the Lord the giver of Life who has spoken through the prophets.

If your going to argue the filioque argue from which it is professed.

If you pulled any single professed statement from the Creed to stand alone, one can easily make the argument to prove three different God’s instead of One God. Something to consider in your exchange.

I have only spoken up in defense of your mistinterpreted view and argument of the Catholic (eternal) filioque not of time. When we relate the procession of the HolySpirit proceeding from the Father through the Son, I relate this to the incarnation in time. For we cannot recieve the Spirit of God without the incarnation. The filioque never violates this procession.

Peace be with you

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

The exact opposite is true. The Arians in general were working with a scheme borrowed from Neo-Platonism, whereby the Logos becomes analogous to the Platonic Nous (and the Holy Spirit analogous to the World-Soul), such that the Son is emanated from the Father by the energy of the Father …just as the energy of the One, in Plotinus’ cosmology, was to emanate the Nous, and the Nous therefore was alienated from the innermost being (essence), of the One.

The filioque in fact does not refute Arianism, but rather it fits right into Arian and Neo-Platonic cosmology, for the Holy Spirit to the Arians was a creature, made by the Son and from the Father in a causal sense, and could therefore be said to be from both, just as the World-Soul in Neo-Platonism is emanated by the Nous, and ultimately caused by the One. Far more foreign to the Arians would be the claim that the Spirit proceeds and receives existence from the Father alone than the filioque.

Great Cavaradossi; now you argue that the Catholic faith from filioque at first is opposite to the Arians, then you have the Catholic faith agreeing with the Arians, believing in a Platonic, Neo-Platonism, Platonic cosmology Frankenstein creature of a Holy Spirit?

Then you falsely have the Spirit proceeding and recieving His existence from the Father alone? Since when did the Father create the Spirit when the Spirit recieved from the Father?

Further more since when does the filioque ever ever speak of the HolySpirit recieving His existence and from the Son? Never. Again the filioque speaks of the Holy Spirit eternal proceeding. God has never recieved His existence, God is God. Now God the Father begets the Son, and the Son is begotten of the Father, and God the Father is always working as Jesus stated from His procession in Love.

I have a big problem with your analogy here. But I will follow and learn more here.

 

[eddie_too]

what does the orthodox churchs (if they all agree) teach concerning the consubstantial relationship between the Son and the Holy Spirit?

this whole debate between the latins and the orthodox is the best evidence for believing that Jesus wanted His body of believers to have someone with a final say over what He taught. otherwise, His children would be forced to choose sidings between differing teachings. this is clear based solely on this thread. union without a means of making a final determination as to what unites people cannot exist.

 

[jimmy]

what does the orthodox churchs (if they all agree) teach concerning the consubstantial relationship between the Son and the Holy Spirit?

this whole debate between the latins and the orthodox is the best evidence for believing that Jesus wanted His body of believers to have someone with a final say over what He taught. otherwise, His children would be forced to choose sidings between differing teachings. this is clear based solely on this thread. union without a means of making a final determination as to what unites people cannot exist.

You still have to choose. You can’t abrogate your responsibility to choose, and let someone else choose for you, even if he claims infallibility.

The consubstantiality of the Son and the Spirit has nothing to do with a relationship between them, other than that the Father is the source of both. All men and women are consubstial with each other because we are all have a common ancestor and are of the same species.

 

[neokarny]

what does the orthodox churchs (if they all agree) teach concerning the consubstantial relationship between the Son and the Holy Spirit?

I think Cavaradossi touched on it in his recent post:

is sent by the Son (same verse), and receives from the Son (John 16:26), and is the Spirit of the Son (Galatians 4:6), but is not the Spirit from the Son (St. John of Damascus, Orthodox Faith 1.8.), and is thereby said to proceed (ἐκπορεύεται) from the Father and through the Son, but not from the Son.

Is this what you meant by their “consubstantial relationship?” Of course they are consubstantial in their Divinity.

this whole debate between the latins and the orthodox is the best evidence for believing that Jesus wanted His body of believers to have someone with a final say over what He taught. otherwise, His children would be forced to choose sidings between differing teachings. this is clear based solely on this thread. union without a means of making a final determination as to what unites people cannot exist.

No offense, but I think you’re just reading your own beliefs into it and thus affirming them. I.e., begging the question.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Anyway my question is what is the difference between the Orthodox and Catholic views on the Holy Spirit… I was reading on another thread that that’s one of our theological difference’s between us.

Thanks and may God bless you!

At the present it is only a theological difference;

I believe John 1:1 dispells and clarifies the differences without hindering either one. Grant it that the Catholic position has never left the position of the Orthodox as the HolySpirit origin of procession begins from the Father which is the name of the fist person of the Trinity.

The following is an example from scripture which holds the Orthodox position that proves the HolySpirit proceeding from the Father through the Son to be true and the filioque profession of the HolySpirit proceeding from the Father and the Son to be true. The first position belongs to both Orthodox and Catholics. The latter belongs to the Catholic profession of faith. Each line quote speaks distinctly of each person in the Trinity. If we profess the HolySpirit proceeds from God and if God the Father and God the Son and God the HolySpirit is one God. John does not distinctly point out the invisible HolySpirit, but only the result of the procession to what has taken place “Life”.

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word (eternally proceeding),

AND the Word was WITH God (eternally proceeding from And the Word who was With God)),

and the Word was God (eternal proceeding consubstantially).

He was in the begining with God (HolySpirit proceeds from “He” who "was in the beginning with God and the Spirit proceeds from God = Consubstantial)

All things came to be through Him (Which is the Orthodox’s only position of the procession of the HolySpirit proceeding from the Father through the Son, which the Catholic Church also holds, and how creation came to be and exists)

And without Him nothing came to be (nothing can exist without the procession of the HolySpirit proceeding from Him = And the Word was With God, and the Word was God)

What came to be through Him was life ( Orthodox only and Catholic position of the HolySpirit proceeding through Him was life (time).

and this life was the light of the human race (Life can only exist and sustain life when the HolySpirit is eternally proceeding from the Father and the Son, the human race has the light in time when the Holy Spirit is proceeding through the Son incarnate)

And the Word became flesh (Orthodox only and Catholic position of the HolySpirit proceeding from the Father through the Incarnate Son)

This was spoken by John in the fullness of time;

John writes what God revealed to him from eternity, how the HolySpirit is proceeding eternally after the Resurrection of the Incarnate Son, Jesus Christ who sits at the right hand of God;

Revelations 22:1 And he shewed me a pure river of **water of life, **clear as crystal, **proceeding out of the throne of God and of the Lamb ** (HolySpirit proceeding from God and the eternal Word of God who is the lamb of God who takes away the sin of the World.

Scripture can never be put aside and scripture reveals both Orthodox and Catholic positions of the procession of the HolySpirit either eternally from the Father and the Son or in time from the Father through the Son.

**When ever the Holy Spirit proceeds through the Son time and creation appear. But it is from the eternal procession of God the Father and God the Son that God the Holy Spirit is the giver of life. From this eternal procession life is sustained (eternally) from grace to grace.
**

Although the above is not taken from any Catholic official source of teaching,

I hoped this example or exercise can help trigger mystically our faith and reveal the two views which do not contradict but compliment each other throughout the whole of scripture, especially when dealing from eternity consubstantial and from time through the Incarnation.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Can’t be, if the Spirit is recieving then the Spirit is not God. God is eternal, God is, God does not recieve of himself. God proceeds in Love.

That language, just like the words begetting and proceeding is used without any temporal implication, but only logically. Furthermore, it is patristic, having been used by Theodoret in his dispute with St. Cyril.

The Catholic filioque is not addressing two different causes and two different principles of the Holy Spirit. That is your mistake.

It seems that you either did not read or understand my post. I ruled that out as a possibility precisely because the both the East and the schoolmen rejected the possibility of procession from two principles. That is why I wrote:

On this the schoolmen (scholastics) were in agreement, which is why they always asserted that the procession of the Holy Spirit is from both the Father and the Son as one principle.

We disagree with the schoolmen, however, over the idea of the Father and the Son being together one principle of the Holy Spirit.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Great Cavaradossi; now you argue that the Catholic faith from filioque at first is opposite to the Arians, then you have the Catholic faith agreeing with the Arians, believing in a Platonic, Neo-Platonism, Platonic cosmology Frankenstein creature of a Holy Spirit?

Then you falsely have the Spirit proceeding and recieving His existence from the Father alone? Since when did the Father create the Spirit when the Spirit recieved from the Father?

Dealing with your polemical strawmen is getting tiring. I was arguing against the proposition that the filioque necessarily refutes Arianism. It does not, because the filioque could just as easily fit into Arian cosmology (where the Spirit is a creature) as it does into your own theology. There is no logical implication that if the Spirit comes from the Son, the Son must therefore be consubstantial with the Father, especially since the Arians believed falsely that the Holy Spirit was a creature.

Furthermore, I never argued that the Holy Spirit is a creature, only that this was a presupposition of the Arians. My use of the patristic gloss ‘receive existence’ is atemporal in its implication, just like the terms begetting and proceeding, or also like the Latin affirmation that the Son and the Father are one principle of the Holy Spirit. All of the above could be understood temporally (which would be incorrect) or atemporally.

 

[jimmy]

Dealing with your polemical strawmen is getting tiring. I was arguing against the proposition that the filioque necessarily refutes Arianism. It does not, because the filioque could just as easily fit into Arian cosmology (where the Spirit is a creature) as it does into your own theology. There is no logical implication that if the Spirit comes from the Son, the Son must therefore be consubstantial with the Father, especially since the Arians believed falsely that the Holy Spirit was a creature.

Furthermore, I never argued that the Holy Spirit is a creature, only that this was a presupposition of the Arians. My use of the patristic gloss ‘receive existence’ is atemporal in its implication, just like the terms begetting and proceeding, or also like the Latin affirmation that the Son and the Father are one principle of the Holy Spirit. All of the above could be understood temporally (which would be incorrect) or atemporally.

Everyone of his posts is like that.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Cavaradossi;10992095]Dealing with your polemical strawmen is getting tiring. I was arguing against the proposition that the filioque necessarily refutes Arianism. It does not, because the filioque could just as easily fit into Arian cosmology (where the Spirit is a creature) as it does into your own theology. There is no logical implication that if the Spirit comes from the Son, the Son must therefore be consubstantial with the Father, especially since the Arians believed falsely that the Holy Spirit was a creature.

From your understanding here and by your clarification, I cannot find any retraction from my post which still stands. Especially now that you imply from your “no logical implication that if the Spirit comes from the Son”. No one said the Spirit comes from the Son, that is your non implication implying the filioque implies the Spirit comes from the Son, again the filioque professed from the Creed points to the eternal procession from the Father and the Son.

Why do imply the Spirit comes from the Son, as if the Son created the Spirit? that is not the Church’s language.

Furthermore, I never argued that the Holy Spirit is a creature,

No, but you imply filioque makes the Spirit a creature agreeing with your Arians pre-supposition.

My use of the patristic gloss ‘receive existence’ is atemporal in its implication, just like the terms begetting and proceeding, or also** like the Latin affirmation that the Son and the Father are one principle of the Holy Spirit.** All of the above could be understood temporally (which would be incorrect) or atemporally.

If your Latin affirmation is referencing the filioque, The Latin filioque only deals with the procession of the HolySpirit from the Father and the Son. You now confuse consubstantial of the Father and the Son with the principle without principle. Which is were you head down the wrong road of understanding the filioque professed from the Creed.