Orthodox views on the Holy Spirit

[Gabriel_of_12]

Cavaradossi;10992045]
We disagree with the schoolmen, however, over the idea of the Father and the Son being together one principle of the Holy Spirit.

What idea? of the Father and the Son being together one principle of the Holy Spirit? Who talks like that? I don’t know of any Church Father let alone schoolmen who ever they are? that uses such language to describe the filioque professed from the Creed.

Your Father and the Son being together implies time, never points to the eternal existence of God. The being together one principle of the Holy Spirit is your own invention it is never the CCC, nor the Creed, nor the filioque.

You are introducing your own interpretation and using the Church Father’s language to misinterpret the filioque, which the filioque does not address from the professed Creed. Because the Creed already expresses it. Why do you want the Creed to repeat from the filioque which the Creed already professes?

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Everyone of his posts is like that.

And yet I have never met an Orthodox on these forums, who can accurately define the Filioque from the Creed as professed from the Creed or as taught by the CCC which supports every council in regards to the procession of the Holy Spirit.

I pray you Orthodox do not teach your catechumens such faleshoods about the filioque. If your going to inform your catechumens about the filioque inform them of what the CCC teaches on the filioque.

 

[marlo]

Very False, the Filioque is not about the Holy Sprit, its about Christ being God

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 rather than being begotten of the essence 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.

 

[marlo]

You are really confused, Arianism is the denial of the Deity of Christ, Pneumatomachi denies the deity of the Holy Spirit.

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 rather than being begotten of the essence 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.

 

[1Tim215Mommy]

Everyone of his posts is like that.

The Ignore List is a Beautiful Thing

 

[Cavaradossi]

You are really confused, Arianism is the denial of the Deity of Christ, Pneumatomachi denies the deity of the Holy Spirit.

It is you who are confused. The Arians denied both the divinity of the Son and the Holy Spirit, as their monistic conception of God could not allow for them to affirm the divinity of either. But don’t take my word for it, St. John of Damascus should be a good enough authority to show that the Arians taught that the Holy Spirit was a creature, made by the Son. He writes in chapter 69 of his On Heresies:

The Arians, who are also called Ariomanites and Diatomites, are they who say that the Son of God is a creature and that the Holy Ghost is the creature of a creature.

Was St. John of Damascus very confused too? If so, then I am gladly in the company of this great saint.

Anyway, as I was saying, insistence upon the filioque does not guard against or refute Arianism at all, because according to the cosmology common to most Arians it is only common sense that the Holy Spirit, which they believed to be a creature, would be both subordinated to the Son and made by him, such that an Arian could comfortably admit that the Spirit is from both the Son and the Father, albeit as two different principles. There is nothing in adding the filioque to the creed which logically implies the divinity of the Son.

 

[Cavaradossi]

And yet I have never met an Orthodox on these forums, who can accurately define the Filioque from the Creed as professed from the Creed or as taught by the CCC which supports every council in regards to the procession of the Holy Spirit.

I pray you Orthodox do not teach your catechumens such faleshoods about the filioque. If your going to inform your catechumens about the filioque inform them of what the CCC teaches on the filioque.

It is you who does not understand what the CCC teaches about the filioque. The CCC, following Florence teaches that the Filioque means that the Holy Spirit has “nature and subsistence at once (simul) from the Father and the Son” (CCC 246). This is precisely what we reject, because we do not recognize the idea of an hypostatic procession (which is the same thing as having subsistence from) of the Spirit from the Father and the Son, but we understand that the Spirit proceeds hypostatically from the Father alone.

 

[Cavaradossi]

What idea? of the Father and the Son being together one principle of the Holy Spirit? Who talks like that? I don’t know of any Church Father let alone schoolmen who ever they are? that uses such language to describe the filioque professed from the Creed.

From the CCC “He proceeds eternally from both as from one principle and through one spiration.”

(CCC 246)

Thomas Aquinas writes in the Summa Theologiae:
“I answer that, The Father and the Son are in everything one, wherever there is no distinction between them of opposite relation. Hence since there is no relative opposition between them as the principle of the Holy Ghost it follows that the Father and the Son are one principle of the Holy Ghost.”

ST I, 36, iv.

“This proposition is also true:–The one principle of the Holy Ghost is the Father and the Son; because the word “principle” does not stand for one person only, but indistinctly for the two persons as above explained.”

ST I, 36, iv ad. 5.

]Your Father and the Son being together implies time, never points to the eternal existence of God. The being together one principle of the Holy Spirit is your own invention it is never the CCC, nor the Creed, nor the filioque.

You are introducing your own interpretation and using the Church Father’s language to misinterpret the filioque, which the filioque does not address from the professed Creed. Because the Creed already expresses it. Why do you want the Creed to repeat from the filioque which the Creed already professes?

See above.

 

[marlo]

The Arianism he is referring to is when Christ is being called a creature it automatically denotes that the Holy Spirit also becomes a creature because the Holy Spirit Proceeds from the Father and rest on the Son, It is written in his Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Since Christ is God, The Holy Spirit that Proceeds from the Father and the Son (filioque) is God. This is the Orthodox faith of St. John Damascus, well its called the Catholic Faith now

It is you who are confused. The Arians denied both the divinity of the Son and the Holy Spirit, as their monistic conception of God could not allow for them to affirm the divinity of either. But don’t take my word for it, St. John of Damascus should be a good enough authority to show that the Arians taught that the Holy Spirit was a creature, made by the Son. He writes in chapter 69 of his On Heresies:
The Arians, who are also called Ariomanites and Diatomites, are they who say that the Son of God is a creature and that the **Holy Ghost is the creature of a creature.**Was St. John of Damascus very confused too? If so, then I am gladly in the company of this great saint.

Anyway, as I was saying, insistence upon the filioque does not guard against or refute Arianism at all, because according to the cosmology common to most Arians it is only common sense that the Holy Spirit, which they believed to be a creature, would be both subordinated to the Son and made by him, such that an Arian could comfortably admit that the Spirit is from both the Son and the Father, albeit as two different principles. There is nothing in adding the filioque to the creed which logically implies the divinity of the Son.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Cavaradossi;10994062]From the CCC

“He proceeds eternally from both as from one principle and through one spiration.”
​

**I agree with the CCC. But you did not interpret it that way. you have the Father and the Son “together” implying a divsion from consubstantial, further more your addition of “together” implies a time inventing a creature. **The CCC states "He proceeds eternally from both as one principle referencing consubstantiality. The eternal procession from the CCC removes your implication of being “together” which implies a procession in time and two diferent divinities in procession. When the CCC concludes “through one spiration” confirms it is from God which the Holy Spirit eternally proceeds. “The both” includes the Father and the Son from (consubstantial) one principle, not from principle without principle which is the origin not the eternal procession which the filioque professes.

**If you take all of CCC 246 with what follows from CCC 248 you will find clarification that refutes your “together” language does not exist from the CCC.
**

Thomas Aquinas writes in the Summa Theologiae:

“I answer that, The Father and the Son are in everything one, wherever there is no distinction between them of opposite relation. Hence since there is no relative opposition between them as the principle of the Holy Ghost it follows that the Father and the Son are one principle of the Holy Ghost.”
​

Amen; Thomas Aquinas is speaking of the one principle of the Holy Ghost which is consubstantial with the Father and the Son. He is not speaking of the principle without principle. St.Thomas quote follows the filioque. Furthermore please take note from the CCC 248, that this complimentary of the principle is not to become “Rigid, and does not affect the identity of faith in the reality of the same mystery confessed”

Here is the CCC 248;…“principle without principle, is the first origin of the Spirit, but also that as Father of the only Son, he is with the Son, the single principle from which the Holy Spirit proceeds”.

This principle professes One God, your “together” implies two distinct gods".

“This proposition is also true:–The one principle of the Holy Ghost is the Father and the Son; because the word “principle” does not stand for one person only, but indistinctly for the two persons as above explained.”

This one principle (eternally speaking) is not divided but is consubstantial which the filioque professes the Holy Spirit eternally proceeds from the two persons Father and the Son, in this one eternal procession filioque professes that the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from God. The filioque from the Creed breaks it down from which the one principle from which the Holy Spirit proceeds, which the Creed professes the Father and the Son is consubstantial.​

 

[eddie_too]

how do the orthodox express the eternal relationship between the Son and the Holy Spirit?

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Cavaradossi;10994028]It is you who does not understand what the CCC teaches about the filioque. The CCC, following Florence teaches that the Filioque means that the Holy Spirit has “nature and subsistence at once (simul) from the Father and the Son” (CCC 246). This is precisely what we reject,

NO you don’t; because you have only written what is taught and revealed from the CCC and Florence is teaching from what is consubstantial. Which we both profess from the Creed. The procession is not mentioned. This is describing nature not the procession.

because we do not recognize the idea of an hypostatic procession (which is the same thing as having subsistence from) of the Spirit from the Father and the Son, but we understand that the Spirit proceeds hypostatically from the Father alone.

But the Creed never professes that the “HolySpirit proceeds hypostatically from the Father alone”. Filioque does not contradict the origin of the Holy Spirit which we both share in this theology of tradition. The Creed we profess of this communion is Consubstantial of the Father and the Son.

**The Creed never states “the Spirit proceeds hypostatically from the Father alone”. You are mixing theology with what is professed universally. This is what the filioque does not do. It does not move away into different thoughts of theology. But only professes from what is professed by all from the Creed as the Father and the Son are consubstantial. This is what Florence and the CCC is addressing from faith spoken with spiritual words of what is already believed universally. She does not add to the faith, but only reveals from filioque that because the Father and the Son are eternally consubstantial, the HolySpirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, revealing that each person is God and it is from God which the Holy Spirit proceeds. Amen
**

 

[KathleenGee]

This is a most accurate response, Gabriel 12.

I find this whole dispute such a terrible tragedy to the communion of the universal Christian Church we should have.

Consubstantial…all one, all in the state of being of oneness.

No, Gabriel 12 does not need to be ignored. I have read many of his posts and he is highly educated.

Instead of ignoring, we need to pray to the Holy Spirit to seek His will and His forgiveness in this relentless contention. I agree with many that we have here a ‘tempest in a teapot’.

I do not will to be in schism and I am not in schism but in the apostolic Church founded by Christ in forgiveness for all who have contributed to this division.

Forgiveness and prayer to the Holy Spirit for understanding of two different approaches to the Truth.

 

[neokarny]

No, Gabriel 12 does not need to be ignored. I have read many of his posts and he is highly educated.

I honestly find his posts barely coherent and skip over most of them.

 

[Reuben_J]

**The Creed never states “the Spirit proceeds hypostatically from the Father alone”. You are mixing theology with what is professed universally. This is what the filioque does not do. It does not move away into different thoughts of theology. But only professes from what is professed by all from the Creed as the Father and the Son are consubstantial. This is what Florence and the CCC is addressing from faith spoken with spiritual words of what is already believed universally. She does not add to the faith, but only reveals from filioque that because the Father and the Son are eternally consubstantial, the HolySpirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, revealing that each person is God and it is from God which the Holy Spirit proceeds. Amen
**

Amen. This does seems right to me.

I do not agree that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone. Each person of the Trinity though distinct are co-equal and of the same nature. If the Holy Spirt proceeds from the Father, he therefore must proceeds from the Son for he also exist before the foundation of the world and has no beginning and end.

In my personal understanding, if the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone, then we make him comparable to Jesus who was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirt and born of the virgin Mary. Jesus was an incarnation but the the second person of the Trinity is always eternally one with the Father and the Holy Spirit.

 

[Cavaradossi]

The Arianism he is referring to is when Christ is being called a creature it automatically denotes that the Holy Spirit also becomes a creature because the Holy Spirit Proceeds from the Father and rest on the Son, It is written in his Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Since Christ is God, The Holy Spirit that Proceeds from the Father and the Son (filioque) is God. This is the Orthodox faith of St. John Damascus, well its called the Catholic Faith now

That is a good joke. Notice how you provide no citation (i.e., you are making things up), whereas I have provided plenty.

By the way, I have read St. John of Damascus’ entire Fount of Knowledge, and he never writes that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. On the contrary, he teaches that, “we do not speak of the Spirit as from the Son : but yet we call Him the Spirit of the Son” in Orthodox Faith I,8.

 

[Cavaradossi]

**I agree with the CCC. But you did not interpret it that way. you have the Father and the Son “together” implying a divsion from consubstantial, further more your addition of “together” implies a time inventing a creature. **The CCC states "He proceeds eternally from both as one principle referencing consubstantiality. The eternal procession from the CCC removes your implication of being “together” which implies a procession in time and two diferent divinities in procession. When the CCC concludes “through one spiration” confirms it is from God which the Holy Spirit eternally proceeds. “The both” includes the Father and the Son from (consubstantial) one principle, not from principle without principle which is the origin not the eternal procession which the filioque professes…

This principle professes One God, your “together” implies two distinct gods".

Nonsense, the very Symbol of Faith of the 150 fathers (also known as the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed) uses the preposition together in its clause, “τὸ σὺν Πατρὶ καὶ Υἱῷ συμπροσκυνούμενον καὶ συνδοξαζόμενον” (who together with the Father and the Son is worshipped and glorified). Did the Fathers mean by the use of the term together to separate the Spirit from the Son? Furthermore, the Son is said by the fathers and the hymns of the Church to be the “συνάναρχον Λόγον”. By your logic, since togetherness (syn- in Greek) implies time, then the Word of God is by this affirmation co-beginningless with the Father in time or as a separate God! (how absurd). Your arguments are nothing more than inchoate straw-grasping.

 

[Cavaradossi]

The Arianism he is referring to is when Christ is being called a creature it automatically denotes that the Holy Spirit also becomes a creature because the Holy Spirit Proceeds from the Father and rest on the Son, It is written in his Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Since Christ is God, The Holy Spirit that Proceeds from the Father and the Son (filioque) is God. This is the Orthodox faith of St. John Damascus, well its called the Catholic Faith now

Oh, and on the topic of Arianism, you are simply ill-informed. In the case of Arius, his principles of theology, his voluntarism, leads him to reject any notion that God could coexist eternally with His Word and Spirit, or that the begetting of the Son (or the procession of the Spirit) could be according the nature of the Father. This would violate his principle of voluntarism. His subordinating the Spirit to the level of a creature has nothing to do with the logic which you falsely ascribe in your post to St. John of Damascus, who never taught that the Spirit is from the Son, that the Spirit proceeds from the Son, or that the Spirit’s divinity is contingent upon the divinity of the Son (all three of these by the way are totally different propositions from his perfectly Orthodox teaching that the Spirit rests upon the Son).

 

[Cavaradossi]

how do the orthodox express the eternal relationship between the Son and the Holy Spirit?

The Son manifests the Holy Spirit, which is why the Greek Fathers say that the Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son, but not that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. The Holy Spirit has existence from the Father alone, and manifests itself through the Only-begotten Son. Its particular mode of existing is to Proceed from the Father and be manifested through the Son, but the source and cause of Its existence and mode of existence is the Father alone. In Orthodox theology then, the eternal relationships between three persons are all distinct between each, which is to say that the relationship between the Father and the Son (begetting) differs from the relationship between the Father and the Spirit (proceeding), and both of these differ from the relationship between the Spirit and the Son (this relationship is expressed by many terms: manifestation, proceeding through, resting upon, etc.) This model also faithfully preserves the monarchy of the Father (that the unity of the Trinity is to be found in the person of the Father alone as the only cause).

 

[marlo]

Arius always contested the deity of the Son and he is less concerned on the Holy Spirit, in fact, Arius believed that the Father alone is God, and if your case was true, then the Ecumenical Council of Constantinople was not needed anymore.
We never said that the Spirit is from the Son nor the Spirit proceeds from the Son, we only refer to the procession of the Holy Spirit if the Father is included in it, hence we always says the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, because the Filioque does not concern the deity of the Holy Spirit, it is about the Deity of the Son, you are surely mistaken and confused.

Oh, and on the topic of Arianism, you are simply ill-informed. In the case of Arius, his principles of theology, his voluntarism, leads him to reject any notion that God could coexist eternally with His Word and Spirit, or that the begetting of the Son (or the procession of the Spirit) could be according the nature of the Father. This would violate his principle of voluntarism. His subordinating the Spirit to the level of a creature has nothing to do with the logic which you falsely ascribe in your post to St. John of Damascus, who never taught that the Spirit is from the Son, that the Spirit proceeds from the Son, or that the Spirit’s divinity is contingent upon the divinity of the Son (all three of these by the way are totally different propositions from his perfectly Orthodox teaching that the Spirit rests upon the Son).