Orthodox views on the Holy Spirit

[brian614]

So when we talk about the Holy Spirit “proceeding” are we talking about how it is dispensed (for lack of a better word) upon the earth?

Or are we talking about his origins? Again for lack of a better word since the Holy Spirit is eternal.

 

[bzkoss236]

They can’t be both valid, two different statements about the same thing cannot be true. That is ridiculous. If you say that the Greek says something and the Latin says something else, then it is not the same Creed if you are talking about two different things. Both cannot be valid because they are contradictory. Either you believe the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father only, or from both the Father and the Son. Can’t be both.

You are still misunderstanding. It isn’t “from the Father only” & “from the Father and Son”, it’s “from the Father” and “from the Son”. Meaning the Holy Spirit can be sent from the Father, and the Holy Spirit can be sent from the Son. Which is why John 15:26 is still not disregarded, because that verse doesn’t say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone.

(I was RC for 33 years)

Is that why you seem so aggressive and antagonistic?

 

[ConstantineTG]

So when we talk about the Holy Spirit “proceeding” are we talking about how it is dispensed (for lack of a better word) upon the earth?

Or are we talking about his origins? Again for lack of a better word since the Holy Spirit is eternal.

Origins. Because in the Creed we talk about the Son being begotten eternally of the Father, thus we also talk of the Holy Spirit who proceeds eternally from the Father. The Creed is meant to affirm the divinity of the Son and the Holy Spirit, so the statements are about their source.

 

[ConstantineTG]

You are still misunderstanding. It isn’t “from the Father only” & “from the Father and Son”, it’s “from the Father” and “from the Son”. Meaning the Holy Spirit can be sent from the Father, and the Holy Spirit can be sent from the Son. Which is why John 15:26 is still not disregarded, because that verse doesn’t say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone.

The Creed isn’t about who sends whom because that has nothing to do with the divinity of the Trinity. God sends prophets, and Christ sent his Apostles, that doesn’t make them God. The Creed is a statement of Christ’s and the Holy Spirit’s divinity.

Is that why you seem so aggressive and antagonistic?

I’ve always been this way. Of course, it was cute and funny when we were sitting on the same side of the fence

 

[dvdjs]

How’s this (from the link in my post above using explicitly “and the Son”):

There were others before this one using “through the Son”.

Very good.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Are you imaging that that was the first use of the filioque?

No, I am saying that the eleventh century was the first time the creed in Rome was said with the interpolation.

 

[dvdjs]

No, I am saying that the eleventh century was the first time the creed in Rome was said with the interpolation.

How is this relevant to the first use of the filioque?

 

[marlo]

it is what the Scripture is saying.

But that is not what the Creed is stating.

 

[bzkoss236]

Origins. Because in the Creed we talk about the Son being begotten eternally of the Father, thus we also talk of the Holy Spirit who proceeds eternally from the Father. The Creed is meant to affirm the divinity of the Son and the Holy Spirit, so the statements are about their source.

Where do you get that “proceeding from” means origins? or rather, where do you get that “proceeding from” has the same meaning as “begotten from”?

 

[neokarny]

I’ve been reading Fr. Sergius Bulgakov’s The Comforter and, his sophiology aside, he gives an interesting overview of the Early Church’s (undeveloped, really) pneumatology and triadology. He rejects any interpretation of “procession” (or “generation”) that involves causal origination, and similarly seems to reject the Filioque on grounds of subordinationism among others. He seems to argue that the Filioque necessarily causes subordinationism because the Father begets and spirates, the Son is begotten and spirates, whereas the Holy Spirit merely proceeds. It is the “barren” Person of the Trinity, and so subordinate to the other two “fruitful” Persons that Spirate and/or Beget.

Just thought it was worth mentioning.

There were others before this one using “through the Son”.

“Through the Son” is not the same as “and the Son.” I would say the former is uncontroversial in much of Orthodoxy (that isn’t anti-Western), whereas the latter is often viewed as problematic.

Orthodoxy AFAIK has no problem saying the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, through the Son, and rests in the Son. In fact, Fr. Sergius Bulgakov that I referenced above seems to take rather strongly to St. Augustine’s understanding of “Lover, Beloved, and Love” for the Trinity. He ties the Orthodox view of “from, through, and rests” with “Love” and the Holy Spirit participating fully in the relationship between the Father and the Son. Interesting stuff.

 

[josh987654321]

I am sure their is another thread out there that will answer my question, I just could not find one. If you know of a good one please send me a link.

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!

Yea, I was curious about that as well, good question, this thread will be quite interesting I think.

I think the biggest disagreement about the Holy Spirit between Catholics and Orthodox is that Catholics do not believe in John 15:26.

Thank you ConstantineTG, I understand the Orthodox take on it now.

I’m Roman Catholic and I believe in John 15:26.

ConstantineTG, what about John 15:26 together with John 14:10-11?

So if the Holy spirit proceeds from the father and if Jesus is one with the father and the father is one with him, wouldn’t it therefore logically follow that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the father and the son?

In both of our Creed’s we say -

God from God
Light from Light
True God from True God
Begotten, not made,
Of one essence with the Father,
By whom all things were made

So we are basically saying the same thing anyway, you say the Holy Spirit proceeds from the father, but you also say the above along with us, so therefore the Holy Spirit proceeding from the father and the son should be the logical outcome of the above anyway right?

God Bless

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[brian614]

Yea, I was curious about that as well, good question, this thread will be quite interesting I think.

Thank you ConstantineTG, I understand the Orthodox take on it now.

I’m Roman Catholic and I believe in John 15:26.

ConstantineTG, what about John 15:26 together with John 14:10-11?

So if the Holy spirit proceeds from the father and if Jesus is one with the father and the father is one with him, wouldn’t it therefore logically follow that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the father and the son?

In both of our Creed’s we say -

God from God
Light from Light
True God from True God
Begotten, not made,
Of one essence with the Father,
By whom all things were made

So we are basically saying the same thing anyway, you say the Holy Spirit proceeds from the father, but you also say the above along with us, so therefore the Holy Spirit proceeding from the father and the son should be the logical outcome of the above anyway right?

God Bless

Thank you for reading
Josh

This post makes a lot of sense…

 

[1Tim215Mommy]

In both of our Creed’s we say -

God from God
Light from Light
True God from True God
Begotten, not made,
Of one essence with the Father,
By whom all things were made

So we are basically saying the same thing anyway, you say the Holy Spirit proceeds from the father, but you also say the above along with us, so therefore the Holy Spirit proceeding from the father and the son should be the logical outcome of the above anyway right?

God Bless

Thank you for reading
Josh

Josh,

“God from God”, like “and from the Son”, is a phrase added to the Catholic Creed after the Bishops of the Ecumenical Council wrote the Creed and closed it with Anathama to anyone who adds anything to the Creed. Orthodox can’t accept either of these additions on the grounds that to do so causes one to fall under the Anathama. Also, Orthodox understand the “and from the Son” phrase to theologically wrong/unorthodox.

Yes, the Father & Son are both True God and so is the Holy Spirit, but that doesn’t make them the same Person. As 3 distinct Persons, They are each Eternally Unique Persons.
The Father’s Uniqueness is that it is from Him alone that the Son is Begotten & for the Holy Spirit Proceeds.
The Son’s Uniqueness is that He alone is Begotten of the Father
The Holy Spirit’s Uniqueness is that He alone Proceeds from the Father.
If you take away Their Uniqueness, then you aliminate Their individual Personhood and if They are Not 3 Persons, then you just eliminated the Holy Trinity our God.

Food for thought.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Yea, I was curious about that as well, good question, this thread will be quite interesting I think.

Thank you ConstantineTG, I understand the Orthodox take on it now.

I’m Roman Catholic and I believe in John 15:26.

ConstantineTG, what about John 15:26 together with John 14:10-11?

So if the Holy spirit proceeds from the father and if Jesus is one with the father and the father is one with him, wouldn’t it therefore logically follow that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the father and the son?

In both of our Creed’s we say -

God from God
Light from Light
True God from True God
Begotten, not made,
Of one essence with the Father,
By whom all things were made

So we are basically saying the same thing anyway, you say the Holy Spirit proceeds from the father, but you also say the above along with us, so therefore the Holy Spirit proceeding from the father and the son should be the logical outcome of the above anyway right?

God Bless

Thank you for reading
Josh

No, because being the source of the existence of the Holy Spirit is not a property of the divine nature (by virtue of which, the Father and the Son are said to be one), but a property uniquely of the Father. Were it a property of the divine nature, then it should also hold that the Spirit proceeds from Itself, an absurdity.

 

[dvdjs]

Josh,

“God from God”, like “and from the Son”, is a phrase added to the Catholic Creed after the Bishops of the Ecumenical Council wrote the Creed and closed it with Anathama to anyone who adds anything to the Creed.

Sure.

The reality is that "God from God’ was deleted by the bishops at Constantinople. And the first anathema against changing the Creed - the faith, of course, not mere formula of words - was aimed to safeguard the Creed of 325 not the Creed of 381 - which was not received until later.

 

[marlo]

In the Exposition of the Orthodox Faith says: The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and Rest in the Son, so why does the Holy Spirit needs to be in the Son anyway if He does not have any purpose in Him(Son)?

The Father’s Uniqueness is that it is from Him alone that the Son is Begotten & for the Holy Spirit Proceeds.
The Son’s Uniqueness is that He alone is Begotten of the Father
The Holy Spirit’s Uniqueness is that He alone Proceeds from the Father.
If you take away Their Uniqueness, then you aliminate Their individual Personhood and if They are Not 3 Persons, then you just eliminated the Holy Trinity our God.

Food for thought.

 

[eddie_too]

it is not my intent to be glib. but, is not all of this debate a debate about human beings’ understandings of the most profound mystery of being?

why does it matter to you whether or not the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son; or, from the Father and the Son? how does one or the other understanding impact your salvation?

also, those two phrases themselves can EACH be interpreted in more than one way.

to me, that indicates that the whole debate is not of great significance for the salvation of souls.

discussing the inner relationships in the Holy Trinity may often be efficacious, but to use such discussions to divide Christ’s Mystical Body is not, in my mind, beneficial to anyone.

 

[eddie_too]

for efficacious purposes only, here is a little food for thought. remember that i think that this whole issue is only efficacious for the purposes of meditation and spiritual growth and has little to no impact on the salvation of souls.

anyway, we teach that the Son is generated by the Father. in addition, some are convinced that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone. this raises the question of what is the difference between being generated by the Father and proceeding from the Father?

also, if the relationship between the Father and the Son is of generation; and, the relationship between the Father and the Holy Spirit is one of procession; what is the nature of the relationship between the Son and the Holy Spirt?

 

[eddie_too]

on this subject, i guess i have always believed that the Holy Spirit is the love of the Father for the Son and the love of the Son for the Father, if that helps anyone understand where i am coming from.

 

[Cavaradossi]

anyway, we teach that the Son is generated by the Father. in addition, some are convinced that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone. this raises the question of what is the difference between being generated by the Father and proceeding from the Father?

According to Ss. John of Damascus and Gregory the Theologian (of Nazianzus), we know only that procession and begetting differ (according to revelation), but not how, for we do not know anything about how the Son is generated, how the Father is unbegotten, or how the Spirit proceeds, and to attempt to gain knowledge of these things would render us “stricken with madness.”

also, if the relationship between the Father and the Son is of generation; and, the relationship between the Father and the Holy Spirit is one of procession; what is the nature of the relationship between the Son and the Holy Spirt?

The Son manifests the Spirit, but does not participate in The Spirit’s receiving existence, which is from the Father alone.