Orthodox views on the Holy Spirit

[eddie_too]

cavaradossi

what do you mean when you write “receiving existence”? the Holy Spirit is eternal so i am guessing you do not mean “brought in to being” or “given existence”.

 

[eddie_too]

cavaradossi,

can you put your concept of the Son manifesting the Spirit in to different words. my definition of manifest is “to make evident”. the Son making the Spirit evident has no particular significance that i can perceive.

 

[RyanBlack]

cavaradossi

what do you mean when you write “receiving existence”? the Holy Spirit is eternal so i am guessing you do not mean “brought in to being” or “given existence”.

Both the Son and the Holy Spirit eternally receive their existence from the Father.

 

[bzkoss236]

Definition:

Proceed: Verb

1. to move or go forward or onward, especially after stopping.
2. to carry on or continue any action or process.
3. to go on to do something.
4. to continue one’s discourse.

So, to say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son does not mean that the Holy Spirit originates from the Son. So, saying “From the Father, and through the Son” is synonymous with saying “proceeds from the Son”. So, when Christ sends out the Holy Spirit, the Holy Spirit then proceeds from the Son.

I will need to do some research on the original Creed, as to the word used and how it relates to common English, but as it stands, to say in English that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son is not unorthodox.

 

[eddie_too]

i find the concept of receiving something which you have always had to be quite confusing. perhaps receive is not the right word to use?

 

[RyanBlack]

i find the concept of receiving something which you have always had to be quite confusing. perhaps receive is not the right word to use?

The Father is the source of the life of the Trinity. The Father begets the Son, who receives (or one might say takes) his being from the Father. Neither the Fathers’s begetting of the Son nor the Son’s receiving his being from the Father is an act in time; it is eternal. Likewise, the Father generates the Spirit by way of procession, and the Spirit receives (or takes) his being from the Father. As is the case with the Son, the procession of the Spirit from the Father is not an act in time; rather, it is eternal. This maintains the monarchy of the Father, while affirming the consubstantiality of the Son and the Spirit with the Father.

 

[eddie_too]

how can eternal being have a source?

 

[RyanBlack]

how can eternal being have a source?

How can one who is eternal be begotten? How can one who is eternal proceed from another?

 

[bzkoss236]

how can eternal being have a source?

How can one who is eternal be begotten? How can one who is eternal proceed from another?

Psst… eddie… I’ll give you a hint… it begins with “M” and ends in “ystery”…

 

[eddie_too]

very good questions and quite an example of how human language is inadequate in addressing the divine nature.

which is why i initially said i thought it ridiculous for people to divide the Mystical Body of Christ over the inability of human language and minds to comprehend the nature of the divine.

 

[RyanBlack]

very good questions and quite an example of how human language is inadequate in addressing the divine nature.

which is why i initially said i thought it ridiculous for people to divide the Mystical Body of Christ over the inability of human language and minds to comprehend the nature of the divine.

I don’t disagree with you. However, the language of the Son and the Spirit receiving or taking their being or existence from the Father is actually entirely consistent with both Catholic and Orthodox teaching concerning the Trinity.

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

I suppose the main difference would be that orthodox tend to say the spirit proceeds from the father (alone).

 

[eddie_too]

i understand there is disagreement over how to express the relationships between the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. however, so long as we all agree that the Three are distinct Persons who share perfectly One Divine Nature, i fail to understand the importance of the disagreement relative to the salvation of immortal souls.

the Father does not love us apart or differently from how the Son and the Holy Spirit love us.

 

[josh987654321]

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.

Like bzkoss236 said, being the source of existance is different from procceding from.

Definition:

Proceed: Verb

1. to move or go forward or onward, especially after stopping.
2. to carry on or continue any action or process.
3. to go on to do something.
4. to continue one’s discourse.

So, to say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son does not mean that the Holy Spirit originates from the Son. So, saying “From the Father, and through the Son” is synonymous with saying “proceeds from the Son”. So, when Christ sends out the Holy Spirit, the Holy Spirit then proceeds from the Son.

I will need to do some research on the original Creed, as to the word used and how it relates to common English, but as it stands, to say in English that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son is not unorthodox.

John 15:26

26 “But when the Helper comes, whom I shall send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify of Me.

This say’s that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father (Orthodox)

John 14:10-11

10 Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me? The words that I speak to you I do not speak on My own authority; but the Father who dwells in Me does the works. 11 Believe Me that I am in the Father and the Father in Me, or else believe Me for the sake of the works themselves.

Here it say’s that they are one in the same, thus it makes sense that the Holy Spirit would therefore proceed (to go on to do something) from the Father and the Son.

John 16:7

7 Nevertheless I tell you the truth. It is to your advantage that I go away; for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you; but if I depart, I will send Him to you.

Here Jesus himself say’s he will send us the Holy Spirit, so it seems he has even said that it will proceed from him as well.

John 16:14-15

14 He will glorify Me, for He will take of what is Mine and declare it to you. 15 All things that the Father has are Mine. Therefore I said that He will take of Mine and declare it to you.

Here he is even more direct, saying that all that the Father has is his, therefore he say’s that the Holy Spirit will take of him and declare it to us.

Thus it would make sense that the Holy Spirit therefore proceeds from the Father and the Son would it not?

God Bless

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[Cavaradossi]

Like bzkoss236 said, being the source of existance is different from procceding from.

This is not true of the Greek verb, ekporeuo (the one used in the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed), as ekporeuo means to come out of something as a source, and in this context then it refers to the Holy Spirit’s receiving existence from from the Father. The vague meaning of the English word proceed corresponds to the Greek verb proeimi in Trinitarian contexts.

 

[JamesCaruso]

Orthodoxy AFAIK has no problem saying the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, through the Son, and rests in the Son.

Why would the Spirit proceed from the Father through the Son? If the Son is begotten of the Father, then the Son has whatever the Father has by virtue of being begotten (He who sees me sees the Father), so that the Spirit is the Spirit of the Father and the Spirit is the Spirit of the Son, and lastly, if the Spirit proceeds from the Father, then the Spirit also proceeds from the Son.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Why would the Spirit proceed from the Father through the Son? If the Son is begotten of the Father, then the Son has whatever the Father has by virtue of being begotten (He who sees me sees the Father), so that the Spirit is the Spirit of the Father and the Spirit is the Spirit of the Son, and lastly, if the Spirit proceeds from the Father, then the Spirit also proceeds from the Son.

The Son has what the Father has by nature, but not what the Father has by hypostasis. Otherwise the hypostases of the Father and the Son would not be truly distinct. If one were to say that the Son shares in the Father’s causing the Spirit, then it would stand to reason that the Son is either not distinct hypostatically from the Father, sharing in His hypostatic property of causality, or that causing the Holy Spirit must be a property of the divine nature in which case it should follow by necessity that the Holy Spirit proceeds and receives existence from itself, since it shares in the divine nature, or that the Holy Spirit is a creature.

 

[JamesCaruso]

The Son has what the Father has by nature, but not what the Father has by hypostasis. Otherwise the hypostases of the Father and the Son would not be truly distinct. If one were to say that the Son shares in the Father’s causing the Spirit, then it would stand to reason that the Son is either not distinct hypostatically from the Father, sharing in His hypostatic property of causality, or that causing the Holy Spirit must be a property of the divine nature in which case it should follow by necessity that the Holy Spirit proceeds and receives existence from itself, since it shares in the divine nature, or that the Holy Spirit is a creature.

No. The Spirit proceeds from and the Father begets. The Spirit cannot proceed from the Spirit anymore than the Father can beget the Father. Whatever the Father is, so is the Son. If the Spirit proceeds from the Father, the Spirit must also proceed from the Son. Scriptures refer to both the Spirit of the Father and the Spirit of the Son. Begetting is an act of the Divine Intellect. Proceeding is related to an act of the Divine Will. That is why the Father begets the Word, the Divine Thought, the Son. But the procession of the Spirit is rooted in the Divine Will. The Divine Will loves, and the object of its love is himself. The Spirit is hypostatic love, but not begotten like the Son, because scripture says that the Son is the only begotten. The Spirit therefore proceeds from the Father and also from the Son and is breathed forth by their acts of love.

 

[Cavaradossi]

No. The Spirit proceeds from and the Father begets. The Spirit cannot proceed from the Spirit anymore than the Father can beget the Father. Whatever the Father is, so is the Son.

Then by this logic, the Son is the Father. Your logic confuses a hypostatic property of the Father, causality, with being a natural property which is common to all.

If the Spirit proceeds from the Father, the Spirit must also proceed from the Son.

No, because this violates the Monarchy of the Father. The Father alone is cause of the hypostatic origination of the Spirit. Again, if the Son shares in the causality of the Father, then it follows that the Son and the Father are either homohypostatic, or that they are not consubstantial with the Holy Spirit who does not have the property of causality.

Scriptures refer to both the Spirit of the Father and the Spirit of the Son.

Yes, but being of signifies belonging, while being from signifies origination. The two are not identical.

Begetting is an act of the Divine Intellect. Proceeding is related to an act of the Divine Will. That is why the Father begets the Word, the Divine Thought, the Son. But the procession of the Spirit is rooted in the Divine Will.

This is impossible because according to the theology of St. Athanasios and the Cappadocians, what is according to will is created. The Spirit proceeds according to nature, not will.

The Divine Will loves, and the object of its love is himself. The Spirit is hypostatic love, but not begotten like the Son, because scripture says that the Son is the only begotten. The Spirit therefore proceeds from the Father and also from the Son and is breathed forth by their act of love…

There is no need for the filioque to distinguish the Son from the Spirit, because as we are taught by St. John of Damascus and St. Gregory the Theologian, Begetting and Procession differ in an unknown manner, and this alone is enough to differentiate the Spirit and the Son, since the tropos of their origination differs, eliminating any need to make their origin itself differ.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Cavaradossi;10971092]Then by this logic, the Son is the Father. Your logic confuses a hypostatic property of the Father, causality, with being a natural property which is common to all.

Wait a minute Cavaradossi, you are mixing two things here from the filioque and confusing this process of procession with what is confirmed by the filioque as being consubstantial with God the Father who is principle without principle. It appears you are forcing the Spirit "who proceeds from the Father, that He comes from the Father through the Son. We never object to this professed faith and we don’t confuse this with the consubstantial nature of the Trinity which you appear to be doing with the filioque.

You mentioned “we don’t need the filioque”; The Church professed we do. Because the Arians were using the procession of the Holy Spirit coming distinctly from the Father and not from the Son. The Arians were proving the Nicene creed wrong, by holding that if the Holy Spirit only proceeds from the Father and never the Son, then the Son is created by the begetting of the Father, thereby suspending the professed Creed that the Son is a creature not God.

The Church rebutted this heresy with “Filioque”, not to denounce that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son which deals with the Father being God as the principle without principle.

Filoque confirms the Son as being God from the professed consubstantial communion which is in the Creed. The Orthodox holding of the Father as principle without principle is not professed in the Creed. Although we all hold to this same faith the Father as principle without principle. This was not enough to eliminate the Arian heresy who were trying to infect the Nicene Creed from the procession.

The reason we need the filioque is never to refute God theFather as principle without principle. But to prove that the Son is God, because of “the eternal order of the divine persons in their consubstantial communion and that the first origin of the Holy Spirit is from this principle without principle” CCC 248.

Filoque is professing the consubstantial communion between the Father and the Son, which defeated the Arians heresy in the West. Filioque never refutes the Father as the principle without principle.

Consubstantial communion proves that “as Father of the Only Son, He is with the Son, the single principle from which the Holy Spirit proceeds”, thus proving that the Son is God. And if the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father from the consubstantial communion the Holy Spirit proceeds “and from the Son” (filioque). The filioque is introduced to defeat heresy and compliments the consubstantial communion between the Father and the Son which is what is professed from the Nicene creed.

The CCC strictly states however that “this complimentary of filioque to the consubstantial communion in the Father and the Son is never to become rigid and it is to never affect the identity of faith in the reality of the same mystery confessed”.

In summary the Orthodox position is correct because they along with us profess that God the Father is “the principle without principle”. But the Arians were not using the Creed at this time to refute the divinity of Christ, the Arians were rejecting the Nicene Creed.

Later the Arians were adopting the Nicene Creed but interpreting it into heresy.

The Roman Catholic position is correct which never leaves the professed faith from the creed of the Son being consubstantial with the Father. When we profess the consubstantial communion from the Creed it is from this communion that the Father is with the Son, the single principle from which the Holy Spirit proceeds, and if the HolySpirit proceeds from this consubstantial communion then the Son is God and therefore the HolySpirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. This “filioque” is needed to defeat all heresies who deny Jesus the only begotten Son of the Father as God, because the Son is consubstantial with the Father.

If one becomes too rigid in this filioque or makes more than what the CCC teaches, one mistakenly invents his own demi-god.

Peace be with you