Orthodox views on the Holy Spirit

[RyanBlack]

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

Following this reasoning of needing the filioque in order for the creed to demonstrate the divinity of the Son, then there is now a problem with the creed not effectively demonstrating the divinity of the Holy Spirit. What about the consubstantiality of the Holy Spirit with the Father and the Son? Since he proceeds from the Father and the Son, then is he not created by virtue of his proceeding from the Father? Well, no, because the same creed states that the Holy Spirit is “the Lord, the Giver of Life…who together with the Father and the son is adored and glorified.” This adequately demonstrates the divinity of the Holy Spirit, just as “eternally begotten of the Father, light from light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father, through whom all things were made” adequately demonstrates the divinity of the Son.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Following this reasoning of needing the filioque in order for the creed to demonstrate the divinity of the Son, then there is now a problem with the creed not effectively demonstrating the divinity of the Holy Spirit. What about the consubstantiality of the Holy Spirit with the Father and the Son? Since he proceeds from the Father and the Son, then is he not created by virtue of his proceeding from the Father? Well, no, because the same creed states that the Holy Spirit is “the Lord, the Giver of Life…who together with the Father and the son is adored and glorified.” This adequately demonstrates the divinity of the Holy Spirit, just as “eternally begotten of the Father, light from light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father, through whom all things were made” adequately demonstrates the divinity of the Son.

Amen, yes it does to us; but to the Arians they were using the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Creed to deny Jesus divinity. They never contested the HolySpirit, so no more clarification was needed to defeat the Arians, the Arians were contesting Jesus divinity because they were interpreting and professing the Nicene Creed that the Holy Spirit does not proceed from the son, so Jesus is created not God.

Filoque defeated them because it is from the Consubstantial communion which the HolySpirit proceeds from the Father and the Son thereby proclaiming Jesus divinity once and for all.

 

[jimmy]

Amen, yes it does to us; but to the Arians they were using the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Creed to deny Jesus divinity. They never contested the HolySpirit, so no more clarification was needed to defeat the Arians, the Arians were contesting Jesus divinity because they were interpreting and professing the Nicene Creed that the Holy Spirit does not proceed from the son, so Jesus is created not God.

Filoque defeated them because it is from the Consubstantial communion which the HolySpirit proceeds from the Father and the Son thereby proclaiming Jesus divinity once and for all.

The problem is your logic leads to the denial of the divinity of the Spirit. If it is a principle of divinity for one, then it is for all.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

The problem is your logic leads to the denial of the divinity of the Spirit. If it is a principle of divinity for one, then it is for all.

No jimmy the Holy Spirit is never in question as being “The Lord the giver of Life…who has spoken through the prophets”.

This is not my logic, it is the teaching of the CCC on the filioque.

The principle without principle belongs only to the Father. Caravossi is the one who appeared to be confusing this principle which belongs to the Father with the professed Creed of Consubstantiality of the Trinity, to which you are hinting at. The filioque never questions neither, but compliments both God the Father as principle without principle and the Consubstantial communion of the Father and the Son.

The divinity of the Holy Spirit is never questioned, He is God, the Arians would comply.

We are discussing the procession of the Holy Spirit. Not the essence or natures of God. Let us make this clear distinction, what we already know and profess as God the Father as the principle without principle, and that the Father and the Son are consubstantial, and that the Father, Son, Holy Spirit are distinct persons but one God. The filioque compliments every one of these and does not conflict with either profession of faith in the blessed Trinity.

 

[RyanBlack]

They never contested the HolySpirit

The Arians always denied the divinity of the Holy Spirit, sometimes explicitly, sometimes implicitly.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

The Arians always denied the divinity of the Holy Spirit, sometimes explicitly, sometimes implicitly.

To my knowledge there were three or more different types of Arianism, that surfaced in the Early Church. Some Arians contested other Arians belief. The Arians the filioque addresses is the Arian heresy which denied the divinity of Jesus Christ.

 

[RyanBlack]

The divinity of the Holy Spirit is never questioned, He is God, the Arians would comply.

You are simply wrong about this. The Arians insisted on the divinity of the Father alone. Furthemore, there were various groups that explicitly denied the divinity of the Holy Spirit, some of whom were Arians.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

You are simply wrong about this. The Arians insisted on the divinity of the Father alone. Furthemore, there were various groups that explicitly denied the divinity of the Holy Spirit, some of whom were Arians.

If we are in the same period of the filioque defeating the Arians. These Arians were professing the Nicence Creed, but they were interpreting the procession of the Holy Spirit as only proceeding from the Father not the Son.

I don’t think the early Arians were professing the Nicene Creed they were rejecting the Nicene creed all together.

Besides the filioque addressess the Arian heresy which denied Jesus divinity, not the HolySpirit divinity.

If Arians liked shopping at Macy’s and others at Sears and Rhoebuck it makes no difference to me. These were all in heresy.

 

[jimmy]

No jimmy the Holy Spirit is never in question as being “The Lord the giver of Life…who has spoken through the prophets”.

This is not my logic, it is the teaching of the CCC on the filioque.

The principle without principle belongs only to the Father. Caravossi is the one who appeared to be confusing this principle which belongs to the Father with the professed Creed of Consubstantiality of the Trinity, to which you are hinting at. The filioque never questions neither, but compliments both God the Father as principle without principle and the Consubstantial communion of the Father and the Son.

The divinity of the Holy Spirit is never questioned, He is God, the Arians w
ould comply.

The Arians rejected the divinity of the Spirit. Only the Father was God in the full sense according to them.

Cavaradossi, as well as RyanBlack, was saying that you are confusing personal properties with natural properties. Personal properties define the person, natural define God. You have taken a personal property of the Father and made it natural to the Son. Causality is a personal property of the Father, and by using it to prove the divinity of the Son, you become either a modalist or a Spirit fighter (denying the divinity of the Spirit).

 

[JamesCaruso]

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.

No, I mean in the sense of “He who sees me sees the Father.”

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.

Saying that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son is not tantamount to denying that the Father is the origin of the procession. “All that belongs to the Father is the Son’s” and “All things have been committed to me by my Father.” In this way of looking at it, there is no disagreement. But if the Spirit is received by the Son from the Father the Spirit proceeds also from the Son as when Jesus, after rising from the dead, breathed on his disciples saying “Receive you the Holy Spirit.”

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

Being “of” may also signify source as in Spirit of the Father. “Of” can connote both belonging and source, even if that source is intermediate.

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 Spirit is Holy. Holiness resides in the Will. The spiration of the Spirit is an act of the Divine Will. The Spirit of the Father proceeds from the Father and the Spirit of the Son proceeds from Son; yet it is one and the same Spirit.

The Son is Wisdom. Wisdom resides in the intellect. The generation of the Son is an act of the Divine Intellect.

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.

That the Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son is not at odds with your phrasing of the Spirit proceeding through the Son. One speaks to origin and the other to the double procession from the Father and the Son, both of whom possess the Spirit.

 

[Cavaradossi]

No, I mean in the sense of “He who sees me sees the Father.”

In this verse, Christ comments upon His consubstantial communion with the Father, but is not saying that their hypostases are confused (as in Sabellianism). If you wish to say that Christ receives the power of spiration as part of His consubstantial communion with the Father, then it should stand to reason too that the Spirit also receives this power, unless the Spirit is a creature, since as John of Damascus taught in the Orthodox Faith 1.8:Accordingly, all things whatsoever the Son has from the Father the Spirit also has…

Saying that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son is not tantamount to denying that the Father is the origin of the procession. “All that belongs to the Father is the Son’s” and “All things have been committed to me by my Father.”

By virtue of what does the Son have something that the Father has and the Spirit doesn’t? If it be by nature, then the Holy Spirit would not be divine. If it be by virtue of hypostasis, then this implies that the two hypostases are mingled and confused.

In this way of looking at it, there is no disagreement.

But we do disagree, because the logic you use takes a verse intended to explain the consubstantial unity of the Son with the Father to justify the Son sharing in a property with the Father which the Spirit does not have.

But if the Spirit is received by the Son from the Father the Spirit proceeds also from the Son as when Jesus, after rising from the dead, breathed on his disciples saying “Receive you the Holy Spirit.”

But this is a non-issue, because we don’t disagree that the Spirit is sent by the Son, we disagree that the Son is together with the Father the eternal principle of the Spirit’s hypostatic origination.

Being “of” may also signify source as in Spirit of the Father. “Of” can connote both belonging and source, even if that source is intermediate.

This is untrue according to St. John of Damascus, who differentiates between the two, wiritng again in Orthodox Faith 1.8:Neither do we say that the Spirit is from the Son, but we call Him the Spirit of the Son.

The Spirit is Holy. Holiness resides in the Will. The spiration of the Spirit is an act of the Divine Will.

But then The Son is Holy too, is He not, as is the Father? By this logic, the unbegottenness of the Father is an act of the Divine Will, as is the Begetting of the Son. The acts of Begetting and Spiration are acts according to nature, to say otherwise would be to concede that the Son and the Holy Spirit are creatures.

The Spirit of the Father proceeds from the Father and the Spirit of the Son proceeds from Son; yet it is one and the same Spirit.

As shown above, being the Spirit of the Son is not identical to being the Spirit from the Son.

The Son is Wisdom. Wisdom resides in the intellect. The generation of the Son is an act of the Divine Intellect.

The Generation of the Son is an act according to nature, as taught by St. Athanasius. It is necessary that both Begetting and Spiration be acts according to nature and not according to energies like will or intellect, because as St. Cyril teaches, creation differs from the Only-begotten in that the created are created according to energy, while the Only-begotten Son is Begotten according to nature.

That the Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son is not at odds with your phrasing of the Spirit proceeding through the Son. One speaks to origin and the other to the double procession from the Father and the Son, both of whom possess the Spirit.

We do not say that the Spirit has Its origin from the Son. When the Fathers speak of the Spirit being through the Son, the meaning is that the Son shares with the Spirit with His energy (operation), which the Spirit manifests. Hence the Spirit is said to proceed through the Son (but not from the Son), because receiving hypostatic existence (and thus proceeding) from the Father alone, the Spirit rests upon the Son, and by proceeding through the Son, makes the Son’s energy manifest. As St. John of Damascus taught in Orthodox Faith 1.6:In the same way, too, having learned that there is a Spirit of God, we conceive of Him as associated with the Word and making the operation of the Word manifest.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

The Arians rejected the divinity of the Spirit. Only the Father was God in the full sense according to them.

Cavaradossi, as well as RyanBlack, was saying that you are confusing personal properties with natural properties. Personal properties define the person, natural define God. You have taken a personal property of the Father and made it natural to the Son. Causality is a personal property of the Father, and by using it to prove the divinity of the Son, you become either a modalist or a Spirit fighter (denying the divinity of the Spirit).

“jimmy you may have just bumped your head”. I have only discussed the procession. You should re-read my posts. I imply no confusion. It is the Orthodox who are using foreign language to the Principles of God. That is why I interjected my posts’ because the Orthodox are making the filioque something foreign to the doctrine by mixing and confusing the principles of God and the essence of God.

Orthodox and Eastern religions are famous for that ancient battle tactic to create chaos and confusion and conquer. It does not work here at CA.

All the under lined words are quoted by the Orthodox here and above. How can you draw such a false conclusion to my posts. I never discussed such properties of the nature of God, nor have I introduces such words as “Different, Casuality, Monarchy of the Father, tropos of their origination differes” which are foreign to the Nicene Creed.

That is the most ridiculous claim I have heard yet.

Do have anything better to add to the Filioque as I have described it according to the CCC?

Your post strikes as not taking this matter serious, to interject such a false claim. But I could be mistaken.

Point your position more clearly and your objection because I cannot make heads or tails of it, that is why I think you bumped your head.

The filioque is never rigid to the nature or principle of God. We are discussing the procession. Orthodox wants to make filioque rigid and something that is not there. Orthodox are inventing things to protest the filioque. I object to your findings and your false drawn conclusions because they are never Catholic.

Lord have mercy.

Peace be with you

 

[jimmy]

“jimmy you may have just bumped your head”. I have only discussed the procession. You should re-read my posts. I imply no confusion. It is the Orthodox who are using foreign language to the Principles of God. That is why I interjected my posts’ because the Orthodox are making the filioque something foreign to the doctrine by mixing and confusing the principles of God and the essence of God.

Orthodox and Eastern religions are famous for that ancient battle tactic to create chaos and confusion and conquer. It does not work here at CA.

All the under lined words are quoted by the Orthodox here and above. How can you draw such a false conclusion to my posts. I never discussed such properties of the nature of God, nor have I introduces such words as “Different, Casuality, Monarchy of the Father, tropos of their origination differes” which are foreign to the Nicene Creed.

That is the most ridiculous claim I have heard yet.

Do have anything better to add to the Filioque as I have described it according to the CCC?

Your post strikes as not taking this matter serious, to interject such a false claim. But I could be mistaken.

Point your position more clearly and your objection because I cannot make heads or tails of it, that is why I think you bumped your head.

The filioque is never rigid to the nature or principle of God. We are discussing the procession. Orthodox wants to make filioque rigid and something that is not there. Orthodox are inventing things to protest the filioque. I object to your findings and your false drawn conclusions because they are never Catholic.

Lord have mercy.

Peace be with you

What are you talking about? I don’t understand half of your post.

Causality, including begetting and procession, is a property of the Father. These words aren’t new, they are those used by the fathers. The fact is, you claimed that it was necessary to say that the Spirit proceeds from the Son because of the Arians. If it proves the divinity of the Son, then it proves the no divinity of the Spirit because you have made it a natural property, and denied it to the Spirit.

What I said was perfectly accurate.

 

[1Tim215Mommy]

The fact is, you claimed that it was necessary to say that the Spirit proceeds from the Son because of the Arians. If it proves the divinity of the Son, then it proves the no divinity of the Spirit because you have made it a natural property, and denied it to the Spirit.

What I said was perfectly accurate.

You are accurate. The filioque can’t possibly be true without completely denying the divinity of the Holy Spirit and the Holy Trinity.

 

[1Tim215Mommy]

The fact is, you claimed that it was necessary to say that the Spirit proceeds from the Son because of the Arians. If it proves the divinity of the Son, then it proves the no divinity of the Spirit because you have made it a natural property, and denied it to the Spirit.

What I said was perfectly accurate.

You are accurate. The filioque can’t possibly be true without completely denying the divinity of the Holy Spirit and the Holy Trinity.

 

[JamesCaruso]

In this verse, Christ comments upon His consubstantial communion with the Father, but is not saying that their hypostases are confused (as in Sabellianism). If you wish to say that Christ receives the power of spiration as part of His consubstantial communion with the Father, then it should stand to reason too that the Spirit also receives this power, unless the Spirit is a creature, since as John of Damascus taught in the Orthodox Faith 1.8:Accordingly, all things whatsoever the Son has from the Father the Spirit also has…

By virtue of what does the Son have something that the Father has and the Spirit doesn’t? If it be by nature, then the Holy Spirit would not be divine. If it be by virtue of hypostasis, then this implies that the two hypostases are mingled and confused.

But we do disagree, because the logic you use takes a verse intended to explain the consubstantial unity of the Son with the Father to justify the Son sharing in a property with the Father which the Spirit does not have.

But this is a non-issue, because we don’t disagree that the Spirit is sent by the Son, we disagree that the Son is together with the Father the eternal principle of the Spirit’s hypostatic origination.

This is untrue according to St. John of Damascus, who differentiates between the two, wiritng again in Orthodox Faith 1.8:Neither do we say that the Spirit is from the Son, but we call Him the Spirit of the Son.

But then The Son is Holy too, is He not, as is the Father? By this logic, the unbegottenness of the Father is an act of the Divine Will, as is the Begetting of the Son. The acts of Begetting and Spiration are acts according to nature, to say otherwise would be to concede that the Son and the Holy Spirit are creatures.

As shown above, being the Spirit of the Son is not identical to being the Spirit from the Son.

The Generation of the Son is an act according to nature, as taught by St. Athanasius. It is necessary that both Begetting and Spiration be acts according to nature and not according to energies like will or intellect, because as St. Cyril teaches, creation differs from the Only-begotten in that the created are created according to energy, while the Only-begotten Son is Begotten according to nature.

We do not say that the Spirit has Its origin from the Son. When the Fathers speak of the Spirit being through the Son, the meaning is that the Son shares with the Spirit with His energy (operation), which the Spirit manifests. Hence the Spirit is said to proceed through the Son (but not from the Son), because receiving hypostatic existence (and thus proceeding) from the Father alone, the Spirit rests upon the Son, and by proceeding through the Son, makes the Son’s energy manifest. As St. John of Damascus taught in Orthodox Faith 1.6:In the same way, too, having learned that there is a Spirit of God, we conceive of Him as associated with the Word and making the operation of the Word manifest.

Everything you say is contradictory. You say that the Son can’t have anything different from the Spirit, but in the case of the Father, he can, for only he can beget the Son and only he can be source of the Spirit. If the Spirit can proceed from the Father, the Spirit can proceed from the Son. You can’t have it both ways. The Father does not have attributes not possessed by the the other Persons of the Trinity. The other two Persons are not inferior in any way. The Role of Father in generating the Son is not an attribute, but instead signifies a relationship. This is also true of the roles of both the Father and the Son in breathing forth the Spirit. It signifies a relationship, not a special attribute. You are wrong in supposing that if the Son has the power of spiration the Spirit must also have it, because spiration is not a power, nor does any Person of the Trinity have a power that the other Persons do not have. Spiration signifies relationship, and that relationship is the love between the Father and the Son.

 

[Schism_hater]

nevertheless, if you still say that it is economic and energetic outpouring, then when we say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son (filioque) in the economic and energetic sense is still Orthodox.

That is correct, unfortunately the councils of Lateran IV, Lyons II and Florence go farther and state that the Spirt proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son equally. That is where the problem lies.

 

[1Tim215Mommy]

That is correct, unfortunately the councils of Lateran IV, Lyons II and Florence go farther and state that the Spirt proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son equally. That is where the problem lies.

With how the Catholic Church is set up now with Infallibility on Faith & Morals through either Council statement or Papal excathedra statement, can the Catholic Church back-out of what it decreed in those councils you quote regarding the eternal spiration of the Holy Spirit from both the Father & the Son equally and still remain “Catholic”?

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

jimmy;10973987]What are you talking about? I don’t understand half of your post.

Rightly so; I don’t understand your false interpretation of filioque;

Causality, including begetting and procession, is a property of the Father.

What does this have to do with the procession in regards to the filioque? Filioque never interprets the property of the Father. Filioque compliments what is professed by all of us in the Creed that the Father and the Son are consubstantial period.

Your rhetoric to confuse the simplicity of the Creed in Consubstantial serves no purpose in the procession of Holy Spirit. You leave the subject matter of the procession in filioque and begin inventing your own interpretation of filioque by forcing it to deny the other persons of the blessed Trinity. You Orthdoox have left the playing field and are playing a foreign game by yourselves in your own field with nobody to play with. The filioque is not that difficult to understand.

How is that the heretical Arians understood it, and you proclaimed Orthodox do not understand it?

These words aren’t new, they are those used by the fathers.

If you apply them to the Creed they are new. Filioque compliments the Creed from consubstantial. What you added here has nothing to do with the Creed that is professed. When have we ever professed “Monarchy” in the creed? Let alone “Casuality” is never in the profession of the Creed.

Let us keep it simple ? by sticking to what is professed from the Creed. Now if you want to digress in what is consubstantial, we can relate this to the filioque that is professed by all in the Creed. But don’t invent a different filioque and pretend that is what Catholics profess and believe, your filioque is wrong and never Catholic, I dare say it is revealed heretical here because now you have the filioque rigidly denying the divinity of the Holy Spirit.

Wow, now I understand why so many heretical teachings came from the Orthodox side of the Church early on.

The fact is, you claimed that it was necessary to say that the Spirit proceeds from the Son because of the Arians.

No that is incorrect; you are wrong to state such a false thing as fact. The fact what I stated and what the filioque professess is that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father AND the Son The reality of what is professed from the Creed as the Son being consubstantial with the Father.

I never said the “Spirit proceeds from the Son”, that is never the filioque. If your going to chop up the filioque and add new different themes and poetics to filioque, you are not discussing the Catholic filioque anymore.

If it proves the divinity of the Son, then it proves the no divinity of the Spirit because you have made it a natural property, and denied it to the Spirit.

Ok I will bite; You are right your filioque proves “the divinity of the Son and disproves the divinity of the spirit, because you made it a natural property, and denied it to the Spirit”.

I agree with you and your view of the filioque here is heretical before it ever reaches the Creed. How can you place your interpretation of the filioque into the Creed when it contradicts the Holy Spirit as being the Lord and giver of life?

Here is what the CCC teaches about the filioque which is addressing the **eternal order **of what is consubstantial. Add any more to this and you enter heresy.

What I said was perfectly accurate.

I agree, what you said was perfectly accurate to your heretical view of the filioque which does not exist in the Catholic faith, nor is it believed.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

That is correct, unfortunately the councils of Lateran IV, Lyons II and Florence go farther and state that the Spirt proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son equally. That is where the problem lies.

Let me help you with your problem here Schism;

For one what the councils confirm and what the CCC teaches “For the ETERNAL ORDER of the DIVINE PERSONS in their CONSUBSTANTIAL communion implies that the Father, as the 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”. CCC 248b

Now that did not hurt did it?

The filioque is professing the Creed from the consubstantial communion of the blessed Trinity from procession. If Consubstantial communion of Love within the trinity is not eternal. Then you need to re-move yourself as a Catholic Christian believer?

What makes you think that the consubstantial communion is never eternal? When did Orthodox begin this heresy of denying the professed Creed that the Son is consubstantial with the Father?

If you deny the consubstantial communion as not being co-eternal in the Trinity then you are not discussing the filioque. You just invented another demi-god.

Stick to the creed and you Orthodox cannot go wrong with filioque and you will defeat any Arian who tries to deny the divinity of Christ by using the Nicene Creed procession of the Holy Spirit.

I just don’t get you Orthodox who try to divide up the blessed Trinity as if there are different dieties from filioque that make up demi-gods, that is unbelievable. When you know good and well that we Catholics never believe in a divided Trinity.

If you want to play ball with the filioque stick to the filioque, please don’t invent another filioque.

Peace be with you