Orthodox views on the Holy Spirit

[Gabriel_of_12]

jimmy;10976482]Gabriel, you need to read the fathers. The creed and the theology behind it are inseparable.

Hi, jimmy; First of all I don’t disagree with the Church Fathers as they revealed in human words towards the mystery of God which human words can never exhaust or define indefatigable.** No one can define God, so let’s not pretend that the ECF’s have defined God, they haven’t.**

Thus the Creed; I don’t separate the theology of the Fathers from the Creed. The fiioque addresses only one aspect of the Trinity. You Orthdoox want to make this procession of the Holy Spirit to define the whole Godhead, It does not. Further more the filioque never conflicts nor contradicts the Creed nor does it attempt to define God, only the procession of the Holy Spirit.

God has spoken only ONE Word, and that Word has become flesh. You pretend to take OUR theology of principle without principle and eliminate the Word of God by denying Jesus is not God as the Arians did, because the Holy Spirit only proceeds from the Father.** You Orthodox take the heretical view by denying consubstantiation of the Father and the Son follows the procession of the Holy Spirit. Because the Father and the Son as being of the same substance. From this same substance which the Father and the Son share the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally.**If you want an example of this take a look at creation and all the divine laws which govern it. You see God in all and you see the Word of God from which all things came and you see the HolySpirit eternally proceeding from the Father and the Son because creation still exists and reproduces after it’s own seed (naturally).

Because the filioque compliments Consubstantiation, let us speak of Consubstantiation, we need not discuss any more elements or theology of God except Consubstantiation, which the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son.

In retrospect; The CCC addresses the Orthodox tradition of the Creed in the procession of the Holy Spirit from it’s origin “principle without principle” God the Father. The Catholic profession of the Creed includes the procession of the Holy Spirit eternally proceeding from Consubstantiality = God.

John supports the Roman Catholic position emphatically because he writes; John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God.

The Word that was with God, Jesus Later reveals to be the Father and the Son. It is from this divine revelation where the Father and the Son are with one another and the Word was God, is what the filioque is pointing to in revelation from the Creed in Consubstantiation. Jesus later states; “And the Father and the Son are one”, “if you have seen the Son you have seen the Father”. It is this filioque which defeated the Arians in the West.

Pulling the filioque out of the Creed serves no purpose and it is needed to acknowledge that Jesus the only Begotten Son of God is God consubstantially. And if we acknowledge the Holy Spirit’s origin from the Father who is God, we prove to heretics that the Son is God because the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son consubstantially of the same substance. The filioque never defines God here, nor the origin of the procession only the eternal procession coming from the Father and the Son.

What eliminates the division between the Orthodox and Catholic position; is that the Catholic filioque from the Creed, never denies the Holy Spirit’s origin of procession from the Father as principle without principle. The filioque in the Creed professess the eternal procession from the Father and the Son from Consubstantiality. Which still maintains it’s mystery. The CCC confirms this mystery when she teaches no one is to apply this fiioque “rigidly and never affects the identity of faith in the reality of the same mystery confessed” CCC 248c

We as Catholics have always believed the origin of the HolySpirit, but that is not what the filioque is addressing from the Creed. We already professed that in the beginning of the Creed. What filioque is doing is stating that the Word became flesh is still God in Consubstantial substance where the Holy Spirit is eternally proceeding from the Father and the Son. In essence this remains a mystery, which cannot be defined in human words, but only in faith revealed by God.

We can find common ground be respecting each one’s tradition. When one is the origin of the procession as principle without principle, and one reveals the eternal procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son in consubstantiality. Neither one conflicts with the other.

Peace be with you

 

[1Tim215Mommy]

** You Orthodox take the heretical view by denying consubstantiation of the Father and the Son follows the procession of the Holy Spirit. Because the Father and the Son as being of the same substance. From this same substance which the Father and the Son share the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally.**

Peace be with you

You first statement, is very different that Orthodox teaching in that we believe that ALL Persons of the Trinity are of the same Divine “substance” a true Trinity of Divine Persons.

Your statement, rather explains that the Father & Son alone sharing the Divine substance as described in your statement that the Holy Spirit eternally proceeds from a same substance that the Father & Son share meaning that the Holy Spirit doesn’t share this Divine substance that leads to a Duality rather than an authentic Trinity

IF you then respond saying “you misunderstand my comment, Catholics also believe that the Holy Spirit also is of the same Divine “substance” as the Father & Son” then combined with your statement that the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from this Divine “substance” then you would have to say that the Holy Spirit also proceeds eternally from Himself

Either way we end up with an

Orthodox believe the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit all share the same Divine substance and we do not believe the Holy Spirit proceeds from that common Divine substance, but we do believe the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the unique Person of the Father and not from the Divine “substance” common to all 3 Persons and not from the Son nor from the Holy Spirit, but from the Father alone.

We can respect each other while acknowledging that we clearly believe and teach a very different Trinity.

Your second statement, yes and with your spirit too.

 

[jimmy]

The only way the procession complements consubstantiation, is of you deny that the Spirit is consubstantial with the Father and the Son. You want to assert the consubstantiality of the Son with the Father, which is pointless, because it is already directly stated in the creed that he is ‘consubstantial with the Father.’ But with your insistence on associating the Filioque with consubstantiality, you deny the consubstantiality of the Spirit with the Father and the Spirit. You insist that this proves the consubstantial character of Father and Son because they come from the same substance? Doesn’t the Spirit come from the same substance?

 

[LionHeart777]

I am reading parts of an in depth article from Catholic-Legate.com, entitled, “Filioque: A Response To Eastern Orthodox Objections”. It defends the Filioque from Canonically and Theologically, and I recommend it for everyone to read. One of the points made, and I believe it gets at what is being discussed is that:

A major stumbling block in regard to Filioque for many Easterners today is that modern Eastern Orthodox theology is dominated by the 9th Century views of Photius of Constantinople, who (in direct response to his misinterpretation of what his contemporary Latin brethren meant by ‘Filioque’), developed a (very ‘Antiochian’) system of Pneumatology in which Son and Spirit have no eternal Personal connection (aside from their consubstantial essence).

Source: catholic-legate.com/apologetics/thechurch/articles/filioque.aspx

My question is, those who are objecting to the Filioque in this thread, do you believe that “…Son and Spirit have no eternal Personal connection (aside from their consubstantial essence)” ? (Ibid.)

And in regards to an argument I believe I heard on this thread, I wanted to post the following:

Now, it has unfortunately become a very popular (though largely baseless) argument among modern Eastern Orthodox to claim that the Eastern fathers, in professing that the Spirit proceeds ‘through the Son’, are always referring to the Son’s temporal pouring fourth of the Spirit upon the Church (e.g. John 20:22), and so not the eternal procession of the Spirit within the Trinitarian nature of God. This of course not only seriously (nay, dangerously) threatens the very essence of the Christian Gospel (i.e., Christ’s adopting us into the very same Sonship – and so the very same Spirit of Sonship [Romans 8:15] – which He Himself enjoys eternally with the Father), but it also fails to acknowledge the full testimony of the Eastern fathers, which I will address in detail below.

Ibid.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

1Tim215Mommy;10979630]You first statement, is very different that Orthodox teaching in that we believe that ALL Persons of the Trinity are of the same Divine “substance” a true Trinity of Divine Persons.

What I quoted is from the CCC I don’t know where in the world you get your filioque but it sure is not Catholic.

To help you understand your dilema answer me this with your theology without the filioque;

“Jesus Christ was conceived by the Power of the the Holy Spirit, and was born of the Virgin Mary”. Be careful here, because now the Word has taken on flesh.

We can respect each other while acknowledging that we clearly believe and teach a very different Trinity.

I cannot respect your Trinity when it denies Jesus as God. My Trinity as all three persons distinct, yet all are one God.

Your theology displaces the distinction of each person of the Blessed Trinity, whereby the filioque never does but confirms their distinction of persons yet unites them as one being one God. Your theology removes the distinction of persons and deny one or the other’s divinity. That is never happening in the Creed.

If I follow your logic you place Jesus outside of the Trinity and thereby cannot be God. You are posing the same argument the Arians did who denied Jesus divinity.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

I am reading parts of an in depth article from Catholic-Legate.com, entitled, “Filioque: A Response To Eastern Orthodox Objections”. It defends the Filioque from Canonically and Theologically, and I recommend it for everyone to read. One of the points made, and I believe it gets at what is being discussed is that:

Source: catholic-legate.com/apologetics/thechurch/articles/filioque.aspx

My question is, those who are objecting to the Filioque in this thread, do you believe that “…Son and Spirit have no eternal Personal connection (aside from their consubstantial essence)” ? (Ibid.)

And in regards to an argument I believe I heard on this thread, I wanted to post the following:

Ibid.

I respect your post and others who have contributed are very good indeed.

With respect to the Orthodox here, they are holding the filioque to rigid standards which the Church never does. That is there problem the Orthodox wish to invent a new filioque which does not exist.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

jimmy;10979716]The only way the procession complements consubstantiation, is of you deny that the Spirit is consubstantial with the Father and the Son. You want to assert the consubstantiality of the Son with the Father, which is pointless, because it is already directly stated in the creed that he is ‘consubstantial with the Father.’

Your own statement is in direct contradiction of itself. The creed only addresses the Son being consubstantial with the Father, what do you mean it is pointless, if it is pointless why do you profess it?

It is already stated because the filioque does not add or substract from the divinity which you Orthodox are trying to do with your own invention of filioque.

The filioque proves that Jesus is God because the Holy spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. This whole God head remains one God from Consubstantiality which is professed in the Creed alone while the Son is consubstantial with the Father. No more needed and no more is said about consubstantial in the Creed here for which filioque is addressing the relationship between the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit in the eternal procession.

You want to make consubstantiation the origin of God which is wrong, and then you want to make consubstantiation define the whole God head which is does not. Then you want to make your filioque displace the distinct persons of each God head as separated from each other, which does not happen.

You Orthodox have gone out into deep waters that you have been swallowed up by the high tide and cannot find your way back home with your filioque.

Leave the filioque in the Creed and it confirms Jesus as God period. Nothing more and nothing taken away. If you apply rigidity to the filioque you begin to deny the Church Father’s teachings and revelations of the blessed Trinity.

But with your insistence on associating the Filioque with consubstantiality, you deny the consubstantiality of the Spirit with the Father and the Spirit.

We have not discussed the consubstantiality of the Spirit here, at least not with me. Where have you been?

We are discussing the Creed alone with the filioque. Does the creed state that the Father and the Son and the HolySpirit are all consubstantial? We are not discussing the essence of the HolySpirit only what the Creed is addressing between the Father and the Son from which the HolySpirit proceeds eternally. It is here where the Arians attacked the Creed and denied Jesus divinity. Filioque defeated the heretics period. Which proved to the Arians that Jesus is God.

 

[1Tim215Mommy]

My responses are in Teal.

What I quoted is from the CCC I don’t know where in the world you get your filioque but it sure is not Catholic.

Orthodox Christians do not have a Filioque. I’ve quoted CCC # 246 a couple of times now for how I, an Orthodox Christian, understand what the official Catholic Church Teaching is regarding the Holy Spirit.

To help you understand your dilema answer me this with your theology without the filioque;

“Jesus Christ was conceived by the Power of the the Holy Spirit, and was born of the Virgin Mary”. Be careful here, because now the Word has taken on flesh.

That is a very small part to what Orthodox Theology teaches about Jesus. Let me help you out by listing all the sections of the Creed that describe what we believe about Jesus:

Section 2. (I believe) And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all Ages. Light of Light, True God of True God, begotten not made, consubstantial with the Father, through Whom all things were made.

Section 3. Who for us men, and for our salvation, came down from Heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit, and of the Virgin Mary, and became Man.

Section 4. And was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate, and suffered, and was buried.

Section 5. And arose on the third day according to the Scriptures.

Section 6. And ascended into Heaven, and sat at the right hand of the Father.

Section 7. And He shall come again in glory to judge the living and the dead; Whose Kingdom shall have no end.

Section 8. And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Giver of Life Who proceeds from the Father, Who together with the Father and the Son is worshipped and glorified; Who spake through the Prophets.

I cannot respect your Trinity when it denies Jesus as God. My Trinity as all three persons distinct, yet all are one God.

The Orthodox Theology regarding the Trinity does Not deny Jesus Christ is God as anyone who has ever read the unaltered Creed of the Ecumenical Council which was used to destroy the Arian Heresy centuries Before the Filioque was ever accepted in Creed recited in Rome. It is clear in Orthodox daily Prayers that Orthodox Theology Jesus Christ is God, as a phrase often recited in prayer is “Christ our God”.

If I follow your logic you place Jesus outside of the Trinity and thereby cannot be God. You are posing the same argument the Arians did who denied Jesus divinity.

You really are attempting to claim that the Orthodox use the same arguments as the Arians?! On the basis that we, Orthodox, continue to use the unaltered Creed written by the Bishops of the Ecumenical Council specifically to condemn Arianism! Whoa! I’m not going to be able to take you seriously any longer as clearly you are playing the role of a jester. That’s a knee-slapping good joke you wrote there!

 

[1Tim215Mommy]

We have not discussed the consubstantiality of the Spirit here, at least not with me. Where have you been?

Gabriel of 12, Jimmy has been reading your posts and in your posts you have flatly denied that the Holy Spirit is of the same Divine substance with the Father and Son.

You have also been posting that the only way Jesus can be God is only if the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son (in addition to the Father) and if that is the only way to be God, than the Holy Spirit can not be God unless He proceeds from Himself. Orthodox can’t accept that as Truth.

Does the Catholic Church really teach what you’ve been posting namely that a Person of the Trinity can only be Divine in Substance only if the Holy Spirit proceeds from Him eternally; thereby excluding the Holy Spirit as a Divine Person of the Trinity?

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

My responses are in Teal.

First of all let us be clear here; The Roman Catholic Church has always used the Apostles Creed for her baptism’s long long before there was ever any Nicene Creed.

Yes the Nicene Creed defeated the First Arians who rejected the Creed.

The Filioque defeated the Arians who were using the Creed and misinterpreting the procession of the HolySpirit to deny Jesus divinity.

So your argument holds not water to historical standards.

Constantine (Orthodox CA poster) once used the progression (multiple) of councils were needed to defeat the first Arians, I rejected this notion because the first Arians were banished. So I don’t know which Orthodox to believe here, because you have conflicting purposes for the councils.

Please Let me conclude with an easier question for you;

Who was it and what was it that Jesus breathed upon the apostles after the resurrection?

John 20:23…"and when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, Receive the HOLY SPIRIT…

**Who was it that breathed the Holy Spirit upon the apostles? Was it God, was it the Father, or was it the Son, or was it the Holy Spirit breathing himself upon the apostles?

Please answer, who proceeded from who? Does the Orthodox have an answer to this scripture context that proves a procession?

The filioque confirms that it was the Father and the Son, because the Father and the Son are one and the Trinity is never divided here because the HolySpirit is processing. Thus it is from God that the HolySpirit proceeds

I rest my case on the Word of God, who was with God and the Word was God…and the Word became flesh…

Peace be with you

**

 

[1Tim215Mommy]

We have not discussed the consubstantiality of the Spirit here, at least not with me. Where have you been?

Gabriel of 12, Jimmy has been reading your posts and in your posts you have flatly denied that the Holy Spirit is of the same Divine substance with the Father and Son.

You have also been posting that the only way Jesus can be God is only if the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son (in addition to the Father) and if that is the only way to be God, than the Holy Spirit can not be God unless He proceeds from Himself. Orthodox can’t accept that as Truth.

Does the Catholic Church really teach what you’ve been posting namely that a Person of the Trinity can only be Divine in Substance only if the Holy Spirit proceeds from Him eternally; thereby excluding the Holy Spirit as a Divine Person of the Trinity?

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Gabriel of 12, Jimmy has been reading your posts and in your posts you have flatly denied that the Holy Spirit is of the same Divine substance with the Father and Son.

You have also been posting that the only way Jesus can be God is only if the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son (in addition to the Father) and if that is the only way to be God, than the Holy Spirit can not be God unless He proceeds from Himself. Orthodox can’t accept that as Truth.

Does the Catholic Church really teach what you’ve been posting namely that a Person of the Trinity can only be Divine in Substance only if the Holy Spirit proceeds from Him eternally; thereby excluding the Holy Spirit as a Divine Person of the Trinity?

No to you to all of the above; The reality to which I have been addressing the filioque is strictly from the Creed and the CCC.

If you re-read your Orthodox posts here, it is the Orthodox who have been pulling the filioque out of the context from which it is professed. That is why you have jumped to false conclusions of the filioque. Because you remove the filioque from the Creed and I have not.

I have not discussed the Trinity here outside of the Creed, I have not discussed consubstantiality outside of the creed here, I have not discussed the filioque outside of the professed Creed.

All of your Orthodox false conclusions are drawn not from the CCC nor the Creed but from outside of the Creed.

 

[LionHeart777]

I’ll cut and paste a segment from the website of the Unites Sates Conference of Catholic Bishops:

If I’m not mistaken it is an agreed upon statement from the North American Orthodox-Catholic Consultation:

We are convinced from our own study that the Eastern and Western theological traditions have been in substantial agreement, since the patristic period, on a number of fundamental affirmations about the Holy Trinity that bear on the Filioque debate:

-both traditions clearly affirm that the Holy Spirit is a distinct hypostasis or person within the divine Mystery, equal in status to the Father and the Son, and is not simply a creature or a way of talking about God’s action in creatures;

-although the Creed of 381 does not state it explicitly, both traditions confess the Holy Spirit to be God, of the same divine substance (homoousios) as Father and Son;
both traditions also clearly affirm that the Father is the primordial source (arch‘) and ultimate cause (aitia) of the divine being, and thus of all God’s operations: the “spring” from which both Son and Spirit flow, the “root” of their being and fruitfulness, the “sun” from which their existence and their activity radiates;

-both traditions affirm that the three hypostases or persons in God are constituted in their hypostatic existence and distinguished from one another solely by their relation ships of origin, and not by any other characteristics or activities;

-accordingly, both traditions affirm that all the operations of God - the activities by which God summons created reality into being, and forms that reality, for its well-being, into a unified and ordered cosmos centered on the human creature, who is made in God’s image – are the common work of Father, Son and Holy Spirit, even though each of them plays a distinctive role within those operations that is determined by their relationships to one another…

Source: usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/ecumenical-and-interreligious/ecumenical/orthodox/filioque-church-dividing-issue-english.cfm

Unless one or both sides have had a change of mind, doesn’t it seem silly to debate these specifics? (I say this having given it some thought myself.)

Here is the link to an article about this conference from the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America:

goarch.org/news/goa.news1003

 

[jimmy]

Your own statement is in direct contradiction of itself. The creed only addresses the Son being consubstantial with the Father, what do you mean it is pointless, if it is pointless why do you profess it?

It is already stated because the filioque does not add or substract from the divinity which you Orthodox are trying to do with your own invention of filioque.

The filioque proves that Jesus is God because the Holy spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. This whole God head remains one God from Consubstantiality which is professed in the Creed alone while the Son is consubstantial with the Father. No more needed and no more is said about consubstantial in the Creed here for which filioque is addressing the relationship between the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit in the eternal procession.

You want to make consubstantiation the origin of God which is wrong, and then you want to make consubstantiation define the whole God head which is does not. Then you want to make your filioque displace the distinct persons of each God head as separated from each other, which does not happen.

You Orthodox have gone out into deep waters that you have been swallowed up by the high tide and cannot find your way back home with your filioque.

Leave the filioque in the Creed and it confirms Jesus as God period. Nothing more and nothing taken away. If you apply rigidity to the filioque you begin to deny the Church Father’s teachings and revelations of the blessed Trinity.

We have not discussed the consubstantiality of the Spirit here, at least not with me. Where have you been?

We are discussing the Creed alone with the filioque. Does the creed state that the Father and the Son and the HolySpirit are all consubstantial? We are not discussing the essence of the HolySpirit only what the Creed is addressing between the Father and the Son from which the HolySpirit proceeds eternally. It is here where the Arians attacked the Creed and denied Jesus divinity. Filioque defeated the heretics period. Which proved to the Arians that Jesus is God.

You need to stop arguing and read some theology, because none of what you say makes any sense. Read a history of the development of Trinitarian theology and the creed. For you to even question the consubstantiality of the Spirit with the Father and the Son, and to refuse to even entertain the discussion of it is to be a heretic by both Catholic and Orthodox standards. Catholicism believes the Spirit is consubstantial with the Father and the Son. If he is not, then he is not God. That was Athanasius’ argument against the Arians. That is the creeds argument against the Arians. Since the Son is consubstantial with the Father, he is God. It is that simple. There is no further need for argument or proof, it is settled. The filioque adds nothing to it. The Holy Spirit is consubstantial with the Father also, otherwise he wouldn’t be God. It is that simple. You can deny that, but you become a heretic according to Trinitarian standards.
[685](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/685.htm’) To believe in the Holy Spirit is to profess that the Holy Spirit is one of the persons of the Holy Trinity, consubstantial with the Father and the Son: "with the Father and the Son he is worshipped and glorified."6 For this reason, the divine mystery of the Holy Spirit was already treated in the context of Trinitarian “theology.” Here, however, we have to do with the Holy Spirit only in the divine “economy.”
Regarding the filioque, you keep insisting it is associated with the consubstantiality of the Son with the Father. By doing that, you deny the consubstantiality of the Spirit with the Father and the Son. So your whole argument about the filioque is nonsense, and I doubt any Catholic has ever made a similar argument.

 

[jimmy]

No to you to all of the above; The reality to which I have been addressing the filioque is strictly from the Creed and the CCC.

If you re-read your Orthodox posts here, it is the Orthodox who have been pulling the filioque out of the context from which it is professed. That is why you have jumped to false conclusions of the filioque. Because you remove the filioque from the Creed and I have not.

I have not discussed the Trinity here outside of the Creed, I have not discussed consubstantiality outside of the creed here, I have not discussed the filioque outside of the professed Creed.

All of your Orthodox false conclusions are drawn not from the CCC nor the Creed but from outside of the Creed.

You need to read about the theology of the Trinity, because if you knew about it you wouldn’t be trying to seperate the Trinity as it is spoken of in the creed from any other speech about it. You would understand that it is one thing and it can’t be divided.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

I’ll cut and paste a segment from the website of the Unites Sates Conference of Catholic Bishops:

If I’m not mistaken it is an agreed upon statement from the North American Orthodox-Catholic Consultation:

Source: usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/ecumenical-and-interreligious/ecumenical/orthodox/filioque-church-dividing-issue-english.cfm

Unless one or both sides have had a change of mind, doesn’t it seem silly to debate these specifics? (I say this having given it some thought myself.)

Here is the link to an article about this conferecnce from the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America:

goarch.org/news/goa.news1003

Thus far both the Orthodox “consultation” and the Catholic “conference” have addressed the same issues here from theology and have found common ground which to me was never in question.

We have not moved from theology to the discussion of doctrine here.

Although the debate here deals with two different perspectives coming from the same school of thought in regards to the trinity. One perspective dealt with the filioque outside of the Creed. The Other dealt with the filioque professed from the Creed. It is here were we find ourselves agains debating principle from without principle and consubstantiality.

As I have already said and agreed with the Catholic conference you posted, we find common ground once we realize from where we are directing our differences. One from principle without prinicple and Consubstantiality.

**I still don’t know why the Orthodox wish to attack the filioque from outside the Creed on this thread, when the OP asks for the Orthodox views on the HolySpirit? **

 

[jimmy]

Thus far both the Orthodox “consultation” and the Catholic “conference” have addressed the same issues here from theology and have found common ground which to me was never in question.

We have not moved from theology to the discussion of doctrine here.

Although the debate here deals with two different perspectives coming from the same school of thought in regards to the trinity. One perspective dealt with the filioque outside of the Creed. The Other dealt with the filioque professed from the Creed. It is here were we find ourselves agains debating principle from without principle and consubstantiality.

As I have already said and agreed with the Catholic conference you posted, we find common ground once we realize from where we are directing our differences. One from principle without prinicple and Consubstantiality.

**I still don’t know why the Orthodox wish to attack the filioque from outside the Creed on this thread, when the OP asks for the Orthodox views on the HolySpirit? **

There is no such distinction between theology and doctrine. And there is no distinction between the filioque from outside the creed, and from within the creed.

 

[1Tim215Mommy]

you remove the filioque from the Creed and I have not.

forever the jester Gabriel of 12

There’s no way for the “filioque” to be Removed from the Creed because it was a centuries-later Addition to the Creed. It’s not possible to remove what was not there to begin with.

Congratulation Gabriel of 12, your jesting posts have qualified you to join my very short ignore-list.

 

[Cavaradossi]

I am reading parts of an in depth article from Catholic-Legate.com, entitled, “Filioque: A Response To Eastern Orthodox Objections”. It defends the Filioque from Canonically and Theologically, and I recommend it for everyone to read. One of the points made, and I believe it gets at what is being discussed is that:

Source: catholic-legate.com/apologetics/thechurch/articles/filioque.aspx

My question is, those who are objecting to the Filioque in this thread, do you believe that “…Son and Spirit have no eternal Personal connection (aside from their consubstantial essence)” ? (Ibid.)

No, and if the writer of the article had done more research into Orthodox triadology, he would have realized that this is not true. In Orthodox triadology, the relationship of the Son to the Spirit is that the Spirit is manifest by the Son, as was taught by St. John of Damascus, St. Gregory Palamas, the Tomus of The Council of Blachernae, among others. It is woefully one-sided, arguing mostly against a strawman, and really I don’t think it’s a good article to read if one is interested in learning about the controversy as it developed historically or as it stands today. If one is interested in reading and understanding how the debate over the filioque developed, I would recommend picking up a copy of A. Edward Siecienski’s excellent study on the topic, The Filioque: History of a Doctrinal Controversy.

To the article writer’s credit, he does mention Blachernae, but then quickly dismisses it as being a quasi-nationalistic rejection of the filioque, instead of investigating what the Council taught and making any sort of rational argument against it. Similarly, his assessment of St. Mark of Ephesus at the Council of Florence is one-sided, because while it is true that St. Mark of Ephesus was silent regarding the testimonies of the Greek fathers on the Spirit’s procession through the Son, this is because to have responded with the proper interpretation of these passages would have introduced the highly contentious topic of the essence-energies distinction, which the Emperor forbade from being discussed at the council (as if such a union could ever be legitimate, when such important issues were hidden away from discussion). The Western Fathers too, can be understood in this very same fashion (because of the vague nature of the word ‘procedere’), and the evidence for this is St. Maximus’ letter, where he writes that the Westerners do not make the Son cause of the Spirit in confessing the filioque. Of course, we do not believe that this was true of those at Florence (and we see the consistent refusal of the Latins at Florence to recognize St. Maximus’ letter as genuine or to allow it to be introduced into the discussions as evidence that when they declared that the Son should be confessed as cause of the Spirit, they actually meant it in a manner contradictory to St. Maximus).

 

[dvdjs]

No, and if the writer of the article had done more research into Orthodox triadology, he would have realized that this is not true. …
they declared that the Son should be confessed as cause of the Spirit, they actually meant it in a manner contradictory to St. Maximus).

Similarly this latter, tendentious claim could be laid to rest if more people, like the Joint Theological Commission, would listen more intently and better realize what the people they think they oppose are actually saying.