Orthodox views on the Holy Spirit

[eddie_too]

the Three Persons are distinct from One Another. we humans, as taught by Jesus, know them as the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. we understand Them through Their relationships with One Another. the Father begets (generates) the Son and spirates the Holy Spirit, the Son is generated by the Father and spirates the Holy Spirit and the Holy Spirit is spirated by the Father and the Son.

if the Holy Spirit is not spirated by the Son, what do we call the relationship between the Holy Spirit and the Son?

from what some have written here, they make it appear that there is no eternal relationship between the Son and the Holy Spirit except that both have the Father as Their Origin. that would not be a direct relationship. it would only be a relationship through the Father. it would kind of be like first cousins and not siblings.

i do not think that the concept of the Father and the Son spirating the Spirit eternally in any way negates the divinity of the Holy Spirit. no one has made a convincing argument that it does. those who have stated that have relied primarily on authority, mostly their own, in so doing.

if the Father and the Son spirate the Holy Spirit eternally, there is no way the Holy Spirit could be considered a creature. it is difficult to understand why some do not understand this.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

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.

Thank you; but I don’t think scripture is something to jost about? Because the theology from which we speak is the same but distinct in identity of the trinity.

let us try scripture here; Please don’t run.

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

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

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.

I disagree Theology is not a revelation believed in from God and does not bind all believers to it.

A doctrine is a revealed revelation of God believed by all believers.

 

[Cavaradossi]

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.

Then why did the Latins refuse to allow for the use of Maximus’ letter as a ground for union even after several offers from the Greeks? I find it particularly ironic that the Roman Catholics now use this letter as an apology for the Filioque, when the Latins at the Council of Florence consistently refused to allow for it to enter into doctrinal discussions.

 

[RyanBlack]

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.

This is beyond absurd. This ridiculous post has utterly destroyed whatever credibility on the subject you might have had.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

This is beyond absurd. This ridiculous post has utterly destroyed whatever credibility on the subject you might have had.

Sure anything taken out of the whole of it’s context to which you have done with my post, one can make it anything one wishes as you have done.

Happy to entertain you

Im not here to win arguments or gain credability, just share my Catholic faith with others and to correct those who misinterpret my faith and try to change it here.

 

[jimmy]

Sure anything taken out of the whole of it’s context to which you have done with my post, one can make it anything one wishes as you have done.

Happy to entertain you

Im not here to win arguments or gain credability, just share my Catholic faith with others and to correct those who misinterpret my faith and try to change it here.

Maybe you should start reading what others say on the topic, because your posts and your logic don’t make any sense. The first thing you have to make sure of is that you are in line with Rome. As it is, your statements don’t line up with those of Rome.

 

[dvdjs]

Then why did the Latins refuse to allow for the use of Maximus’ letter as a ground for union even after several offers from the Greeks? I find it particularly ironic that the Roman Catholics now use this letter as an apology for the Filioque, when the Latins at the Council of Florence consistently refused to allow for it to enter into doctrinal discussions.

However you find it, is of no consequence. If object to words being inappropriately put in to the mouths of EOs, then also allow the courtesy of letting Latins say what they believe rather making some ostensible deduction from this or that action.

People are arguing here over things that are agreed upon. And making assertions abobut point of disagreement that are already agreed upon. What for?

 

[dvdjs]

This is beyond absurd.

Perhaps, but no more absurd that the claims being made against the Latins. And I have to agree with G12: some of his points were pulled out of context in a totally absurd and ridiculous way…

 

[jimmy]

Perhaps, but no more absurd that the claims being made against the Latins. And I have to agree with G12: some of his points were pulled out of context in a totally absurd and ridiculous way…

No, his posts are poorly written at the least, and they demonstrate a lack of knowledge on the issue. He continually refuses to actually discuss the topic in a reasonable way. If you are going to discuss a topic, you can’t make up your own facts and rules. You deal with the facts of history. When discussing the Trinity (and the filioque is part of this doctrine) you can’t pretend that Athanasius and the Cappadocians don’t exist. You have to deal with the data; that is part of any objective study.

His statements weren’t taken out of context. They were put into context of the whole Trinitarian dialogue, but he refuses to discuss anything that might sound problematic. He wants to pretend that the words consubstantial, filioque, proceeds, and etc. exist in a vacuum, and have no history of their own. The only context for them is the other words of the creed. Since consubstantial is only applied to the Son in the creed, it shouldn’t be applied to the Spirit. If we try bringing in the background of the Cappadocians, he says it is irrelevant.

But I guess if words have no history, then you can make them mean whatever you want them to mean.

 

[LionHeart777]

I have been still reading up a bit on this and I am glad to say that what was once confusing and intimidating to me (discussing the Trinity, in terms of “spiration” and other things), I feel I have a better grasp of.

In any event, I came across this article at Orthodoxanswers.org:

orthodoxanswers.org/media/documents/filioque.pdf?noredir=1

Here is a summary offered by the author:

Many leading Orthodox theologians agree that a statement of faith
could be produced with an orthodox filioque, as was done by St. Maximos.
However, its insertion in the common liturgical Creed, which alters the
original intention of the Fathers regardless of the language, can not be
accepted by the Orthodox. A compromise might be that if the Creed is
recited in Latin, the filioque could remain if footnoted with an adequate
clarification1.

Perhaps rather ironically, the “footnote” that this Eastern Orthodox author would require, is indicated by way of a footnote at the end of the citation.

It reads:

1 The footnote would have to indicate that (1) this is an alteration of the original creed
and (2) that procedit is means proiniai, not ekporev-.

Also, the previous article I cited by Mark Bonocore of Catholic-Legate.com is cited more than once in this article.

In any event, this article made me feel more positive in that our differences on this issue are not irreconcilable (assuming what the Catholic Church professes and has professed by means of the Filioque remains intact.)

 

[Cavaradossi]

However you find it, is of no consequence. If object to words being inappropriately put in to the mouths of EOs, then also allow the courtesy of letting Latins say what they believe rather making some ostensible deduction from this or that action.

People are arguing here over things that are agreed upon. And making assertions abobut point of disagreement that are already agreed upon. What for?

If the Latins are willing to abandon what was taught at the Council of Florence, and use the letter of St. Maximus as a grounds for reunion then so be it. So long as they make that clear, then there should be no issues.

I am, however, highly suspicious of all this talk from recent years that all of the historical disagreements on matters like the Filioque to Christology (see the dialogues with the ACOE and Oriental Orthodox, which have produced only vague and meaningless statements which could have both heretical and orthodox interpretations), have all been based entirely upon misunderstandings, and linguistic issues.

 

[dvdjs]

No, his posts are poorly written at the least, and they demonstrate a lack of knowledge on the issue. He continually refuses to actually discuss the topic in a reasonable way. If you are going to discuss a topic, you can’t make up your own facts and rules. You deal with the facts of history. When discussing the Trinity (and the filioque is part of this doctrine) you can’t pretend that Athanasius and the Cappadocians don’t exist. You have to deal with the data; that is part of any objective study.

His statements weren’t taken out of context. They were put into context of the whole Trinitarian dialogue, but he refuses to discuss anything that might sound problematic. He wants to pretend that the words consubstantial, filioque, proceeds, and etc. exist in a vacuum, and have no history of their own. The only context for them is the other words of the creed. Since consubstantial is only applied to the Son in the creed, it shouldn’t be applied to the Spirit. If we try bringing in the background of the Cappadocians, he says it is irrelevant.

But I guess if words have no history, then you can make them mean whatever you want them to mean.

1. Your last sentence interesting. Perhaps more useful to think about working on that, rather than G12’s shortcomings.
2. Some of G12’s remarks, even if poorly written, were obviously wildly removed from the context of his fuller remarks. And the the idea that one can substitute some other context - other than his own - to evade this reality is simply fascinating.
3. You have an idea that the Creed, as sparse as it is, must nevertheless be taken to be convey the full Cappadocian (I suppose) Trinitarian theology. That is an intriguing idea. But it is simply unworkable. First, I cannot see why would be taken as dogma - especially in the context of Eastern theology which is so proud, at least in modern times, of its minimal theologizing. Second, even though it is totally implict in the NC Creed, the articulation of faith must be considered as including the consubstantiality of all persons of the Trinity. Third, even though the N-C Creed was developed locally in Constantinople, it became a Creed of the universal church when it finally acknowledged in Chalcedon. At that point, however, the filioque had already been articulated in the West. The idea of some kind of local ownership and authority on meaning is cannot be correct, as the Creed belongs to the universal church that received it. Overall, I think that this line of argumentation for circumscribing the meaning of the Creed has little going for it.
4. I think it is far better for *all *posters to drop argumentation about one church or another means by their own words, accept their own interpretation, accept what has been agreed upon, and move forward to more serious issues.

 

[dvdjs]

If the Latins are willing to abandon what was taught at the Council of Florence, and use the letter of St. Maximus as a grounds for reunion then so be it. So long as they make that clear, then there should be no issues.

I am, however, highly suspicious of all this talk from recent years that all of the historical disagreements on matters like the Filioque to Christology (see the dialogues with the ACOE and Oriental Orthodox, which have produced only vague and meaningless statements which could have both heretical and orthodox interpretations), have all been based entirely upon misunderstandings, and linguistic issues.

You can to cultivate a spirit of suspicion. You can also define however you like what the Latins meant by the words they used at Florence. Neither seem like particularly wise ideas.

 

[Cavaradossi]

You can to cultivate a spirit of suspicion. You can also define however you like what the Latins meant by the words they used at Florence. Neither seem like particularly wise ideas.

It is not about cultivating a “spirit of suspicion” (thank you though, for trying to cast me in as negative as a light as possible). It is about remaining faithful to the Fathers, and believing that they knew what they were doing when they condemned certain propositions. Am I really to believe, for example, that Severus of Antioch and the Council of Chalcedon are not at odds with each other? Or that Nestorius did not actually teach contrary to the Orthodox faith, because some 20th century scholar has said so? Perhaps next we can argue that even Arius was Orthodox. At a certain point there needs to be a recognition that what was taught at Florence is at odds with the faith of say St. Mark of Ephesus, and the Orthodox East as a whole.

 

[jimmy]

1. Your last sentence interesting. Perhaps more useful to think about working on that, rather than G12’s shortcomings.
2. Some of G12’s remarks, even if poorly written, were obviously wildly removed from the context of his fuller remarks. And the the idea that one can substitute some other context - other than his own - to evade this reality is simply fascinating.
3. You have an idea that the Creed, as sparse as it is, must nevertheless be taken to be convey the full Cappadocian (I suppose) Trinitarian theology. That is an intriguing idea. But it is simply unworkable. First, I cannot see why would be taken as dogma - especially in the context of Eastern theology which is so proud, at least in modern times, of its minimal theologizing. Second, even though it is totally implict in the NC Creed, the articulation of faith must be considered as including the consubstantiality of all persons of the Trinity. Third, even though the N-C Creed was developed locally in Constantinople, it became a Creed of the universal church when it finally acknowledged in Chalcedon. At that point, however, the filioque had already been articulated in the West. The idea of some kind of local ownership and authority on meaning is cannot be correct, as the Creed belongs to the universal church that received it. Overall, I think that this line of argumentation for circumscribing the meaning of the Creed has little going for it.
4. I think it is far better for *all *posters to drop argumentation about one church or another means by their own words, accept their own interpretation, accept what has been agreed upon, and move forward to more serious issues.

You can’t accept a doctrine without its premises and arguments. Can you accept Athanasius’ (or those of any debate throughout history) conclusions without accepting his premises and arguments? Can you accept the Augustinian conclusions without accepting his arguments? I would answer no. The creed was built on Cappadocian theology, and to not recognize their theology as an assumption of ithe creed makes no sense. If you abandon the argument, the conclusion loses all value.

My last statement is perfectly true. Words and ideas have histories, and to eliminate the history is to change the meaning of the word. We can pretend that there is no basis for the definitions of the creed, and that the words consubstantial and hypostasis and other theological words have no historical development and theological context, but that only empties them of their meaning. The words are reassociated with other meanings than what they were originally intended. In the end you have something completely different than was originally fought over.

If your argument bears any weight, then all councils are up for reinterpretation. They were all held at a particular time, in a particular place, and by particular people, but aren’t geographically specific, so anyone who comes up with a variation or ammendment to it is perfectly free to do so, no matter how much it changes it.

 

[Schism_hater]

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?

You show here that you don’t have the rudimentary knowledge to be engaging in this debate. The Orthodox have never denied that the Son sends the Holy Spirit in time as part of God’s economy for our salvation. That is different from the procession of the Holy Spirit outside of time, i.e. from all eternity. That is what the Filioque debate is all about.

If you want to take economic processions and draw conclusions about eternal relations from them, then tell me, who came upon the Theotokos and Ever-Virgin Mary to cause the Incarnation of the Son of God? And Who came down in the form of a dove on Christ to confirm Him as the Son of God?

By your logic, these verses mean that Son eternally proceeds from the Father and the Spirit.

We stand on scripture: John 15:26, where Christ draws a clear distinction between the etenrnal procession of the Spirit from the Father alone, and the sending of the Spirit from the Father and the Son. If you and your colleagues want to keep ignoring this scripture, that’s up to you.

 

[dvdjs]

It is not about cultivating a “spirit of suspicion” (thank you though, for trying to cast me in as negative as a light as possible). It is about remaining faithful to the Fathers, and believing that they knew what they were doing when they condemned certain propositions. Am I really to believe, for example, that Severus of Antioch and the Council of Chalcedon are not at odds with each other? Or that Nestorius did not actually teach contrary to the Orthodox faith, because some 20th century scholar has said so? Perhaps next we can argue that even Arius was Orthodox. At a certain point there needs to be a recognition that what was taught at Florence is at odds with the faith of say St. Mark of Ephesus, and the Orthodox East as a whole.

I apologize if I misinterpreted the meaning of your words. They seemed clear.

I think that we need to be faithful to Christ. Period.
It is easy to know that St. Mark of Ephesus was opposed to the Latins. It is less easy to know why or to get the a full picture of the substance of his objections. I don’t think it makes sense to say, St. Mark of Ephesus was opposed to the Latins, therefore EOs are bound to maintain that opposition as though were an article of faith. The EOC, who since that time, has been through Muslim (and Atheist) domination and quashing of intellectual tradition, a putative pseudomorphogenesis in pre-communist Russia and beyond, the modern neo-patrisitc synthesis, and the more modern revisionists might like to maintain some detached objectivity as they apply historical scholarship to unravel moments like these.

This is not to say that say that there are not clear cut cases. Arianism being one. But not all cases are clear cut. As to the separation of the OOs, I really don’t have an informed opinion.

 

[Schism_hater]

People are arguing here over things that are agreed upon. And making assertions abobut point of disagreement that are already agreed upon. What for?

I am simply going by the explicit, and quite clear, words of Lateran IV, Lyons II and Florence. They say that the Spirit eternally proceeds equally from the Father and the Son. That is about as clear as it can get. Now if you are saying that you disown these words, then great, hallelujah! If Rome will disown them, then we are well on our way to reunion!

 

[dvdjs]

Y
If your argument bears any weight, then all councils are up for reinterpretation. They were all held at a particular time, in a particular place, and by particular people, but aren’t geographically specific, so anyone who comes up with a variation or amendment to it is perfectly free to do so, no matter how much it changes it.

Not at all. Even as tradition has a continuity of organic growth, it has roots that are informative and restrictive. You, however, wish to exclusively claim Cappadocian roots to a Creed that was under development universally. That is a reasonable point of departure, but I don’t think that it can be considered rigorously binding. Do the proceedings of Chalcedon reveal that a much more elaborated Cappadocian theology was being accepted? Does it reveal that then current Western idea of the filioque were being rejected? Don’t think so.

Can this be confusing? Not too much, IMO. After all that is why we were given the Church.