I am saying the the Latins own these words. And that EOs need to listen to what they mean by them. And not substitute their own interpretations, however facile. Most Holy Theotokos, save us! (Explicit and clear.)
I love that interpolation of “alone”. Reminds me of how some say that we are saved by faith “alone”.
I’d say yes and/or no, depending on what exactly you meant by “at odds with.”
That is the whole sense of the passage. Christ says, on the one hand, the Spirit of Truth, who proceeds from the Father, and, on the other, which I will send you in the Father’s name. Two different Greek verbs, translated by two different English verbs, one linked to the Father, and the other linked to the Father and the Son. There is clearly a distinction being made.
“Equally” in that context is crystal clear. Even more so when it is realized that Lateran IV, which used the “equally” language, comes less than a century after Anselm of Canterbury’s De Processione Spiritu Sancti (sp?), which goes into great detail on the procession. Anyone who really wants to wade into this debate needs to read that work, which was tremendously influential.
I don’t see how difficult it is for you to understand the only subject I have discussed is from the CCC. How are we expected to communicate reasonably if you can’t understand the CCC about the filioque. Unless you can grasp what it is telling you, I don’t have any problem going outside of the Creed addressing the ECF’s definitions as applied to God, persons, relationships, distinction of persons and procession.
If I may jump in here, I want to know whether I understand the Roman Catholic understanding of the Filioque, as professed at Florence and afterward, especially the idea that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, as from one source and from one principle.
Interesting and all I quoted was the CCC and you were able to draw such (a personal opinion) a conclusion. You must be divine?
BINGO! we got a winner. We got out of the dug out up to bat here. I was sure the Orthodox did not abandon the procession through the incarnation. I was losing hope with the Orthodox here thinking no such procession takes place filioque (and from the Son). Good job Schism hater;
Your a breath of fresh air here; agreed from the Creed we are discussing the eternal procession. The scripture relates to the HolySpirit proceeding “and from the Son” incarnate. But! you make the mistake of overlooking that Jesus is resurrected from the dead and his flesh is immortal (eternal) from which the Holy Spirit just proceedeth.
Well done my friend; It was the Word spoken from the Father, who sent the Word from eternity Genesis 3:15. And the Word was God, and the Word became flesh, Yet from eternity the HolySpirit proceeds, when the Word is sent to be begotten in the fullness of time, it is the Spirit from His eternal procession made present in time from the Word which descended from heaven who overshadowed Thetokos when the Word became flesh.
Now that the eternal Word of God has taken on flesh (our humanity) in the fullness of time, we now have God dwelliing with the Human race again. This is confirmed when the Son of God became the Son of Man. When the Holy Spirit came to rest upon our humanity in the Son of man, when Jesus went into the darkness of the waters of baptism as the Holy Spirit hovered over them, and separated the darkness from the light, as Jesus rose from the dark waters and a voice spoke "This is my Son in whom I am well pleased, as the Holy Spirit came to rest upon the Son of God in the Son of Man. Because in the beginning God was pleased to separate the darkness from the light.
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.
Seems that this is really where the misunderstanding begins. Your logic has been questioned, but I think(and as you’ve stated) you’ve kept your reasoning in the context of how the Creed and the CCC defines filoque. I think that was a good way to approach the argument. There is no contradiction of who and who is not considered divine in the blessed Trinity if the meaning of foloque is contained in what is stated in the Creed and the CCC. So no one is denying the divinity of the Holy Spirit, not directly or indirectly, or by implication. so good job Gabriel12 :thumbsup:thumbsup: for making those points clear, carry on so I can learn what the Orthodox views are on the relationship between the Son and the HS, that’s still a mystery(Small ‘m’) to me
Thank you paulrxp; and welcome to the forums; You managed to say in the above underlined in just a few lines, what took me pages of posts…Seems that this is really where the misunderstanding begins. Your logic has been questioned, but I think(and as you’ve stated) you’ve kept your reasoning in the context of how the Creed and the CCC defines filoque. I think that was a good way to approach the argument. **There is no contradiction of who and who is not considered divine in the blessed Trinity if the meaning of foloque is contained in what is stated in the Creed and the CCC. So no one is denying the divinity of the Holy Spirit, not directly or indirectly, or by implication. ** so good job Gabriel12 :thumbsup:thumbsup: for making those points clear, carry on so I can learn what the Orthodox views are on the relationship between the Son and the HS, that’s still a mystery(Small ‘m’) to me
First tell me why he never plainly said that he was consubstantial with the Father and the Spirit.
First, apophatically: it cannot be taken to undermine the monarchy of the Father as the origin and cause of the Spirit. That is clear from the CC and plainly stated in the statement of the Joint Theological Commission that I quoted. That is sufficient, I think, to dispel the mistaken notions being suggested here. That needs to be settled before going forward.
It’s generally considered poor form in polite conversation to respond to a question by asking a question (except asking for a clarification of the original question). I would still like an answer to my question.
Neither the CCC nor the JTC can determine that the dogmatic statement of Lateran IV, or any other past dogmatic statement, “cannot be taken” to do such and such, if that is what the statement in fact does. Whatever the CCC says, and whatever the Joint Theoligical Commission says, neither one of them can retroactively redefine what an “Ecumenical” (according to Rome) Council, the highest dogmatic authority for your church, states. You may be bound to accept whatever intepretations the CCC places on a dogmatic statement by the Fourth Lateran Council, but an Orthodox Christian such as myself is not. If you are going to have a frutiful discussion with a non-Roman Catholic, you cannot start out with the premise that any current RC statements as to what a past council or pope meant have to be taken as authoritative. I have a pretty clear idea what the Lateran IV was saying, and what it meant at the time, and I have good reasons to back it up. Now, I may like what the Joint Theological Commission says now on the issue, in fact I largely do like it, but that doesn’t change what Lateran IV or Lyons II or Florence said then. If you want to say that what the JTC says takes precedence over what Lateran IV says on the subject, that would be great, but you know that you cannot say that. If you want to say that statement of Lateran IV that the Spirit proceeds equally from the Father and the Son no longer reflects RC teaching, then I say “great”, but you know you can’t say that either.
I don’t see why arguments that arise out of the ignorance of an Arian should determine Catholic and Orthodox teaching on the Holy Spirit. But you have pointed up the false idea that gave historical impetus to the inclusion of the Filioque clause in the west: the idea that Christ’s divinity requires that the Holy Spirit proceed from him. If we accept that logic, then the Holy Spirit isn’t divine unless the Son proceeds from him. Ridiculous.
The exact opposite is true. The Arians in general were working with a scheme borrowed from Neo-Platonism, whereby the Logos becomes analogous to the Platonic Nous (and the Holy Spirit analogous to the World-Soul), such that the Son is emanated from the Father by the energy of the Father rather than being begotten of the essence of the Father, just as the energy of the One, in Plotinus’ cosmology, was to emanate the Nous, and the Nous therefore was alienated from the innermost being (essence), of the One.
