Orthodox views on the Holy Spirit

[marlo]

Very filioque to me, remember that proceeds here is a western language so you better translate accurately, because proceeds in English came from Latin that does not designate any direct source of existence

The Son manifests the Holy Spirit, which is why the Greek Fathers say that the Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son, but not that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. The Holy Spirit has existence from the Father alone, and manifests itself through the Only-begotten Son. Its particular mode of existing is to Proceed from the Father and be manifested through the Son, but the source and cause of Its existence and mode of existence is the Father alone.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Arius always contested the deity of the Son and he is less concerned on the Holy Spirit, in fact, Arius believed that the Father alone is God, and if your case was true, then the Ecumenical Council of Constantinople was not needed anymore.

The Second Ecumenical Council was still necessary to combat Pneumatomachianism and also Eunomianism. Arius’ voluntarist theology was not strictly necessary to deny the true divinity of the Son, nor does a refutation of Arius’ theological voluntarism necessitate that the Spirit be divine. That is my entire point, that none of these concepts (the divinity of the Son and the divinity of the Spirit) are completely logically entangled with each other such that one being true necessitates that the other be true.

We never said that the Spirit is from the Son nor the Spirit proceeds from the Son, we only refer to the procession of the Holy Spirit if the Father is included in it, hence we always says the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, because the Filioque does not concern the deity of the Holy Spirit, it is about the Deity of the Son, you are surely mistaken and confused.

I am not confused here. I am simply contesting the idea that the filioque provides a refutation of Arianism (something which has been argued in this thread and on this forum in the past), because there is nothing in saying that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son which necessitates that the Son be divine.

 

[Reuben_J]

The Holy Spirit has existence from the Father alone, .

The Orthodox certainly are entitled to their belief but I cannot, as a lay Christian, believe in this with regards to the Trinity. No one person of the Trinity derives his existence from the other.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Very filioque to me, remember that proceeds here is a western language so you better translate accurately, because proceeds in English came from Latin that does not designate any direct source of existence

Following the conventions used by some modern scholars on the topic, I prefer to use the verb to proceed exclusively as a translation for the Greek ἐκπορεύεσθαι, to progress as a translation for the Greek πρόειμι, and to be poured out of for the Greek ἐκχεῖσθαι.

 

[Cavaradossi]

The Orthodox certainly are entitled to their belief but I cannot, as a lay Christian, believe in this with regards to the Trinity. No one person of the Trinity derives his existence from the other.

The Father is, as St. Basil teaches, the cause of the other two Hypostases of the Trinity. They have their existence from the Father. Even the decree of Florence teaches this, saying that the Son, just like the Father is the principle of the Spirit’s ὕπαρξις (Greek for existence). Of course, we disagree and say that the Father alone is principle and cause of the Spirit’s ὕπαρξις.

 

[marlo]

the modern scholars you refers know that there is no single word equivalent to ἐκπορεύεσθαι, then they just rely on the latin translation equivalent to the english word “proceeds” in which is a big mistake, as Bishop Kallistos Ware says it, the confusion is semantics not theology. Did you actually know why the “que” is used in Filoque not ac, atque, et, in which is also translated “and” in English?

Following the conventions used by some modern scholars on the topic, I prefer to use the verb to proceed exclusively as a translation for the Greek ἐκπορεύεσθαι, to progress as a translation for the Greek πρόειμι, and to be poured out of for the Greek ἐκχεῖσθαι.

 

[marlo]

Good point, to take the word exactly as Cavaradossi says it without considering necessary understanding on the theology behind it is very Arian.

The Orthodox certainly are entitled to their belief but I cannot, as a lay Christian, believe in this with regards to the Trinity. No one person of the Trinity derives his existence from the other.

 

[Cavaradossi]

the modern scholars you refers know that there is no single word equivalent to ἐκπορεύεσθαι, then they just rely on the latin translation equivalent to the english word “proceeds” in which is a big mistake, as Bishop Kallistos Ware says it, the confusion is semantics not theology.

I know the semantic confusion that exists from translation. I am not claiming that the natural English meaning of proceeds is equivalent to the Greek ἐκπορεύεσθαι (which has causal implications which proceeds lacks), but rather by convention I use to proceed to refer to the Greek ἐκπορεύεσθαι, while I use progress to refer to the Greek πρόειμι, so that people who know the difference between the two concepts can easily tell what was meant in the original Greek.

Did you actually know why the “que” is used in Filoque not ac, atque, et, in which is also translated “and” in English?

I’ve heard the argument that -que is a weaker conjunction in Latin than either et or ac/atque, but I am skeptical, because many Latin Fathers used et filio and filioque rather indiscriminately, whereas the Greek Fathers are consistent in using saying that the Spirit proceeds (ἐκπορεύεται) from the Father through the Son, and that the Spirit progresses (πρόειμι) from both, and not saying that the Spirit proceeds (ἐκπορεύεται) from both.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Good point, to take the word exactly as Cavaradossi says it without considering necessary understanding on the theology behind it is very Arian.

All those poor “Arian” Saints and Doctors of the East who taught that the Father is cause of the Son and the Holy Spirit. It should be obvious that the Father is said to be cause of the Son or that the Spirit has existence from the Father only in the sense of logical priority/posteriority.

 

[jimmy]

The Orthodox certainly are entitled to their belief but I cannot, as a lay Christian, believe in this with regards to the Trinity. No one person of the Trinity derives his existence from the other.

The Father is the source of the Godhead. The CC recognizes the monarchy of the Father. For you to deny it is to deny Christian tradition.

 

[RyanBlack]

The Orthodox certainly are entitled to their belief but I cannot, as a lay Christian, believe in this with regards to the Trinity. No one person of the Trinity derives his existence from the other.

This is incorrect. It is basic Trinitarian theology that the Father is the source of divinity. This is taught in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which, in paragraph 245 states, “The apostolic faith concerning the Spirit was confessed by the second ecumenical council at Constantinople (381): ‘We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and giver of life, who proceeds from the Father.’ By this confession, the Church recognizes the Father as ‘the source and origin of the whole divinity.’”

 

[RyanBlack]

All those poor “Arian” Saints and Doctors of the East who taught that the Father is cause of the Son and the Holy Spirit. It should be obvious that the Father is said to be cause of the Son or that the Spirit has existence from the Father only in the sense of logical priority/posteriority.

Exactly. The way my professor of theology once put it is that the Father is ontologically prior to the Son and the Holy Spirit, but not temporally prior.

 

[LionHeart777]

Some of the Early Church Fathers use “and the Son” whereas others use “through the Son”, and some even use both of the terms (Source: catholic.com/tracts/filioque).

Paragraph #247 of the CCC says in part of the filioque that:

…Pope St. Leo I, following an ancient Latin and Alexandrian tradition, had already confessed it dogmatically in 447,76 even before Rome, in 451 at the Council of Chalcedon, came to recognize and receive the Symbol of 381.

Source: scborromeo.org/ccc/p1s2c1p2.htm#247

Next comes Paragraph #248, one which Gabrielof12 has been referring to, and it says:

248 At the outset the Eastern tradition expresses the Father’s character as first origin of the Spirit. By confessing the Spirit as he ‘who proceeds from the Father’, it affirms that he comes from the Father through the Son.77 The Western tradition expresses first the consubstantial communion between Father and Son, by saying that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son (filioque). It says this, ‘legitimately and with good reason’,78 for the eternal order of the divine persons in their consubstantial communion implies that the Father, as ‘the principle without principle’,79 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.80 This legitimate complementarity, provided it does not become rigid, does not affect the identity of faith in the reality of the same mystery confessed.

Source: Ibid.

So, there is an Eastern tradition and a Western tradition and the Catholic Church acknowledges both of them and sees them as, when both understood correctly, being compatible. I see the Catholic Church reasonably harmonizing East and West, just as I would argue She does with the passages of Scripture relevant to filioque, and I conclude that those Orthodox Christians who are unable or unwilling to do so have, to quote the CCC, “become rigid” in dealing with the “legitimate complementarity” laid out in Paragraph 248 of the CCC .

My question is, what do the Eastern Orthodox who object to filioque here make of the testimony of the Latin Fathers (and even Epiphanius of Salamis) who say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father “and the Son” ? (See here.)

 

[Cavaradossi]

Some of the Early Church Fathers use “and the Son” whereas others use “through the Son”, and some even use both of the terms (Source: catholic.com/tracts/filioque).

Paragraph #247 of the CCC says in part of the filioque that:

Source: scborromeo.org/ccc/p1s2c1p2.htm#247

Next comes Paragraph #248, one which Gabrielof12 has been referring to, and it says:

Source: Ibid.

So, there is an Eastern tradition and a Western tradition and the Catholic Church acknowledges both of them as a “…legitimate complementarity, provided it does not become rigid, does not affect the identity of faith in the reality of the same mystery confessed.” So I see the Catholic Church reasonably harmonizing East and West, just as I would argue She does with the passages of Scripture relevant to filioque, and I conclude that those Orthodox Christians who are unable or unwilling to do so have, to quote the CCC, “become rigid”.

My question is, what do the Eastern Orthodox who object to filioque here make of the testimony of the Latin Fathers (and even Epiphanius of Salamis) who say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father “and the Son” ? (See here.)

They refer to the progression (προϊέναι) of the Spirit from the Father and the Son. This is the usage of St. Cyril, for example, who never writes that the Spirit proceeds (ἐκπορεύεται) from the Father and the Son, but that the Spirit progresses (πρόεισι) from the Son. The Latin Fathers, lacking separate terms for the two verbs confessed that the Spirit proceeds from both in the sense of the verb πρόειμι, but not in the sense of the verb ἐκπορεύω. This fact is witnessed to by St. Maximus the Confessor (if his letter to Marinus is authentic), who wrote that the Latins in confessing the filioque did not intend to make the Son cause of the Spirit. The Latin pronouncement at Florence, we find directly contradicts Maximus (and therefore the teachings of the Latin in the time of Maximus the Confessor) when it states that,“the Son should be signified, according to the Greeks indeed as cause αἰτίαν], and according to the Latins as principle άρχήν] of the subsistence ύπἁρξεως] of the Holy Spirit, just like the Father.”

 

[Cavaradossi]

**I agree with the CCC. But you did not interpret it that way. you have the Father and the Son “together” implying a divsion from consubstantial, further more your addition of “together” implies a time inventing a creature. **The CCC states "He proceeds eternally from both as one principle referencing consubstantiality. The eternal procession from the CCC removes your implication of being “together” which implies a procession in time and two diferent divinities in procession. When the CCC concludes “through one spiration” confirms it is from God which the Holy Spirit eternally proceeds. “The both” includes the Father and the Son from (consubstantial) one principle, not from principle without principle which is the origin not the eternal procession which the filioque professes.

Ah, and here is another instance where the term together is used, this time from the Council of Florence (as an added bonus it also claims that the Spirit has its subsistent being from the Father and the Son, for all you naysayers who question my use of such language): “In the name of the holy Trinity, Father, Son and holy Spirit, we define, with the approval of this holy universal council of Florence, that the following truth of faith shall be believed and accepted by all Christians and thus shall all profess it: that the holy Spirit is eternally from the Father and the Son, and has his essence and his subsistent being from the Father together with the Son, and proceeds from both eternally as from one principle and a single spiration.”

 

[Schism_hater]

You may attach your own interpretation, t may be totally foreign to the CC, you may then turn around and claim that your interpretation is the Catholicf teaching, then criticize the CC for that teaching. Sounds like fun.

First, I have no expectation of fruitful discussion, particularly when the discussion is straw man arguments that are not Catholic teaching, Second, I produced recent statements as a point of departure; it was not intended, pretty obviously I think, as exhaustive documentation. But they reflect a continuous teaching going back to Aquinas and his antecedents. Please don’t project your pseudomorphosis onto the CC.

Actually you don’t. Search for filioque and the username Ghosty, where the authentic Cathoic teaching is very nicely explained.

I have been involved in extensive conversations with “Ghosty” in the past on this issue, and his arguments were not persuasive. I will give him this, however; he managed to be somwhat civil.

I know exactly what the “authentic” Catholic teaching is. It is already obvious that I have done much more study of this subject than you have; at the very least, I have read Anselm of Canterbury on the subject. And I have quoted Catholic “ecumenical” councils, verbatim. No strawmen or “psuedomorphosis” involved.

I know there are more reasonable and knowledgeable Roman Catholics out there with which to discuss the issue, and I choose to converse with them.

 

[Reuben_J]

The Father is the source of the Godhead. The CC recognizes the monarchy of the Father. For you to deny it is to deny Christian tradition.

The three persons of the trinity is co-equal in a Trinitarian relationship. I would not go into the monarchy because that leads to the argument that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone, a contention I do not agree because this implies inequality of the three persons.

 

[Reuben_J]

This is incorrect. It is basic Trinitarian theology that the Father is the source of divinity. This is taught in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which, in paragraph 245 states, “The apostolic faith concerning the Spirit was confessed by the second ecumenical council at Constantinople (381): ‘We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and giver of life, who proceeds from the Father.’ By this confession, the Church recognizes the Father as ‘the source and origin of the whole divinity.’”

Again I do not agree that the Father is the source of divinity. Father, Son and the Holy Spirit are one. The Father and the Son are one. It does not depend on the Father alone. By saying that, I would see an implication of inequality in the persons of the Trinity. If the Father is the source of divinity, so are the Son and the Holy Spirit, for God is divine.

I think more rightly is to confess that I believe in the Holy Spirt, the Lord and the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son. That would say the person of the Holy Spirit is the giver of life but because he is one with the Father and the Son.

 

[AgainstHeretics]

Again I do not agree that the Father is the source of divinity.

Then you disagree with the Catholic Church.

 

[Reuben_J]

Then you disagree with the Catholic Church.

A bait, is it not? Particularly I do not agree with the Orthodox.