Procession of the Holy Spirit -Filioque Conundrum

  • Thread starter Thread starter Monkle_Roo
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The Holy Spirit has a specific role. What is it? How does he fulfill his role?
 
That is true. The “sending” of the Holy Spirit refers to His being sent in time, not to any eternal action between the Son and Father.
 
But that doesn’t make sense, because the whole segment states that the Holy Spirit is necessary for the father and son to be in communion with each other, and if the son does not proceed anything as an original source, how can he be in communion with the Holy Spirit with out another interaction with the Holy Spirit? This only proves double spiration, which is wrong, so the Holy Spirit can’t be the interaction between father and son. A resultant interaction, no matter how strong as you say can be called an uncreated individual being.
 
Well I guess part of the confusion here is you are saying the word ekporeutai is used in Scripture to mean “sending” from the Father. I think it would be good to substantiate that before moving forward. As of now, I cannot find a verse where ekporeutai means “send”.

In John 15:26, ekporeutai is used to say the Spirit proceeds from the Father: “When the Advocate comes whom I will send you from the Father, the Spirit of truth that proceeds from the Father, he will testify to me."

Now John 14:26, which speaks of the Father “sending” the Spirit, does not use the word ekporeutai in Greek: “The Advocate, the holy Spirit that the Father will send in my name—he will teach you everything and remind you of all that told you.” The word used for “send” in Greek here is πεμψει.
 
Last edited:
It seems your main hang up has to do with the words “sent” and “proceed”. Firstly, “sent” can never explain the origin of a thing. Secondly, even the word proceed is problematic here because of how the Holy Spirit functions.

One thing is for certain: there is but one God. That being the case, it cannot be that the Holy Spirit only proceeds from either the Father or the Son. That would create division within the Trinity. The Holy Spirit must come from Both the Father and the Son.

I like Tim Staples’ explanation of the Holy Spirit:
The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, but not in a generative sense; rather, in a spiration. “Spiration” comes from the Latin word for “spirit” or “breath.” Jesus "breathed on them, and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit…” (John 20:22). Scripture reveals the Holy Spirit as pertaining to “God’s love [that] has been poured into our hearts” in Romans 5:5, and as flowing out of and identified with the reciprocating love of the Father for the Son and the Son for the Father (John 15:26; Rev. 22:1-2). Thus, the Holy Spirit’s procession is not intellecual and generative, but has its origin in God’s will and in the ultimate act of the will, which is love.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Ah. This was one of the reasons the Greek east and Latin west are in schism.
I don’t really think it matters and ironically St. John Paul ll said the Nicene Creed without filioque when saying it in Greek with the Patriarch of Constantinople.
It has always bothered me some especially when you read the history of when and how it was added. It really was more politics than theology and I can get why the eastern churches were upset about it.
Christ himself never says the Spirit will be brought to you from the Father and I but the Father only.
However I suppose in a certain view of the Trinity whatever comes from the Father would also come from the Son. But then there’s another contradiction. If all three were from eternity , wouldn’t the Holy Spirit proceed from the Father, Son, and itself? I don’t know the whole thing confuses me. I just go with the filioque thing because that’s just what the Church says is the correct way to say it and their pay grade is higher than mine. However something needs to be said if a Pope will say it in Greek without the filioque. It makes me wonder if it is a big deal at all. If it was you would think the Pope would find it heretical to say the Creed without using it.

Oh well.
 
Indeed.
I agree with you and will have to trust the church and it’s decision on this theology. I hope to have a good answer one day that can answer my queries and make sense of it all!

God bless!
 
Maybe since love is futile without someone to give it to, that the Holy Spirit, originates from the Father as a gift to the Son and complete and whole returned to the Father… The process of loving between Father and Son completes the Third Divine Person that proceeds from them on His mission to reveal their love, which is Himself.
 
Last edited:
I think you need to think in Latin, which was the language of law at the time of Christ during Roman occupation.

For example, in the scene of John baptising Jesus, to wash (baptise) can be Praeterlambo. A Praetor is a judge. Lambo is also to wash. Heaven is Coelum. Dove is Columba. Co- means ‘with’. Columba and Co-Lambo (with baptism) sound the same. Coelum and Columba start the same.

Praetor (judge) and Pater (father) are very similar. Ius (Law) is a contraction of the Greek ‘Iesous’, Jesus and Justus as Jesus is referenced in Colossians 4:11. Abbas (father) and Arbitor (judge) also start the same. Spiritus also means wind, which Jesus calmed. An alternative for Spiritus is also Deus, which means ‘god’. Combine Ius (for Jesus) with Deus and you have “Iudex” which is “Judge”. Ius is also “Court”. Spiro is ‘to abide in’.

Using Latin word-plays one can make the connections, all connecting to the Law in the contemporary legal language of the time. Law and Judgement are themes throughout the New Testament.

Jesus preached the Spirit of God’s Law (Spiritus Dei Legem). The Father, Pater, is the Judge, Praetor. Jesus (Ius) receives PraeterLambo (Baptism) and the Columba (dove) as Deus (spirit/god) descends from Coelum (heaven) with the baptism (Co-lambo) and the Spiritus/Deus of the Praetor/Pater then Spiro (abides) within Ius (Jesus).

And that is how Latin word-plays appear to form the trinity.
 
Hi all

Thank you for your responses, I’m just replying because I’m marking this thread as solved and unfollowing the topic. The responses are starting to affect my inbox now, and they’re being received at very late times of the night for me to be getting notifications.i am also marking it as solved because I have also thought and read considerably read more on this and have come to my own conclusion that doesn’t stray from the Church teaching, but, in fact seems to clarify issues of misunderstanding and definition.

Speaking frankly, for the purposes of mutual understanding and brevity, I understand what is trying to be conveyed by using the Latin ‘procedit’, but I think it’s is a terrible way to translate what is being meant, especially as there is no distinction as to how the ‘processions’ are different between Father and Son, especially as procession is only mentioned once,p in the creed, and includes both Father and Son in the declaration concerning this procession, simultaneously.

And so, I’d argue for a better, biblically based, Greek, word to be utilised, such as ‘sent’, pompō, instead of ‘procedit’ for both Father and Son, which does not distinguish in the way that Father and Son have the Holy Spirit ‘proceed’ from both of them, which is especially concerning as all arguments do define different types of procession. Not only this, but it is also translatable to Latin, and makes much more sense in differentiating how the Holy Spirit may proceed in separate manners from Father and Son. It would also allow for unification of Othodox and Catholic belief in this matter.

Therefore I’d argue that the phrase ‘proceeds from the Father, and sent by the Son’ be used.

Thank you, God bless, goodnight.

Monkle
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top