Question for Orthodox brothers and sisters in Christ

[GaryTaylor]

Its not a matter of tossing anything aside, that is the point. We cannot neglect the passages which directly reflect the Holy Spirit coming from Christ. Which is also John. We never neglect what St Mark stated at Florence either.

In other words lets look at it more realistic in time of occurrence. At the second ecumenical council the procession from the Son was not explicitly mentioned since there was no error to defend. When the error arose then it was addressed, the filioque was also addressed in the creed;

First in Spain, then France and Germany, fifth, sixth and seventh centuries. Benedict the VIII approved and it was accepted at Lyons and Florence. What everyone agreed on at Florence with Bessarion and John the Theologian is where the West picks up the defense. Not with what was not agreed upon with St Mark. Only with what was agreed and by your theologians. 8th session

As we see the early church fathers support also. Most critical as mentioned here is St John Damascene through he doesn’t specifically deny, his book follows the Nestorian error on this point as was well elaborated on by St Thomas. No need to view.

This is why with history its critical to see and understand the events as they unfolded.

The West defense is centered around Scripture/Tradition without any un-needed elaboration of specifics which distract the contemplative from focus on Christ. Crucified.

“We must confess the Father and the Son are not two principles, but one principle of the Holy Ghost” agreed upon by Basil and Ambrose and proclaimed at Lyons and Florence which as you see eliminates the false assumption of double procession as I addressed above.

Your seeing developed doctrine with the Trinity. The West has had to defend this a very long time against many heresies.

Your Church isn’t wrong, its preserved the Faith a very long time. It was afforded the opportunity to not speak. That is a Blessing, see it no other way. I believe your seeing this as a wrong and right. Not so, the East has held, and remarkably the original formula. The West had no choice but to further elaborate since the scriptures and tradition came under attack.

 

[Reuben_J]

In the same discourse, Christ distinguishes between the “sending” of the Spirit by the Father in his name, and the (eternal) “procession” of the Father, from the Father alone. That should settle the matter. Everything else is speculation, and should bow to scripture, especially the words of Christ.

Reuben J:

From my experience a quote from a line or two from the Bible usually did not settle the matter.

It is more than a “line or two from the Bible” , it is the words of Christ from one of the most, if not the most, solemn discourses He made, near the end of the Gospel of John which is recognized as the most theologically precise portions of scripture (it is where a great deal of Trinitarian doctrine is laid out). It is also the only scriptural passage directly on point (the eternal procession of the Spirit). Therefore, it is not to be tossed aside lightly.

No problem. That’s a good quote and probably I would say as much if being asked to. Biblical quotes can only help us to support our argument but then again often times it is just that. Have been through this too many times. It is a matter of how one view and understands the Bible; so the conclusion can differ.

I was responding to your ‘That should settle the matter,’ with regards to the Biblical verses you quoted. You have to be a Bible alone Christian to say that but I am sure you are not. In my mind then, if you quote a Bible, others will also quote them too, so where would that bring us to? So it definitely ‘do not settle the matter’; a thousand year controversy if it is that easy. This had been argued by Church theologians on both sides, and who are we to settle this when the full might of both the Catholic and Orthodox Churches could not?

 

[Schism_hater]

No problem. That’s a good quote and probably I would say as much if being asked to. Biblical quotes can only help us to support our argument but then again often times it is just that. Have been through this too many times. It is a matter of how one view and understands the Bible; so the conclusion can differ.

I was responding to your ‘That should settle the matter,’ with regards to the Biblical verses you quoted. You have to be a Bible alone Christian to say that but I am sure you are not. In my mind then, if you quote a Bible, others will also quote them too, so where would that bring us to? So it definitely ‘do not settle the matter’; a thousand year controversy if it is that easy. This had been argued by Church theologians on both sides, and who are we to settle this when the full might of both the Catholic and Orthodox Churches could not?

Well, I appreciate your irenic response. I am not sola scriptura, but nevertheless I do believe some scripture verses stand out clearly on some points of faith. In those cases, I think speculation, even by spiritual men, should take a back seat. I believe this is one of those cases.

 

[Reuben_J]

Well, I appreciate your irenic response. I am not sola scriptura, but nevertheless I do believe some scripture verses stand out clearly on some points of faith. In those cases, I think speculation, even by spiritual men, should take a back seat. I believe this is one of those cases.

Your post was answered by jonathan_hili in post #98. What do you think of it?

R_C also quoted scriptures here. You can address them if you want to.

R_C:

As to the Sacred Scripture, the inspired writers call the Holy Ghost the Spirit of the Son (Galatians 4:6), the Spirit of Christ (Romans 8:9), the Spirit of Jesus Christ (Philippians 1:19), just as they call Him the Spirit of the Father (Matthew 10:20) and the Spirit of God (1 Corinthians 2:11). Hence they attribute to the Holy Ghost the same relation to the Son as to the Father. Furthermore, the Son sends the Holy Ghost (Luke 24:49; John 15:26; 16:7; 20:22; Acts 2:33; Titus 3:6), just as the Father sends the Son (Romans 3:3; etc.), and as the Father sends the Holy Ghost (John 14:26).

 

[Schism_hater]

Hi Schism Hater (great name, too!), thanks for the biblical references. What edition of the Bible are you using?

To quote from the RSV online (not a Catholic edition):

John 14:26:
“But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you.”

Okay, so the Father sends the Spirit in Jesus’ name. How does this help us understand the eternal relationship between the Son and the Spirit? (This is really what I’m looking for.)

As for John 15:26, it reads:
“But when the Counselor comes, whom I shall send to you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, he will bear witness to me…”

While it’s true that Jesus states that the Spirit proceeds from the Father, he also says that he shall send the Spirit.

It seems the two verses (who is sending the Spirit?) are in tension, unless they can be reconciled (such as in the filioque).

Hi, thanks, sorry, I didn’t see your post until pointed there by Reuben. I think I was using the RSV.

The point is, that the verb which is translated “sending” is different and has a significantly different meaning than the one translated “proceeds”, and that is relfected in the different English words used. This makes it all the more clear that Christ is here making a disctinction: the Spirit proceeds (eternally) from the Father, and is sent by Christ. So no Orthodox will deny that both the Father and the Son are involved in the sending of the Spirit, which refers to the temporal mission of the Spirit to men for our salvation, but this is not the same as the eternal procession of the Spirit before time within the Godhead. That is the crucial distinction that is often missed, and, that, I believe, you are missing here.

 

[jonathan_hili]

No probs. From what you said I don’t think we are in very different positions, and I don’t really want to belabour the point. Would you agree, then, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son?

Okay, maybe I’ll belabour the point a little!

The Greek word used to describe the Holy Spirit as “proceeding” from the Father is ἐκπορεύεται. I think we have to be careful about how this might be translated. I mean, if by “proceeding” we mean a strict “going forth from the essence or nature or being of” then I think we have a problem. At the end of John 14 (v.28), Jesus talks about himself as πορεύομαι (or “going forth”) to the Father. However, we wouldn’t translate this “proceeding” as it would sound rather odd to say Jesus is proceeding from the world to the Father.

Rather, I think what is happening here - and this is pure speculation - is parallelism. As Jesus speaks of returning to the Father, he is discoursing on the different comings and goings of the divine, so that we see a parallel between:

John 14:26:
“But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you.”

Sender: Father
Origin: Christ (“in my name”)
Job Description: “teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you”

and

As for John 15:26, it reads:
“But when the Counselor comes, whom I shall send to you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, he will bear witness to me…”

Sender: Jesus
Origin: Father (“from the Father…proceeds from the Father”)
Job Description: “he will bear witness to” Jesus.

I think the point of the parallel is to establish the “oneness” (John 17:21) of Jesus and the Father in their both sending of the Spirit (and indeed their unity with the Spirit), as well as the intimacy of this union. This is further evidenced later in John 16:4-15, when Jesus again speaks about the divine “exchange” of Son for Spirit (which he reiterates in vv. 7, 15 that he will send). I think it culminates in vv.14-15: “He [the Spirit] will glorify me [the Son], for he will take what is mine and declare it to you. All that the Father has is mine; therefore I send that he will take what is mine and declare it to you”. For me, this last passage seems to suggest that the Spirit is very much the Spirit of both the Father and the Son.

But anyway, that’s very pedantic.

 

[Peter_J]

Hi, thanks, sorry, I didn’t see your post until pointed there by Reuben. I think I was using the RSV.

The point is, that the verb which is translated “sending” is different and has a significantly different meaning than the one translated “proceeds”, and that is relfected in the different English words used. This makes it all the more clear that Christ is here making a disctinction: the Spirit proceeds (eternally) from the Father, and is sent by Christ. So no Orthodox will deny that both the Father and the Son are involved in the sending of the Spirit, which refers to the temporal mission of the Spirit to men for our salvation, but this is not the same as the eternal procession of the Spirit before time within the Godhead. That is the crucial distinction that is often missed, and, that, I believe, you are missing here.

Forgive me if this is too tangential, but I wonder if the Orthodox have ever considered changing their creedal text (the translated text, I mean, not the Greek text) to say “who proceeds eternally from the Father”.

 

[Nicea325]

No. That’s entirely my point: The Holy Spirit is not mutual love; He’s not a feeling. He’s a person. If the Holy Spirit is not a person in your theology, you are not a Trinitarian Christian. You’re something else entirely.

Is it not enough that Christ Jesus Himself says in John 14:26 that the Father will send the Holy Spirit in His (Christ’s) name? That seems like a pretty direct connection to me.

Yes…Jesus tells the 12 the Father would send the Holy Spirit, but where is the** proceeding **tied to the Father alone?

 

[Nicea325]

Pretty much. It’s been a teaching of the Catholic Church for some time now that the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from both Father and Son, as it states, “as from one principle and a single spiration”. I think this “spiration” is best understood as “love”. And it works because it connects the relationships between all three Divine Persons in a way the Divine Monarche model does not.

I understand what you are trying to say. I get you.

 

[Peter_J]

Yes…Jesus tells the 12 the Father would send the Holy Spirit, but where is the** proceeding **tied to the Father alone?

I think you need to ask harder questions than that if you want to stump the Orthodox. John 15:26 says "But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father … "

 

[Nicea325]

The relationships that were defined in the Creed actually came from Holy Scripture. I am convinced though that the Catholic Church wants to know more. This is her greatest strength and a credit to her wisdom. God has not revealed everything yet for He desires us to find out more. That is why He gave us the Holy Spirit. He will help us to arrive into these deeper truths about Himself. I believe you are right that there exists a relationship within the Trinity we have yet to discover. Perhaps Rome is trying to hard to arrive at it without the counsel of the East. Who knows but it may be when the East and West finally get together that there will be a newer understanding of this relationship within the Trinity that needs to be discovered as truth.

Exactly! I think far to many Orthodox are hung up that it is an “addition” and it is wrong. What we understand today about the Trinity is what has been taught and handed to us all for the past 2,000 years. In other words, we have 2,000 years behind us as oppose to people who lived only 300 years after Christ. Now, I am not saying the Holy Spirit did not guide the church back then, but our understanding today is much deeper compared to a Christian living in the year 100AD.

God Bless the Orthodoxs and their rich faith.

 

[Nicea325]

I think you need to ask harder questions than that if you want to stump the Orthodox. John 15:26 says "But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father … "

I am not trying to stump the Orthodox. I am just trying to get a better understanding from both sides. I want unity, not more disunity. Okay, but isn’t Jesus 100% human and 100% divine? If so, when it logically follow and be sensible to state the HS does proceed from the Son as well?

 

[jimmy]

It could just as easily be said that the Son is ‘the divine love enpersoned (enhypostatized)’. After all, God sent his only son because he loved the world (john3:16). The persons of the Trinity aren’t attributes of God. All attributes of God are equally applicable to all three persons.

 

[jimmy]

I am not trying to stump the Orthodox. I am just trying to get a better understanding from both sides. I want unity, not more disunity. Okay, but isn’t Jesus 100% human and 100% divine? If so, when it logically follow and be sensible to state the HS does proceed from the Son as well?

What does the dual nature of Jesus have to do with the procession of the Spirit? It doesn’t follow. Jesus’ divinity doesn’t imply that the Spirit proceeds from him, his humanity doesn’t imply it, nor does the union of natures.

 

[jimmy]

Exactly! I think far to many Orthodox are hung up that it is an “addition” and it is wrong. What we understand today about the Trinity is what has been taught and handed to us all for the past 2,000 years. In other words, we have 2,000 years behind us as oppose to people who lived only 300 years after Christ. Now, I am not saying the Holy Spirit did not guide the church back then, but our understanding today is much deeper compared to a Christian living in the year 100AD.

God Bless the Orthodoxs and their rich faith.

And that is exactly the problem the Orthodox have with Catholics; Catholics think they understand better and have more knowledge than the early church. If you ever propose that idea to an Orthodox Christian he will accuse you of innovation and refer you to the commonitory of St Vincent of Lerins.

To all who agree with the assertion of chimo; read the commonitory of St. Vincent of Lerins and read the rest of the fathers. None of them are looking to learn anything new by developing doctrine. Basil, the Gregory’s, Cyril, Athanasius, Maximus, and every one of the fathers sought to preserve the primitive faith. They weren’t looking to develop a new understanding. The concept of hypostasis was an attempt by Basil to preserve the teachings of the Church against error, not to develop a new idea and learn something beyond what was already given. The same goes for concept of the hypostatic union. This progressive approach to theology is a modern western concept, and if the west is going to encourage it, the east is right to call Catholics heretics.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Sounds good.

Also the Council of Toledo 675 “The Holy Ghost is shown to have proceeded from the Father and the Son because He is acknowledged to be the Charity or the Holiness of both”

What the Catholic Church is not saying is the Son sends the HS through the Father. Its really this simple.

This is very different than stating the Creed. Reason being, the Father does not receive from the Son that by which the HS proceeds from Him [Father]. Which is true to the original Creed. One principle of the HS in procession.

This gets us back to the same contemplated question agreed and confessed by Basil and Ambrose, Augustine and above at Toledo etc, One Principle Father and Son which acknowledges the first principle of procession or the Son begotten. This is the same as the original Creed.

From this point the Father and the Son are One in All things and cannot be distinguished by an opposition within their relation. Thus it stands to reason the HS proceeds from the Father and the Son. This comes back to my point earlier, if in fact we say this isn’t true, then also it stands to reason we have multiple Gods, or a lesser deity, in other words confusion within the concept of One God and equality of essence within the Trinity.

Also In other words when we say Divine, we cannot and are not dissecting the Divinity of One God.

One more way to look at this. The Son “has” for all eternity from the Father that by which the HS proceeds from the Father. But the first principle remains intact. This is the area where double procession is confused. In truth there is a double procession in the sense the Son begotten is a procession, the HS sent is a procession. But there is no double procession of the HS, that is in fact impossible in degree of authority and power, and in the divine will and intellect which would be counter productive to Love, the basis of the principle.

Its not a matter of further definition, but of clearer understanding of what was already defined and then placed at risk. And a deeper understanding of Scripture in what was not defined but always existed. We are not talking about cooperating Grace, all of it is operating Grace of one essence. Or we simply wouldn’t have a Triune God. Here also we have a slight difference in the human/divine Jesus. This indicates the condition of the human flesh, which in fact is cooperating. This also leads to a disconnect in full understanding of the Second Person Trinity. This is what Athanasius contemplated deeply on with the Incarnation/Trinity.

One spiration and one spirator. but two doing the spirating of the one spiration, thus one spirator and one spiration. Since the two are one, as are the three. Thus its not the Father in control as first principle at this point as noted above. Namely the Son dependent on the Father to produce. When the Son is begotten, He [Christ, Second person Trinity] does not send the HS through the Father. Or again as above the Father does not receive from the Son that by which the HS proceeds from Him [Father]

One produced, but not by two different producers after the begotten Son.[first procession], eternal communion, one God…Love, Unity of operating Grace of one intellect.

 

[rinnie]

No. That’s entirely my point: The Holy Spirit is not mutual love; He’s not a feeling. He’s a person. If the Holy Spirit is not a person in your theology, you are not a Trinitarian Christian. You’re something else entirely.

Is it not enough that Christ Jesus Himself says in John 14:26 that the Father will send the Holy Spirit in His (Christ’s) name? That seems like a pretty direct connection to me.

I agree. I think if people go back to the O.T. they can truly see the Trinity much clearly.

God is indeed the Father the Son and the Holy Spirit. The O.T. is filled with it.

In the O.T. it begins in Genesis Let US make man to OUR image. The O,T. gives many hints of the Trinity being One. One God in 3 separate persons. But we never knew about the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit until the N.T. when Christ revealed it to us.

In Isaias 9:6 It states for a child is born to Us, he is called Wonderful, Counselor, God the Mighty the Father of the world, Prince of Peace.

In Is. 48 its God speaking as the SON , the Father and Spirit as having sent him.

Come ye near unto ME and hear this. I have not spoken in secret from the beginning from the time before it was done, I was there, and now the Lord God hath sent me and his Spirit.

It was not until the N.T. that this was truly revealed to us though.

It is though the Church that we continue to gain knowledge, of course thought the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

It seems sometimes people believe the Holy Spirit is still alive and well guiding the Church, but yet when the Pope and Bishops get this guidance people seem to reject it or something.

Granted you can never add or take away from the word of God, that is a given, But the Church is always growing in knowledge from the word of God.

As Christ tells us the Spirit will reveal everything to us when God feels it is time to have it revealed.

The Trinity is revealed to us as a Mystery at this time, but like any mystery with the guidance of the Holy Spirit the mystery is slowing being revealed.

We know that God is 3 persons One God. Always was always will be. God from God, light from Light, True God from True God.

I believe the Trinity is not really about 3 different persons as much as it is 3 different ways God chose to reveal himself to us in different times.

In the O.T. it was God the Father, the N.T. God the Son and now in the CC God the Holy Spirit.

Not only is it the ways he reveals himself its how he chooses to communicate with us. Jesus tells us he will communicate with us throughthe Advocate the HolySpirit now.

Does that mean he cannot communicate with us through the Father or Son? No. Its just he told us he would sent the Holy Spirit to communicate the truth to the Holy Catholic Church. Thats our guarantee that we will have truth.

Christ told us I will never leave you orphans, I will sent the Advocate where? To the Church, He said the gates of hades will not prevail. So that means if the Pope claims a truth revealed from the Holy Sprit he is either telling us the truth, or the gates of hades prevailed! And we know that won’t happen, because Jesus promised us it would not.

I truly don’t see any other way of seeing it.

 

[chimo]

And that is exactly the problem the Orthodox have with Catholics; Catholics think they understand better and have more knowledge than the early church. If you ever propose that idea to an Orthodox Christian he will accuse you of innovation and refer you to the commonitory of St Vincent of Lerins.

To all who agree with the assertion of chimo; read the commonitory of St. Vincent of Lerins and read the rest of the fathers. None of them are looking to learn anything new by developing doctrine. Basil, the Gregory’s, Cyril, Athanasius, Maximus, and every one of the fathers sought to preserve the primitive faith. They weren’t looking to develop a new understanding. The concept of hypostasis was an attempt by Basil to preserve the teachings of the Church against error, not to develop a new idea and learn something beyond what was already given. The same goes for concept of the hypostatic union. This progressive approach to theology is a modern western concept, and if the west is going to encourage it, the east is right to call Catholics heretics.

Not exactly. We are here to be guided into deeper truths. Not everything has been revealed. We are to build on what others have said. God is not a static being but a dynamic being and our theology also must be dynamic. We can always arrive at a better understanding of our Faith. This does not take away from what Saints have said from the past. On the contrary without them where will we be? But every generation must build on what others have already said. Truth is always ongoing into deeper truths for our God is indeed deeper than what we already know. Take for instance the problem about Judas. The early accounts describe him as evil. But when you check the Scriptures you will notice Judas did not like what was going on when the Pharisees wanted to crucify Jesus. Now if Judas was an evil man then why did he want to kill himself when he saw that the Pharisees wanted the death of Jesus? Certainly if Judas wanted the death of Jesus he would not have wanted to kill himself. It doesn’t make sense. The most probable answer to why Judas wanted to kill himself was he wanted to force the issue on Jesus to prove to the Pharisees that He is the Son of God. But when Jesus would not play into the bluff of His apostle this actually scared Judas. Jesus would not try to get out of this. Judas then became scared and in this scenario it would explain his own intention to do away with himself. I gave this as an example that the early Church may not always be right in interpreting events. And we need to give to our Catholic brothers and sisters the right to speak as well their mind regarding issues that are dear to them. We can do this by been more open to what deeper truths are there for us all to discover.