J
jonathan_hili
Guest
The Catholic Church under the guidance of the See of Peter has the authority to develop our understanding of doctrine.
- Status
C
Cider
Guest
But the Orthodox don’t agree with that and you are asking the Orthodox opinion in your thread title.
J
jonathan_hili
Guest
Haha I know that, I was just responding to the fellow who called the Catholic Church anathema for adding the filioque.
The question remains though: how is the Son related to the Spirit if the Spirit proceeds only from the Father?
C
Cider
Guest
Honestly I think your hypothesis works against the legitimacy of the filioque because it changes the very nature of the Trinity, into the holy spirit being the result of “marriage” ( as you put it) between the God the Father and and Son.
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
Athanasian Creed
1
Whosoever will be saved,
before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic (universal) faith;
2
Which faith except everyone do keep whole and undefiled,
without doubt he shall perish everlastingly.
3
And the catholic (universal) faith is this:
That we worship one God in Trinity,
and Trinity in Unity;
4
Neither confounding the Persons,
nor dividing the Substance.
5
For there is one Person of the Father,
another of the Son,
and another of the Holy Spirit.
6
But the Godhead of the Father,
of the Son,
and of the Holy Spirit,
is all one,
the glory equal,
the majesty coeternal.
7
Such as the Father is,
such is the Son,
and such is the Holy Spirit.
8
The Father uncreate,
the Son uncreate,
and the Holy Spirit uncreate.
9
The Father incomprehensible,
the Son incomprehensible,
and the Holy Spirit incomprehensible.
10
The Father eternal,
the Son eternal,
and the Holy Spirit eternal.
11
And yet they are not three eternals,
but one eternal.
12
As also there are not three uncreated
nor three incomprehensibles,
but one uncreated, and one incomprehensible.
13
So likewise the Father is almighty,
the Son almighty,
and the Holy Spirit almighty.
14
And yet they are not three almighties,
but one almighty.
15
So the Father is God,
the Son is God,
and the Holy Spirit is God;
16
And yet they are not three Gods,
but one God.
17
So likewise the Father is Lord,
the Son Lord,
and the Holy Spirit Lord;
18
And yet not three Lords,
but one Lord.
19
For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity
to acknowledge every Person by himself to be God and Lord;
20
so we are forbidden by the catholic (universal) religion to say,
there are three Gods, or three Lords.
21
The Father is made of none,
neither created, nor begotten.
22
The Son is of the Father alone;
not made, nor created, but begotten.
23
The Holy Spirit is of the Father and of the Son;
neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding.
24
So there is one Father, not three Fathers;
one Son, not three Sons;
one Holy Spirit, not three Holy Spirits.
25
And in this Trinity none is afore, or after another;
none is greater, or less than another.
26
But the whole three Persons are coeternal and coequal.
27
So that in all things, as aforesaid,
the Unity in Trinity and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshipped.
28
He therefore that will be saved
must thus think of the Trinity.
29
Furthermore, it is necessary to everlasting salvation
that he also believe rightly the incarnation of
our Lord Jesus Christ.
30
For the right faith is that we believe and confess
that our Lord Jesus Christ,
the Son of God,
is God and man.
31
God, of the substance of the Father,
begotten before the worlds;
and man, of the substance of His mother,
born in the world.
32
Perfect God and perfect Man,
of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting.
33
Equal to the Father, as touching His Godhead,
and inferior to the Father, as touching His Manhood.
34
Who, although He is God and Man,
yet He is not two, but one Christ.
35
One, not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh,
but by taking of that manhood into God.
36
One altogether,
not by confusion of substance,
but by unity of Person.
37
For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man,
so God and man is one Christ;
38
Who suffered for our salvation,
descended into hell, *
rose again the third day from the dead;
39
He ascended into heaven,
He sitteth on the right hand of the Father, God, Almighty;
40
from thence He shall come to judge the quick and the dead.
41
At whose coming all men shall rise again with their bodies;
42
and shall give account of their own works.
43
And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting
and they that have done evil into everlasting fire.
44
This is the catholic (universal) faith,
which except a man believe faithfully
he cannot be saved.
We dont not have a clearer understanding of the Trinity. Are we saying Athanasius is wrong?
23
The Holy Spirit is of the Father and of the Son;
neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding.
1
Whosoever will be saved,
before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic (universal) faith;
2
Which faith except everyone do keep whole and undefiled,
without doubt he shall perish everlastingly.
3
And the catholic (universal) faith is this:
That we worship one God in Trinity,
and Trinity in Unity;
4
Neither confounding the Persons,
nor dividing the Substance.
5
For there is one Person of the Father,
another of the Son,
and another of the Holy Spirit.
6
But the Godhead of the Father,
of the Son,
and of the Holy Spirit,
is all one,
the glory equal,
the majesty coeternal.
7
Such as the Father is,
such is the Son,
and such is the Holy Spirit.
8
The Father uncreate,
the Son uncreate,
and the Holy Spirit uncreate.
9
The Father incomprehensible,
the Son incomprehensible,
and the Holy Spirit incomprehensible.
10
The Father eternal,
the Son eternal,
and the Holy Spirit eternal.
11
And yet they are not three eternals,
but one eternal.
12
As also there are not three uncreated
nor three incomprehensibles,
but one uncreated, and one incomprehensible.
13
So likewise the Father is almighty,
the Son almighty,
and the Holy Spirit almighty.
14
And yet they are not three almighties,
but one almighty.
15
So the Father is God,
the Son is God,
and the Holy Spirit is God;
16
And yet they are not three Gods,
but one God.
17
So likewise the Father is Lord,
the Son Lord,
and the Holy Spirit Lord;
18
And yet not three Lords,
but one Lord.
19
For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity
to acknowledge every Person by himself to be God and Lord;
20
so we are forbidden by the catholic (universal) religion to say,
there are three Gods, or three Lords.
21
The Father is made of none,
neither created, nor begotten.
22
The Son is of the Father alone;
not made, nor created, but begotten.
23
The Holy Spirit is of the Father and of the Son;
neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding.
24
So there is one Father, not three Fathers;
one Son, not three Sons;
one Holy Spirit, not three Holy Spirits.
25
And in this Trinity none is afore, or after another;
none is greater, or less than another.
26
But the whole three Persons are coeternal and coequal.
27
So that in all things, as aforesaid,
the Unity in Trinity and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshipped.
28
He therefore that will be saved
must thus think of the Trinity.
29
Furthermore, it is necessary to everlasting salvation
that he also believe rightly the incarnation of
our Lord Jesus Christ.
30
For the right faith is that we believe and confess
that our Lord Jesus Christ,
the Son of God,
is God and man.
31
God, of the substance of the Father,
begotten before the worlds;
and man, of the substance of His mother,
born in the world.
32
Perfect God and perfect Man,
of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting.
33
Equal to the Father, as touching His Godhead,
and inferior to the Father, as touching His Manhood.
34
Who, although He is God and Man,
yet He is not two, but one Christ.
35
One, not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh,
but by taking of that manhood into God.
36
One altogether,
not by confusion of substance,
but by unity of Person.
37
For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man,
so God and man is one Christ;
38
Who suffered for our salvation,
descended into hell, *
rose again the third day from the dead;
39
He ascended into heaven,
He sitteth on the right hand of the Father, God, Almighty;
40
from thence He shall come to judge the quick and the dead.
41
At whose coming all men shall rise again with their bodies;
42
and shall give account of their own works.
43
And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting
and they that have done evil into everlasting fire.
44
This is the catholic (universal) faith,
which except a man believe faithfully
he cannot be saved.
We dont not have a clearer understanding of the Trinity. Are we saying Athanasius is wrong?
23
The Holy Spirit is of the Father and of the Son;
neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding.
J
jonathan_hili
Guest
The marriage is just an humanised analogy in attempting to explain why it is that the Spirit should proceed from Father and Son. Does using the analogy of the clover or mind (as Augustine did) weaken the nature of the Trinity? Obviously not.
J
jonathan_hili
Guest
I mean, if Paul can say in Ephesians 3 that fatherhood on earth derives from heavenly Fatherhood, then perhaps human family derives in some way from the Trinitarian family.
J
jonathan_hili
Guest
Hi Gary, when was this Creed formulated?
Article 23 doesn’t sound like anything from Athanasius…
D
dzheremi
Guest
Thank you! See, this guy or gal gets it.
The Holy Spirit is a person. He’s not a feeling, He’s not the “result” of love between the Father and the Son, He’s a person. He is sent by the Father. Christ Himself tells us this. There is no room for any other opinion, and any other opinion (even from St. Augustine) is wrong.
I’m baffled as to why the OP asked for Orthodox opinions if he didn’t really want them. We’re not going to agree with you just because you say that the RCC has the power to declare this or that. If it’s wrong, it’s wrong, and in this case, it most certainly is.
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
J
jonathan_hili
Guest
Sigh Who is saying the Holy Spirit is a “feeling”. Do you think the only result of love is feelings? What about the birth of a child, who happens to be a person!
I want Orthodox opinions on how the Trinitarian Persons relate in eternity, and what they think about the filioque model actually making more sense of this relationship than the Divine Monarche model (Spirit proceeding solely from the Father).
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
Not to change the topic but I followed the Coptic Church last couple weeks along with everything else. Damn shame with no help. My prayers are with them.
C
Cider
Guest
Wait, why am I thinking that this is somehow related to the council of Florence? I not very familiar with it so I’m not sure?
J
jonathan_hili
Guest
Beats me. I’ve never been to Florence
C
Cider
Guest
It took some googling but I found that on EWTN
ewtn.com/library/councils/florence.htm
Are they saying the same thing you are saying? Someone who is more knowledgable on the Council of Florence please post because my head is dizzy if that is what they are saying
J
jonathan_hili
Guest
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.It took some googling but I found that on EWTN
ewtn.com/library/councils/florence.htm
Are they saying the same thing you are saying? Someone who is more knowledgable on the Council of Florence please post because my head is dizzy if that is what they are saying
R
R_C
Guest
Ok, I’m not Orthodox, but I’d like to mention a couple of things about the filioque, gathered from several articles of Catholic Encyclopedia.
One of the Orthodox views seems to be that “Filioque was added to the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed by the Church of Rome in the 11th century, one of the major factors leading to the Great Schism”. This is, of course, incredibly inaccurate.
The first official affirmation of double procession takes place when Macedonius and his followers, the so-called Pneumatomachi, were condemned by the local Council of Alexandria (362) and by Pope St. Damasus (378) for teaching that the Holy Ghost derives His origin from the Son alone, by creation: while apparently admitting the Divinity of the Word, they denied that of the Holy Spirit and placed Him among the spirits, inferior ministers of God, but higher than the angels.
The first undoubted denial of the double Procession of the Holy Ghost we find in the seventh century in Constantinople when St. Martin I (649-655), in his synodal writing against the Monothelites, employed the expression “Filioque”.
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).
Now the “mission” or “sending” of one Divine Person by another does not mean merely that the Person said to be sent assumes a particular character, at the suggestion of Himself in the character of Sender, as the Sabellians maintained; nor does it imply any inferiority in the Person sent, as the Arians taught; but it denotes, according to the teaching of the weightier theologians and Fathers, the Procession of the Person sent from the Person Who sends. Sacred Scripture never presents the Father as being sent by the Son, nor the Son as being sent by the Holy Ghost.
Finally, St. John (16:13-15) gives the words of Christ: “What things soever he [the Spirit] shall hear, he shall speak; …he shall receive of mine, and shew it to you. All things whatsoever the Father hath, are mine.” Here a double consideration is in place. First, the Son has all things that the Father hath, so that He must resemble the Father in being the Principle from which the Holy Ghost proceeds. Secondly, the Holy Ghost shall receive “of mine” according to the words of the Son; but Procession is the only conceivable way of receiving which does not imply dependence or inferiority. In other words, the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Son.
The teaching of Sacred Scripture on the double Procession of the Holy Ghost was faithfully preserved in Christian tradition.
Even the Greek Orthodox grant that the Latin Fathers maintain the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son. Some of the later documents in which the patristic doctrine has been clearly expressed:
One of the Orthodox views seems to be that “Filioque was added to the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed by the Church of Rome in the 11th century, one of the major factors leading to the Great Schism”. This is, of course, incredibly inaccurate.
The first official affirmation of double procession takes place when Macedonius and his followers, the so-called Pneumatomachi, were condemned by the local Council of Alexandria (362) and by Pope St. Damasus (378) for teaching that the Holy Ghost derives His origin from the Son alone, by creation: while apparently admitting the Divinity of the Word, they denied that of the Holy Spirit and placed Him among the spirits, inferior ministers of God, but higher than the angels.
The first undoubted denial of the double Procession of the Holy Ghost we find in the seventh century in Constantinople when St. Martin I (649-655), in his synodal writing against the Monothelites, employed the expression “Filioque”.
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).
Now the “mission” or “sending” of one Divine Person by another does not mean merely that the Person said to be sent assumes a particular character, at the suggestion of Himself in the character of Sender, as the Sabellians maintained; nor does it imply any inferiority in the Person sent, as the Arians taught; but it denotes, according to the teaching of the weightier theologians and Fathers, the Procession of the Person sent from the Person Who sends. Sacred Scripture never presents the Father as being sent by the Son, nor the Son as being sent by the Holy Ghost.
Finally, St. John (16:13-15) gives the words of Christ: “What things soever he [the Spirit] shall hear, he shall speak; …he shall receive of mine, and shew it to you. All things whatsoever the Father hath, are mine.” Here a double consideration is in place. First, the Son has all things that the Father hath, so that He must resemble the Father in being the Principle from which the Holy Ghost proceeds. Secondly, the Holy Ghost shall receive “of mine” according to the words of the Son; but Procession is the only conceivable way of receiving which does not imply dependence or inferiority. In other words, the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Son.
The teaching of Sacred Scripture on the double Procession of the Holy Ghost was faithfully preserved in Christian tradition.
Even the Greek Orthodox grant that the Latin Fathers maintain the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son. Some of the later documents in which the patristic doctrine has been clearly expressed:
- the dogmatic letter of St. Leo I to Turribius, Bishop of Astorga, Epistle 15 (447);
- the so-called Athanasian Creed;
- several councils held at Toledo in the years 447, 589 (III), 675 (XI), 693 (XVI);
- the letter of Pope Hormisdas to the Emperor Justius, Ep. lxxix (521);
- St. Martin I’s synodal utterance against the Monothelites, 649-655;
- Pope Adrian I’s answer to the Caroline Books, 772-795;
- the Synods of Mérida (666), Braga (675), and Hatfield (680);
- the writing of Pope Leo III (d. 816) to the monks of Jerusalem;
- the letter of Pope Stephen V (d. 891) to the Moravian King Suentopolcus (Suatopluk), Ep. xiii;
- First, the Greek Fathers enumerate the Divine Persons in the same order as the Latin Fathers; they admit that the Son and the Holy Ghost are logically and ontologically connected in the same way as the Son and Father [St. Basil, Epistle 38; Against Eunomius I.20 and III, sub init.]
- Second, the Greek Fathers establish the same relation between the Son and the Holy Ghost as between the Father and the Son; as the Father is the fountain of the Son, so is the Son the fountain of the Holy Ghost (Athanasius, Ep. ad Serap. I, xix, sqq.; On the Incarnation 9; Orat. iii, adv. Arian., 24; Basil, Against Eunomius V; cf. Gregory of Nazianzus, Oration 43, no. 9).
- Third, passages are not wanting in the writings of the Greek Fathers in which the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son is clearly maintained: Gregory Thaumaturgus, “Expos. fidei sec.”, vers. saec. IV, in Rufinus, Hist. Eccl., VII, xxv; Epiphanius, Haer., c. lxii, 4; Gregory of Nyssa, Hom. iii in orat. domin.); Cyril of Alexandria, “Thes.”, as. xxxiv; the second canon of synod of forty bishops held in 410 at Seleucia in Mesopotamia; the Arabic versions of the Canons of St. Hippolytus; the Nestorian explanation of the Symbol.
C
Cider
Guest
You said earlier that you idea that the Holy Spirit is a result of the marriage of the Father and Son was not official Catholic teaching. I thought you were talking about source and essence, not strictly spiration.
J
jonathan_hili
Guest
Sorry if I made myself unclear. “Marriage” is just an analogy.
C
ComeHome2Rome
Guest
Not the Creed that was written by & affirmed by the Ecumenical Councils under the direct inspiration of the Holy Spirit, the very Person we’re discussing.
The Creed written by & confirmed by the Ecumenical Councils, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, did not include the phrase *“and the Son”. *
How can anyone hundreds of years later begin to believe & teach that the Holy Spirit who Personally inspired the Bishops of those Ecumenical Councils get it wrong - wrong about Himself, no less - which would then require a later correction by persons who presumably claimed to know more about the Holy Spirit than the Holy Spirit knows & revealed about Himself?
- Status