B
Benadam
Guest
Only the Father knows the Son. Only the Son knows the Father.
This is what Jesus did say though.
- Status
This is what Jesus did say though.
B
Benadam
Guest
He didn’t say that the Holy Spirit proceeds only from the Father.
B
Benadam
Guest
You never said why this image of God doesn’t describe Filioque
P
Profete
Guest
Both Christ and fathers of the Ecumenical Councils said that Holy Spirit proceeds only from the Father.
Angel showed him the river, while Christ clearly said what he said about the proceeding of Holy Spirit. This Augustine’s theory that Holy Spirit is Love between Father and the Son puts Holy Spirit in to inferior position, and even goes against Catholic proclamation at Lyion that condemns those who believe that Filioque is belief in two sources.
If Holy Spirit was really product of Love between Father and Son, that means he comes from two sources, and that is something that even Catholic church condemned as heretical.
Angel showed him the river, while Christ clearly said what he said about the proceeding of Holy Spirit. This Augustine’s theory that Holy Spirit is Love between Father and the Son puts Holy Spirit in to inferior position, and even goes against Catholic proclamation at Lyion that condemns those who believe that Filioque is belief in two sources.
If Holy Spirit was really product of Love between Father and Son, that means he comes from two sources, and that is something that even Catholic church condemned as heretical.
A
AlNg
Guest
John 15:26 says
“…Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father,…”
B
Benadam
Guest
That doesn’t say only the Father. I believe that He proceeds from the Father.
Does Orthodox mean orthodox?
I find here ove 70 contributions, but only Spyridon and AlNg seem to try to get to the point.
I used to believe the issue is similar to resistances in electricity, they can be either in series or in parallel.
It is useful to remember the Catholic Church is a ‘both/and’ Church not an ‘either/or’ one.
There is a danger in basing your religion on prepositions.
You might like to look at an anonymous article https://www.catholic.com/tract/filioque.
Also to reinforce the ideas (it is so good they named it twice, like NY) https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/filioque-and-the-son.
Also (like God in three persons) https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/filioque-0.
You might like to look at:
Joint statement of Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic theologians
The Filioque was discussed at the 62nd meeting of the North American Orthodox–Catholic Theological Consultation, in 2002. In October 2003, the Consultation issued an agreed statement, The Filioque: a Church-dividing issue?, which provides an extensive review of Scripture, history, and theology. The recommendations include:
That all involved in such dialogue expressly recognize the limitations of our ability to make definitive assertions about the inner life of God.
That, in the future, because of the progress in mutual understanding that has come about in recent decades, Orthodox and Catholics refrain from labeling as heretical the traditions of the other side on the subject of the procession of the Holy Spirit.
That Orthodox and Catholic theologians distinguish more clearly between the divinity and hypostatic identity of the Holy Spirit (which is a received dogma of our Churches) and the manner of the Spirit’s origin, which still awaits full and final ecumenical resolution.
That those engaged in dialogue on this issue distinguish, as far as possible, the theological issues of the origin of the Holy Spirit from the ecclesiological issues of primacy and doctrinal authority in the Church, even as we pursue both questions seriously, together.
That the theological dialogue between our Churches also give careful consideration to the status of later councils held in both our Churches after those seven generally received as ecumenical.
That the Catholic Church, as a consequence of the normative and irrevocable dogmatic value of the Creed of 381, use the original Greek text alone in making translations of that Creed for catechetical and liturgical use.
That the Catholic Church, following a growing theological consensus, and in particular the statements made by Pope Paul VI, declare that the condemnation made at the Second Council of Lyons (1274) of those “who presume to deny that the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son” is no longer applicable.
In the judgment of the consultation, the question of the Filioque is no longer a “Church-dividing” issue, which would impede full reconciliation and full communion. It is for the bishops of the Catholic and Orthodox Churches to review this work and to make whatever decisions would be appropriate.
Th above is from the www.
Joint statement of Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic theologians
The Filioque was discussed at the 62nd meeting of the North American Orthodox–Catholic Theological Consultation, in 2002. In October 2003, the Consultation issued an agreed statement, The Filioque: a Church-dividing issue?, which provides an extensive review of Scripture, history, and theology. The recommendations include:
That all involved in such dialogue expressly recognize the limitations of our ability to make definitive assertions about the inner life of God.
That, in the future, because of the progress in mutual understanding that has come about in recent decades, Orthodox and Catholics refrain from labeling as heretical the traditions of the other side on the subject of the procession of the Holy Spirit.
That Orthodox and Catholic theologians distinguish more clearly between the divinity and hypostatic identity of the Holy Spirit (which is a received dogma of our Churches) and the manner of the Spirit’s origin, which still awaits full and final ecumenical resolution.
That those engaged in dialogue on this issue distinguish, as far as possible, the theological issues of the origin of the Holy Spirit from the ecclesiological issues of primacy and doctrinal authority in the Church, even as we pursue both questions seriously, together.
That the theological dialogue between our Churches also give careful consideration to the status of later councils held in both our Churches after those seven generally received as ecumenical.
That the Catholic Church, as a consequence of the normative and irrevocable dogmatic value of the Creed of 381, use the original Greek text alone in making translations of that Creed for catechetical and liturgical use.
That the Catholic Church, following a growing theological consensus, and in particular the statements made by Pope Paul VI, declare that the condemnation made at the Second Council of Lyons (1274) of those “who presume to deny that the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son” is no longer applicable.
In the judgment of the consultation, the question of the Filioque is no longer a “Church-dividing” issue, which would impede full reconciliation and full communion. It is for the bishops of the Catholic and Orthodox Churches to review this work and to make whatever decisions would be appropriate.
Th above is from the www.
A
AlNg
Guest
OK. that is what is stated.
The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father PERIOD. There is no need to add anything else after the period.
B
Benadam
Guest
You might be right. No need. I still believe Filioque is true.
22 Then the angel[a] showed me the river of the water of life, bright as crystal, flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb 2 through the middle of the street of the city.
Can you tell me this image isn’t evidence of what I believe? What is the water of life that flows from the Father and Son in John’s Revelation?
Last edited:
A
AlNg
Guest
Jesus said that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father. You are adding words to what He said.
B
Benadam
Guest
.I said I believe those words.
What words have I added to that Scripture? Why use such a tactic? I could more rightfully say you are blotting out Jesus’ words. I am showing you other words in the same Scriptures that Jesus said. Words you won’t even discuss even though I show them to you repeatedly. On the contrary, you are attempting to blot out words that He said.
Last edited:
A
AlNg
Guest
You said you believe that the filioque is true. Filioque is an addition to what was said by Jesus in John 15:26.
B
Benadam
Guest
You and Profete put Scripture on the table to support what you believe. And you weren’t denied a reasonable response. I present a Scripture and ask what the river in Johns vision means and so far this is the response
Angel showed him the river,
Is that all that it means or are you removing the meaning from Revelation?
Angel showed him the river,
Is that all that it means or are you removing the meaning from Revelation?
Last edited:
R
Reuben_J
Guest
I agree with you here @Benadam. Scripture must be looked in totality as they cannot contradict each other. Your reference to Book of Revelation seems to confirm that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son (the water of life, bright as crystal, flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb).
The ‘water of life’ as traditionally referred to the Holy Spiirt.
The ‘water of life’ as traditionally referred to the Holy Spiirt.
A
AlNg
Guest
The Book of Revelation contains obscure and extravagant imagery, subject to multiple interpretations, but generally is not taken literally.
Last edited:
B
Benadam
Guest
Reuben, Thank You!
B
Benadam
Guest
Right, if I took it literally I would have agreed with Profete when he replied "Angel showed him a river "
In light of your correction, to me here, wouldn’t it have had a use correcting Profete?
R
Reuben_J
Guest
It is not (literally) since it is an apocalyptic in genre.
However, some verses are obvious which cannot mean any otherwise. In this case, God and the Lamb, can only mean the Father and the Son (Jesus) respectively, for how else God and the Lamb could otherwise mean? Then we can check with the terminologies used elsewhere, and if they are the same, we have no choice but to understand them as such.
But I agree with you, for the most parts the Book of Revelation are symbolic and can be udnerstood in many ‘layers’. But it does not mean we throw out the obvious when it does.
However, some verses are obvious which cannot mean any otherwise. In this case, God and the Lamb, can only mean the Father and the Son (Jesus) respectively, for how else God and the Lamb could otherwise mean? Then we can check with the terminologies used elsewhere, and if they are the same, we have no choice but to understand them as such.
But I agree with you, for the most parts the Book of Revelation are symbolic and can be udnerstood in many ‘layers’. But it does not mean we throw out the obvious when it does.
P
phil19034
Guest
You do realize that when a Roman Rite Mass is celebrated in Greek, the Creed is prayed WITHOUT Filioque, correct?
The Filioque is a TRANSLATION issue.
In Greek, the Creed makes total sense without the Filioque. But in Latin, it doesn’t.
The Nicene Creed was originally written in and approved in the Greek form. Again, in GREEK, we pray the Nicene Creed the same as the Eastern Orthodox.
The whole Filioque issue is because some Byzantine clergy disapproved of the Pope (in his role as Patriarch of the West) approved the Filioque as part of creed for the Latin Language translation due to LINGUISTICAL issues, not theological ones.
The Filioque is a TRANSLATION issue.
In Greek, the Creed makes total sense without the Filioque. But in Latin, it doesn’t.
The Nicene Creed was originally written in and approved in the Greek form. Again, in GREEK, we pray the Nicene Creed the same as the Eastern Orthodox.
The whole Filioque issue is because some Byzantine clergy disapproved of the Pope (in his role as Patriarch of the West) approved the Filioque as part of creed for the Latin Language translation due to LINGUISTICAL issues, not theological ones.
- Status