J
Joab_Anias
Guest
He quotes the Greek Septuagint in His teachings.
- Status
J
Joab_Anias
Guest
It doesn’t.
J
Joab_Anias
Guest
I pick 3 and think God cannot be divided in His actions. Of course I believe all three are equally God and one in will.
Do I get a star?
M
Montalban
Guest
What is it that you think we’re arguing?
You guys say the Holy Spirit originates in the Son, we’ve been arguing against that for some time - everyone else seems to be aware of the argument
M
Montalban
Guest
It does.
C
clmowry
Guest
In other words your arguing against a strawman of your own creation.
Got it.
Chuck
Got it.
Chuck
What is it that you think we’re arguing?
You guys say the Holy Spirit originates in the Son, we’ve been arguing against that for some time - everyone else seems to be aware of the argument
M
Montalban
Guest
Thank for the continued non-argument. I gave you evidence for this. You asked for it again. I gave it again. You ask “What’s the argument about” I tell you, and you still have managed to lodge post after post after post that’s avoided any discussion of that evidence.
You might not believe it, but at least address it!
You do exactly the same on the thread on the Crusades
A
anthony022071
Guest
Catholics don’t say that the Holy Spirit originates in the Son,as you ought to know by now.What is it that you think we’re arguing?
You guys say the Holy Spirit originates in the Son, we’ve been arguing against that for some time - everyone else seems to be aware of the argument
The Spirit is eternally manifested through,and therefore from,the Son. But the ultimate origin of the Spirit is the Father.
A
anthony022071
Guest
M
Montalban
Guest
The ultimate cause of ‘everything’ is indeed the Father, and this is not something shared with the Son. However everything else is.
But Catholic teaching says that they share one spiration - causing the Spirit.
If the Son is eteranlly the cause of the Holy Spirit, then, he’s the cause of the Holy Spirit. Simple!
M
Montalban
Guest
Objection 4 — The Filioque confuses the Persons and confuses Person and Essence within the Holy Trinity
This confusion is made clear by posing the following question:
Does the power to proceed the Holy Spirit come from
the Divine Essence common to all,
or from a specific Person?
To answer ‘from the Divine Essence’ is to face two equally distasteful choices: either the Holy Spirit proceeds Himself or the Holy Spirit is not God. The first is patently ridiculous; the second is clearly outside Christianity. The answer to the above question is clear: the power to proceed the Holy Spirit belongs to a specific Person: the Father. This has been and remains the consistent teaching of the Church.
But, the Filioquist objects, the Father has given everything to the Son, citing John 16:15 (All things that the Father has are Mine). Although admitting this does not really mean all since the Father does not give His ‘Father-ness’ to the Son, they insist — with no justification other than their philosophical speculations — that it does include the power to proceed the Holy Spirit. By insisting this, the Filioquists demonstrate their confusion between the Divine Essence (what God is) and the Person of the Father (who the Father is). In begetting Seth, Adam gave Seth what he was, his ‘human-ness’, but he did not, he could not give Seth his ‘Adam-ness’: Adam and Seth are distinct hypostases, distinct persons. The Father and the Son are distinct hypostases, distinct Persons: the Father does not give His ‘Father-ness’ (who He is), He gives his ‘God-ness’ (what He is) to the Son. ‘All things that the Father has’ refers to what God is and indeed it is true that all of what the Father is has been given to the Son — and is also given to the Holy Spirit (something consistently overlooked by Filioquists). The claim that the Father gives the Son the power to proceed the Holy Spirit is a claim that the Father gives who He is to the Son and thus confuses the Persons.
But again the Filioquists object that the Father’s ‘Father-ness’ only refers to the Father’s begetting of the Son and does not refer to the proceeding of the Holy Spirit. What? Did the Lord Jesus Christ reveal a name besides ‘Father’ by which to know the first Person of the Holy Trinity? The answer is clear: ‘Father’ is the only name of the first Person of the Holy Trinity. ‘Father’ is as surely the name of the first Person of the Holy Trinity as ‘Adam’ is the name of the first man. To make ‘Father’ a mere description is to impersonalise the first Person of the Holy Trinity which, even if consistent with the direction of Augustine’s teaching and the belief of the Filioquists, is repugnant to pious Christians. Moreover, the testimony of the Lord Jesus Christ contained in Holy Scripture is clear: the Father is the Cause of both the Son (by begetting) and the Holy Spirit (by processing). The Father is not merely the Father of the Son.
The Filioquists offer an additional objection that the Son and the Holy Spirit are both Caused, and this thus ‘proves’ there are attributes within the Holy Trinity that belong to only two Persons without belonging to the Divine Essence. Such a claim initially seems attractive — until one recognises the sloppy thinking behind it. The Son is begotten of the Father; the Holy Spirit proceeds of the Father. Begetting and proceeding are different. We may not know how they differ, but the teaching of the Lord Jesus Christ is clear: there is a difference. The pious Christian accepts the Lord Jesus Christ’s teaching, recognising his inability as a creature to comprehend the Uncreated. He is of one mind with Saint John of Damascus:
God then, is Infinite and Incomprehensible, and all that is comprehensible about Him is His Infinity and His Incomprehensibility.
Objection 5 — The Filioque subordinates the Holy Spirit
By teaching that there is something (the ability to proceed the Holy Spirit) shared by the Father and the Son but not shared by the Holy Spirit, the Filioquists clearly subordinate the Holy Spirit, making Him less than the Others.
By teaching that the Holy Spirit is the result of ‘perfect love’ between the Father and the Son, the Filioquists clearly subordinate the Holy Spirit, making Him completely contingent on both Father and Son and having no self-existence.
By teaching that the Father is a Cause (of the Father and of the Son) and the Son is likewise a Cause (of the Holy Spirit), the Filioquists clearly subordinate the Holy Spirit by making Him the only Divine Person who is not a Cause of a Divine Person.
[geocities.com/trvalentine/orthodox/work(name removed by moderator)rog_filioque.html](http://www.geocities.com/trvalentine/orthodox/work(name removed by moderator)rog_filioque.html)
This confusion is made clear by posing the following question:
Does the power to proceed the Holy Spirit come from
the Divine Essence common to all,
or from a specific Person?
To answer ‘from the Divine Essence’ is to face two equally distasteful choices: either the Holy Spirit proceeds Himself or the Holy Spirit is not God. The first is patently ridiculous; the second is clearly outside Christianity. The answer to the above question is clear: the power to proceed the Holy Spirit belongs to a specific Person: the Father. This has been and remains the consistent teaching of the Church.
But, the Filioquist objects, the Father has given everything to the Son, citing John 16:15 (All things that the Father has are Mine). Although admitting this does not really mean all since the Father does not give His ‘Father-ness’ to the Son, they insist — with no justification other than their philosophical speculations — that it does include the power to proceed the Holy Spirit. By insisting this, the Filioquists demonstrate their confusion between the Divine Essence (what God is) and the Person of the Father (who the Father is). In begetting Seth, Adam gave Seth what he was, his ‘human-ness’, but he did not, he could not give Seth his ‘Adam-ness’: Adam and Seth are distinct hypostases, distinct persons. The Father and the Son are distinct hypostases, distinct Persons: the Father does not give His ‘Father-ness’ (who He is), He gives his ‘God-ness’ (what He is) to the Son. ‘All things that the Father has’ refers to what God is and indeed it is true that all of what the Father is has been given to the Son — and is also given to the Holy Spirit (something consistently overlooked by Filioquists). The claim that the Father gives the Son the power to proceed the Holy Spirit is a claim that the Father gives who He is to the Son and thus confuses the Persons.
But again the Filioquists object that the Father’s ‘Father-ness’ only refers to the Father’s begetting of the Son and does not refer to the proceeding of the Holy Spirit. What? Did the Lord Jesus Christ reveal a name besides ‘Father’ by which to know the first Person of the Holy Trinity? The answer is clear: ‘Father’ is the only name of the first Person of the Holy Trinity. ‘Father’ is as surely the name of the first Person of the Holy Trinity as ‘Adam’ is the name of the first man. To make ‘Father’ a mere description is to impersonalise the first Person of the Holy Trinity which, even if consistent with the direction of Augustine’s teaching and the belief of the Filioquists, is repugnant to pious Christians. Moreover, the testimony of the Lord Jesus Christ contained in Holy Scripture is clear: the Father is the Cause of both the Son (by begetting) and the Holy Spirit (by processing). The Father is not merely the Father of the Son.
The Filioquists offer an additional objection that the Son and the Holy Spirit are both Caused, and this thus ‘proves’ there are attributes within the Holy Trinity that belong to only two Persons without belonging to the Divine Essence. Such a claim initially seems attractive — until one recognises the sloppy thinking behind it. The Son is begotten of the Father; the Holy Spirit proceeds of the Father. Begetting and proceeding are different. We may not know how they differ, but the teaching of the Lord Jesus Christ is clear: there is a difference. The pious Christian accepts the Lord Jesus Christ’s teaching, recognising his inability as a creature to comprehend the Uncreated. He is of one mind with Saint John of Damascus:
God then, is Infinite and Incomprehensible, and all that is comprehensible about Him is His Infinity and His Incomprehensibility.
Objection 5 — The Filioque subordinates the Holy Spirit
By teaching that there is something (the ability to proceed the Holy Spirit) shared by the Father and the Son but not shared by the Holy Spirit, the Filioquists clearly subordinate the Holy Spirit, making Him less than the Others.
By teaching that the Holy Spirit is the result of ‘perfect love’ between the Father and the Son, the Filioquists clearly subordinate the Holy Spirit, making Him completely contingent on both Father and Son and having no self-existence.
By teaching that the Father is a Cause (of the Father and of the Son) and the Son is likewise a Cause (of the Holy Spirit), the Filioquists clearly subordinate the Holy Spirit by making Him the only Divine Person who is not a Cause of a Divine Person.
[geocities.com/trvalentine/orthodox/work(name removed by moderator)rog_filioque.html](http://www.geocities.com/trvalentine/orthodox/work(name removed by moderator)rog_filioque.html)
A
anthony022071
Guest
Who says that the Son is eternally the cause of the Holy Spirit?
If you mean “cause” as in “ultimate origin”,then no,that’s not what Catholics believe. If the Holy Spirit spirates from the Father and Son as from one principle,that is because the Son is one with the Father,in the unity of the Holy Spirit. But that does not mean that the Son is the ultimate origin of the Spirit. The Son eternally has the Spirit from the Father.
M
Montalban
Guest
The Catholic Church by saying that the Son is all that the Father is.
J
Joab_Anias
Guest
It doesn’t and they cannot show you what the Church teaches because they do not know.
All they know is division and misconceptions.
685 To believe in the Holy Spirit is to profess that the Holy Spirit is one of the persons of the Holy Trinity, consubstantial with the Father and the Son: “with the Father and the Son he is worshipped and glorified.” For this reason, the divine mystery of the Holy Spirit was already treated in the context of Trinitarian “theology.” Here, however, we have to do with the Holy Spirit only in the divine “economy.”
684 Through his grace, the Holy Spirit is the first to awaken faith in us and to communicate to us the new life, which is to “know the Father and the one whom he has sent, Jesus Christ.” But the Spirit is the last of the persons of the Holy Trinity to be revealed. St. Gregory of Nazianzus, the Theologian, explains this progression in terms of the pedagogy of divine “condescension”:
The Old Testament proclaimed the Father clearly, but the Son more obscurely. The New Testament revealed the Son and gave us a glimpse of the divinity of the Spirit. Now the Spirit dwells among us and grants us a clearer vision of himself. It was not prudent, when the divinity of the Father had not yet been confessed, to proclaim the Son openly and, when the divinity of the Son was not yet admitted, to add the Holy Spirit as an extra burden, to speak somewhat daringly. . . . By advancing and progressing “from glory to glory,” the light of the Trinity will shine in ever more brilliant rays.
2671 The traditional form of petition to the Holy Spirit is to invoke the Father through Christ our Lord to give us the Consoler Spirit. Jesus insists on this petition to be made in his name at the very moment when he promises the gift of the Spirit of Truth. But the simplest and most direct prayer is also traditional, “Come, Holy Spirit,” and every liturgical tradition has developed it in antiphons and hymns.
Come, Holy Spirit, fill the hearts of your faithful and enkindle in them the fire of your love.
Heavenly King, Consoler Spirit, Spirit of Truth, present everywhere and filling all things, treasure of all good and source of all life, come dwell in us, cleanse and save us, you who are All Good.
683 “No one can say ‘Jesus is Lord’ except by the Holy Spirit.” “God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, 'Abba! Father!”’ This knowledge of faith is possible only in the Holy Spirit: to be in touch with Christ, we must first have been touched by the Holy Spirit. He comes to meet us and kindles faith in us. By virtue of our Baptism, the first sacrament of the faith, the Holy Spirit in the Church communicates to us, intimately and personally, the life that originates in the Father and is offered to us in the Son.
Baptism gives us the grace of new birth in God the Father, through his Son, in the Holy Spirit. For those who bear God’s Spirit are led to the Word, that is, to the Son, and the Son presents them to the Father, and the Father confers incorruptibility on them. And it is impossible to see God’s Son without the Spirit, and no one can approach the Father without the Son, for the knowledge of the Father is the Son, and the knowledge of God’s Son is obtained through the Holy Spirit.
J
Joab_Anias
Guest
You do not know what the Catholic Church teaches.
Heres a bit of the Church’s teaching on the Holy Spirit;
Are you praying?
J
Joab_Anias
Guest
Doesn’t confuse Catholics as we are indoctrinated in this from birth.
Hardly and heres why;
Both, there is no limit on the Holy Spirit.
Alone they are distasteful. The Holy Spirit proceeds from God. That means He proceeds from the Father, the Son and Himself at the same time. There is no disparity between the persons of the Trinity in Gods will.
Whats rediculous is that the Father somehow would refuse the son sending anyone He chooses the Holy Spirit or visa versa. Obviously you have no grasp on the unity of the Trinity or unity at all.
Finished.
I
Isa_Almisry
Guest
No, the creaton of Toledo III:
filioque
and Lateran IV:
The Father is from none, the Son from the Father alone, and the holy Spirit from both equally, eternally without beginning or end; the Father generating, the Son being born, and the holy Spirit proceeding; consubstantial and coequal, co-omnipotent and coeternal…This holy Trinity, which is undivided according to its common essence but distinct ?!] according to the properties of its persons…
[Son also generates equally, so property not distinct]
legionofmarytidewater.com/faith/ECUM12.HTM#1
and Lyons II:
We profess faithfully and devotedly that the holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son, not as from two principles, but as from one principle; not by two spirations, but by one single spiration. This the holy Roman church, mother and mistress of all the faithful, has till now professed, preached and taught; this she firmly holds, preaches, professes and teaches; this is the unchangeable and true belief of the orthodox fathers and doctors, Latin and Greek alike. But because some, on account of ignorance of the said indisputable truth, have fallen into various errors, we, wishing to close the way to such errors, with the approval of the sacred council, condemn and reprove all who presume to deny that the holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son, or rashly to assert that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as from two principles and not as from one.
legionofmarytidewater.com/faith/ECUM14.HTM#01
[How the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son both equally and yet one principle, I leave to you to explain]
and Florence:
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. We declare that when holy doctors and fathers say that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son, this bears the sense that thereby also the Son should be signified, according to the Greeks indeed as cause, and according to the Latins as principle of the subsistence of the holy Spirit, just like the Father.
And since the Father gave to his only-begotten Son in begetting him everything the Father has, except to be the Father, so the Son has eternally from the Father, by whom he was eternally begotten, this also, namely that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Son.
We define also that the explanation of those words “and from the Son” was licitly and reasonably added to the creed for the sake of declaring the truth and from imminent need.
legionofmarytidewater.com/faith/ECUM17.HTM
[How a capitulation of the Arians to the Catholic Faith was an imminent need I leave to you to explain]
C
clmowry
Guest
You demonstrae a great ability to torture documents into confessing your desired meaning.
What precisely is the point of arguing that the Church teaches something it doesn’t?
You should be able to find plenty to object too without doing this.
Chuck
What precisely is the point of arguing that the Church teaches something it doesn’t?
You should be able to find plenty to object too without doing this.
Chuck
M
Montalban
Guest
On behalf of those that have actually presented evidence to you, I thank you for your ‘just-so’ rebuttal.
[SIGN]Evidence: Ask me again![/SIGN]
T
Teflon93
Guest
I’m afraid you may have missed my point, which was that the content of the Gospel has almost certainly been translated into Greek in the first place. Certainly the OT has been translated from Hebrew into Greek.Yes, the reason why I noted the correspondence between ekporeuomai and npaq.
The term was adopted by the Fathers at Constantinople because it conveys a specific meaning which they wanted to express. The Fathers at Nicea did the same with homoousios, with the Latin translators coined the term “consubstantial” to convey the same meaing. “Procedit” doesn’t do it.
The Fathers at Constantinople were better off than those at Nicea in the term they chose, “ekporeuomai” was actually from Scripture and Christ’s own words recorded there. “Homoousios” had to be adopted, and many objected simply because the word wasn’t biblical (before Protestants gloat, the objectors were Arians).
Btw, for Mardukm I’d add Christ surely spoke Coptic, at least as a boy.
There is also a good chance He knew Greek, but we have no proof of it.
The trouble is this—you cannot claim that much of the inspired Word of God was faithfully translated into Greek in the first place. Each of the languages originally spoken by Biblical figures has its own nuances; none translate perfectly.
So linguistic bias aside, you should remember that the argument you make regarding the Greek applies equally well to Hebrew and Aramaic and opens a much larger can of worms than you seem willing to acknowledge.
The frustrating thing about many of these discussions with the Orthodox is their inability to apply your own arguments to yourselves. You act as though the prophets and Christ were Greeks, and that the Bible therefore is pure Greek dictation from them. This was what I meant with my “it is better in the original Klingon tweak”.
Such linguistic myopia is a double-edged sword. Were Catholics schismatics, and applied the same standard to the Orthodox regarding your doctrines, I suspect we would never bother to reach out to heal the schism at all.
In rereading this thread, it is frankly remarkable how big a deal the Orthodox make of the filioque in light of the fact that a) ECFs used the current Catholic formulation as well as the Orthodox formulation, interchangeably based upon what’s posted above and b) the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit being One IT DOESN"T MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE ANYWAY.
But who cares when it allows for the maintenance of schism 953 years and counting, right? Better to tear Christendom asunder for the purity of a Greek translation from other languages.
- Status