The Filoque: Why is it important?

[anthony022071]

The Catholic Church by saying that the Son is all that the Father is.

As does Gregory of Nazianzus:

“For indeed it is not some deficiency in the Son which prevents His being Father (for Sonship is not a deficiency), and yet He is not Father. According to this line of argument there must be some deficiency in the Father, in respect of His not being Son. For the Father is not Son, and yet this is not due to either deficiency or subjection of Essence; but the very fact of being Unbegotten or Begotten, or Proceeding has given the name of Father to the First, of the Son to the Second, and of the Third, Him of Whom we are speaking, of the Holy Ghost that the distinction of the Three Persons may be preserved in the one nature and dignity of the Godhead. For neither is the Son Father, for the Father is One, but He is what the Father is; nor is the Spirit Son because He is of God, for the Only-begotten is One, but He is what the Son is.” (Oration 31)

 

[Isa_Almisry]

As does Gregory of Nazianzus:

“For indeed it is not some deficiency in the Son which prevents His being Father (for Sonship is not a deficiency), and yet He is not Father. According to this line of argument there must be some deficiency in the Father, in respect of His not being Son. For the Father is not Son, and yet this is not due to either deficiency or subjection of Essence; but the very fact of being Unbegotten or Begotten, or Proceeding has given the name of Father to the First, of the Son to the Second, and of the Third, Him of Whom we are speaking, of the Holy Ghost that the distinction of the Three Persons may be preserved in the one nature and dignity of the Godhead. For neither is the Son Father, for the Father is One, but He is what the Father is; nor is the Spirit Son because He is of God, for the Only-begotten is One, but He is what the Son is.” (Oration 31)

The arguement of the filioque because the Son is/has all the Father is/has: what do you make of the last clause then of the Spirit?

 

[Isa_Almisry]

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.

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.

I have to be brief (on the way to Vespers:thumbsup: ).

St. Jerome led you astray on this when he translated the Vulgate from a Hebrew text. The early Church, and before that even the Jews considered the Septuagint inspired. St. Augustine warned of abandoning the marker that our fathers set up, and that we follow the Tradition of the Apostles and not that of the Pharisees and Sadducees.

As for continuing the schism: we composed the Creed, not add to it, we agreed with Pope St. Leo’s III inscription on St. Peter’s doors and did not remove it. It is you who have changed and abandoned the marker your fathers set up. We will not.

 

[tdgesq]

We only ask you use the Fathers words (and Christ’s) as they meant them.

Christ’s words were spoken in Aramaic, not Greek.

That aside, you have yet to demonstrate that procedit and proceeds are linguistically required to mean ekporeuomai for both the Father and the Son in the Latin creed. Your arguments are invalid that we must mean ekporeuomai for both, or that ekporeuomai precludes any kind of procession from the Son.

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.

You neglected to quote the preceding language from Florence:

The Latins asserted that they say the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son not with the intention of excluding the Father from being the source and principle of all deity, that is of the Son and of the holy Spirit, nor to imply that the Son does not receive from the Father, because the holy Spirit proceeds from the Son, nor that they posit two principles or two spirations; but they assert that there is only one principle and a single spiration of the holy Spirit, as they have asserted hitherto.

The Church does not deny that the Father is the origin, Principle without principle, of the Trinity, and, therefore, also the Holy Spirit. Yet the Father and the Son are one in being, consubstantial, and eternally so. That is why the Orthodox can say that the Holy Spirit proceeds through the Son. It is also the reason Catholics can say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son.

 

[Teflon93]

I have to be brief (on the way to Vespers:thumbsup: ).

St. Jerome led you astray on this when he translated the Vulgate from a Hebrew text. The early Church, and before that even the Jews considered the Septuagint inspired. St. Augustine warned of abandoning the marker that our fathers set up, and that we follow the Tradition of the Apostles and not that of the Pharisees and Sadducees.

As for continuing the schism: we composed the Creed, not add to it, we agreed with Pope St. Leo’s III inscription on St. Peter’s doors and did not remove it. It is you who have changed and abandoned the marker your fathers set up. We will not.

I don’t doubt you on the Septuagint translation of the New Testament, but wouldn’t our Jewish brothers quarrel a bit with the text of the Old?

It’s the linguistic myopia which is a big problem. Just look at the thread on the folks who think the King James Version was the inspired word of God; all other versions false.

Is 1,000 years of bad blood due to what you consider to be an unacceptable translation of a word really worth it? As we’ve noted, you haven’t really established that there is a material difference due to this alleged mistranslation, and since the ECFs seem to use both senses, there doesn’t seem to be rock solid unanimity in the Early Church on that score.

This is why my answer to the OP is “it isn’t that important”—despite all the ink spilled, is there anyone else here still wondering what all the fuss is TRULY about?

 

[Isa_Almisry]

I don’t doubt you on the Septuagint translation of the New Testament, but wouldn’t our Jewish brothers quarrel a bit with the text of the Old?

The Septuagint doesn’t included the NT. It predates it.

The Jews before the rise of the Church considered it inspired. The Talmud refers to the Septuagint as the fullment of Noah’s blessing that Japheth dwell in the tents of Shem.

They only rejected it when St. Paul and company proved too good at proving Jesus is the Christ from it. They rejected it in favor of what became the Masoretic text at the same time they rejected Jesus as the Messiah (or the ones who became Jews did. Sparks argues that the majority of Jews converted). If you follow the Pharisees on the former, you must follow them in the latter.

The Fathers spoke repeatedly on the Septuagint as the Church’s OT. Origen made a critical study of the Hebrew text and transliterated it into Greek letters, but still held to the Septuagint.

The dead sea scrolls disagree with the Masoretic text, and agree with the Septuagint.

It’s the linguistic myopia which is a big problem. Just look at the thread on the folks who think the King James Version was the inspired word of God; all other versions false.

I’ve argued with those who think the Vulgate is the inspired version.

Is 1,000 years of bad blood due to what you consider to be an unacceptable translation of a word really worth it? As we’ve noted, you haven’t really established that there is a material difference due to this alleged mistranslation, and since the ECFs seem to use both senses, there doesn’t seem to be rock solid unanimity in the Early Church on that score.

Again St. Maximus considered it a bad translation, and told the Latins to correct it.

Pope St. Leo III considered it a bad translation, forbade its use at Aachen in 809, and put the original Creed on the doors of St. Peter in Greek and Latin with the inscription HAEC LEO POSUI AMORE ET CAUTELA ORTHODOXAE FIDEI» (I, Leo, put here for love and protection of the Orthodox Faith)(VITA LEONIS, LIBER PONTIFICALIS (Ed.Duchene, TII, p.26) Was he being too subtle?

The ECF use ekporeusomai for the one, proinai for the other sense.

If it’s not a material difference, why twist Scripture to support it?-

orthodox.clara.net/belief.htm
The procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son cannot be found in Sacred Scripture. It is a man-made addition. However, recent Vatican statements notwithstanding, because Roman Catholicism has altered the ancient Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Faith and now teaches that the Holy Spirit’s eternal procession is from both the Father and the Son, it is commonplace for Roman Catholic translations of the Bible to distort the plain meaning. Here’s how two Roman Catholic translations handle the passage (John 15:26).

New Jerusalem Bible New American Bible
When the Paraclete comes, whom I shall send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who issues from* the Father, he will be my witness.
Translation
When the Paraclete comes, the Spirit of truth who comes from the Father — and whom I myself will send from the Father — he will bear witness on my behalf.

• The sending of the Spirit into the world rather than the “eternal” proceeding from the Father within the Trinity. Notes
  Comes from the Father: refers to the mission of the Spirit to men, not to the eternal procession of the Spirit. Compare 14:26, where the Father, not Jesus, is said to send the Spirit.

There is nothing wrong with the New Jerusalem Bible’s translation. The use of ‘issues from’ instead of ‘proceeds’ is a fine translation of ekporeuetai, but by footnoting ‘issues from’ and stating that this does not refer to the Holy Spirit’s eternal procession (His ultimate origin from all eternity) but only to the sending of the Holy Spirit into the world (in time), it simply denies the truth.

The New American Bible (deliberately?) distorts the passage using the verb ‘comes’ in place of the far more accurate (and traditional) ‘proceeds’. This mistranslation obscures the clear meaning of the Greek text. Its comment is essentially the same as the New Jerusalem translation: a denial of the clear meaning in favour of the Roman Catholic error. The reference to John 14:26 is a red herring. No one denies that the Holy Spirit is sent by both the Father and the Son into the world. These Roman Catholic translations would have one believe that there is nothing in Scripture that explicitly reveals the eternal procession of the Holy Spirit.

This is why my answer to the OP is “it isn’t that important”—despite all the ink spilled, is there anyone else here still wondering what all the fuss is TRULY about?

If it’s all so unimportant

Follow Pope St. Leo III

AND DROP IT!

 

[bobzills]

If it’s all so unimportant

Follow Pope St. Leo III

AND DROP IT!

Your suggestion seems to be pretty reasonable. .

This is why my answer to the OP is “it isn’t that important”—despite all the ink spilled, is there anyone else here still wondering what all the fuss is TRULY about?

Since it is not that important to the Catholic Church as to whether or not the filioque is in the creed, but it is an extremely serious issue for the Eastern Orthodox Church, and since the Catholic Church desires full union with the Eastern Orthodox Church, then why doesn’t the Catholic Church simply revert to the original version of the Creed by dropping the filioque altogether ?

 

[Montalban]

As does Gregory of Nazianzus:

“For indeed it is not some deficiency in the Son which prevents His being Father (for Sonship is not a deficiency), and yet He is not Father. According to this line of argument there must be some deficiency in the Father, in respect of His not being Son. For the Father is not Son, and yet this is not due to either deficiency or subjection of Essence; but the very fact of being Unbegotten or Begotten, or Proceeding has given the name of Father to the First, of the Son to the Second, and of the Third, Him of Whom we are speaking, of the Holy Ghost that the distinction of the Three Persons may be preserved in the one nature and dignity of the Godhead. For neither is the Son Father, for the Father is One, but He is what the Father is; nor is the Spirit Son because He is of God, for the Only-begotten is One, but He is what the Son is.” (Oration 31)

Are you saying that Gregory believes that the Son is the point of origin of the Holy Spirit?

 

[Teflon93]

The Septuagint doesn’t included the NT. It predates it.

Caught me sleeping there—for some reason I was using Septuagint and early Greek Bibles synonymously there. Just curious: are you saying the Greek version was inspired but the Hebrew was not?

The Jews before the rise of the Church considered it inspired. The Talmud refers to the Septuagint as the fullment of Noah’s blessing that Japheth dwell in the tents of Shem.

They only rejected it when St. Paul and company proved too good at proving Jesus is the Christ from it. They rejected it in favor of what became the Masoretic text at the same time they rejected Jesus as the Messiah (or the ones who became Jews did. Sparks argues that the majority of Jews converted). If you follow the Pharisees on the former, you must follow them in the latter.

You’re alright up until the last line. Even if that were true, Christ did tell people to do what the Pharisees told them to do, just not what they did.

The Fathers spoke repeatedly on the Septuagint as the Church’s OT. Origen made a critical study of the Hebrew text and transliterated it into Greek letters, but still held to the Septuagint.

The dead sea scrolls disagree with the Masoretic text, and agree with the Septuagint.

That last bit I didn’t know—do you happen to have a reference for it? Not that I doubt you, it’s just an interesting subject.

I’ve argued with those who think the Vulgate is the inspired version.

Again St. Maximus considered it a bad translation, and told the Latins to correct it.

People tell us to correct things all the time. The Catholic Church suits no one, you know.

Pope St. Leo III considered it a bad translation, forbade its use at Aachen in 809, and put the original Creed on the doors of St. Peter in Greek and Latin with the inscription HAEC LEO POSUI AMORE ET CAUTELA ORTHODOXAE FIDEI» (I, Leo, put here for love and protection of the Orthodox Faith)(VITA LEONIS, LIBER PONTIFICALIS (Ed.Duchene, TII, p.26) Was he being too subtle?

In 809, he wasn’t talking about the Orthodox Church. Since the ECFs used both, what’s the trouble with Pope Leo III doing either precisely?

The ECF use ekporeusomai for the one, proinai for the other sense.

Are the translations of the ECFs posted here wrong? Did they not use both words in Greek, and we’ve translated them into one or something?

Since there is no material difference, what’s the problem?

If it’s not a material difference, why twist Scripture to support it?-

The New American Bible (deliberately?) distorts the passage using the verb ‘comes’ in place of the far more accurate (and traditional) ‘proceeds’. This mistranslation obscures the clear meaning of the Greek text. Its comment is essentially the same as the New Jerusalem translation: a denial of the clear meaning in favour of the Roman Catholic error. The reference to John 14:26 is a red herring. No one denies that the Holy Spirit is sent by both the Father and the Son into the world. These Roman Catholic translations would have one believe that there is nothing in Scripture that explicitly reveals the eternal procession of the Holy Spirit.

I think you’re taking the conspiracy theory a little too far here. Are Father and Son one being or not?

If it’s all so unimportant

Follow Pope St. Leo III

AND DROP IT!

Okay—dropped. So when will you be coming to RCIA?

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Caught me sleeping there—for some reason I was using Septuagint and early Greek Bibles synonymously there. Just curious: are you saying the Greek version was inspired but the Hebrew was not?

I don’t question the inspiration in Hebrew. That includes, for instance, Sirach, which survives in the Septuagint. The Jews rejected it, but the Talmud discusses it (fragments were recovered in Hebrew in the past century).

You’re alright up until the last line. Even if that were true, Christ did tell people to do what the Pharisees told them to do, just not what they did.

That last bit I didn’t know—do you happen to have a reference for it? Not that I doubt you, it’s just an interesting subject.

Not online, on hand. The Oxford Bible makes reference here and there to this. An easy proof of this is that the LXX has Psalms 9 and 10 of the masoretic text as one psalm. Since the psalm(s) is/are an acrostic in Hebrew (each verse begins with, in alphabetical order, a different letter of the Hebrew alphabet), even Masoretic text itself shows it has, for an unknown reason, split the Psalm.

People tell us to correct things all the time. The Catholic Church suits no one, you know.

And Pope Leo?

In 809, he wasn’t talking about the Orthodox Church. Since the ECFs used both, what’s the trouble with Pope Leo III doing either precisely?

Au contraire, he was precisely talking of the Orthodox Catholic Church, which still confesses the Creed he was posting.

Used both what?

Are the translations of the ECFs posted here wrong? Did they not use both words in Greek, and we’ve translated them into one or something?

Since there is no material difference, what’s the problem?

The used both words with precision: they are NOT synonyms. There is a material difference, hence the two terms. The problem is the filioque muddled the two, and we have the ensuing mess, translating them as one term.

Latins do not have a problem see the diffrence between homoousios “one essence” and homoiousios “like essence” and holding the former up in the Creed as Orthodoxy, and condemning the latter as heresy, although the difference is only one letter.

I think you’re taking the conspiracy theory a little too far here. Are Father and Son one being or not?

The translations and their notes are either grossly ignorant or dishonest. I’ll let a Protestant off the hook for this, but not a Latin who should know the interpretation of this very verse has been held up, and recognize it before he gets his imprematur.

The Father, Son and Spirit are one in essence and undivided, but that tells us nothing about filioque.

Okay—dropped. So when will you be coming to RCIA?

In Latin school I was a Evangelicial Lutheran. I was the only one who, on the first day of religion class could name all the holy days of obligation, I was the only one in the class who got a perfect score on the exams. I was the only non-Catholic in the class. The name of the course: Our Catholic Faith.

The brother was not amused.

 

[bobzills]

In Latin school I was a Evangelicial Lutheran. I was the only one who, on the first day of religion class could name all the holy days of obligation, I was the only one in the class who got a perfect score on the exams. I was the only non-Catholic in the class. The name of the course: Our Catholic Faith.

The brother was not amused.

Some Catholics take their religion for granted and don’t put in the study time that someone looking at Catholicism from the outside might do. I would guess that this is not unique to Catholicism.

 

[ERose]

Your suggestion seems to be pretty reasonable. .

Since it is not that important to the Catholic Church as to whether or not the filioque is in the creed, but it is an extremely serious issue for the Eastern Orthodox Church, and since the Catholic Church desires full union with the Eastern Orthodox Church, then why doesn’t the Catholic Church simply revert to the original version of the Creed by dropping the filioque altogether ?

It cannot do that. If it is taken out it distorts our understand of God.

To all of you fellow Catholics that ask what the big deal is, well it isn’t to the average lay Catholic or Orthodox for that matter for they don’t even have a base understanding on the Trinity anyway. But to the theologians on both sides, it means a great deal because it impacts our picture of our God and the faith he gave us.

To you Orthodox’s out there is is a big deal to the Church and if you want a better understanding of our view of the Holy Spirit I would refer you to Pope John Paul’s encyclical on the Holy Spirit.

The Orthodox nor Catholics can just change their beliefs just so that we can all get along and find unity. For then what that unity is based on is false.

We can agree to disagree for I don’t think believing one way or another will get you into hell. I guess that is an option.

 

[Hesychios]

Hi Hesychios,

I’m afraid you are being too harsh on ERose (posts # 111 and 112).

I agree with ERose 100% (and Pat the Cat, post # 107)! Why? Because I read something very similar to that in Frank Sheed’s book, Theology for Beginners. I can only encourage you to read it. And there is no point in telling ERose “you should not repeat it”, because it’s already out there.

Once again, I encourage you to read the book. It’s fascinating.

I have not read this book, but I have read Theology and Sanity, and given it as a gift.

So I know something of Frank Sheeds writing.

I was not being too harsh on ERose. She needs to stop talking like that. She stated:

Without the filoque clause there is no reason for the existance of the 3rd Person of the Trinity.

Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is a serious danger.

Besides, the concept is wrong.

Michael

 

[Hesychios]

The filioque is not a change in doctrine it is an evolution of doctrine.

God reveal through Jesus and his Apostles & the prophets of the Old Testament Truths which are called Revealed Truths. From these truths our doctrines have been built upon. That is the reason for all of the Ecunemical councils held by our church. If you go back and read about these councils they were environments where the church could come together and discuss what these doctrines mean. I can probably be very sure that the Apostles did not understand the doctrine of the Trinity as well as we do today. This doctrine as well as most of the doctrine that we as well as your church holds came from many Theological battles on what is Orthodox teaching and what is heresy.

You are glorifying the human intellect. The way of salvation is not keyed into *knowing *things, it is in living a Christlike life, putting on Christ.

I don’t know if anyone addressed this while I was out but there is no such thing as an evolution in doctrine.

The filioque is a new thing in the Christian religion, and it’s seminal roots cannot be traced any further back than Augustine, that makes it a non-Apostolic teaching, possibly an invention out of the imagination of a convert.

Michael

 

[Hesychios]

There is only one truth.

I agree.

 

[ERose]

You are glorifying the human intellect. The way of salvation is not keyed into *knowing *things, it is in living a Christlike life, putting on Christ.

I don’t know if anyone addressed this while I was out but there is no such thing as an evolution in doctrine.

The filioque is a new thing in the Christian religion, and it’s seminal roots cannot be traced any further back than Augustine, that makes it a non-Apostolic teaching, possibly an invention out of the imagination of a convert.

Michael

But it is important in knowing what you believe in. If not then all these centuries of Saints defending the faith against heresies and schizms would be for nought. At least they thought it was important enough to stand up for and in some cases to die for the truth.

Concerning the evolution in doctrine, I could not think of a better term at the time. Doctrine does not change into something different. It grows with understanding of what this doctrine means. If you do not believe that then you need to spend more time with the fathers and the ancient writings to see this growth in understanding.

Also I disagree concerning your statement about it starting with Augustine. For Ambrose taught it as well. So it did start before Augustine.

 

[ERose]

I was not being too harsh on ERose. She needs to stop talking like that. She stated:
Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is a serious danger.

Besides, the concept is wrong.

Michael

1st I am a he not a she, last name Rose.

2nd What I said is true.

3rd Your concept of the Trinity is wrong.

4th Let us discuss this theologically please. Because more of the posts are he said/she said and quiet honestly that is getting us no where.

 

[Hesychios]

Hello Tef,

The bottom line with schismatics is always, “Why can’t I be Pope?”

First (I need to get this out of the way), we don’t want to be Pope. We don’t want a Pope and don’t need one. We never had one.

We once were in communion with your bishop of Rome and other bishops of the west. Those days are gone.

Sure. The problem is, the Orthodox won’t reunite with the Catholic Church even were the filioque resolved because they will not accept papal authority. THAT is the reason for their continuing schism—the filioque is the fig leaf they use to cover it.

As we saw in another thread awhile back, were the filioque resolved this very instant, the Orthodox would come up with another demand.

You and I have been around on this before.

We don’t have to find anything, you continually throw them in our faces.

For the record we cannot share communion with you because:

• the doctrine of filioque clause:

concocted circa 580-590AD,

adopted at Aachen 809AD

first used in Rome 1014AD

proclaimed dogma at Lateran1215AD

​

• the doctrine of Papal infallibility 1870AD
• the doctrine of universal jurisdiction 1870AD
  Resolving any one alone will improve the climate between us, but will not heal the schism.

Those three above are the biggies, and most of the lesser problems derive from these three. We are not looking for anything new to maintain a schism. Your church has invented all of the reasons we are not in communion already and they stand out for all to see right now. Remove them all and mutual communion could be virtually automatic.

You (your church, that is, not you personally) created this mess, and you will have to fix them, one at a time if need be. I will take it that your unwillingness to do the right thing in regard to the filioque is evidence that you* personally* are not really interested in reconciliation between our communions. I feel that you do not speak for your church when you state the things you do about this.

I will never accept that we cannot be reconciled. I have too much faith in the resilience of the Roman Catholic church, it has only to open it’s collective hearts.

Michael

 

[Hesychios]

1st I am a he not a she, last name Rose.

oops!

sorry…

I thought it was a handle like …you know…eMachine, or eMail or something like that.

Pax,
eMichael

 

[Charlie_Zeaiter]

I have not read this book, but I have read Theology and Sanity, and given it as a gift.

So I know something of Frank Sheeds writing.

I was not being too harsh on ERose. She needs to stop talking like that. She stated:

Originally Posted by ERose
Without the filoque clause there is no reason for the existance of the 3rd Person of the Trinity.

emphasis mine]
Well, this is interesting. Because I agree with ERose’s quote; It makes sense to me.

I’ve often wondered, what’s the point of the Holy Spirit? Why does God, who is all powerful, need a helper?

And the filioque answers those questions.

The knowledge of God (aka, The Word) is so perfect, it must be God (aka Jesus).

The love between the Father and the Son is so perfect, it must be God (aka The Holy Spirit).

Denying that the Holy Spirit proceeds from Father and Son leaves me with a very important question; Why does an all powerful God need a helper in the Holy Spirit?