What are the implications of the "filioque" doctrine?

Exporter · Nov 25, 2004

Father Ambrose,

I have two problems, based on what you just posted.

1.Was there a time at which the Holy Spirit did not exist? (You said the Holy Spirit procedes from the Father- so the Father must have had to exist before the proceding of the Holy Spirit.)
2. You used the term “essence”. How is “essence” different than the term “spirit”, albiet we use the term “spirit” in the popular sense? ( We talk about Evil Spirits, Holy Spirit and Angels)

Fr_Ambrose · Nov 25, 2004

Exporter:

I have two problems, based on what you just posted.

1.Was there a time at which the Holy Spirit did not exist? (You said the Holy Spirit procedes from the Father- so the Father must have had to exist before the proceding of the Holy Spirit.)

The Holy Trinity is the only “thing” which exists outside of all time and has no beginning and no end. God lives in eternity.

The Holy Spirit is proceeding from the Father always, at this very moment and without beginning and without end. In the same way the Son is being begotten from the Father, always and without any beginning and without any ending.

JGC · Nov 25, 2004

248 At the outset the Eastern tradition expresses the Father’s character as first origin of the Spirit. By confessing the Spirit as he “who proceeds from the Father”, it affirms that he comes from the Father through the Son. The Western tradition expresses first the consubstantial communion between Father and Son, by saying that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son (filioque). It says this, “legitimately and with good reason”, for the eternal order of the divine persons in their consubstantial communion implies that the Father, as “the principle without principle”, is the first origin of the Spirit, but also that as Father of the only Son, he is, with the Son, the single principle from which the Holy Spirit proceeds. This legitimate complementarity, provided it does not become rigid, does not affect the identity of faith in the reality of the same mystery confessed.

scborromeo.org/ccc/para/248.htm

Fr_Ambrose · Nov 25, 2004

JGC said:
248 At the outset the Eastern tradition expresses the Father’s character as first origin of the Spirit. By confessing the Spirit as he “who proceeds from the Father”, it affirms that he comes from the Father through the Son.
scborromeo.org/ccc/para/248.htm

I find this disingenuous because it is *not * the Eastern tradition at all, which simply confesses the teaching given by our Lord Jesus Christ - “and I will send the Holy Spirit, who proceeds from the Father” full stop, period. **No ** mention of “and He proceeds through Me.”

One or two patristic authors have speculated about the “through the Son” theory and with the new Vatican emphasis on Catholic-Orthodox rapprochement these minor writings, really unnoticed in Eastern theology, are being blown out of all proportion. The Orthodox are not sympathetic to such “clever” theologising and it seems a little unserious to them. Basically it is bending theology in the pursuit of church politics - it is attempting to facilitate the union of the Churches by creating a dodgy theology.

prodromos · Nov 26, 2004

mtr01:

Father, this is interesting to me, and I have a question.

From what I can tell there are two passages from the Greek version of the Creed which apply here:

Ï„Î¿Ï…Ï„Î*ÏƒÏ„Î¹Î½ ÎµÎº Ï„Î·Ï‚ Î¿Ï…ÏƒÎ¯Î±Ï‚ Ï„Î¿Ï… Ï€Î±Ï„ÏÏŒÏ‚

Now, I would take “Î¿Ï…ÏƒÎ¯Î±Ï‚ Ï„Î¿Ï… Ï€Î±Ï„ÏÏŒÏ‚” to be (as your post states) “of the essence of the Father”. But then the text states:

Î„Î¿Î¼Î¿Î¿ÏÏƒÎ¹Î¿Î½ Ï„Ï‰Î¹ Ï€Î±Ï„ÏÎ¯

To me (and mind you I’m no Greek scholar), this would be homoousios, which would be translated as “consubstantial” or “of the same being”.

Now, that being said, how is "Î„Î¿Î¼Î¿Î¿ÏÏƒÎ¹Î¿Î½ Ï„Ï‰Î¹ Ï€Î±Ï„ÏÎ¯ " different from the Latin understanding of the Son and the Father as one in being? And if it’s not, doesn’t that really mean the East and West are “essentially” equivalent in our beliefs?

I just wanted to point out that what you posted is not the creed we use. The following is:

ÎÎ¹ÏƒÏ„ÎµÏÏ‰ ÎµÎ¹Ï‚ ÎÎ½Î± Î˜ÎµÏŒÎ½, ÎÎ±Ï„ÎÏÎ± ÎÎ±Î½Ï„Î¿ÎºÏÎ¬Ï„Î¿ÏÎ±, ÎÎ¿Î¹Î·Ï„Î®Î½ Î¿Ï…ÏÎ±Î½Î¿Ï ÎºÎ±Î¹ Î³Î®Ï‚, Î¿ÏÎ±Ï„ÏŽÎ½ Ï„Îµ Ï€Î¬Î½Ï„Ï‰Î½ ÎºÎ±Î¹ Î±Î¿ÏÎ¬Ï„Ï‰Î½.

ÎšÎ±Î¹ ÎµÎ¹Ï‚ ÎÎ½Î± ÎšÏÏÎ¹Î¿Î½ Î™Î·ÏƒÎ¿ÏÎ½ Î§ÏÎ¹ÏƒÏ„ÏŒÎ½, Ï„Î¿Î½ Î¥Î¹ÏŒ Ï„Î¿Ï… Î˜ÎµÎ¿Ï, Ï„Î¿Î½ Î¼Î¿Î½Î¿Î³ÎµÎ½Î®, Ï„Î¿Î½ ÎµÎº Ï„Î¿Ï… ÎÎ±Ï„ÏÏŒÏ‚ Î³ÎµÎ½Î½Î·Î¸ÎÎ½Ï„Î± Ï€ÏÎ¿ Ï€Î¬Î½Ï„Ï‰Î½ Ï„Ï‰Î½ Î±Î¹ÏŽÎ½Ï‰Î½, Ï†Ï‰Ï‚ ÎµÎº Ï†Ï‰Ï„ÏŒÏ‚, Î˜ÎµÏŒÎ½ Î±Î»Î·Î¸Î¹Î½ÏŒÎ½ ÎµÎº Î˜ÎµÎ¿Ï Î±Î»Î·Î¸Î¹Î½Î¿Ï, Î³ÎµÎ½Î½Î·Î¸ÎÎ½Ï„Î± Î¿Ï Ï€Î¿Î¹Î·Î¸ÎÎ½Ï„Î±, Î¿Î¼Î¿Î¿ÏÏƒÎ¹Î¿Î½ Ï„Ï‰ ÎÎ±Ï„ÏÎ¯, Î´Î¹ Î¿Ï Ï„Î± Ï€Î¬Î½Ï„Î± ÎµÎ³ÎÎ½ÎµÏ„Î¿.
Î¤Î¿Î½ Î´Î¹ Î·Î¼Î¬Ï‚ Ï„Î¿Ï…Ï‚ Î±Î½Î¸ÏÏŽÏ€Î¿Ï…Ï‚ ÎºÎ±Î¹ Î´Î¹Î± Ï„Î·Î½ Î·Î¼ÎµÏ„ÎÏÎ±Î½ ÏƒÏ‰Ï„Î·ÏÎ¯Î± ÎºÎ±Ï„ÎµÎ»Î¸ÏŒÎ½Ï„Î± ÎµÎº Ï„Ï‰Î½ Î¿Ï…ÏÎ±Î½ÏŽÎ½ ÎºÎ±Î¹ ÏƒÎ±ÏÎºÏ‰Î¸ÎÎ½Ï„Î± ÎµÎº ÎÎ½ÎµÏÎ¼Î±Ï„Î¿Ï‚ Î‘Î³Î¯Î¿Ï… ÎºÎ±Î¹ ÎœÎ±ÏÎ¯Î±Ï‚ Ï„Î·Ï‚ ÎÎ±ÏÎ¸ÎÎ½Î¿Ï… ÎºÎ±Î¹ ÎµÎ½Î±Î½Î¸ÏÏ‰Ï€Î®ÏƒÎ±Î½Ï„Î±.
Î£Ï„Î±Ï…ÏÏ‰Î¸ÎÎ½Ï„Î± Ï„Îµ Ï…Ï€ÎÏ Î·Î¼ÏŽÎ½ ÎµÏ€Î¯ ÎÎ¿Î½Ï„Î¯Î¿Ï… ÎÎ¹Î»Î¬Ï„Î¿Ï… ÎºÎ±Î¹ Ï€Î±Î¸ÏŒÎ½Ï„Î± ÎºÎ±Î¹ Ï„Î±Ï†ÎÎ½Ï„Î±.
ÎšÎ±Î¹ Î±Î½Î±ÏƒÏ„Î¬Î½Ï„Î± Ï„Î·Î½ Ï„ÏÎ¯Ï„Î· Î·Î¼ÎÏÎ±, ÎºÎ±Ï„Î¬ Ï„Î±Ï‚ Î“ÏÎ±Ï†Î¬Ï‚.
ÎšÎ±Î¹ Î±Î½ÎµÎ»Î¸ÏŒÎ½Ï„Î± ÎµÎ¹Ï‚ Ï„Î¿Ï…Ï‚ Î¿Ï…ÏÎ±Î½Î¿ÏÏ‚, ÎºÎ±Î¹ ÎºÎ±Î¸ÎµÎ¶ÏŒÎ¼ÎµÎ½Î¿Î½ ÎµÎº Î´ÎµÎ¾Î¹ÏŽÎ½ Ï„Î¿Ï… ÎÎ±Ï„ÏÏŒÏ‚.
ÎšÎ±Î¹ Ï€Î¬Î»Î¹Î½ ÎµÏÏ‡ÏŒÎ¼ÎµÎ½Î¿Î½ Î¼ÎµÏ„Î¬ Î´ÏŒÎ¾Î·Ï‚ ÎºÏÎ¯Î½Î±Î¹ Î¶ÏŽÎ½Ï„Î±Ï‚ ÎºÎ±Î¹ Î½ÎµÎºÏÎ¿ÏÏ‚, Î¿Ï Ï„Î·Ï‚ Î’Î±ÏƒÎ¹Î»ÎµÎ¯Î±Ï‚ Î¿ÏÎº ÎÏƒÏ„Î±Î¹ Ï„Î*Î»Î¿Ï‚.

ÎšÎ±Î¹ ÎµÎ¯Ï‚ Ï„Î¿ ÎÎ½ÎµÏÎ¼Î± Ï„Î¿ Î†Î³Î¹Î¿Î½, Ï„Î¿ ÎšÏÏÎ¹Î¿Î½, Ï„Î¿ Î–Ï‰Î¿Ï€Î¿Î¹ÏŒÎ½, Ï„Î¿ ÎµÎº Ï„Î¿Ï… ÎÎ±Ï„ÏÏŒÏ‚ ÎµÎºÏ€Î¿ÏÎµÏ…ÏŒÎ¼ÎµÎ½Î¿Î½, Ï„Î¿ ÏƒÏ…Î½ Î*Î±Ï„ÏÎ¯ ÎºÎ±Î¹ Î¥Î¹ÏŽ ÏƒÏ…Î¼Ï€ÏÎ¿ÏƒÎºÏ…Î½Î¿ÏÎ¼ÎµÎ½Î¿Î½ ÎºÎ±Î¹ ÏƒÏ…Î½Î´Î¿Î¾Î±Î¶ÏŒÎ¼ÎµÎ½Î¿Î½, Ï„Î¿ Î»Î±Î»Î®ÏƒÎ±Î½ Î´Î¹Î± Ï„Ï‰Î½ Ï€ÏÎ¿Ï†Î·Ï„ÏŽÎ½.

Î•Î¯Ï‚ ÎœÎ¯Î±Î½, Î‘Î³Î¯Î±Î½, ÎšÎ±Î¸Î¿Î»Î¹ÎºÎ®Î½, ÎºÎ±Î¹ Î‘Ï€Î¿ÏƒÏ„Î¿Î»Î¹ÎºÎ®Î½ Î•ÎºÎºÎ»Î·ÏƒÎ¯Î±Î½.
ÎŸÎ¼Î¿Î»Î¿Î³ÏŽ ÎµÎ½ Î²Î¬Ï€Ï„Î¹ÏƒÎ¼Î± ÎµÎ¹Ï‚ Î¬Ï†ÎµÏƒÎ¹Î½ Î±Î¼Î±ÏÏ„Î¹ÏŽÎ½.
ÎÏÎ¿ÏƒÎ´Î¿ÎºÏŽ Î±Î½Î¬ÏƒÏ„Î±ÏƒÎ¹Î½ Î½ÎµÎºÏÏŽÎ½.
ÎšÎ±Î¹ Î¶Ï‰Î®Î½ Ï„Î¿Ï… Î¼ÎÎ»Î»Î¿Î½Ï„Î¿Ï‚ Î±Î¹ÏŽÎ½Î¿Ï‚. Î‘Î¼Î®Î½.

prodromos · Nov 26, 2004

mtr01:

Father, this is interesting to me, and I have a question.

From what I can tell there are two passages from the Greek version of the Creed which apply here:

ôïõôÝóôéí åê ôçò ïõóßáò ôïõ ðáôñüò

Now, I would take “ïõóßáò ôïõ ðáôñüò” to be (as your post states) “of the essence of the Father”. But then the text states:

´ïìïïýóéïí ôùé ðáôñß

To me (and mind you I’m no Greek scholar), this would be homoousios, which would be translated as “consubstantial” or “of the same being”.

Now, that being said, how is "´ïìïïýóéïí ôùé ðáôñß " different from the Latin understanding of the Son and the Father as one in being? And if it’s not, doesn’t that really mean the East and West are “essentially” equivalent in our beliefs?

Not answering your questions, I just wanted to point out that the creed you posted is not the one we use. The following is;

Ðéóôåýù åéò Ýíá Èåüí, ÐáôÝñá ÐáíôïêñÜôïñá, ÐïéçôÞí ïõñáíïý êáé ãÞò, ïñáôþí ôå ðÜíôùí êáé áïñÜôùí.

Êáé åéò Ýíá Êýñéïí Éçóïýí ×ñéóôüí, ôïí Õéü ôïõ Èåïý, ôïí ìïíïãåíÞ, ôïí åê ôïõ Ðáôñüò ãåííçèÝíôá ðñï ðÜíôùí ôùí áéþíùí, öùò åê öùôüò, Èåüí áëçèéíüí åê Èåïý áëçèéíïý, ãåííçèÝíôá ïý ðïéçèÝíôá, ïìïïýóéïí ôù Ðáôñß, äé ïý ôá ðÜíôá åãÝíåôï.
Ôïí äé çìÜò ôïõò áíèñþðïõò êáé äéá ôçí çìåôÝñáí óùôçñßá êáôåëèüíôá åê ôùí ïõñáíþí êáé óáñêùèÝíôá åê Ðíåýìáôïò Áãßïõ êáé Ìáñßáò ôçò ÐáñèÝíïõ êáé åíáíèñùðÞóáíôá.
ÓôáõñùèÝíôá ôå õðÝñ çìþí åðß Ðïíôßïõ ÐéëÜôïõ êáé ðáèüíôá êáé ôáöÝíôá.
Êáé áíáóôÜíôá ôçí ôñßôç çìÝñá, êáôÜ ôáò ÃñáöÜò.
Êáé áíåëèüíôá åéò ôïõò ïõñáíïýò, êáé êáèåæüìåíïí åê äåîéþí ôïõ Ðáôñüò.
Êáé ðÜëéí åñ÷üìåíïí ìåôÜ äüîçò êñßíáé æþíôáò êáé íåêñïýò, ïý ôçò Âáóéëåßáò ïýê Ýóôáé ôÝëïò.

Êáé åßò ôï Ðíåýìá ôï ¢ãéïí, ôï Êýñéïí, ôï Æùïðïéüí, ôï åê ôïõ Ðáôñüò åêðïñåõüìåíïí, ôï óõí Ðáôñß êáé Õéþ óõìðñïóêõíïýìåíïí êáé óõíäïîáæüìåíïí, ôï ëáëÞóáí äéá ôùí ðñïöçôþí.

Åßò Ìßáí, Áãßáí, ÊáèïëéêÞí, êáé ÁðïóôïëéêÞí Åêêëçóßáí.
Ïìïëïãþ åí âÜðôéóìá åéò Üöåóéí áìáñôéþí.
Ðñïóäïêþ áíÜóôáóéí íåêñþí.
Êáé æùÞí ôïõ ìÝëëïíôïò áéþíïò. ÁìÞí.

I hope the greek encoding shows up correctly this time.
John

GAssisi · Dec 2, 2004

Dear all,

As usual, polemic Orthodox like to exaggerate differences in order to perpetuate disunity. Father states that the Spirit’s Procession through the Son is a negligible minority position in Eastern Christianity. Really?

Origen: “We believe that there are three persons: the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit; and we believe none to be unbegotten except the Father. We admit, as more pious and true, that all things were produced through the Word and that the Holy Spirit is the most excellent and the first in order of all that was produced by the Father through Christ.” (Commentaries on John 2:6)

St. Athanasius: “We say that the Son of God is also the source of the Spirit.” (On the Trinity and the Spirit)

St. Cyril of Alexandria: “Just as the Son says, ‘All that the Father has is mine’, so shall we find that through the Son it is all also in the Spirit.” (Letters 3:4)

St. Greg. Thaumaturgus: “[There is] one Holy Spirit, having substance from God, and is manifested through the Son; image of the Son, perfect of the perfect…in whom is manifested God the Father who is above all and in all, and God the Son who is through all.” (Confession of Faith)

St. Greg. Nazianzen: confounds the heretics by asking them how The Holy Spirit can be not made, yet be regarded as “through Christ,” in reference to the heretical use of John 1:3. (On the Holy Spirit 12)

St. Cyril of Jerusalem: “And the Father indeed gives to the Son; and the Son shares with the Holy Ghost. For it is Jesus Himself, not I, who says, ‘All things are delivered unto Me of My Father’; and of the Holy Ghost He says, ‘…He shall receive of mine.’”(Catechetical Lectures 16)
(continued)

GAssisi · Dec 2, 2004

(continued)

St. Basil: “Through the Son, [the Holy Spirit] is joined to the Father…The goodness of the divine nature, the holiness of [that] nature, and the royal dignity reach from the Father through the only-begotten Son to the Holy Spirit.” (The Holy Spirit 18)

St. Epiphanius: “The Father always existed and the Son always existed, and the Spirit breathes from the Father and the Son.” (The Man Well-Anchored 75)

Dydimus: “the Holy Spirit receives from the Son that which he was of his own nature…For neither has the Son anything else except those things given him by the Father, nor has the Holy Spirit any substance than that given him by the Son.” (The Holy Spirit 37)

St. Greg. Nyssa: “Through the Son and with the Father, immediately and before any vague and unfounded concept interposes between them, the Holy Spirit is also perceived conjointly.” (Against Eunomius 1)

Council of Seleucia (410): “[We believe] in the Holy Living Spirit, the Holy Living Paraclete, Who proceeds from the Father and the Son.”

I had already mentioned in another post the** Council of Chalcedon** which dogmatically accepted as a rule of faith a letter of St. Cyril which explicitly stated that the essence of the Holy Spirit is obtained from the Father and the Son.

These are many (by far, not all) of the venerable Eastern patristic authorities to which the Catholic Church has ever remained faithful, despite futile Orthodox attempts to draw her away from the Faith of her Fathers. Orthodox polemicists have an agenda (though certainly not all Orthodox are polemicists) in trying to accentuate the disparity between Greek/ Latin conceptions of Procession. Their claim that an addition to the Creed has been made is nonsensical and pharisaical considering that the Ephesian Council really only forbade an addition of innovation, not an addition that merely explicated the Faith further. Thus, they must try, with no success, to propagandize the Filioque as a theological novelty.

In truth, the Western and Eastern positions are in more agreement – and always have been – than current Orthodox polemicists are willing to admit. The polemic Orthodox position is not patristic or biblical, originating only in the 8th century (it may be added that the Monothelite heretics denied the theology of the Filioque in the mid-seventh century, though this was probably no consideration for the schismatic Greeks). As even they will admit, the debate over the Filioque is only a trumped-up excuse to deny papal primacy; the Filioque issue is only a smoke-screen to cover up an unhealthy “spirit of division,” as St. Paul put it.

Theotokos, pray for us.

God bless,

Greg

GAssisi · Dec 2, 2004

Dear Father,

Your interpretation of John 15:26 does not refute the Catholic and patristic position one bit. Your argument is a straw man, as you are not addressing the Catholic understanding of Procession. It has been presented to you twice before, but as you are not bothering to heed it, I can see why you will never understand the Catholic position, much less that your attempts at refutation are merely straw men.

God bless,

Greg

quintessential5 · Feb 5, 2005

Trying to bring this thread back to life…

I don’t know if there has been some sort of response to this but what is the Orthodox response to these testimonies of the fathers?

Also, I join with GAssisi in asserting that John 15:26 proves nothing. The Spirit certainly proceeds from the Father as the verse states, that doesn’t mean that it can’t also proceed from the Son.

Madaglan · Feb 5, 2005

Originally Quoted by quintessential5:

Trying to bring this thread back to life…

I don’t know if there has been some sort of response to this but what is the Orthodox response to these testimonies of the fathers?

Also, I join with GAssisi in asserting that John 15:26 proves nothing. The Spirit certainly proceeds from the Father as the verse states, that doesn’t mean that it can’t also proceed from the Son.

Yes, that is a very good idea. I was thinking about this thread just a few days ago.

When Orthodox read “filioque” passages of the early Church Fathers (or writers), do they believe the Fathers to be in slight error, or do Orthdoox assume that the early Fathers (Christian writers) meant something different than what most Catholics believe when they hear the filioque?

BibleReader · Feb 5, 2005

The best analysis of the Trinity I have ever read is this.

The Person in the one Godhead Whom we call God the Father bears some kind of relationship toward the Person in the one Godhead Whom we call God the Son which resembles fatherhood in the sense that the Person in the one Godhead Whom we call God the Son eternally “proceeds out of” the Person in the one Godhead Whom we call God the Father.

Additionally, there is a special love relationship between the Person in the one Godhead Whom we call God the Father and the Person in the one Godhead Whom we call God the Son, and the Person in the one Godhead Whom we call God the Holy Spirit somehow eternally “proceeds out of” that love relationship, in a fashion resembling children coming out of the love relationship between a husband and a wife.

The human nuclear family was thus shaped by God to resemble the relationships within the one God.

Ghosty · Feb 5, 2005

Your argument is a straw man, as you are not addressing the Catholic understanding of Procession.

I think this statement hits on the real problem here, and by that I’m not refering to anyone in particular. It seems that, quite simply, Westerners hear something different than Easterners do when they hear “filioque”. When we read John we hear exactly the same thing that the “filioque” says. In our language and understanding, it’s a direct, and necessary, correlation. When we hear Easterners speak of “Energies of God” it goes right over our heads, as it’s a different language even when using the same words. For Westerners, the “filioque” is more of an argument ender/clarifier that is very much necessary in Western culture even today (we still have “Christians” who deny that Jesus was God).

What I want to know is how Eastern Catholics and Western Catholics can celebrate in the same Church and honor eachother as the same if the addition of the “filioque” is such a deal breaker? We don’t cast dispersions at eachother saying that the other is mistaken about the nature of God, nor do we simply gloss over our differences (if we did then we wouldn’t have seperate rites and churches).

My question to Fr Ambrose is this: Does the Son send the Holy Spirit or not?

Fr_Ambrose · Feb 5, 2005

Ghosty:

My question to Fr Ambrose is this: Does the Son send the Holy Spirit or not?

He does.

Our Lord says:

“But when the Paraclete cometh, whom I will send you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceedeth from the Father, he shall give testimony of me.”

John 15:26

Ghosty · Feb 6, 2005

Then that pretty much settles it for me: the Holy Spirit does indeed proceed from the Father and the Son. If the Son is Truth, and the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of Truth, isn’t the Holy Spirit the Spirit of the Son? Isn’t the Spirit the Son’s to send, as all things of the Father are also the Son’s?

I’m confused as to why there seems to be an argument that the Spirit of the Son can’t proceed from the Son. If it doesn’t proceed from the Truth, how can it be said to be the Spirit of Truth?

Fr_Ambrose · Feb 6, 2005

Everlasting schism from the Orthodox Church.

Redbandito · Feb 6, 2005

Fr Ambrose said:
Everlasting schism from the Orthodox Church.

Don’t misrepresent reality. It is dishonest.

Fr_Ambrose · Feb 6, 2005

Redbandito:

Don’t misrepresent reality. It is dishonest.

It is Orthodox reality. It would be dishonest to deny it.

Ghosty · Feb 6, 2005

Fr. Ambrose: You didn’t really address the question I was asking.

Fr_Ambrose · Feb 6, 2005

Ghosty:

Fr. Ambrose: You didn’t really address the question I was asking.

Ghosty, maybe I didn’t understand you?

You asked:

Originally Posted by Ghosty
My question to Fr Ambrose is this: Does the Son send the Holy Spirit or not?

I answered:

He does.

Our Lord says:

“But when the Paraclete cometh, whom I will send you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceedeth from the Father, he shall give testimony of me.”
John 15:26

So I thought that I had answered your question but maybe you have another?

Just to be clear - I am not a Roman Catholic priest but Russian Orthodox.

What are the implications of the "filioque" doctrine?

Exporter

Guest

Fr_Ambrose

Guest

JGC

Guest

Fr_Ambrose

Guest

prodromos

Guest

prodromos

Guest

GAssisi

Guest

GAssisi

Guest

GAssisi

Guest

quintessential5

Guest

Madaglan

Guest

BibleReader

Guest

Ghosty

Guest

Fr_Ambrose

Guest

Ghosty

Guest

Fr_Ambrose

Guest

Redbandito

Guest

Fr_Ambrose

Guest

Ghosty

Guest

Fr_Ambrose

Guest