Posted                      

quote:

---

I think that if this was the case, then the Romans and the Greeks would have solved the matter when it arose.

The document gave me the impression that in retrospect they want to change their position in a way so that they don't appear to change their position, something like "look, we always believed that, it was all a misunderstanding."

---

quote:

---

The first time I read that "proceed" is not a translation for "ekporevomai" was from the document the pope composed a few years ago.

---

quote:

---

kai eis to pneuma to hagion, to kurion, (kai) to zoopion, to ek tou patros ekporeuomenon...

---

Which, as we know and agree, is talking about procession in the ontological sense of having-ones-being (literally "the-one-coming-out from the Father). We are NOT saying or suggesting that ekporeusthai CANNOT be translated as "procedere" in Latin; we are simply saying that, as has undoubtably always been the case (dare I suggest that this has been believed in at all times in all places and by all of the Faithful?! ) proeinai (which, as we know CAN be said of the Holy Spirit from the Son) can ALSO be translated as procedere! Given that the word in the Latin creed can be translated as both ekporeusthai AND proeinai, this seems to explain the whole controversy to me. And the rest, as they say, is politics...

I hope you don't want it to be otherwise... The West has never claimed that Christ is a second principle (aitia) in the Trinity... As I quoted from St. Augustine:

quote:

---

and God the Father alone is He from whom the Word is born, and from whom the Holy Spirit principally proceeds.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pontifical:
proeinai (which, as we know CAN be said of the Holy Spirit from the Son) can ALSO be translated as procedere! Given that the word in the Latin creed can be translated as both ekporeusthai AND proeinai, this seems to explain the whole controversy to me.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Again, the first time I came upon the word "proeinai" is when I read that document by the pope. I have not found it in the ancient documents, and I want you to exaplain what you mean by that word.

---

quote:

---

"The Spirit proceeds (proeisi) from the Father and the Son; clearly, he is of the divine substance, proceeding (proion) substantially in it and from it"

St Cyril of Alexandria, Thesaurus

---

quote:

---

It is historically true that in the Greek tradition a clear distinction was always made between ekporeuesthai and proeinai, the first of these two terms denoting exclusively the Spirit's derivation from the Father alone, whereas proeinai was used to denote the Holy Spirit's dependence on the Son owing to the common substance or ousia which the Spirit in deriving from the Father alone as Person or hypostasis receives from the Son, too, as ousiwdws that is, with regard to the one ousia common to all three persons (Cyril of Alexandria, Maximus the Confessor et al). On the basis of this distinction one might argue that there is a kind of Filioque on the level of ousia, but not of hypostasis.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Back-to-Front:
If "and the Son" is added in Latin to the Creed and understood in the proeinai sense, then the question would be on what authority is the sense of procedere as used in that phrase of the Creed changed from its original ekporeuesthai sense, which, I suppose is a whole different thread about authority.

Is that a fair summary or have I misunderstood?

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

The question, then, is one of authority. If "and the Son" is added in Latin to the Creed and understood in the proeinai sense, then the question would be on what authority is the sense of procedere as used in that phrase of the Creed changed from its original ekporeuesthai sense, which, I suppose is a whole different thread about authority.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Let me repeat, that the theology in that document says two things: Christ sent the Spirit (nobody disputes that!) and the Spirit takes his being from the Father and the Son because there is one essence. This is why I want an answer in this question: From what you have written it seems to me that one could speak also of the Son proceeding (proeinai) from the Spirit. Is this what you are saying?

---

quote:

---

If I am not to judge whether something represents what I have said, then who is

---

quote:

---

Also, because I know that many documents have been forged, especially for controversies like the isssue of filioque, I will have to depend on sources from the Patriarchate where St. Cyril taught and lived.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by GreyFace:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Back-to-Front:
If "and the Son" is added in Latin to the Creed and understood in the proeinai sense, then the question would be on what authority is the sense of procedere as used in that phrase of the Creed changed from its original ekporeuesthai sense, which, I suppose is a whole different thread about authority.

Is that a fair summary or have I misunderstood?

---

I don't know. Do we need the authority of a Council to translate the Creed?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Back-to-Front:
It seems, from what has been said above (and I agree entirely with what you have said about language), that the verb procedere is entirely correct as far as translation goes. However, it carries a secondary sense which the verb it is translated from does not carry. That's just the nature of language, and is fine, so long as it is understood in the sense of the original.

---

quote:

---

My question is whether any additions made to the Creed based on this second sense of the word, which, in the Creed, is an accidental by-product of the translation, have any authority, and if so, how?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by GreyFace:
Hmmm. I see what you mean. Does it matter? What we're really concerned about here is, is it true? Does the Spirit proceed (second sense) from the Son or not? Then if we're agreed that he does, can we express this in a form that does not cause translation difficulties?

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by GreyFace:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Back-to-Front:
It seems, from what has been said above (and I agree entirely with what you have said about language), that the verb procedere is entirely correct as far as translation goes. However, it carries a secondary sense which the verb it is translated from does not carry. That's just the nature of language, and is fine, so long as it is understood in the sense of the original.

---

Not quite.

The point is that using procedere is not precisely correct. It is just the best that can be done in a world in which Latin does not transliterate precisely from Greek, and the word carries additional meaning whether we want it to or not.

---

quote:

---

Not having filioque in the Latin version can be and I assume was, seen to those unaware of the Greek nuance to mean that the Son categorically does not proceed (in the second sense) from the Father, so neither filioque nor filioque-less translations in the West translate the Creed adequately. It has been suggested that under the threat of a resurgence of a form of Arianism, the additional meaning that is carried by filioque was worth it in order to avoid the denial of second-sense filioque that leaving it out implies.

quote:

---

[QUOTE][qb]My question is whether any additions made to the Creed based on this second sense of the word, which, in the Creed, is an accidental by-product of the translation, have any authority, and if so, how?

---

Hmmm. I see what you mean. Does it matter?

---

quote:

---

What we're really concerned about here is, is it true? Does the Spirit proceed (second sense) from the Son or not? Then if we're agreed that he does, can we express this in a form that does not cause translation difficulties?

---

It appears that we can agree that Holy Spirit does indeed proceed (proeinai) from both Father and Son, but is this what the Creed is talking about? I would say no.

I can see how this understanding was indeed locally useful at one time so as to combat the resurgence of a particular heresy rearing its ugly head again, but I'm not sure that this alone warrants a permanent change in the Creed so that it no longer refers to the eternal origin of the Spirit. You and Pontifical have bth sugested that those who introduced the change may not have been consciously aware of the difference in Greek verbs - a fair point, and I'm sure that the concept of economy could even be extended to make a temporary acceptance of filioque under those particular circumstances acceptable, (in light of Arianism and all), but for there to be a permanent change in the Creed of the verb ekporeuesthai to proeinai would require the necessary authority.

AIUI, the question, therefore, is one of whether or not Rome has this authority, and I think we know what the answers are from different sides of the fence, so there isn't much point going over that one.

--------------------
If Christ is not fully human, humankind is not fully saved. - St John of Saint-Denis

Posted                       

quote:

---

"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 Spirit proceeds" (Council of Lyons II, DS 850)."

---

quote:

---

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). "This legitimate complementarity, provided it does not become rigid, does not affect the identity of faith in the reality of the same mystery confessed." (Catechism of the Catholic Church no.248).

---

quote:

---

If it is correctly situated, the Filioque of the Latin tradition must not lead to subordination of the Holy Spirit in the Trinity. Even if the Catholic doctrine affirms that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son in the communication of their consubstantial communion, it nonetheless recognises the reality of the original relationship of the Holy Spirit as person with the Father, a relationship that the Greek Fathers express by the term ekporeusis.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Is Maximos's document authentic? It is said to be forged.

---

quote:

---

You are saying that I should accept it because you confess only one source. I ask you what you mean by it and you don't explain the meaning.

---

quote:

---

And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said: "Receive the Holy Spirit!" John 20:22

---

quote:

---

Moreover, I think that the entire theology of the divine energies which are uncreated and in which man can share, is a more important issue of difference.

---

quote:

---

For me the issue of filioque is not the most important difference. I think that we have spent centuries talking about it because it is easy to define this issue.

---

quote:

---

The Greeks do not accept a second origin. I think that the Roman Catholic document implies a second origin, and this is not the Orthodox faith

---

quote:

---

Being aware of this, the Catholic Church has refused the addition of kai tou Uiou to the formula ek tou Patros ekporeuomenon of the Symbol of Nicaea-Constantinople in the Churches, even of Latin rite, which use it in Greek.

---

quote:

---

The Greek fathers never expressed a relationship by the term ekporevomai. They expressed the origin and source.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by andreas1984:
I will ask Trisagion and Triple Tiara if they see things the same way you do.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by andreas1984:
Their understanding that the filioque refers to the economy and not to the eternal relations of origin in the Trinity is welcome.

---

quote:

---

Catechism of the Catholic Church:
The Father and the Son revealed by the Spirit

243 Before his Passover, Jesus announced the sending of "another Paraclete" (Advocate), the Holy Spirit. At work since creation, having previously "spoken through the prophets", the Spirit will now be with and in the disciples, to teach them and guide them "into all the truth".68 The Holy Spirit is thus revealed as another divine person with Jesus and the Father.

244 The eternal origin of the Holy Spirit is revealed in his mission in time. The Spirit is sent to the apostles and to the Church both by the Father in the name of the Son, and by the Son in person, once he had returned to the Father.69 The sending of the person of the Spirit after Jesus' glorification70 reveals in its fullness the mystery of the Holy Trinity.

245 The apostolic faith concerning the Spirit was confessed by the second ecumenical council at Constantinople (381): "We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and giver of life, who proceeds from the Father."71 By this confession, the Church recognizes the Father as "the source and origin of the whole divinity".72 But the eternal origin of the Spirit is not unconnected with the Son's origin: "The Holy Spirit, the third person of the Trinity, is God, one and equal with the Father and the Son, of the same substance and also of the same nature. . . Yet he is not called the Spirit of the Father alone,. . . but the Spirit of both the Father and the Son."73 The Creed of the Church from the Council of Constantinople confesses: "With the Father and the Son, he is worshipped and glorified."74

246 The Latin tradition of the Creed confesses that the Spirit "proceeds from the Father and the Son (filioque)". The Council of Florence in 1438 explains: "The Holy Spirit is eternally from Father and Son; He has his nature and subsistence at once (simul) from the Father and the Son. He proceeds eternally from both as from one principle and through one spiration. . . . And, since the Father has through generation given to the only-begotten Son everything that belongs to the Father, except being Father, the Son has also eternally from the Father, from whom he is eternally born, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son."75

247 The affirmation of the filioque does not appear in the Creed confessed in 381 at Constantinople. But Pope St. Leo I, following an ancient Latin and Alexandrian tradition, had already confessed it dogmatically in 447,76 even before Rome, in 451 at the Council of Chalcedon, came to recognize and receive the Symbol of 381. The use of this formula in the Creed was gradually admitted into the Latin liturgy (between the eighth and eleventh centuries). The introduction of the filioque into the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed by the Latin liturgy constitutes moreover, even today, a point of disagreement with the Orthodox Churches.

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.77 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",78 for the eternal order of the divine persons in their consubstantial communion implies that the Father, as "the principle without principle",79 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.80 This legitimate complementarity, provided it does not become rigid, does not affect the identity of faith in the reality of the same mystery confessed.
---
68 Cf. Gen 1:2; Nicene Creed (DS 150); Jn 14:17, 26; 16:13.
69 Cf. Jn 14:26; 15:26; 16:14.
70 Cf. Jn 7:39.
71 Nicene Creed; cf. DS 150.
72 Council of Toledo VI (638): DS 490.
73 Council of Toledo XI (675): DS 527.
74 Nicene Creed; cf. DS 150.
75 Council of Florence (1439): DS 1300-1301.
76 Cf. Leo I, Quam laudabiliter (447): DS 284.
77 Jn 15:26; cf. AG 2.
78 Council of Florence (1439): DS 1302.
79 Council of Florence (1442): DS 1331.
80 Cf. Council of Lyons II (1274): DS 850.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by IconiumBound:
I am sorry to have to say that this is close to the argument about the origin of the chicken or the egg. How can we, who can't adequately explain the Trinity, presume to know who came/ whom from whom?

---

quote:

---

My real question is does it really matter?

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
Let's be clear then that the tension between the Father's monarchy and the filioque is not resolved by escaping into economy. The economy precisely reveals the eternal relations for the Latins. Rather the tension is resolved in that the Son has all He is from the Father, hence the Son has also the "proceeding of the Holy Spirit" from the Father.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by IconiumBound:
I am not proposing to ignore the elements of Christian faith; the Incarnation, Crucifixion and Resurrection of Jesus. They have been attested to in Scripture and experienced by believers for two centuries. Likewise the Holy Spirit has been experienced over the same time in various ways. And He will continue regardless of what we think about His source.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Back-to-Front:
...and they found their foundation in it.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Back-to-Front:
To be respectfully frank, I'm not sure I see the merit of posting to a thread to question whether the discussion being engaged in there is of significance.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by andreas1984:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Back-to-Front:
To be respectfully frank, I'm not sure I see the merit of posting to a thread to question whether the discussion being engaged in there is of significance.

---

Yes, but through dialogue new understandings can emerge.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by andreas1984:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Back-to-Front:
To be respectfully frank, I'm not sure I see the merit of posting to a thread to question whether the discussion being engaged in there is of significance.

---

Yes, but through dialogue new understandings can emerge.

---

That's precisely my point!

What IconiumBound seems to be saying (and I offer my apologies if I have misunderstood) is that this particular dialogue in which we are engaging is not worth having.

[Mousethief beat me to it. ]

[ 11. February 2006, 16:01: Message edited by: Back-to-Front ]

--------------------
If Christ is not fully human, humankind is not fully saved. - St John of Saint-Denis

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jonathan the Free:

quote:

---

Originally posted by andreas1984:
...I hope everything will be clear eventually

---

I hope so too. I am really struggling to follow this thread.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Back-to-Front:
What IconiumBound seems to be saying (and I offer my apologies if I have misunderstood) is that this particular dialogue in which we are engaging is not worth having.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by andreas1984:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Back-to-Front:
What IconiumBound seems to be saying (and I offer my apologies if I have misunderstood) is that this particular dialogue in which we are engaging is not worth having.

---

In my opinion IconiumBound says that as far as he is concerned, the issue does not have important implications for his faith. We can discuss upon the implications the issue has for our faith, so we can shed some light and discuss with him about it. The way I see it, every contribution, even the absence of contribution is an invitation to dialogue.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IconiumBound:
Aren't we engaging in the endless "futile and silly speculations, understanding that they only give rise to quarrels" (2Tim:2:23).

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
What will the CDF have to say to me? I believe the document to which andreas refers as a papal document is one from the Pontifical Council for Christian Unity, where similar points were made. Such documents are never issued before passing through the CDF. Pope John Paul II referred to the document in a homily at which the ecumenical patriarch was present, saying that the Father is the sole origin and one source of the Trinity and that that was substantially what the Latin version of the Creed also intended.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
So IngoB, I think your own words should be heard by you: For the last thing the RCC needs is highly erudite misinformation spoken in her defense...

---

quote:

---

John Paul II "The Holy Spirit Proceeds from the Father and the Son, November 20, 1985 – General Audience:
The Holy Spirit is "sent" by the Father and Son, as he also "proceeds" from them. For this reason he is called "the Spirit of the Father" (e.g., Mt. 10:20; 1 Cor 2:11; also Jn 15:26), but also "the Spirit of the Son" (Gal 4:6), or "the Spirit of Jesus" (Acts 16:7), since it is Jesus himself that sends him (cf. Jn 15:26). Therefore the Latin Church professes that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son (qui a Patre Filioque procedit) while the Orthodox Churches profess from the Father through the Son. He proceeds "by way of will," "in the manner of love" (per modum amoris). This is a sententia certa, that is, a theological doctrine commonly accepted in the Church's teaching and therefore sure and binding.

This conviction is confirmed by the etymology of the name "Holy Spirit," to which I alluded in the previous catechesis—Spirit, spiritus, pneuma, ruah. Starting from this etymology "the procession" of the Spirit from the Father and the Son is described as "spiration"—spiramen—a breath of Love. <...>

Therefore, by means of generation, in the absolute unity of the divinity, God is eternally Father and Son. The Father who begets loves the Son who is begotten. The Son loves the Father with a love which is identical with that of the Father. In the unity of the divinity, love is on one side paternal and on the other, filial. At the same time the Father and the Son are not only united by that mutual love as two Persons infinitely perfect. But their mutual gratification, their reciprocal love, proceeds in them and from them as a person. The Father and the Son "spirate" the Spirit of Love consubstantial with them. In this way God, in the absolute unity of the divinity, is from all eternity Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

John Paul II "The Spirit and the Filioque Debate, November 7, 1990 – General Audience":
At this last Council we find a statement which has the value of a historical clarification and at the same time of a doctrinal declaration: "The Latins state that by saying that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and from the Son they do not mean to exclude that the Father is the source and the principle of all divinity, that is, of the Son and the Holy Spirit. Nor do they wish to deny that the Son learned from the Father that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son; nor do they hold that there are two principles or two spirations. Rather they assert that one only is the principle and one only the spiration of the Holy Spirit, as they have asserted up to now" (cf. Conciliorum Oecumenicorum Decreta, Bologna 1973, p. 526).

That was an echo of the Latin tradition which St. Thomas had well defined theologically [3] by referring to a text of St. Augustine, according to which " Pater et Filius sunt unum principium Spiritus Sancti " [4] .

The problems on the order of terminology seem thus to be resolved and the intentions clarified, to the extent that each party, the Greeks and the Latins, during the sixth session (July 6, 1439) were able to sign this common definition: "In the name of the Holy Trinity, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, with the approval of this sacred and universal Council of Florence, we establish that this truth of faith must be believed and accepted by all Christians: and thus all must profess that the Holy Spirit is eternally of the Father and the Son, that he has his existence and his subsistent being from the Father and the Son together, and that he proceeds eternally from the one and from the other as from a single principle and from a single spiration" (DS 1300).
---
[3] cf. Summa Theol., I, q. 36, a. 3

[4] De Trinitate, V, 14: PL 42, 921

John Paul II "The Spirit Is Source of Communion, July 29, 1998, General Audience":
In particular, on the specific problem of the Filioque concerning the relationship between the Holy Spirit and the Word who proceed from the Father, it is possible to maintain that the difference between the Latin and Eastern traditions does not affect the identity of the faith "in the reality of the same mystery confessed" but its expression, constituting a "legitimate complementarity" which does not jeopardize but indeed can enrich communion in the one faith (cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, 248; Apostolic Letter Orientale lumen, 2 May 1995, n. 5; Note of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, 29 June 1995: The Greek and Latin Traditions Regarding the Procession of the Holy Spirit, L'Osservatore Romano English edition, 20 September 1995, p. 3).

---

quote:

---

Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity "The Father as the Source of the Whole Trinity: The Procession of the Holy Spirit in Greek and Latin Traditions":
The doctrine of the Filioque must be understood and presented by the Catholic Church in such a way that it cannot appear to contradict the Monarchy of the Father nor the fact that he is the sole origin (arche, aitia) of the ekporeusis of the Spirit. <...>

We are presenting here the authentic doctrinal meaning of the Filioque on the basis of the Trinitarian faith of the Symbol professed by the second Ecumenical Council at Constantinople. We are giving this authoritative interpretation, while being aware of how inadequate human language is to express the ineffable mystery of the Holy Trinity, one God, a mystery which is beyond our words and our thoughts. <...>

The fact that in Latin and Alexandrian theology the Holy Spirit proceeds (proeisi) from the Father and the Son in their consubstantial communion does not mean that it is the divine essence or substance that proceed in him, but that it is communicated from the Father and the Son who have it in common. <...>

In the same way, if in the Trinitarian order the Holy Spirit is consecutive to the relation between the Father and the Son, since he takes his origin from the Father as Father of the only Son,6 it is in the Spirit that this relationship between the Father and the Son itself attains its Trinitarian perfection. Just as the Father is characterised as Father by the Son he generates, so does the Spirit, by taking his origin from the Father, characterise the Father in the manner of the Trinity in relation to the Son and characterises the Son in the manner of the Trinity in his relation to the Father: in the fullness of the Trinitarian mystery they are Father and Son in the Holy Spirit.7

The Father only generates the Son by breathing (proballein in Greek) through him the Holy Spirit and the Son is only begotten by the Father insofar as the spiration (probole in Greek) passes through him. The Father is Father of the One Son only by being for him and through him the origin of the Holy Spirit.8

The Spirit does not precede the Son, since the Son characterises as Father the Father from whom the Spirit takes his origin, according to the Trinitarian order.9 But the spiration of the Spirit from the Father takes place by and through (the two senses of dia in Greek) the generation of the Son, to which it gives its Trinitarian character. It is in this sense that St. John Damascene says: "The Holy Spirit is a substantial power contemplated in his own distinct hypostasis, who proceeds from the Father and reposes in the Word" (De Fide Orthodoxa I, 7, PG 94, 805 B, ed. B. Kotter, Berlin 1973, p.16; Dialogus contra Manichaeos 5, PG 94. 1512 B, ed. B. Kotter, Berlin 1981, p. 354).10

What is this Trinitarian character that the person of the Holy Spirit brings to the very relationship between the Father and the Son? It is the original role of the Spirit in the economy with regard to the mission and work of the Son. The Father is love in is source (2 Cor 13:13; 1 Jn 4:8.16), the Son is "the Son that he loves" (Col 1:14). So a tradition dating back to St Augustine has seen in the Holy Spirit, through whom "God's love has been poured into our hearts" (Rom 5:5), love as the eternal Gift of the Father to his "beloved Son" (Mk 1:11, 9:7; Lk 20:13; Eph 1:6).11

The divine love which has its origin in the Father reposes in "the Son of his love" in order to exist consubstantially through the Son in the person of the Spirit, the Gift of love. This takes into account the fact that, through love, the Holy Spirit orients the whole life of Jesus towards the Father in the fulfilment of his will.
---
[6] Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, no.248.

[7] St. Gregory of Nazianzus says that "the Spirit is a middle term (meson) between the Unbegotten and the Begotten" (Discourse 31, 8, Sources Chrétiennes, no.250, p.290). Cf. also, in a Thomistic perspective, G Leblond, "Point of view on the procession of the Holy Spirit," in Revue Thomiste, LXXXVI, t.78, 1978, pp.293-302.

[8] St. Cyril of Alexandria says that "the Holy Spirit flows from the Father into the Son (en to Uiou)," (Thesaurus, XXXIV, PG 75, 577A).

[9] St. Gregory of Nyssa writes: "The Holy Spirit is said to be of the Father and it is attested that he is of the Son. St. Paul says: 'Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him' (Rom 8:9). So the Spirit who is of God (the Father) is also the Spirit of Christ. However, the Son who is of God (the Father) is not said to be of the Spirit: the consecutive order of the relationship cannot be reversed" (Fragment In orationem dominicam, quoted by St. John Damascene, PG 46. 1109 BC). And St. Maximus affirms in the same way the Trinitarian order when he writes: "Just as the Thought (the Father) is principle of the Word, so is he also of the Spirit through the Word. And, just as one cannot say that the Word is of the voice (of the Breath), so one cannot say that the Word is of the Spirit" (Quaestiones et dubia, PG 90, 813 B).

[10] St. Thomas Aquinas, who knew the De Fide Orthodoxa, sees no opposition between the Filioque and this expression of St. John Damascene: "To say that the Holy Spirit reposes or dwells in the Son does not exclude his proceeding from the Son; for we say also that the Son dwells in the Father, although he proceeds from the Father (Summa Theologica, Ia, q.36, a.2, 4um).

[11] St. Thomas Aquinas, following St. Augustine, writes: "If we say of the Holy Spirit that he dwells in the Son, it is in the way that the love of one who loves reposes in the loved one" (Summa Theologica Ia, q.36, a.2, 4um). This doctrine of the Holy Spirit as love has been harmoniously assumed by St. Gregory Palamas into the Greek theology of the ekporeusis from the Father alone: "The Spirit of the most high Word is like an ineffable love of the Father for this Word ineffably generated. A love which this same Word and beloved Son of the Father entertains (chretai) towards the Father: but insofar as he has the Spirit coming with him (sunproelthonta) from the Father and reposing connaturally in him" (Capita physica XXXVI, PG 150, 1144, D-1145 A).

---

Posted                      

Good Evening,

And a very blessed 6th Sunday of the Year to you all.

Well, I think that, finally, this topic has come up with quite a useful thread, instead of the usual backbiting and sniping; I'm pleased to concur with Andreas that this has been quite an eye-opener for me. I always thought that the two ideas were extremely close, and that it was mis-understanding that had resulted in schism - now I think I understand why.

I'm afraid, IngoB, that the Doctrinal Note on the Holy Spirit, as it is called (the "Papal" document you refer to is sadly not papal, Andreas! We don't need Papal documents for EVERYTHING, you know!! ) is the most current piece of specific teaching that we possess on the topic NOT of the Holy Spirit in general, but particularly of the Filioque clause, and (perhaps more relevantly) the furore that it has caused - in my view, unnecessarily:

quote:

---

We are presenting here the authentic doctrinal meaning of the Filioque on the basis of the Trinitarian faith of the Symbol professed by the second Ecumenical Council at Constantinople.

---

quote:

---

Being aware of this, the Catholic Church has refused the addition of kai tou Uiou (and the Son) to the formula ek tou Patros ekporeuomenon (the-One-having-His-Being from the Father) of the Symbol of Nicaea-Constantinople in the Churches, even of Latin rite, which use it in Greek. The liturgical use of this original text remains always legitimate in the Catholic Church.

Doctrinal Note on the Holy Spirit, my emphasis

---

quote:

---

"to Pneuma to agion, to kurion kai zwopoion, to ek tou Patros dia tou Uiou ekporeuomenon”

... the Holy Spirit, the Lord and Life-maker, the One-having-His-Being from the Father through the Son.

---

quote:

---

The Spirit does not precede the Son, since the Son characterizes as Father the Father from whom the Spirit takes his origin, according to the Trinitarian order.9 But the spiration of the Spirit from the Father takes place by and through (the two senses of dia in Greek) the generation of the Son, to which it gives its Trinitarian character.

Doctrinal Note on the Holy Spirit, my emphasis

---

quote:

---

the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son, not as from two principles but as from one single principle(tamquam ex uno principio); not by two spirations, but by one single spiration."

Second Council of Lyons, Canon 1

---

quote:

---

You ask what is the procession of the Holy Spirit? Do you tell me first what is the unbegottenness of the Father, and I will then explain to you the physiology of the generation of the Son, and the procession of the Spirit, and we shall both of us be stricken with madness for prying into the mystery of God. (St Gregory the Theologian: Oration 32:8)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:

For the last thing the RCC needs is highly erudite misinformation spoken in her defense...

---

I hardly dare differ...

With apologies for (1) a lengthy post this time; (2) a stroppy post last time (I hope you haven't got any scratches, Andreas! ) and (3) anywhere I have been unclear.

And so to bed.

With blessings to you all,

Pontifical.

--------------------
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
Nihil carius Christo
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by andreas1984:
You miss the point that eternity is something created.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by andreas1984:
You seem to be saying that the Son is a cause also for the Spirit.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pontifical:
I confess that I haven't had the chance to read all of your posts, but I hope that you (IngoB) are not suggesting that the Holy Spirit takes his being from the Son? I think this is what both East (judging by Andreas' comments, reading of the Eastern Father's quotes on the subject and 1,000 years of Schism) and West (judging on the specific document quoted above, and a correct reading of the catechism) would condemn as heresy.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mousethief:
You're not going to make a lot of Orthodox friends, quoting Florence.

---