The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit: For the Orthodox

The Holy Spirit comes from the Father through the Son.

And because the Spirit comes from the Father through the Son,
He comes from the Father and the Son.

If He only came from the Father, than He could not come through the Son,
and so He could not come from the Father and the Son.

But because He comes from the Father, through the Son,
Because the Son is the Person through whom the Spirit comes,
He comes from the Father and the Son.

I hope these words deepen your understanding of the Faith.

:confused: why the Orthodox believes otherwise?

It’s a Filique thing. Something about Councils and not liking how the Creed was changed to combat heresy. Most Orthodox don’t realize that the Creeds were created specifically to combat heresy, so the addition of “and from the Son” is not anything new at all. I really just think the schsmatics during the Great Schism were just looking for some reason to leave the Church.

The Orthodox position is that no one part of the Church has the right to alter the text of the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed, as the Ecumenical councils forbade changing it.

Example: Emperor Justinian wanted the term “ever-virgin” inserted into the Creed. The Church responded that while this is true, the Creed itself cannot be altered.

One of the conditions of the Union of Brest was, “Don’t make us say any Creed than we have ever said.”

No one has ever denied that in time, the Holy Spirit proceeds “from the Father through the Son.” Bu the preposition “through” does not mean the same thing as the conjunction “and”.

Finally, as one poster to these fora has pointed out several times, the Latin word “procedit” doesn’t mean quite the same thing that the Greek word “ekporevis”.

The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father. To involve the Son is to place a hierarchy on the trinity.

Thank You.

A post on this thread that makes sense.

Your own Orthodox saints say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son. I remember one of them giving an analogy for the procesion of the Spirit as this: just as the breath escapes the mouth when words are spoken, so dose the Spirit come from the Father through the Son. Not exactly in those words, but more of a paraphrase of the quote.

The Son is begotten through the Holy Ghost as well.

One hand washes the other, so to say. :wink:

Heresy.

The Creed states the Son is begotten of the Father, not the Father and the Holy Spirit.

Does this saint have a name and a place where this saying is recorded?

Yep. I just don’t know his name. I found the saying on an Orthdox website.

Quick question: If the Councils forbade making changes, why is it the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed? Why did they permit themselves this exception to change a creed, rather than put forth a new one (i.e. the Creed of Constantinople)-this always puzzled me. :confused:

And the Creed states the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, not the Father and the Son. :shrug:

Yours in Christ
Joe

I’m going to need a bit more than that.

Also, I believe the traditional position of the church on the idea behind the filioque is that it is heterodox, rather than heretical, which is how the East and Rome were able to maintain communion for so long after the development of the doctrine.

An Ecumenical Council can make additions to clarify a creed. None of the additions made at Constantinople alter the basic theology behind the creed.

Even if we accept that the filioque doesn’t (which I would argue it does), the fact remains that the West changed it without an ecumenical council.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hesychios View Post
The Son is begotten of the Holy Ghost as well.
Eucharisted: Heresy.

The Creed states the Son is begotten of the Father, not the Father and the Holy Spirit.

The Son is begotten by the Father alone in eternity “before all ages”, but the Son is made flesh on earth IN TIME “of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary.”

The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone in eternity, but is manifested on earth IN TIME from the Father at the intercession of the Son.COLOR]

Makes sense-in hindsight it is unfortunate that they did so since some now use it as a precedent for the filioque.

On the other hand it avoided a debate over renaming the Creed of Constantinople to the Creed of Istanbul. :wink:

Thanks. :slight_smile:

You see?

This is exactly what the Orthodox are saying. The filioque is not actually in the real Creed, it only appears in a corrupted version mistakenly adopted and used by the west.

In fact the Bible is very clear about the Holy Spirit’s involvement in time in the begottenness Christ, the overshadowing of Mary. The Holy Spirit was again present at the baptism by John, where God does state “This is my beloved Son!”

If you want to use logic to express a matter of the Holy Spirit proceeding through the Son, you have to admit the symmetrical and complimentary argument that the Son is Begotten through the Holy Spirit. If you do not do so, you are subordinating the Holy Spirit in your profession, which is not possible in reality because all three persons are God, co-extensive and co-equal. You thereby may unfortunately be worshiping a god of your own creation through imagination, instead of God.

The early church Fathers were very wise to avoid this entire line of thinking when crafting the Creed (since expressing this point is not actually necessary and is in fact confusing), yet the west fell into the trap (even for a few centuries accusing the east of deleting the filioque, so naive were they concerning theology at the time).

catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0504bt.asp
catholic.com/library/Filioque.asp

The Apostle’s Creed is largely used in the Latin West but an earlier formula for it can be traced as far back as AD200. Quasten’s book can be consulted for the text of the latter. The creed in its present form states, “He was conceived by the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary.” If you’ve ever prayed the Rosary or attended some versions of the Ordinary Form of the Mass in English, you probably would have encountered this.

Edit: this link covers changes between 2nd and 7th century for the Apostles Creeed

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.