What does it mean that the Holy Spirit proceeds "through the Son?"

ArmyMatt

Regular Member
Supporter
Jan 26, 2007
41,469
20,025
41
Earth
✟1,455,676.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Father, forgive me, but I am really trying to understand what the fathers are writing about and I don't remember the term "resting" being used by them. So I really don;t get it. I do get the Holy Spirit has no principle cause other than the Father, but the Son (according to the Father's) has some sort of role in the Son's procession that pertains to origins and I just want to know whether our theology has changed is not addressing what some of these father;s or writings about or what's going on here :)

the resting in the Son is from St John of Damascus, who wrote our hymns for Pentecost. there is no origin of the Spirit in the Son.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: truefiction1
Upvote 0

Lukaris

Orthodox Christian
Supporter
Aug 3, 2007
7,839
2,533
Pennsylvania, USA
✟745,296.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single


Your link includes quotes from St. Basil the great allegedly preaching the filioque. These are clearly out of context since there was no filioque when St. Basil lived. In chapter 9 of: On the Holy Spirit, St. Basil references John 15:26 as the understanding that the Spirit proceeds from the Father.

You include another quote from chapter 18:45 of St. Basil’s: On the Holy Spirit, “The Holy Spirt is one, and we speak of Him as unique, since through the one Son He is joined to the Father. He completes the all praised and blessed Trinity.”

You need to continue to read beyond where the quote above ends. St. Basil continues, “He (the Holy Spirit) is not ranked with the plurality of creation, but is described in the singular; this is sufficient evidence of His intimacy with the Father and the Son. He is not one of many but one only: just as there is one Father and one Son, there is one Holy Spirit. Reason demands that the singular is separated from the plural or compound; therefore He does not share created nature. He is united to the Father and the Son as unit dwells with unit. This is not our only proof that the Holy Spirit partakes of the fullness of divinity; the Spirit is described to be of God, not in the sense that all things are of God, but because He proceeds from the mouth of the Father and is not begotten like the Son.”

I went long, but in continuous support succession of quoting St. Basil to demonstrate that using Him to support the filioque is clearly erroneous. The Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son is begotten. I suspect other linked quotes could be challenged also but I lack the time & resources. I have quoted St. Augustine earlier in the thread where he confessed that the Spirit proceeds from the Father from an older, & apparently lost, version of the Apostles Creed. The Athanasian Creed is highly doubtful as being genuine. The link also has a supposed quote from St. Maximos the Confessor to St. Thalassios. The very same St. Thalassios preached, “We regard the Father as unoriginate and as the source: as unoriginate because He is unbegotten, and as the source because He is the begetter of the Son and the sender forth of the Holy Spirit, both of whom are by essence from Him and in Him from all eternity.” ( Philokalia vol.2, 4th c. (of texts) #92.
 
Upvote 0

prodromos

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Nov 28, 2003
21,426
11,978
58
Sydney, Straya
✟1,167,283.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Your link includes quotes from St. Basil the great allegedly preaching the filioque. These are clearly out of context since there was no filioque when St. Basil lived. In chapter 9 of: On the Holy Spirit, St. Basil references John 15:26 as the understanding that the Spirit proceeds from the Father.

You include another quote from chapter 18:45 of St. Basil’s: On the Holy Spirit, “The Holy Spirt is one, and we speak of Him as unique, since through the one Son He is joined to the Father. He completes the all praised and blessed Trinity.”

You need to continue to read beyond where the quote above ends. St. Basil continues, “He (the Holy Spirit) is not ranked with the plurality of creation, but is described in the singular; this is sufficient evidence of His intimacy with the Father and the Son. He is not one of many but one only: just as there is one Father and one Son, there is one Holy Spirit. Reason demands that the singular is separated from the plural or compound; therefore He does not share created nature. He is united to the Father and the Son as unit dwells with unit. This is not our only proof that the Holy Spirit partakes of the fullness of divinity; the Spirit is described to be of God, not in the sense that all things are of God, but because He proceeds from the mouth of the Father and is not begotten like the Son.”

I went long, but in continuous support succession of quoting St. Basil to demonstrate that using Him to support the filioque is clearly erroneous. The Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son is begotten. I suspect other linked quotes could be challenged also but I lack the time & resources. I have quoted St. Augustine earlier in the thread where he confessed that the Spirit proceeds from the Father from an older, & apparently lost, version of the Apostles Creed. The Athanasian Creed is highly doubtful as being genuine. The link also has a supposed quote from St. Maximos the Confessor to St. Thalassios. The very same St. Thalassios preached, “We regard the Father as unoriginate and as the source: as unoriginate because He is unbegotten, and as the source because He is the begetter of the Son and the sender forth of the Holy Spirit, both of whom are by essence from Him and in Him from all eternity.” ( Philokalia vol.2, 4th c. (of texts) #92.
This is generally the case with all Catholic quote mines, whether it is to support the"filioque" or the "papacy".
 
Upvote 0

disciple Clint

Well-Known Member
Mar 26, 2018
15,258
5,990
Pacific Northwest
✟200,679.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Your link includes quotes from St. Basil the great allegedly preaching the filioque. These are clearly out of context since there was no filioque when St. Basil lived. In chapter 9 of: On the Holy Spirit, St. Basil references John 15:26 as the understanding that the Spirit proceeds from the Father.

You include another quote from chapter 18:45 of St. Basil’s: On the Holy Spirit, “The Holy Spirt is one, and we speak of Him as unique, since through the one Son He is joined to the Father. He completes the all praised and blessed Trinity.”

You need to continue to read beyond where the quote above ends. St. Basil continues, “He (the Holy Spirit) is not ranked with the plurality of creation, but is described in the singular; this is sufficient evidence of His intimacy with the Father and the Son. He is not one of many but one only: just as there is one Father and one Son, there is one Holy Spirit. Reason demands that the singular is separated from the plural or compound; therefore He does not share created nature. He is united to the Father and the Son as unit dwells with unit. This is not our only proof that the Holy Spirit partakes of the fullness of divinity; the Spirit is described to be of God, not in the sense that all things are of God, but because He proceeds from the mouth of the Father and is not begotten like the Son.”

I went long, but in continuous support succession of quoting St. Basil to demonstrate that using Him to support the filioque is clearly erroneous. The Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son is begotten. I suspect other linked quotes could be challenged also but I lack the time & resources. I have quoted St. Augustine earlier in the thread where he confessed that the Spirit proceeds from the Father from an older, & apparently lost, version of the Apostles Creed. The Athanasian Creed is highly doubtful as being genuine. The link also has a supposed quote from St. Maximos the Confessor to St. Thalassios. The very same St. Thalassios preached, “We regard the Father as unoriginate and as the source: as unoriginate because He is unbegotten, and as the source because He is the begetter of the Son and the sender forth of the Holy Spirit, both of whom are by essence from Him and in Him from all eternity.” ( Philokalia vol.2, 4th c. (of texts) #92.
Let me clearly explain that while i am interested in the discussion I am not involved in it and I did not write the article that you are being critical of. I am not taking sides in the great debate.
 
Upvote 0

Lukaris

Orthodox Christian
Supporter
Aug 3, 2007
7,839
2,533
Pennsylvania, USA
✟745,296.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
Let me clearly explain that while i am interested in the discussion I am not involved in it and I did not write the article that you are being critical of. I am not taking sides in the great debate.

I am just responding to the content of the link not you personally. There is nothing reprehensible in its content; I believe it is sincere. The fact that prominent Orthodox theologians are mentioned as in sympathy with the filioque also would make the non Orthodox Christians wonder what the big deal is which is a problem from our standpoint.

This is a serious theological matter to us in how we worship the Trinity. In the 11 century, there a fair amount of Greek Orthodox churches in Italy & these were suppressed by Norman armies who manipulated the Vatican. There had been generations of tensions over some theology & the filioque was one of these issues.

In 1054, the Norman Cardinal Humbert, exceeding his authority had the temerity to “excommunicate” the Orthodox Church with erroneous charges which included that the Orthodox deleted the filioque from the Nicene Creed ( which is like saying the USA constitution begins with “God save the king”). We did some dirty deeds to the Latins also it’s not a one way street. Nonetheless we never sent crusaders to pillage Western Europe.

For a good read on this, I would suggest a book by Harry Magoulias: Byzantine Christianity

These problems are way beyond the control of probably 99% of non Orthodox Christians. I believe that probably just as many Orthodox & non Orthodox Christians will be saved. Non Orthodox heresy is also unhealthy for Christian faith.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: ~Anastasia~
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

TheLostCoin

A Lonesome Coin
Supporter
Sep 29, 2016
1,507
822
Ohio
✟234,420.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
Nonetheless we never sent crusaders to pillage Western Europe.

One has to remember that the Fourth Crusade's pillaging of Constantinople was a result of rogue Crusaders explicitly going against the Pope's orders, and they were excommunicated by the Pope for doing so.

It doesn't change the grave sin of how Rome reacted to the immediate consequences, by reaping the reward of these criminal acts by seizing control of the city and setting up Latin Patriarchs to replace all the Greek ones (and it says a lot that the Greek ones endured while these Latin ones are gone). Nevertheless, it wasn't as simple as the Pope sending Crusaders to pillage Constantinople.
 
Upvote 0

~Anastasia~

† Handmaid of God †
Dec 1, 2013
31,133
17,452
Florida panhandle, USA
✟922,745.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
I'm afraid this isn't an easy answer but online it's all I know. The Pentecostarion is being updated but appears to have the scores I checked.

Sacraments, Services, and Music

ETA I checked a few more and it appears largely blank after all.

The entire services were prepared. I suspect they are still in there somewhere. I just don't know how to find them.
 
Upvote 0

TheLostCoin

A Lonesome Coin
Supporter
Sep 29, 2016
1,507
822
Ohio
✟234,420.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
I gotta be honest - the more and more I see this issue, I question if really the initial insert of the Filioque was really that bad or insinuated heresy. I think it only became heretical when Charlemagne and the Holy Roman Empire began accusing the Orthodox of heresy by NOT having the Filioque and the Roman Church began believing the Filioque applied to the Son as a cause / Eternal relations with the Holy Spirit, rather than just the temporal sending.

Many people would argue that a change of the original Nicene Creed is uncanonical, but I find that argument superfluous because the version the Eastern Orthodox use IS different - it is changed from the 2nd person to the 1st person. Moreover, there exists non-Chalcedonian versions of the Nicene Creed which have minor changes, and nobody, NOBODY complains about the "God from God" insertion before the "Light from light" in the Roman Catholic version of the Nicene Creed.

What is uncanonical is changing the Faith of the Nicene Creed - and the question is, does this constitute such a grave change in the Faith of the Nicene Creed?

Some will argue that the context of the Greek term of "proceeds out of" had a specific connotation of causation, therefore the Filioque implies heresy - but we have to remind ourselves that starting from the 4th century onwards, Rome started exclusively using Latin instead of Greek (which led to Augustinian problems, but that's for another time); but even then, even in the original Greek - we have to remind ourselves - specific Greek terminology can mean different things at different times; define what Saint Cyril means by "Physis," because "physis" can mean both "ousia" and "hypostasis" depending on the context. Likewise, it MUST be the case that the verb for "proceeds out of" didn't always have such a specific connotation in all contexts, if Orthodoxy is True, because Saint John in the Book of Revelation uses the EXACT SAME GREEK VERB in Revelation 22:1, with "water proceeding out of the Throne AND OUT OF THE LAMB (the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father and the Son)." I don't think it refers here to eternal relations, but the act of the renewed creation, with the renewal of the City of Jerusalem at the end of the world.

Saint Maximus the Confessor was actually asked about the Filioque when he sought refuge in Orthodox Rome, and he explained that as far as he understood it, it was Orthodox because the Latins make it clear in their own Latin tongue that it refers to temporal procession and it doesn't make the Son a cause of the Holy Spirit.

Of course, as Florence dogmatically proclaimed, the Son is "indeed a principle, to the Greeks as a cause of the Holy Spirit", so as the Filioque is understood now, it definitely is heretical, but I don't think it was heretical given the fact that it was understood in Latin that the Filioque referred to Temporal procession.

Those are my two cents, and if I'm wrong, feel free to correct me.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: ArmyMatt
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

ArmyMatt

Regular Member
Supporter
Jan 26, 2007
41,469
20,025
41
Earth
✟1,455,676.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
I gotta be honest - the more and more I see this issue, I question if really the initial insert of the Filioque was really that bad or insinuated heresy. I think it only became heretical when Charlemagne and the Holy Roman Empire began accusing the Orthodox of heresy by NOT having the Filioque and the Roman Church began believing the Filioque applied to the Son as a cause / Eternal relations with the Holy Spirit, rather than just the temporal sending.

Many people would argue that a change of the original Nicene Creed is uncanonical, but I find that argument superfluous because the version the Eastern Orthodox use IS different - it is changed from the 2nd person to the 1st person. Moreover, there exists non-Chalcedonian versions of the Nicene Creed which have minor changes, and nobody, NOBODY complains about the "God from God" insertion before the "Light from light" in the Roman Catholic version of the Nicene Creed.

What is uncanonical is changing the Faith of the Nicene Creed - and the question is, does this constitute such a grave change in the Faith of the Nicene Creed?

Some will argue that the context of the Greek term of "proceeds out of" had a specific connotation of causation, therefore the Filioque implies heresy - but we have to remind ourselves that starting from the 4th century onwards, Rome started exclusively using Latin instead of Greek (which led to Augustinian problems, but that's for another time); but even then, even in the original Greek - we have to remind ourselves - specific Greek terminology can mean different things at different times; define what Saint Cyril means by "Physis," because "physis" can mean both "ousia" and "hypostasis" depending on the context. Likewise, it MUST be the case that the verb for "proceeds out of" didn't always have such a specific connotation in all contexts, if Orthodoxy is True, because Saint John in the Book of Revelation uses the EXACT SAME GREEK VERB in Revelation 22:1, with "water proceeding out of the Throne AND OUT OF THE LAMB (the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father and the Son)." I don't think it refers here to eternal relations, but the act of the renewed creation, with the renewal of the City of Jerusalem at the end of the world.

Saint Maximus the Confessor was actually asked about the Filioque when he sought refuge in Orthodox Rome, and he explained that as far as he understood it, it was Orthodox because the Latins make it clear in their own Latin tongue that it refers to temporal procession and it doesn't make the Son a cause of the Holy Spirit.

Of course, as Florence dogmatically proclaimed, the Son is "indeed a principle, to the Greeks as a cause of the Holy Spirit", so as the Filioque is understood now, it definitely is heretical, but I don't think it was heretical given the fact that it was understood in Latin that the Filioque referred to Temporal procession.

Those are my two cents, and if I'm wrong, feel free to correct me.

yes, the heresy is the understanding, not so much the wording.
 
Upvote 0

prodromos

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Nov 28, 2003
21,426
11,978
58
Sydney, Straya
✟1,167,283.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
I gotta be honest - the more and more I see this issue, I question if really the initial insert of the Filioque was really that bad or insinuated heresy. I think it only became heretical when Charlemagne and the Holy Roman Empire began accusing the Orthodox of heresy by NOT having the Filioque and the Roman Church began believing the Filioque applied to the Son as a cause / Eternal relations with the Holy Spirit, rather than just the temporal sending.

Many people would argue that a change of the original Nicene Creed is uncanonical, but I find that argument superfluous because the version the Eastern Orthodox use IS different - it is changed from the 2nd person to the 1st person. Moreover, there exists non-Chalcedonian versions of the Nicene Creed which have minor changes, and nobody, NOBODY complains about the "God from God" insertion before the "Light from light" in the Roman Catholic version of the Nicene Creed.

What is uncanonical is changing the Faith of the Nicene Creed - and the question is, does this constitute such a grave change in the Faith of the Nicene Creed?

Some will argue that the context of the Greek term of "proceeds out of" had a specific connotation of causation, therefore the Filioque implies heresy - but we have to remind ourselves that starting from the 4th century onwards, Rome started exclusively using Latin instead of Greek (which led to Augustinian problems, but that's for another time); but even then, even in the original Greek - we have to remind ourselves - specific Greek terminology can mean different things at different times; define what Saint Cyril means by "Physis," because "physis" can mean both "ousia" and "hypostasis" depending on the context. Likewise, it MUST be the case that the verb for "proceeds out of" didn't always have such a specific connotation in all contexts, if Orthodoxy is True, because Saint John in the Book of Revelation uses the EXACT SAME GREEK VERB in Revelation 22:1, with "water proceeding out of the Throne AND OUT OF THE LAMB (the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father and the Son)." I don't think it refers here to eternal relations, but the act of the renewed creation, with the renewal of the City of Jerusalem at the end of the world.

Saint Maximus the Confessor was actually asked about the Filioque when he sought refuge in Orthodox Rome, and he explained that as far as he understood it, it was Orthodox because the Latins make it clear in their own Latin tongue that it refers to temporal procession and it doesn't make the Son a cause of the Holy Spirit.

Of course, as Florence dogmatically proclaimed, the Son is "indeed a principle, to the Greeks as a cause of the Holy Spirit", so as the Filioque is understood now, it definitely is heretical, but I don't think it was heretical given the fact that it was understood in Latin that the Filioque referred to Temporal procession.

Those are my two cents, and if I'm wrong, feel free to correct me.
Latin is a great language for law (and for war, according to the Talmud) but is lousy for theology. I suspect that generations of Latins reciting the creed without being taught specifically how they should understand "a Patre procedentem", allowed for erroneous interpretations to creep in, resulting in the heretical declaration of the Council of Florence.
 
Upvote 0

TheLostCoin

A Lonesome Coin
Supporter
Sep 29, 2016
1,507
822
Ohio
✟234,420.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
Latin is a great language for law (and for war, according to the Talmud) but is lousy for theology. I suspect that generations of Latins reciting the creed without being taught specifically how they should understand "a Patre procedentem", allowed for erroneous interpretations to creep in, resulting in the heretical declaration of the Council of Florence.

Yep...while there are some great Latin Orthodox works - Ambrose, John Cassian, etc., my Latin teacher from high school told me that these authors pale in comparison to the "beauty in prose" of Bonaventure and Anselm - the first real Scholastic theologians.

Although I don't take the Talmud as authoritative in terms of opinions of other religious traditions.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Lukaris

Orthodox Christian
Supporter
Aug 3, 2007
7,839
2,533
Pennsylvania, USA
✟745,296.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
The matter is that this is incorrect theology and it was corroborated by incorrect documents like the Pseudo Athanasian Creed. Just like the incorrect doctrine of Papal Supremacy is corroborated by incorrect documents like the so called Donation of Constantine. For generations otherwise astute theologians like Aquinas or Hildegard of Bingen, unaware of forgery, further advanced incorrect doctrines (again, not their fault).

Now the current attitude is it’s no big deal we can all agree to this. No, we never accepted it when it was supposed to be a big deal & should still reject it when it’s supposedly not a big deal.

I want to stress that I mean no ill will or think this is a good guy vs bad guy conflict. I do not think I have an edge or entitlement to salvation for being Orthodox over other Christians. We also cannot dilute our faith.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

ArmyMatt

Regular Member
Supporter
Jan 26, 2007
41,469
20,025
41
Earth
✟1,455,676.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
The matter is that this is incorrect theology and it was corroborated by incorrect documents like the Pseudo Athanasian Creed. Just like the incorrect doctrine of Papal Supremacy is corroborated by incorrect documents like the so called Donation of Constantine. For generations otherwise astute theologians like Aquinas or Hildegard of Bingen, unaware of forgery, further advanced incorrect doctrines (again, not their fault).

Now the current attitude is it’s no big deal we can all agree to this. No, we never accepted it when it was supposed to be a big deal & should still reject it when it’s supposedly not a big deal.

I want to stress that I mean no ill will or think this is a good guy vs bad guy conflict. I do not think I have an edge or entitlement to salvation for being Orthodox over other Christians. We also cannot dilute our faith.

this. plus it all depends on how friendly the Popes wanna be with us. if they elect a guy who is more insistent on the Filioque, the rest of Rome will follow.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: TheLostCoin
Upvote 0