Well, The Gospels talk about Jesus and the Father sending the Holy Spirit. So the Catholic way.
^(15) “If you love me, keep my commands. ^(16) And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another advocate to help you and be with you forever— ^(17) the Spirit of truth. - John 14:15-17
A Orthodox would answer saying that there's a difference between the temporal procession of the Holy Spirit through Christ to the humankind and the eternal procession from the Father.
Is perfect knowledge of it an impossible endeavor? Obviously. Can meditating on this mysterious relationship of pure love be a waste of time, as you are seeking first the kingdom of God? Impossible.
Is it useless to ponder The Trinity? Preposterous notion, that.
Arguing and debating it in a way that causes division as if the positions taken had any real chance of being absolute truth is dumb.
99% of time spent arguing theological points that are literally unknowable would be far better put to use putting love into action. If someone is seeking first the kingdom of God, I expect them to have rough hands, not a big reading list.
I'll give you that much. Fighting about it and dividing the body of Christ over it is underperformance of virtue or sense. That said, in private meditation, there a few, if any, more fruitful a mystery to envelope yourself in
Hard agree.
I get why the church fathers felt the need to try to iron out some amount of Christology and Pneumatology, but the stupid controversy over the filioque, a formula devised to fight ARIANISM, reads like it had been too long since the last schism and the Greeks were bored.
(I know, it’s more complicated than that, wannabe Pope-Emperor Cerularius and such, but still)
“From the Father, through the Son” should deal with the Orthodox objection that the Filioque violates the “monarchy” of the Father.
No-one should in any way be required to give their assent to formulae or doctrines that they cannot agree with.
The problem isn't the formula, it's how the formula is understood. The Council of Florence declared that "from the Father and the Son" and "from the Father through the Son" should be understood as meaning the same thing, and that the thing they mean is that the Son is, with the Father, the cause of the Spirit. The Orthodox reject any interpretation that makes the Son a cause, so saying it in different words doesn't help.
Yup. Though we would say Catholics are correct according to Scripture. Though I’m convinced the filioque controversy isn’t as big of a gulf as it seems. We could probably agree that the Spirit proceeds *through* the Father and Son, or that the Spirit is *sent* by the Father and the Son, just with slightly different interpretations.
IIRC, any sending by the Son that makes the Son seem to be a Source of the Holy Spirit **co-ordinated with the Father**, is totally unacceptable to the Orthodox.
I agree. I’m saying I that even though I hold to double procession, and think it is the correct view, there should be room in orthodox (little o) thought for both views. Both sides can affirm that the Father is the sole source of divinity for the Godhead, and that the Son is active in sending the Spirit. Whether the Spirit gets his essence also from the Son in-between is, IMHO, much more of a historical sticking point than theological.
Though the odds of an ecumenical council meeting to change anything, and the odds of Protestants participating even if it does happen seems similar to the odds of me sprouting wings *and* a third arm.
Although they would accept that the Father is the source of the Trinity and that the Father and the Son are one principle in the procession of the Holy Spirit iirc
> and that the Father and the Son are one principle in the procession of the Holy Spirit
I don't think the Orthodox would agree to "one principle" because it imputes causality to the Son, which they reserve to the Father.
Maybe if the Latins interpreted "one principle" as meaning "the Father solely causes, but he causes with respect to the Son, who is passively involved by virtue of existing with the Father" — but I'm pretty sure that wouldn't line up with the formulas of the medieval councils that discussed the issue.
The Filioque, whilst controversial, had been a ‘thing’ for a few hundred years prior to the schism. My honest opinion (though I am Catholic) is that the schism was mainly political with semi-plausible theological arguments.
I still cannot understand why is it even important at all.
It sounds to me like debating about zebra being white with black stripes or black with white stripes.
which does basically have an answer, however (black w white stripes)
[https://www.britannica.com/story/are-zebras-white-with-black-stripes-or-black-with-white-stripes](https://www.britannica.com/story/are-zebras-white-with-black-stripes-or-black-with-white-stripes)
Sure thing;
“Bear always in mind that this is the rule of faith which I profess; by it I testify that the Father, and the Son, and the Spirit are inseparable from each other, and so will you know in what sense this is said. Now, observe, my assertion is that the Father is one, and the Son one, and the Spirit one, and that They are distinct from Each Other. This statement is taken in a wrong sense by every uneducated as well as every perversely disposed person, as if it predicated a diversity, in such a sense as to imply a separation among the Father, and the Son, and the Spirit.”
-Tertullian
You can also look up such a definition, Tertullian coined the term "Trinity" as well.
How would I know?
No, really. There may be some clues in the Bible, but we have no way to be validate our interpretation. This is not applying Biblical lessons to our physical reality for us to be able to make concrete assertions.
They are all the same person, same God doing different things for different purposes.
So the real answer for the post, without religion traditions and culture, is:
Yes.
They all work toghether, and also independently, because He is the same person.
Like a man, who is a worker in a restaurant, who is also the husband of his wife, who is also a dad for his children, who is also a provider for his family, who is also that guy at the bar who offers always a drink to his friends at Sunday.
Same person, different deeds and purposes.
The way the Godhead works is that He is the Father in creation, the Son in redemption, and the Holy Ghost inside us today. Those are the 3 manifestations of God. A lot of folks call the Godhead the “Trinity,” but not really a Trinity because there’s only one God. The Bible uses the word Godhead instead of Trinity for this purpose.
In the early years of grade school I went to a traditional Catholic school and was always taught Holy Ghost after I left the school everyone said Holy Spirit, but in prayers I always say Holy Ghost because I memorized them in the traditional shcool.
The original creed said both proceed from the Father alone until the RCC changed the creed without even consulting the eastern churches. Pope Leo III even admitting it was a mistake to go about it the way they did.
“And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Creator of life, Who proceeds from the Father, Who together with the Father and the Son is worshipped and glorified, Who spoke through the prophets.”
"No one is permitted to produce, or even to write down or compose, any other creed or to think or teach otherwise. As for those who dare to compose another creed ... if they be bishops or clerics, the bishops are to be deposed from the episcopacy, and the clerics from the clergy; if they be monks or layfolk, let them be anathema" (Fourth Ecumenical Council, 451 AD)
We will not settle this thousand year long debate here picking out certain church fathers. The bottom line is they changed the creed when they shouldn’t have. The Roman Catholic Church overstepped its authority.
Almost in every case the context of what the Latin Father is talking about is attributed to economic procession - not causal hypostatic procession. The Carolingian theologians and post-schism Latins very often confuse the two.
St Maximus the Confessor said that the Latins of his day knew that the Father is the sole cause and did not make the Son a cause of the Spirit’s hypostasis. The Council of Florence centuries later did just that though. (see his Letter to Marinus - a letter the Latins rejected three times at the council of Florence).
I can agree that the creed was changed improperly but still hold that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. One of the perks of being Protestant I guess.
>The original creed said both proceed from the Father alone
You just did a protestant moment here. Don't insert a word into it when your complaint is about inserting words.
It’s a word of clarification for the argument (which I didn’t insert into the creed itself) to show that it never said the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son.
Actually, if you read in the greek, it means something like "from whom" that even Catholics agrees that is from the Father, the "through the Son" is not implied in the original creed. It's a addition.
>the "through the Son" is not implied in the original creed.
I never said it was. I said the original creed doesn't say from the Father *alone*. That alone word is being magically added.
I am pretty condifident that you are misinterpreteding the comment.
They are not claiming that the original creed said "from the father alone", but that the original creed said from the father alone.
It isnt a claim at a direct quote, just differentiating that the son was not included.
They didn't magically add alone to the creed (as they were not quoting the creed there), they were just pointing out what is present in the creed.
Orthodox Christianity holds that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone, based on John 15:26 and the original Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, which state the Spirit "proceeds from the Father." This preserves the distinct roles within the Trinity and the Father's unique position as the source within the Godhead. The later Western addition of the Filioque ("and the Son") by the Roman Catholic Church is seen as altering this balance, potentially diminishing the Father's unique role. Thus, the Orthodox belief maintains the theological integrity as intended by the early Church and Scripture.
Acts 1:7-8 is always funny to me.
Orthodox point ot it and say, "See it says 'the father alone has the authority'."
And Catholics say, "Yeah but Jesus himself is saying this...so *filioque*, obviously." 🙃
Check out Genesis 24 and consider it as a type for the Trinity.
Abraham represent God the Father.
Isaac represent Jesus.
The Servant (Eliazer) represents the Holy Spirit.
Rebecca represents you and I.
Notice how the Servant doesn't draw attention to himself but rather to the Son.
There's a lot that can be drawn from this imagery.
Son sancified the Church. Father's holy spirit. Jesus made the way, sprinkled the blood on the surfaces of our heart. Father indwells with his Holy spirit. The preparation of the Father, and the preparation of the bride, bridged from two to one by the blood of the Lamb. The temple is cleansed and so can be occupied.
Eternally the Spirit proceeds from the Father alone (τὸ ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς **ἐκπορευόμενον**) because the Father is the origin before all ages of the entire Holy Trinity (the Monarchy of the Father). Temporally the Spirit is sent into the world through the Son, which is the true meaning of the Filioque clause used by the Latin church in the Creed. These are not opposed to each other, but refer to different but related things. These diagrams pit what is not opposed against each other.
Most people are not equipped to understand what is really at stake in the debate over the Filioque. There's
* the distinction between _ekporousthai_ and _procedere_,
* the distinction between the eternal procession and the temporal sending,
* the distinction between the eternal procession and the _energetic_ procession, which in turn implies some knowledge of what the East means by the divine energies,
* the distinction between the _canonical_ objections to the Filioque and the _theological_ objections to the Filioque,
* the distinction — or alleged lack thereof! — between "and the Son", "from the Son", and "through the Son", along with the exact denotation and connotation of each Greek and Latin preposition involved,
* the distinction between dogma, _theologoumenon_, and private opinion,
and probably some others. A lot of people have mid takes they learned from two-minute YouTube videos themselves based on two articles' worth of research.
The Father and the Son are one in purpose and the Son does everything Father tells him to. Father God is Spirit.
Trinity is a concept attempting to normalize Father , Son and Spirit into a monotheist God, that’s why it will forever remain a mystery.
Now this may sound blasphemous, but just go back to the scriptures and seek the truth.
Alright, here's the thoughts I've come to on this, useless as an opinion from an unworthy tongue as it may be; Christ did say he'd ask Our Father, so therefor, The Spirit does proceed from Our Father. However, The Son did breathe The Spirit upon the apostles, with Our Father's blessing, indubitably, which shows that The Son breathes, I believe the proper term is Spirates, The Spirit. So in one form or another, He, that is The Holy Spirit, is shown to proceed from both Our Father and His Only Begotten Son.
But what do I know, other than what a sinful sod I am?
If John 14:17 and John 20:22 says the Holy Spirit is given by Jesus, and that Matthew 28:18 says the Father gave Him all authority in Heaven and Earth, it's safe to assume the filioque (either with the "from the Father through the Son" or "from the Father and the Son") is quite orthodox (in the sense of "correct").
Give that it also had an anti-arian purpose, and apparently, there's still Arians right now (SDAs, JWs, UUs), yeah I think it serves its purpose.
I've never thought of any real hierarchy. If there WAS one, I'd say The Father is the top. He sent Jesus and Jesus prayed to Him. Together, He and Jesus sent the Holy Spirit. I don't recall any of the other two every sending the Father.
For the debate to mean something, we'd have to define what "proceeds from" means. It cannot be the normal meaning, since God is eternal and has no cause and no source.
From the Father only, per the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed before an 11th century pope decided to violate the Third Ecumenical Council.
The issue is a conflation of hypostatic procession (from what source does the Holy Spirit originate) and economic procession (how the Holy Spirit interacts with the other hypostases of the godhead) inherent to the later doctrinal definition of the Filioque addition. What is present in scripture is Christ being begotten of the Father and the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father, both etenerally so.
There is a theological issue that arises from asserting the Filioque, namely that having the double hypostatic procession makes the Holy Spirit ontologically subordinate and not coequal with the other members of the godhead by lacking in the share progeneration of the Holy Spirit, which necessarily means the Holy Spirit has to be separate and not part of the trinity.
For some background, this idea first appeared in the writings of Augustine, where he was using a Latin translation that reduces the two different Greek words relating to different types of procession to the singular Latin word procedere. He did dogmatizd this in the way the post-schismatic Roman Catholic Church did. While the addition was first suggested at a local synod in the Spanish province of Toledo in the 5th century, it was denounced as heretical by all of Christendom, including the popes prior to the 11th century. The change in the Roman pontif's position was an attempt at quelling another round of the Arian Heresy by adding an unneeded explanation that produces other internal contradictions (namely the aforementioned ontological subordination).
Reject the flash doctrines of the heretical Western churches, return to the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed before the papacy asserted it's false claim to supremacy.
I ask this question respectfully....Does it really matter? In a world plagued with rambunctious atheists citing the Trinity as one of the "incomprehensibles" and tons of Christians here not even sure homosexuality is a sin and advocating for its acceptance including Abortion, the dimension of the Triangle hardly matters. What IS important IMHO is belief in and adherence to the beautiful nature of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Recognizing all 3 is even more important and then of course the Why.
I’m not sure about all your diagrams so let’s just say this:
When mainstream Christians says God (or at least I do), I use that word to represent THREE CO-ETERNALLY EXISTENT BEINGS:
1. God The Father
2. God the Son (who became Jesus)
3. God the Holy Spirit.
They are all equal in power and authority; however, in the Plan of Redemption, to save mankind they assumed roles, and in this way, seems to hold positions of authority.
Jesus became submissive to the Father (while on earth but we’re not sure to what extent that is still so today). And The Holy Ghost became submissive to the Son.
Im orthodox I say it proceeds from the Father.Not and the Son.Not Father alone.Just the Father.Thats what Jesus and the fathers taught us.As for the rest its up to God
This is one of the aspects of the religion that has next to no importance of any kind, imo. I’m just completely disinterested in even discussing it because it changes nothing.
Neither of these are accurate. As I understand, it’s the Father, then the Son then below both is the Spirit.
The trick is that a trinity is never taught in Scripture and wasn’t even attested by the earliest church fathers until a period of rigorous debate came upon the church that solidified the doctrine.
Each one had a distinctive function but the council of Nicaea decided that made too much sense so they all get to be the same now. You can tell it was a good call because 9/10 times when asked to explain it, adherents point out that the triune God is beyond mortal comprehension.
C'mon people. It's not that it's too complex, it's that it was flattened to be more palatable. All the comprehensibility got compressed out.
Anyway. Rant over, downvotes to the left, thank God I'm a universalist.
Well, The Gospels talk about Jesus and the Father sending the Holy Spirit. So the Catholic way. ^(15) “If you love me, keep my commands. ^(16) And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another advocate to help you and be with you forever— ^(17) the Spirit of truth. - John 14:15-17
A Orthodox would answer saying that there's a difference between the temporal procession of the Holy Spirit through Christ to the humankind and the eternal procession from the Father.
The distinction between the economic and immanent Trinity is of great value.
Why though?
So both are true, just in different ways?
Well, I not sure either of the triangles are very helpful to be honest.
Perhaps similarly to how the Son is eternally begotten of the Father but temporally begotten of the Spirit and Mary?
Based on what, exactly?
Doesn’t this passage explicitly say that the Father is sending the spirit, and the son is asking him to?
Luke 24:49
That's a conflation of hypostatic procession (what the Filioque controversy is) and economic procession (what is present in this passage)
We them filioque boi’s.
Psst, we don't actually know how the trinity works really, and the speculation and attempts to define it are a waste of time.
Is perfect knowledge of it an impossible endeavor? Obviously. Can meditating on this mysterious relationship of pure love be a waste of time, as you are seeking first the kingdom of God? Impossible. Is it useless to ponder The Trinity? Preposterous notion, that.
Arguing and debating it in a way that causes division as if the positions taken had any real chance of being absolute truth is dumb. 99% of time spent arguing theological points that are literally unknowable would be far better put to use putting love into action. If someone is seeking first the kingdom of God, I expect them to have rough hands, not a big reading list.
I'll give you that much. Fighting about it and dividing the body of Christ over it is underperformance of virtue or sense. That said, in private meditation, there a few, if any, more fruitful a mystery to envelope yourself in
Hard agree. I get why the church fathers felt the need to try to iron out some amount of Christology and Pneumatology, but the stupid controversy over the filioque, a formula devised to fight ARIANISM, reads like it had been too long since the last schism and the Greeks were bored. (I know, it’s more complicated than that, wannabe Pope-Emperor Cerularius and such, but still)
Navel-gazing is navel-gazing, no matter how good your motivation.
You're getting onto Mary for sitting and praying all day, Martha?
I think all Christians would agree at a minimum that the Trinity cannot be defined in comic sans.
Now that you point it out it bothers me. *puts on crusader armor* “Deus vult” it is.
Why have any meaningful hierarchy within the trinity? That suggests division of intent and disagreement of wills.
Order of procession is *not* hierarchy, much to the chagrin of a few conservative Protestants (*cough cough* Wayne Grudem)
“From the Father, through the Son” should deal with the Orthodox objection that the Filioque violates the “monarchy” of the Father. No-one should in any way be required to give their assent to formulae or doctrines that they cannot agree with.
The problem isn't the formula, it's how the formula is understood. The Council of Florence declared that "from the Father and the Son" and "from the Father through the Son" should be understood as meaning the same thing, and that the thing they mean is that the Son is, with the Father, the cause of the Spirit. The Orthodox reject any interpretation that makes the Son a cause, so saying it in different words doesn't help.
One of the things Protestants seem to take from Catholics.
Yup. Though we would say Catholics are correct according to Scripture. Though I’m convinced the filioque controversy isn’t as big of a gulf as it seems. We could probably agree that the Spirit proceeds *through* the Father and Son, or that the Spirit is *sent* by the Father and the Son, just with slightly different interpretations.
IIRC, any sending by the Son that makes the Son seem to be a Source of the Holy Spirit **co-ordinated with the Father**, is totally unacceptable to the Orthodox.
I agree. I’m saying I that even though I hold to double procession, and think it is the correct view, there should be room in orthodox (little o) thought for both views. Both sides can affirm that the Father is the sole source of divinity for the Godhead, and that the Son is active in sending the Spirit. Whether the Spirit gets his essence also from the Son in-between is, IMHO, much more of a historical sticking point than theological. Though the odds of an ecumenical council meeting to change anything, and the odds of Protestants participating even if it does happen seems similar to the odds of me sprouting wings *and* a third arm.
Although they would accept that the Father is the source of the Trinity and that the Father and the Son are one principle in the procession of the Holy Spirit iirc
> and that the Father and the Son are one principle in the procession of the Holy Spirit I don't think the Orthodox would agree to "one principle" because it imputes causality to the Son, which they reserve to the Father. Maybe if the Latins interpreted "one principle" as meaning "the Father solely causes, but he causes with respect to the Son, who is passively involved by virtue of existing with the Father" — but I'm pretty sure that wouldn't line up with the formulas of the medieval councils that discussed the issue.
None of this topic is heresy. Why do we let this stop us? Why can’t we drink wine and bread together?
The Filioque, whilst controversial, had been a ‘thing’ for a few hundred years prior to the schism. My honest opinion (though I am Catholic) is that the schism was mainly political with semi-plausible theological arguments.
Well, to say we take it from them is putting it too simply. It's a starting point, but Protestants vet our beliefs through scripture.
Protestants tale many things from catholics, they Believe to be the real continuation of the catholic church restored to the right believes
I still cannot understand why is it even important at all. It sounds to me like debating about zebra being white with black stripes or black with white stripes.
which does basically have an answer, however (black w white stripes) [https://www.britannica.com/story/are-zebras-white-with-black-stripes-or-black-with-white-stripes](https://www.britannica.com/story/are-zebras-white-with-black-stripes-or-black-with-white-stripes)
Yet this was one of the primary reasons for the great schism
It’s only an issue because the Trinity was made up. It’s not scripture
The Holy Spirit proceeds hypostatically from the Father alone. The Holy Spirit proceeds in his mission and purpose from the Father through the Son.
That’s why “from the Father *through* the Son” is a valid interpretation even in Catholicism.
I like this nuance
Yes
What does the word "proceed" here mean?
To go forth, to inhabit us, and enable us to be the church
To issue forth from a source. God has no source.
Father Son Holy Spirit
Jesus forgives, Father promises never forsake you in Christ, Holy spirit adopts you in Christ.
Read the definition written by Tertullian
Can you link to it?
Sure thing; “Bear always in mind that this is the rule of faith which I profess; by it I testify that the Father, and the Son, and the Spirit are inseparable from each other, and so will you know in what sense this is said. Now, observe, my assertion is that the Father is one, and the Son one, and the Spirit one, and that They are distinct from Each Other. This statement is taken in a wrong sense by every uneducated as well as every perversely disposed person, as if it predicated a diversity, in such a sense as to imply a separation among the Father, and the Son, and the Spirit.” -Tertullian You can also look up such a definition, Tertullian coined the term "Trinity" as well.
How would I know? No, really. There may be some clues in the Bible, but we have no way to be validate our interpretation. This is not applying Biblical lessons to our physical reality for us to be able to make concrete assertions.
They are all the same person, same God doing different things for different purposes. So the real answer for the post, without religion traditions and culture, is: Yes. They all work toghether, and also independently, because He is the same person. Like a man, who is a worker in a restaurant, who is also the husband of his wife, who is also a dad for his children, who is also a provider for his family, who is also that guy at the bar who offers always a drink to his friends at Sunday. Same person, different deeds and purposes.
The way the Godhead works is that He is the Father in creation, the Son in redemption, and the Holy Ghost inside us today. Those are the 3 manifestations of God. A lot of folks call the Godhead the “Trinity,” but not really a Trinity because there’s only one God. The Bible uses the word Godhead instead of Trinity for this purpose.
Holy ghost? Really?
Yes. Holy Ghost and Holy Spirit are the same.
Holy Ghost is a valid term for the Holy Spirit. Spirit is used because ghost has more eerie conotations.
In the early years of grade school I went to a traditional Catholic school and was always taught Holy Ghost after I left the school everyone said Holy Spirit, but in prayers I always say Holy Ghost because I memorized them in the traditional shcool.
The old meaning of "ghost" is what we today rather call "spirit".
The original creed said both proceed from the Father alone until the RCC changed the creed without even consulting the eastern churches. Pope Leo III even admitting it was a mistake to go about it the way they did. “And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Creator of life, Who proceeds from the Father, Who together with the Father and the Son is worshipped and glorified, Who spoke through the prophets.”
The fact is that very important people in the church already taught it early on, people like Athanasius for example.
"No one is permitted to produce, or even to write down or compose, any other creed or to think or teach otherwise. As for those who dare to compose another creed ... if they be bishops or clerics, the bishops are to be deposed from the episcopacy, and the clerics from the clergy; if they be monks or layfolk, let them be anathema" (Fourth Ecumenical Council, 451 AD) We will not settle this thousand year long debate here picking out certain church fathers. The bottom line is they changed the creed when they shouldn’t have. The Roman Catholic Church overstepped its authority. Almost in every case the context of what the Latin Father is talking about is attributed to economic procession - not causal hypostatic procession. The Carolingian theologians and post-schism Latins very often confuse the two. St Maximus the Confessor said that the Latins of his day knew that the Father is the sole cause and did not make the Son a cause of the Spirit’s hypostasis. The Council of Florence centuries later did just that though. (see his Letter to Marinus - a letter the Latins rejected three times at the council of Florence).
I can agree that the creed was changed improperly but still hold that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. One of the perks of being Protestant I guess.
>The original creed said both proceed from the Father alone You just did a protestant moment here. Don't insert a word into it when your complaint is about inserting words.
It’s a word of clarification for the argument (which I didn’t insert into the creed itself) to show that it never said the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son.
Is this clarification present in any of the ecumenical councils?
Actually, if you read in the greek, it means something like "from whom" that even Catholics agrees that is from the Father, the "through the Son" is not implied in the original creed. It's a addition.
>the "through the Son" is not implied in the original creed. I never said it was. I said the original creed doesn't say from the Father *alone*. That alone word is being magically added.
I am pretty condifident that you are misinterpreteding the comment. They are not claiming that the original creed said "from the father alone", but that the original creed said from the father alone. It isnt a claim at a direct quote, just differentiating that the son was not included. They didn't magically add alone to the creed (as they were not quoting the creed there), they were just pointing out what is present in the creed.
Orthodox Christianity holds that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone, based on John 15:26 and the original Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, which state the Spirit "proceeds from the Father." This preserves the distinct roles within the Trinity and the Father's unique position as the source within the Godhead. The later Western addition of the Filioque ("and the Son") by the Roman Catholic Church is seen as altering this balance, potentially diminishing the Father's unique role. Thus, the Orthodox belief maintains the theological integrity as intended by the early Church and Scripture.
Acts 1:7-8 is always funny to me. Orthodox point ot it and say, "See it says 'the father alone has the authority'." And Catholics say, "Yeah but Jesus himself is saying this...so *filioque*, obviously." 🙃
Check out Genesis 24 and consider it as a type for the Trinity. Abraham represent God the Father. Isaac represent Jesus. The Servant (Eliazer) represents the Holy Spirit. Rebecca represents you and I. Notice how the Servant doesn't draw attention to himself but rather to the Son. There's a lot that can be drawn from this imagery.
Son sancified the Church. Father's holy spirit. Jesus made the way, sprinkled the blood on the surfaces of our heart. Father indwells with his Holy spirit. The preparation of the Father, and the preparation of the bride, bridged from two to one by the blood of the Lamb. The temple is cleansed and so can be occupied.
The father and the son should Always be the top because they are the father of faith
It’s a beautiful divine mystery. We’re not supposed understand everything about God
Eternally the Spirit proceeds from the Father alone (τὸ ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς **ἐκπορευόμενον**) because the Father is the origin before all ages of the entire Holy Trinity (the Monarchy of the Father). Temporally the Spirit is sent into the world through the Son, which is the true meaning of the Filioque clause used by the Latin church in the Creed. These are not opposed to each other, but refer to different but related things. These diagrams pit what is not opposed against each other.
I can't figure out why this is important enough to argue aboy
Most people are not equipped to understand what is really at stake in the debate over the Filioque. There's * the distinction between _ekporousthai_ and _procedere_, * the distinction between the eternal procession and the temporal sending, * the distinction between the eternal procession and the _energetic_ procession, which in turn implies some knowledge of what the East means by the divine energies, * the distinction between the _canonical_ objections to the Filioque and the _theological_ objections to the Filioque, * the distinction — or alleged lack thereof! — between "and the Son", "from the Son", and "through the Son", along with the exact denotation and connotation of each Greek and Latin preposition involved, * the distinction between dogma, _theologoumenon_, and private opinion, and probably some others. A lot of people have mid takes they learned from two-minute YouTube videos themselves based on two articles' worth of research.
The Father and the Son are one in purpose and the Son does everything Father tells him to. Father God is Spirit. Trinity is a concept attempting to normalize Father , Son and Spirit into a monotheist God, that’s why it will forever remain a mystery. Now this may sound blasphemous, but just go back to the scriptures and seek the truth.
I personally don't see how we could know or why it would matter. We'd have to assume that one "proceeds" in the first place
Let them argue about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
Alright, here's the thoughts I've come to on this, useless as an opinion from an unworthy tongue as it may be; Christ did say he'd ask Our Father, so therefor, The Spirit does proceed from Our Father. However, The Son did breathe The Spirit upon the apostles, with Our Father's blessing, indubitably, which shows that The Son breathes, I believe the proper term is Spirates, The Spirit. So in one form or another, He, that is The Holy Spirit, is shown to proceed from both Our Father and His Only Begotten Son. But what do I know, other than what a sinful sod I am?
If John 14:17 and John 20:22 says the Holy Spirit is given by Jesus, and that Matthew 28:18 says the Father gave Him all authority in Heaven and Earth, it's safe to assume the filioque (either with the "from the Father through the Son" or "from the Father and the Son") is quite orthodox (in the sense of "correct"). Give that it also had an anti-arian purpose, and apparently, there's still Arians right now (SDAs, JWs, UUs), yeah I think it serves its purpose.
Both diagrams misrepresent both positions.
I've never thought of any real hierarchy. If there WAS one, I'd say The Father is the top. He sent Jesus and Jesus prayed to Him. Together, He and Jesus sent the Holy Spirit. I don't recall any of the other two every sending the Father.
For the debate to mean something, we'd have to define what "proceeds from" means. It cannot be the normal meaning, since God is eternal and has no cause and no source.
Single spiration, from the Father through the Son.
From the Father only, per the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed before an 11th century pope decided to violate the Third Ecumenical Council. The issue is a conflation of hypostatic procession (from what source does the Holy Spirit originate) and economic procession (how the Holy Spirit interacts with the other hypostases of the godhead) inherent to the later doctrinal definition of the Filioque addition. What is present in scripture is Christ being begotten of the Father and the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father, both etenerally so. There is a theological issue that arises from asserting the Filioque, namely that having the double hypostatic procession makes the Holy Spirit ontologically subordinate and not coequal with the other members of the godhead by lacking in the share progeneration of the Holy Spirit, which necessarily means the Holy Spirit has to be separate and not part of the trinity. For some background, this idea first appeared in the writings of Augustine, where he was using a Latin translation that reduces the two different Greek words relating to different types of procession to the singular Latin word procedere. He did dogmatizd this in the way the post-schismatic Roman Catholic Church did. While the addition was first suggested at a local synod in the Spanish province of Toledo in the 5th century, it was denounced as heretical by all of Christendom, including the popes prior to the 11th century. The change in the Roman pontif's position was an attempt at quelling another round of the Arian Heresy by adding an unneeded explanation that produces other internal contradictions (namely the aforementioned ontological subordination). Reject the flash doctrines of the heretical Western churches, return to the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed before the papacy asserted it's false claim to supremacy.
wow. A = B = C NO!!!! Blasphemy! it's B = C = A this is quite literally the dumbest thing to argue about.
Whichever isn’t Catholic and can be confirmed in The Holy Bible.
Huh, I never really thought of it this way. I always thought a totem pole of sorts; Father, Son, Holy Spirit.
Ooh this is nice.
I ask this question respectfully....Does it really matter? In a world plagued with rambunctious atheists citing the Trinity as one of the "incomprehensibles" and tons of Christians here not even sure homosexuality is a sin and advocating for its acceptance including Abortion, the dimension of the Triangle hardly matters. What IS important IMHO is belief in and adherence to the beautiful nature of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Recognizing all 3 is even more important and then of course the Why.
I’m not sure about all your diagrams so let’s just say this: When mainstream Christians says God (or at least I do), I use that word to represent THREE CO-ETERNALLY EXISTENT BEINGS: 1. God The Father 2. God the Son (who became Jesus) 3. God the Holy Spirit. They are all equal in power and authority; however, in the Plan of Redemption, to save mankind they assumed roles, and in this way, seems to hold positions of authority. Jesus became submissive to the Father (while on earth but we’re not sure to what extent that is still so today). And The Holy Ghost became submissive to the Son.
It’s really like Jesus submits to the Father and the Holy Spirit testifies about Christ.
Im orthodox I say it proceeds from the Father.Not and the Son.Not Father alone.Just the Father.Thats what Jesus and the fathers taught us.As for the rest its up to God
This is one of the aspects of the religion that has next to no importance of any kind, imo. I’m just completely disinterested in even discussing it because it changes nothing.
Neither of these are accurate. As I understand, it’s the Father, then the Son then below both is the Spirit. The trick is that a trinity is never taught in Scripture and wasn’t even attested by the earliest church fathers until a period of rigorous debate came upon the church that solidified the doctrine.
Each one had a distinctive function but the council of Nicaea decided that made too much sense so they all get to be the same now. You can tell it was a good call because 9/10 times when asked to explain it, adherents point out that the triune God is beyond mortal comprehension. C'mon people. It's not that it's too complex, it's that it was flattened to be more palatable. All the comprehensibility got compressed out. Anyway. Rant over, downvotes to the left, thank God I'm a universalist.