Does the Son proceed from the Father?

[BigNorsk]

I have been long aware of the disagreement between Roman Catholics and Orthodox over whether the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Fatherand the Son. However, that is not my question.

Does the Orthodox church agree with Roman Catholic dogma that the Son proceeds from the Father by Generation?

This is a quote from http://www.catholicfirst.com/thefaith/churchdocuments/dogmas.cfm


The Triple Personality of God





In God there are two Internal Divine Processions. (De fide.)
The Divine Persons, not the Divine Nature, are the subject of the Internal Divine processions (in the active and in the passive sense). (De fide.)
The Second Divine Person proceeds from the First Divine Person by Generation, and therefore is related to Him as Son to a Father. (De fide.)
The Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and from the Son as from a Single Principle through a Single Spiration. (De fide.)


Speculative Explanation of the Dogma of the Trinity



Speculative Explanation of the Internal Divine Processions



The Son proceeds from the Intellect of the Father by way of Generation. (Sent. certa.)
The Holy Ghost proceeds from the will or from the mutual love of the Father and of the Son. (Sent. certa.)
The Holy Ghost does not proceed through generation but through spiration. (De. fide.)



Thank you,
Marv

[Jacob4707]

I'm not Orthodox, but my understanding is that the Son is Begotten (gennaô) and the Holy Spirit proceeds (poreuomai). The Son's activity in relation to the Father is that of one who is begotten, whereas the Spirit's activity in relation to the Father is as an act(ion) of procession. I have never read anything that speaks of the Son as "proceeding" from the Father.

The ontological understandings of God of East and West (i.e., Orthodox versus Roman Catholic) re: the relations among the members of the Godhead are at variance with one another such that the issue of papal infallibility is minor in comparison to what truly divides these churches theologically. If you're up to it, there is some good reading at:

http://energeticprocession.wordpress.com/

though you'll have to browse through the archives. The split in thinking/theologizing about this goes back to Augustine, I think, and even removing the filioque clause won't likely be sufficient from what I've read on the subject.

I think a lot of it relates to the Orthodox differentiation between God's essence and His energies/activities. The idea that I think Catholics hold that the Holy Spirit is the love shared between the Father and the Son has no place in Orthodoxy, if I'm speaking rightly of this. Something else I've read is that Catholic theology begins with the activities of the members of the Trinity and derives their Personhoods from this, whereas Orthodoxy begins with the Personhoods. John Zizioulas's book BEING AS COMMUNION has been a profound read for many people.

My comments are undoubtedly simplistic.

[eoe]

The Son is eternally begotten before all ages. The Spirit Eternally proceeds from the Father.

The Father is the fountainhead of the Trinity - the fillioque distorts this.

[Orthocat]

The Son is eternally begotten before all ages. The Spirit Eternally proceeds from the Father.

The Father is the fountainhead of the Trinity - the fillioque distorts this.


Word.

[Jacob4707]

I'm not Orthodox, but my understanding is that the Son is Begotten (gennaô) and the Holy Spirit proceeds (poreuomai). The Son's activity in relation to the Father is that of one who is begotten, whereas the Spirit's activity in relation to the Father is as an act(ion) of procession. I have never read anything that speaks of the Son as "proceeding" from the Father.

The ontological understandings of God of East and West (i.e., Orthodox versus Roman Catholic) re: the relations among the members of the Godhead are at variance with one another such that the issue of papal infallibility is minor in comparison to what truly divides these churches theologically. If you're up to it, there is some good reading at:

http://energeticprocession.wordpress.com/

though you'll have to browse through the archives. The split in thinking/theologizing about this goes back to Augustine, I think, and even removing the filioque clause won't likely be sufficient from what I've read on the subject.

I think a lot of it relates to the Orthodox differentiation between God's essence and His energies/activities. The idea that I think Catholics hold that the Holy Spirit is the love shared between the Father and the Son has no place in Orthodoxy, if I'm speaking rightly of this. Something else I've read is that Catholic theology begins with the activities of the members of the Trinity and derives their Personhoods from this, whereas Orthodoxy begins with the Personhoods. John Zizioulas's book BEING AS COMMUNION has been a profound read for many people.

My comments are undoubtedly simplistic.

Also see this: http://janotec.typepad.com/terrace/2006/12/a_trinitarian_d.html

[CathNancy]

I'm not sure what is meant by generation, but Catholics believe as stated in the Creed, the Son is begotten not made, one in being with the Father.

Peace in Christ,
Nancy

[Jacob4707]

I'm not sure what is meant by generation, but Catholics believe as stated in the Creed, the Son is begotten not made, one in being with the Father.

Peace in Christ,
Nancy

The word "generation" derives from the Latin generare - "birth" or "beget" - which is probably the same as the Greek gennaô. To generate means "to beget" and the Greek word means the same.

The Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed was written in Greek, so any Latin or English translation is correct insofar as it faithfully translates the Greek.

What is lost in English translation is that in the phrase "And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Only-Begotten Son of God, begotten from the Father before all the ages/worlds," two different words are used. The first, monogenê, derives from monos = only + genos = kind, whereas the second is the word gennaô = beget. Hence, some Bibles like the NIV translate monogenê in John 1:14 and John 3:16 as "the One and Only."

[Knowledge3]

The Father and Son are one.

[CathNancy]

I don't think that it is a question of the Father and Son not being one, but rather the Father and the Son are one in being but not in persons.

I have a question, do the Orthodox believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father or from the Father through the Son? I have heard both, which is the true doctrine?

Peace in Chris,
Nancy

[Jacob4707]

I don't think that it is a question of the Father and Son not being one, but rather the Father and the Son are one in being but not in persons.

I have a question, do the Orthodox believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father or from the Father through the Son? I have heard both, which is the true doctrine?

Peace in Chris,
Nancy

The filioque ("[and] the son") clause was added by the Western church. The Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed as originally written and as used by the Orthodox Church - called The Symbol of Faith - asserts that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, and not "from the Father and the Son."

While the Orthodox Church does NOT believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son, there is some fuzziness I think about whether or not the Holy Spirit can be said to proceed FROM the Father THROUGH the Son. After all, Scripture asserts that Jesus sends the Holy Spirit.

Others can correct me.

[Orthocat]

And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;


But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.



He proceeds from the Father at the request of the Son.

[CathNancy]

Thank you for the clarification.

Peace in Christ,
Nancy

[Jacob4707]

And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;


But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.



He proceeds from the Father at the request of the Son.

Luke 24:49 And behold, I am sending forth (apostellô) the promise of My Father upon you; but you are to stay in the city until you are clothed with power from on high.

Acts 1:4 And gathering them together, He commanded them not to leave Jerusalem, but to wait for what the Father had promised, which, He said, you heard of from Me; 5 for John baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now.

Acts 2:33 Therefore having been exalted to the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, He has poured forth this which you both see and hear.

John 16:7 But I tell you the truth, it is to your advantage that I go away; for if I do not go away, the Helper shall not come to you; but if I go, I will send (pempô) Him to you.

[Orthocat]

Most of the early Greek church fathers were adamant that the Spirit proceeds only from the Father, and, as seen above, the original 381 Creed reflects this belief. Eastern theologians stress that there must be only one Fount of Divinity within the Godhead, which is the Father. Thus the Son is begotten (gemnesis) of the Father and the Spirit proceeds (ekporeusis) from the Father. For Eastern Christians, the filioque amounts to believing that there are two sources of divinity within the Godhead, which causes all kinds of internal contradictions and tensions, weakens the distinction between Son and Spirit, and depersonalizes the Spirit. They point to the Western term "Spirit of Christ" as a classic example of the way the filioque doctrine blurs the line between the Second and Third Persons of the Trinity.

[Knowledge3]

a) God is a Trinity.

b) The Trinitarian view is Father,Son,and Holy Spirit.

c) The Spirit of God is divine essence and energies proceeding from the Father.

d) The Son is consubstantial with the Father.

e) Both are glorified and worshipped together.

:prayer:

[Jacob4707]

They point to the Western term "Spirit of Christ" as a classic example of the way the filioque doctrine blurs the line between the Second and Third Persons of the Trinity.

"'Western' term"? :scratch:

What about Acts 16:6-7:
6 Now when they had gone through Phrygia and the region of Galatia, they were forbidden by the Holy Spirit to preach the word in Asia. 7 After they had come to Mysia, they tried to go into Bithynia, but the Spirit [of Jesus - not in all mss.] did not permit them.

And Romans 8:9:
9 But you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. Now if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not His.

And 1 Peter 1:10-11:
10 Of this salvation the prophets have inquired and searched carefully, who prophesied of the grace that would come to you, 11 searching what, or what manner of time, the Spirit of Christ who was in them was indicating when He testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ and the glories that would follow.

[Knowledge3]

Most of the early Greek church fathers were adamant that the Spirit proceeds only from the Father, and, as seen above, the original 381 Creed reflects this belief. Eastern theologians stress that there must be only one Fount of Divinity within the Godhead, which is the Father. Thus the Son is begotten (gemnesis) of the Father and the Spirit proceeds (ekporeusis) from the Father. For Eastern Christians, the filioque amounts to believing that there are two sources of divinity within the Godhead, which causes all kinds of internal contradictions and tensions, weakens the distinction between Son and Spirit, and depersonalizes the Spirit. They point to the Western term "Spirit of Christ" as a classic example of the way the filioque doctrine blurs the line between the Second and Third Persons of the Trinity.

East vs. West?

[Orthocat]

"'Western' term"? :scratch:

What about Acts 16:6-7:
6 Now when they had gone through Phrygia and the region of Galatia, they were forbidden by the Holy Spirit to preach the word in Asia. 7 After they had come to Mysia, they tried to go into Bithynia, but the Spirit [of Jesus - not in all mss.] did not permit them.

And Romans 8:9:
9 But you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. Now if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not His.

And 1 Peter 1:10-11:
10 Of this salvation the prophets have inquired and searched carefully, who prophesied of the grace that would come to you, 11 searching what, or what manner of time, the Spirit of Christ who was in them was indicating when He testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ and the glories that would follow.

Exactly the point. The division between Christ and the Holy Spirit has been diminished by the west.
The west puts all faith in "dividing the word" properly. I would put my faith in worshipping the Word properly.

But that's just me.

[Jacob4707]

They point to the Western term "Spirit of Christ" as a classic example of the way the filioque doctrine blurs the line between the Second and Third Persons of the Trinity.

Exactly the point. The division between Christ and the Holy Spirit has been diminished by the west.
The west puts all faith in "dividing the word" properly. I would put my faith in worshipping the Word properly.

But that's just me.

My reason for posting those Scriptures was to show that applying the term "Spirit of Christ" to the Holy Spirit is not "Western"; it's Apostolic and Scriptural.

[prodromos]

"The mode of generation and the mode of procession are incomprehensible," says St. John Damascene. "We have learned that there is a difference between generation and procession, but the nature of the difference we in no wise understand."


"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"

Gregory of Nazianzen,5th Oration - On the Holy Spirit,9-10(A.D. 383)

John

[Ioan cel Nou]

I don't think that it is a question of the Father and Son not being one, but rather the Father and the Son are one in being but not in persons.

I have a question, do the Orthodox believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father or from the Father through the Son? I have heard both, which is the true doctrine?

Peace in Chris,
Nancy
Actually, it's both with one major caveat, which is that you realise that procession is a translation for two different Greek words and that you use it in the correct sense in each phrase.

Basically, the Spirit proceeds eternally (in other words, has His origin) in the Father alone.

The Spirit can, however, be said to proceed temporally (in other words be sent into the world) from the Father through the Son. This is all those writers who speak of an 'Orthodox filioque' are actually talking about.

Confusion between the two types of procession (due to the relative imprecision of Latin) appears to have caused the filioque controversy and I see that this same imprecision seems to have spawned this thread (procession by generation seeming to be nothing more than a clumsy sounding description of being begotten).

Be quite clear that for us the assertion of eternal procession of the Spirit from Father and Son as one principal which either is still or was once (I get differing views on this depending on which RC I ask) the teaching of the RCC is heresy, whereas claiming that the Spirit is sent into the world by the Father through the Son is perfectly acceptable.

James

[holyorders]

Actually, it's both with one major caveat, which is that you realise that procession is a translation for two different Greek words and that you use it in the correct sense in each phrase.

Basically, the Spirit proceeds eternally (in other words, has His origin) in the Father alone.

The Spirit can, however, be said to proceed temporally (in other words be sent into the world) from the Father through the Son. This is all those writers who speak of an 'Orthodox filioque' are actually talking about.

Confusion between the two types of procession (due to the relative imprecision of Latin) appears to have caused the filioque controversy and I see that this same imprecision seems to have spawned this thread (procession by generation seeming to be nothing more than a clumsy sounding description of being begotten).

Be quite clear that for us the assertion of eternal procession of the Spirit from Father and Son as one principal which either is still or was once (I get differing views on this depending on which RC I ask) the teaching of the RCC is heresy, whereas claiming that the Spirit is sent into the world by the Father through the Son is perfectly acceptable.

James
I have heard it described many times in the CC. We say that the Spirit proceeded from the Father as a direct result of the Father's love of His Son- at that eternal and infinite moment of the Trinity. Since we don't really know anything about a "beginning" or "origin" of God the whole argument of procession is utterly pointless. How would we know such a mystery as that anyway? Why did the early Church even bother defining it? I know the Creed was designed to combat heresy- but defining such a mystery of God should not be an authority a person should have. God is eternally One in Three- end of story. If that was in the Creed there would be no problems at all between the CC and the EOC (except the papacy part ;) ).

My 2 cents.

[Ioan cel Nou]

I have heard it described many times in the CC. We say that the Spirit proceeded from the Father as a direct result of the Father's love of His Son- at that eternal and infinite moment of the Trinity. Since we don't really know anything about a "beginning" or "origin" of God the whole argument of procession is utterly pointless. How would we know such a mystery as that anyway? Why did the early Church even bother defining it? I know the Creed was designed to combat heresy- but defining such a mystery of God should not be an authority a person should have. God is eternally One in Three- end of story. If that was in the Creed there would be no problems at all between the CC and the EOC (except the papacy part ;) ).

My 2 cents.
There's an awful lot more to our differences than just the filioque and Papal supremacy, though these are certainly two of the major issues. I'd note that the sort of thing you said about the Holy Spirit being the result of the love between Father and Son would be heretical to us also.

It is not the writers of the Creed who were defining something that wasn't revealed, but those who altered the Creed at Toledo. Christ's words in Scripture make it clear that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and that is all that the Creed states. Scripture is likewise clear that the Son is eternally begotten of the Father and that the Holy Spirit is sent to the Church militant from the Father by Christ. These are all, then, revealed and we can take them as truth and the Creed adds nothing to them (and I find it extremely ironic to see an RC complaining about over-defining the faith, by the way).

What was not revealed anywhere and is, in fact, contrary to what was revealed is the filioque. This appears to be the result of Latin speakers over-rationalising based on a faulty understanding of the meaning of proceed. If it was just a matter of a simple misunderstanding and the procession in the filioque were temporal then it would be an unwelcome error but not heresy. When it is defined as eternal procession from Father and Son as of one principle, however, it crosses the line into heresy, and this certainly has been the official RC teaching in the past even if it is not now. It's not the Fathers at Constantinople composing the Creed that you should be complaining about, but the innovators at Toledo and their Frankish advocates for leading Rome to alter that which they had no right to alter.

James

[Orthocat]

There's an awful lot more to our differences than just the filioque and Papal supremacy, though these are certainly two of the major issues. I'd note that the sort of thing you said about the Holy Spirit being the result of the love between Father and Son would be heretical to us also.

It is not the writers of the Creed who were defining something that wasn't revealed, but those who altered the Creed at Toledo. Christ's words in Scripture make it clear that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and that is all that the Creed states. Scripture is likewise clear that the Son is eternally begotten of the Father and that the Holy Spirit is sent to the Church militant from the Father by Christ. These are all, then, revealed and we can take them as truth and the Creed adds nothing to them (and I find it extremely ironic to see an RC complaining about over-defining the faith, by the way).

What was not revealed anywhere and is, in fact, contrary to what was revealed is the filioque. This appears to be the result of Latin speakers over-rationalising based on a faulty understanding of the meaning of proceed. If it was just a matter of a simple misunderstanding and the procession in the filioque were temporal then it would be an unwelcome error but not heresy. When it is defined as eternal procession from Father and Son as of one principle, however, it crosses the line into heresy, and this certainly has been the official RC teaching in the past even if it is not now. It's not the Fathers at Constantinople composing the Creed that you should be complaining about, but the innovators at Toledo and their Frankish advocates for leading Rome to alter that which they had no right to alter.

James


True that. It became a violation of the Canons set forth (I believe from the 3rd to 7th centuries) that no changes could be made.
They were made however, without any consensus.

And yes, there are mysteries that our silly little words cannot explain - no matter how hard we break down each jot and tittle of scripture and think we have it all figured out. The Holy Trinity is definitely one of them.

And yes, the filioque is just a part of the iceberg of differences between western mindset and eastern. It is a sad thing, but only the rays of the Son can warm and melt it and our hearts.

We could argue for another few centuries over procession and send and Peter vs Andrew vs Paul or who baptized who, but
pah!

Spend that time in prayer instead.