/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>>567879

Yes

Also Revelation 22:1

<Then the angel showed me the river of the water of life, bright as crystal, flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb

>>567882

Don't you think this double procession lowers the position of the Holy Ghost as inferior to the Father and the Son.

Filioque is valid and necessary dogma. Dogma I say, not necessarily article of creed. But Latin Church, biggest of all churches used it in creed since third age of Church so dropping it on the eve of sixth is but stupid. And she could have changed said creed for creed is of Church for Church. Thomas Aquinas wrote few things on Filioque both in hsi Summa and in his apology contra greeks. About creed itself he wrote this:

Objection 2. Further, In the creed of the council of Constantinople (Can. vii) we read: "We believe in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Life-giver, who proceeds from the Father; with the Father and the Son to be adored and glorified." Therefore it should not be added in our Creed that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Son; and those who added such a thing appear to be worthy of anathema.

On the contrary, Athanasius says: "The Holy Ghost is from the Father and the Son; not made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding."

Reply to Objection 2. In every council of the Church a symbol of faith has been drawn up to meet some prevalent error condemned in the council at that time. Hence subsequent councils are not to be described as making a new symbol of faith; but what was implicitly contained in the first symbol was explained by some addition directed against rising heresies. Hence in the decision of the council of Chalcedon it is declared that those who were congregated together in the council of Constantinople, handed down the doctrine about the Holy Ghost, not implying that there was anything wanting in the doctrine of their predecessors who had gathered together at Nicaea, but explaining what those fathers had understood of the matter. Therefore, because at the time of the ancient councils the error of those who said that the Holy Ghost did not proceed from the Son had not arisen, it was not necessary to make any explicit declaration on that point; whereas, later on, when certain errors rose up, another council [Council of Rome, under Pope Damasus] assembled in the west, the matter was explicitly defined by the authority of the Roman Pontiff, by whose authority also the ancient councils were summoned and confirmed. Nevertheless the truth was contained implicitly in the belief that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father.

His whole tract of Holy Ghost is wonderful, and I pray to each of you that you should read it. http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1036.htm#article2

>>567902

>Don't you think this double procession lowers the position of the Holy Ghost

Then why is not a single procession from The Father only, considered inferior?

Why are you drawing the line from a single procession and double procession?

Both are processions, and in no way "…lowers the position of the Holy Ghost as inferior to the Father and the Son."

<All that belongs to the Father is mine. (John 15.16)

"The proceeding of the Spirit from the Son is something the Son himself received from the Father."

>>567902

No more than single procession would make Him less than the Father.

>>567963

>temporal

You might as well say John 15:26 is just temporal and really the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are three innascible gods. How is this temporal and not eternal? There's no mention of sending, only flowing. The Holy Spirit flows from the Father eternally, but is not sent by the Father eternally.

>so is this saying that there is a distinction between being begotten and proceeding

Yes, and the difference is that one is from one person and the other from two.

In Greek, it can be said that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and rests in the Son, or from the Father through the Son, or from the Father of the Son, or flows from the Father and the Son. "Proceed" here is a translation of "ekporeusthai," "flow" here is a translation of "proienai." "Ekporeusthai" means "to come forth from (a source)," while "proienai" means "to come forth (with a sense of continuity)." "Ekporeusthai" had also gained, with the Cappadocian Fathers, the special theological notion of describing the unique relationship between the Holy Spirit and the Father.

In Latin, it can be said that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son and proceeds principally from the Father, that is, He proceeds from the Father and the Son (as a single source, not as two sources). "Proceed" here is a translation of "procedere," which the 2nd ecumenical council and Jerome use to translate "ekporeusthai," but it would more accurately translate "proienai" although it can also cover "ekporeusthai" (Latin is a less precise language than Greek).

The issue snowballed into a schism because of translation issues, the Greeks not knowing that the filioque had been recognized by the Latins as orthodox since the 5th century, the Latins (notably the Franks) believing that the expression has always been used and was even in the original Constantinopolitan Creed, and most importantly, the fact that in the end Greeks and Latins would be talking about very different things - the Father as sole cause of the Trinity for the Greeks, the Father and the Son as sole cause of the Holy Spirit within the Trinity for the Latins (and did I mention that the Latin idea of "cause" is wider than the Greek idea of "cause"?).

The issue was originally not about the doctrine itself, but about its interpolation in the Creed, which strongly worried the Greeks because 1) they had no idea what it means (and history had shown that many Latins had no idea what it means either, see the Franks and their bullshit), and 2) they did not believe that it was in the Pope's power to change something to the Creed by himself, this needed an ecumenical council. The schism between Rome and Constantinople happened because of the filioque (among other things, but the filioque primarily), but the other Churches did not excommunicate Rome because they didn't feel the issue was important enough for that. The schism happened concretely in the 13th century, when the repeated contacts between East and West, concluding in the sack of Constantinople, would make sure relations would be soured forever. Doctrinal differences is an afterthought at this point.

… so don't decide to begome ordodox or begome gadolig just because of the filioque. The Greeks have a solid case to say that the Holy Spirit "proceeds" from the Father alone, in Greek. The Latins have a solid case to say that the Holy Spirit "proceeds" from the Father and the Son, in Latin. Both sides grew to have their own conclusions regarding the hypostatic and substantial source of the Holy Spirit, which became sufficient to anathematize one another's perspective as heretical, but again, this was not the issue originally, this is only the (post-schism) result of it snowballing into something bigger than it should've ever been.

But what's most important right now is to not take random phrases out of context from the Fathers and use them as "proof." Scholarship has shown that refusal to understand the Fathers' words in their context is basically the main reason the schism hasn't ended yet.

>>567981

>Yes, and the difference is that one is from one person and the other from two.

Cute

>You might as well say John 15:26 is just temporal and really the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are three innascible gods

Literally what are you talking about

>How is this temporal and not eternal?

It's something that is presented in the relevant text as having begun to happen

>There's no mention of sending, only flowing. The Holy Spirit flows from the Father eternally, but is not sent by the Father eternally.

There is a mention to a river. Rivers flow. What do you expect to be said about a river?

>>567990

>Literally what are you talking about

You're taking something obviously eternal and making it temporal, doing the same thing there results in Tritheism. I'm pointing out inconsistency.

>It's something that is presented in the relevant text as having begun to happen

What began was John seeing it. It always happened.

>>567908

<All that belongs to the Father is mine. (John 15.16)

So does that mean that the Son inherits the ability to begat himself? And does this mean he has omniscience as the father has in knowing “the day and the hour” as stated in Matthew 24:36?

>>567997

>And does this mean he has omniscience as the father has in knowing “the day and the hour” as stated in Matthew 24:36?

Absolutely. The Father and the Son are the same being.

>>568002

<“But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone.” (Matthew 24:36)

So he would know the day and hour if he shared the fathers omniscience, but it looks like he didn’t.

“Father and the Son are the same being”

I smell modalism

>>568009

>but it looks like he didn’t.

>Christ not omniscient

BEGONE ARIVS

>>568009

That's not what modalism is

So, anybody wants to know the pneumatology of any person/council below?

(this is the table of contents of A. Edward Siecienski's book about the filioque)

<1 - The Procession of the Holy Spirit in the New Testament

- The Synoptics: The Infancy Narratives

- The Synoptics: The Baptism of Jesus

- The Synoptics: The Ministry of Jesus

- The Synoptics: The "Great Commissioning"

- John

- Acts of the Apostles

- Paul

- Concluding Thoughts

<2 - The Greek Fathers

- Origen (d. 254)

- Gregory Tahumaturgus (d. 270)

- Didymus the Blind (d. 398)

- Athanasius (d. 373)

- Basil the Great (d. 364)

- Gregory of Nazianzus (d. 391)

- Gregory of Nyssa (d. 395)

- Epiphanius of Salamis (d. 403)

- Second Ecumenical Council at Constantinople (381)

- Cyril of Alexandria (d. 444)

<3 - The Latin West

- Tertullian (d. 220)

- Hilary of Poitiers (d. 367)

- Marius Victorinus (d. 365)

- Pope Damasus I (d. 384)

- Ambrose of Milan (d. 397)

- Jerome (d. 420)

- Augustine of Hippo (d. 430)

- Pope Leo I (d. 461)

- Africa, Gaul, and Beyond

- Fulgentius of Ruspe (d. 533)

- The Quicumque Vult

- The Third Council of Toledo (589)

- Gregory the Great (d. 604)

<4 - Maximus the Confessor

- Life and Work of Maximus

- Maximus's Trinitarian Thought

- The Beginnings of the Filioque Debate - The Letter to Marinus

- The Significance of the Letter to Marinus and Maximus's Trinitarian Thought

<5 - The Filioque from the Seventh to the Eleventh Century

- The Late Seventh Century

- The Franks and the Council of Gentilly

- John of Damascus (d. 749)

- The Council of Nicea (787) and the Opus Caroli Regis

- The Councils of Frankfurt (794) and Friuli (797)

- The Coronation of Charlemagne (800)

- Alcuin of York (d. 804)

- Pope Leo III and the Jerusalem Controversy

- Theodulf of Orleans's Libellus de Processione Spiritus Sancti

- The Council of Aachen (809) and Leo's Response

- Photius of Constantinople (d. 895) and the So-Called Photian Schism

- Aeneas of Paris (d. 870) and the Council of Worms (868)

- Ratramnus of Corbie (d. 868)

- Anastasius Bibiliothecarius (d. 878) and John Scotus Erigena (d. 877)

- The Aftermath

<6 - The Filioque from the Eleventh to the Thirteenth Century

- The Ottonians and the Acceptance of the Filioque in Rome

- Humbert (d. 1061), Cerularius (d. 1059), and the Beginning of the "Great Schism"

- Peter III of Antioch and Theophylact of Ohrid (d. 1107)

- Peter Damien (d. 1072) and Anselm of Canterbury (1033-1109)

- Peter Lombard (d. 1160) and Richard of St. Victor (d. 1173)

- Anselm of Havelberg (d. 1158) and Nicetas of Nicomedia

- The Fourth Crusade (1204) and Its Aftermath

- Nicephorus Blemmydes (d. 1272) and Attempts at Union

- Bonaventure (1221-74)

- Thomas Aquinas (1225-74)

<7 - The Council of Lyons to the Eve of Ferrara-Florence

- The Second Council of Lyons (1274)

- John XI Beccus (1275-82)

- Gregory II of Cyprus (1283-89)

- Maximus Planudes (d. 1305), Demetrius Cydones (d.1397), and Barlaam of Calabria (d. 1350)

- Gregory Palamas (1296-1359)

- Nilus Cabasilas (1298-1363)

- The Road to Ferrara-Florence

<8 - The Council of Ferrara-Florence (1438-39)

- The Ethos of the Council

- Ferrara and the Addition

- Florence and the Theology of the Procession

- The Final Negotiations

- Union of the Churches

- The Aftermath

<9 - From Florence to the Modern Era

- Martin Luther (1483-1546), Philip Melanchthon (1497-1560), and Martin Chemnitz (1522-86)

- John Calvin (1509-64)

- Patriarch Jeremiah II (1572-79, 1580-84, 1586-95) and the Tübingen Theologians

- The Sigillion of 1583 and Maximos Margounios (1549-1602)

- The Synod of Brest

- Metrophanes Kritopoulos (1589-1639), Cyril Lukaris (1572-1637), and the Age of the Orthodox Confessions

- Rome and the Eastern Catholic Churches

- The Bonn Conferences (1874-76)

- Papal Encyclicals on Unity and the Orthodox Response

- Boris Bolotov

<10 - The Twentieth and Twenty-first Centuries

- Orthodox Ecumenism and the Old Catholic-Anglican Dialogues

- Orthodox Theology: Sergius Bulgakov (1871-1944), Vladimir Lossky (1903-58), and the Neo-Palamites

- Catholic Theology: Karl Rahner (1904-84), Yves Congar (1904-95), and the Filioque in France

- Protestant Theology: Karl Barth (1886-1968) and Jürgen Moltmann

- Bilateral and Multilateral Dialogues

- Catholic-Orthodox Dialogues and Statements: 1995-2003

>>568009

>So he would know the day and hour

He does

>>568020

So why does he say only the father knows? I’m not a trinity denier but how can he know but then say that only the father knows?

>>568023

The Son's divine nature knew, while his human nature at that time had intentionally set aside the knowledge.

>>568017

What >>568002 said was that they were the same “being” which I interpreted to mean that the father and the Son were one in the same, denying their unique personhood. I.E two forms of the same being, ie modalism

>>568023

The Son, because of His divinity, knows, but the Fathers are divided on whether He simply didn't want the apostles to know, or if He indeed "hid" this information from Himself as part of His kenosis.

>>568026

Being references to the divine essence though. The Father and Son being one being doesn't stop them from being two persons

Jesus didn't glow all the time, neither did His humanity know at the time the day and the hours. He now is the first fruits of the resurrection and knows the day and hour of out resurrection

>>568033

Is it correct to say "being" refers to essence in English? Are we two one being, since we are consubstantial?

>>568033

So his unknowing was a case of him not being seated at the right hand of the father and was purely a temporal thing right?

>>568025

>>568029

That's Nestorian. Of course He knew

>>568023

I hope you find this video helpful

>>568041

Again, the Fathers are divided.

But I'll still point out that there is a conciliar anathema against those who say that, at any time, the Son was truly ignorant of the time and hour of judgment, or of anything at all.

>>568041

All you did here was attempt to nullify the scripture (to make it say essentially nothing) as a way to avoid the hypostatic union. His divine nature always knows.

>That's Nestorian.

Do you even know what that is?

>>568036

I'm pretty sure it's normal in English while talking about God. There are of course sometimes complications of imperfect translation, but I think to deny that the Father and the Son are one being because we want to uphold some certain strict translation rules would be to damage the English language or accidentally support heresy. It's kinda like how I feel about problems involving the words latria, dulia, worship, and veneration, Some want to uphold that we worship the saints and God, giving the first dulia and the second latria, but if we are being realistic worship in English simply means latria and attempts to change the word usage are meaningless attempts at violence against the English language

>>568037

I wouldn't associate this with location, but with His taking on humanity and not yet having died and resurrected.

>>568041

>That's Nestorian. Of course He knew

No

>>568045

>Again, the Fathers are divided.

And some are wrong, there's no way around that

>But I'll still point out that there is a conciliar anathema against those who say that, at any time, the Son was truly ignorant of the time and hour of judgment, or of anything at all.

And the Son in His eternal divinity knowing these things makes Him not ignorant, regardless of whether or not He was aware in His humanity. If Jesus was not unaware in some sense then God is a liar

>>568051

>All you did here was attempt to nullify the scripture

This

>>567987

So is it just word-play that has gotten way out of hand? Was it always the Spirit eternally proceeding solely from the Father and flowing out of the Son that got lost in translation?

>>568051

>All you did here was attempt to nullify the scripture (to make it say essentially nothing)

What it says is that we can't know when He returns. That is His purpose, any alleged Christological teaching is incidental.

>as a way to avoid the hypostatic union

Do you know what that is?

>His divine nature always knows

Natures don't know anything. Persons know things. Do we have two Jesuses here, one human and one divine?

>Do you even know what that is?

Yes, and you're enunciating it.

>>568052

>And the Son in His eternal divinity knowing these things makes Him not ignorant, regardless of whether or not He was aware in His humanity

So it was the human Son He was talking about, not the divine Son?

>If Jesus was not unaware in some sense then God is a liar

If Jesus was unaware in any way then He was not God

>>568060

>So it was the human Son He was talking about, not the divine Son?

There isn't a distinction in Sons, there is a distinction in the natures of the Son

>If Jesus was unaware in any way then He was not God

Is Jesus not God or is God a liar?

>>568061

>There isn't a distinction in Sons, there is a distinction in the natures of the Son

But Jesus said it was the Son who did not know, not a nature

>Is Jesus not God or is God a liar?

The answer is neither. Jesus was never truly ignorant of anything, and the word of God does not claim that He was.

I feel John 12:27 is extremely relevant. Upon hearing that Greeks were seeking Him, He says "Now is my soul troubled. And what shall I say? ‘Father, save me from this hour’? But for this purpose I have come to this hour". So then, the question is, was it the human nature that was foreknowing, or the divine nature that was afraid? Or does the Son have one knowledge, and in His humanity He felt fear from what He already knew was coming?

>>568052

>I'm pretty sure it's normal in English while talking about God. There are of course sometimes complications of imperfect translation, but I think to deny that the Father and the Son are one being because we want to uphold some certain strict translation rules would be to damage the English language or accidentally support heresy. It's kinda like how I feel about problems involving the words latria, dulia, worship, and veneration, Some want to uphold that we worship the saints and God, giving the first dulia and the second latria, but if we are being realistic worship in English simply means latria and attempts to change the word usage are meaningless attempts at violence against the English language

But there's not a thousand translations or interpretations of "ousia."

In fact, to say that you and I are not consubstantial is to screw up the whole point of the Fathers' arguments of consubstantiality. The Son is True God because to be True God is the essential property of the Father, and the Son of the Father must then also be True God, just as how a human child is human because it is the child of a human parent.

>>568059

Basically, the Greeks had always been talking about the Father as sole cause, from Whom all divinity comes forth. Their common argument against the Pneumatomachoi (who believed the Holy Spirit is not God) is that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father (alone), in contrast to the Son being begotten of the Father (alone), thus the Holy Spirit is not a creature, and He is True God of True God just as the Son is, and He is not a "brother" of the Son either because He is not begotten, but proceeds. However, He is not a stranger to the Son - He is the image of the Son, He is tied to the Father through the Son, He proceeds from the Father of the Son. But the Greek Fathers don't elaborate further on the latter point. They'd say that the Holy Spirit rests in the Son, or shines forth through the Son, or is given by the Son, or proceeds through the Son, or is manifested through the Son.

The Latins had always been talking about the Father and Son as common (but sole) cause of the Holy Spirit. If the Son has received everything from the Father, this must also mean the Son has received the characteristic of spirating the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son, just as the Son and the Holy Spirit proceed from the Father, although when speaking of their hypostatic properties, the Father is unbegotten, the Son is begotten of the Father, the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. But nonetheless, the Spirit enjoys a certain relationship with the Father that He does not with the Son - He proceeds from the Son, yes, but He proceeds principally from the Father.

In other words, the Greeks would focus on the Father as sole cause of the Trinity, and the Latins would focus on the Father and Son as sole cause of the Spirit within the Trinity. Both sides would occasionally dip into the other subject, but that's it. Take into account the differences between Greek and Latin that make terms like "proceed" and "cause" confused, and you can see why both sides clashed strongly with one another at the Council of Florence.

The issue remains complicated though, particularly because it didn't get better since then, as the West would develop their pneumatology post-schism without the input of the East, and likewise the East would develop their pneumatology mostly in reaction to the West's own developments.

But, frankly, this isn't the worst issue out there. Historically, it has been recognized to be so, but recent scholarship has done miraculous work, and we can even hope to see a common agreement within our lifetime. The real underlying issue that has broken Christendom into East and West is the issue of the Papacy.

>>568064

Are you still on this dumb marriage argument?The Son did not know the hour in some sense

His human nature was afraid and had foreknowledge, this foreknowledge not being natural to the human nature, but granted from the divine nature to which foreknowledge is natural

>>568066

I'm not too stuck on my English words, I'll use different ones if it seems right, but are you saying that the Father is one being and the Son another being? I just want to make sure I'm getting you

>>568067

How could He in His humanity be ignorant of His return, yet knowledgable of His crucifixion? Did the divine nature tell the human nature? If so, how can we say that they are mere natures, and not persons, if they interact with each other?

>>568068

I just think that "being" is more akin to "person" in English than to "essence."

>>568070

Consider the case of John 10:17-18—

Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again.

No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father.

>>568066

Ahh that helps to clear up a lot, thanks for that lengthy explanation brother.

>>568074

I don't see your point

>>568075

You're welcome. If the subject of the filioque interests you, I suggest a book - A. Edward Siecienski's "The Filioque: History of a Doctrinal Controversy." It's an overview of what the scriptures and the early Church had to say about the Holy Spirit's procession, and an overview of the overall history of the doctrine, using the fruits of current scholarship. It's not perfect (the best works are in German) but as far as I know, it's the best you'll find in English. In fact, this >>568018 is the table of contents, if there's anything you'd like to see, tell me.

>>568073

I'll run this by some people in real life I guess. I honestly don't think you or I are heretics, but I think one of us is wrong about how we should explain things in English, and to me it seems like a problem to be able to make statements like three beings have always existed or the Father and the Son are separate beings. I get how one could not like being as a translation of essence, but I would say it isn't meant to be a perfect translation of essence, only in regards to God, and we cant terraform the English language just so Greek arguments make sense without annotation. But again, maybe I'm just wrong

>>568070

His Crucifixion and second coming aren't the same thing. How is this even a question? Also there are two other co-eternal divine persons with the Son, so you don't even need the knowledge given to the human nature to be from the same person, although I see no problem with that

>>568077

He has the power to lay down his life and power to take it again, so how is it any different that he can do the same with knowledge in the moment he was manifested in the flesh. Because his human nature is capable of these things. But His death on the cross doesn't mean the person of the Son ever stopped existing. If you insisted on saying that He has only one nature then you would have to say the person of the Son lost all knowledge AND life at that time.

Psalm 6:5

>For in death there is no remembrance of thee: in the grave who shall give thee thanks?

But this is not what happened.

>>568083

Well, two humans are consubstantial. If you cannot say that we are one being, I'd assume that "being" is not the best translation for "ousia" that there is in English, and God being the subject does not change this (the Fathers did not "remix" the meaning of ousia when God would be the subject, after all).

>and we cant terraform the English language just so Greek arguments make sense without annotation.

Why not simply use "essence"? The term still exists and is still philosophically relevant, and its meaning hasn't changed. If it causes confusion among laymen, you can simply repeat the Fathers's trinitarian arguments that give "essence" its context.

I think that we have to be careful not to use terms that the Church hasn't historically used, not simply for the sake of clarity, but also because their theology is not simply the fruit of philosophical thinking, it is a description of the very real experience of God that we Christians live through.

>>568083

>His Crucifixion and second coming aren't the same thing

They were both future events

>Also there are two other co-eternal divine persons with the Son, so you don't even need the knowledge given to the human nature to be from the same person

When does scripture say that God gives the human Son knowledge of future events?

>although I see no problem with that

You don't see problems with Jesus talking to Himself? Lord have mercy

>>568084

>He has the power to lay down his life and power to take it again

Anon, what is the "I" that has the power to lay down its life?

>But His death on the cross doesn't mean the person of the Son ever stopped existing

Yeah, and it also wouldn't if He was a mere man.

>If you insisted on saying that He has only one nature

At no point have I said He has one nature. What I have insisted on is saying that He is only one person.

>then you would have to say the person of the Son lost all knowledge

We don't forget everything we knew upon death

>Psalm 6:5

Matthew 22:31-32

<And as for the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what was said to you by God: ‘I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? He is not God of the dead, but of the living.”

>>568102

>Anon, what is the "I" that has the power to lay down its life?

The Son.

>At no point have I said He has one nature. What I have insisted on is saying that He is only one person.

Alright good, looks like we're on the same page then.

>We don't forget everything we knew upon death

That's another discussion: but yes, in death there is no remembrance of Him as it says in Psalm 6. If you want to quote Matthew 22 simply recall that the saved shall never taste death because as Matthew 22:31-32 says, "God is not the God of the dead, but of the living." As only the unsaved are dead. 2 Corinthians 5:8, Philippians 1:23-24.

>>567997

>does this mean he has omniscience as the father has in knowing “the day and the hour” as stated in Matthew 24:36?

Yes he does know the day and hour. Christ is omniscient.

The human nature of Christ was ignorant to this according to his voluntary self-limitation and surrender to The Father.

< but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men.

>So does that mean that the Son inherits the ability to begat himself?

>So does that mean the logically impossible is possible?

No. The Son has the same power as The Father, but not the power of begetting. In that we are using the active verb.

In the same way that The Father and The Son have the same being, it does not follow that they are the same person.

The Son therefore, according to his relationship with The Father, has the power of being begotten. In that we are using the passive verb.

>>568119

>The Son.

Right. Not a human nature

>If you want to quote Matthew 22 simply recall that the saved shall never taste death

I assure you, you will die

>because as Matthew 22:31-32 says, "God is not the God of the dead, but of the living."

That means that dead saints are still in a sense 'alive'. John 11:25

>As only the unsaved are dead

They are spiritually dead and they alone undergo the second death

>>567924

Yet if we say he proceeds from the father and the Son, then are we saying that his principle being rests in two sources and not one? The Father has one source, that being himself, the Son has one Source, that being the father, but the Ghost has two sources, the Father and the Son. This seems to me to greatly reduce his status.

>>568318

There are not two sources. There is one source that is (the father and the son)

>>568333

Even if we are to accept that it still leaves him being generated from two people whilst the Son is generated from one.

No filioque = one source in one person.

Filioque = one source in two persons

>>568318

>The Father has one source, that being himself

The Father has absolutely no source in any way, shape or form. Whether we talk about it in terms of essence or person the Father is strictly uncaused, both properly and improperly. He doesn't cause Himself, He simply is.

>>568345

You should read that Aquinas link way back at the start of the thread. As they relate to the Holy Spirit, the Father and the Son are one person.