Spirit of God - Catholic church stuns the world

Doubting Thomas said "However, I was a bit surprised (but not necessarily shocked) to see a Catholic Encyclopedia actually suggesting the Holy Spirit is not a person."

Maybe I'm blind, but I do not see where those quotes suggest that the Holy Spirit is not a person. Instead, they simply say that in certain passages, personhood is not explicit and clear. There is a very big difference.

 

Filioque is clearly supported by John 15:26 and 16:7. I don't know way that ever became such a controversy. The creeds are supposed to highlight what is in the Bible, but instead, it seems like it was given equal or greater wight than scripture. Nothing can be added to it, as if it ws inspired as written, and we see scripture only in light of it, rather than the other way around.
Filioque does not diminish the Holy Spirit. The Bible clearly gives and order of procession: the Father proceeds from none; the Son proceeds from the Father (called "generation" in His case), and the Spirit proceeds from Father and Son. It's the overboard symmetrical language of the creeds that has obscured that.
"person" was a word they chose, that had a slightly different meaning that what it has taken on to us (a meaning that better preserves the true unity of the Three), as is even evident from the understanding of the pre-Nicene fathers, so it is our modern concept of "persons" that the encyclopedia is questioning; not the true deity of the Spirit. So let's not be so quick to cast them in with the cults; at least not in that respect. And yes, Augustine's rationalizing of it, as criticized by the Cappadocians, made it worse too. (to them, the symmetry of "three in one" was for contemplative purposes; not to be logically/rationally expounded).

 

.....but the catholic church has been infiltrated by Masons, Protestants and others of that ilk.

You go to a Sunday service now....the RCC has been infected with modernism

 

[surfacing]
I disagree that it's "clearly" taught in either verse. Who does John 15:26 says the Spirit "proceeds" from? The Father. It does not say He "proceeds" from the Son. Both verses do say that the Spirit is "sent" by the Son, but it is a mistake to assume that the "procession" and the "sending" are the exact same thing. The former has been understood to be describing the Spirit's eternal "relationship" to the Father ("proceeds") with the latter referring to His temporal mission with respect to Christ and the church ("I will send"). The Father, of course, is the principle source of unity in the Godhead, for from Him the Son is "begotten" and the Spirit "proceeds" with both being consubtantial with the Father and thus with each other.

Amen.
[/submerging]

 

Sorry, but that is not what the Catholic Church teaches about the Holy Spirit...

See...
http://www.usccb.org/catechism/text/pt1sect2chpt3.htm

http://www.usccb.org/catechism/text/pt1sect2chpt3art8.htm


Those links have the teaching of the Holy Spirit from the Apostles Creed.

Please note:
685 To believe in the Holy Spirit is to profess that the Holy Spirit is one of the persons of the Holy Trinity, consubstantial with the Father and the Son: "with the Father and the Son he is worshipped and glorified."6 For this reason, the divine mystery of the Holy Spirit was already treated in the context of Trinitarian "theology." Here, however, we have to do with the Holy Spirit only in the divine "economy."


God Bless,
Sirach

 

Sirach,
Thanks for the clarification.
DT

 

wopik said "the article is quite emphatic"

Yes. But nothing you have posted goes against the Trinitarian teachings we accept and the Catholic Church defends. For example the quote you just provided again is true! The Old Testament doesn't clearly present the Holy Spirit as a person. That doesn't mean the Holy Spirit is not a person, or that this article is saying the Holy Spirit is not a person - it appears to simply be saying that the Old Testament in general and some specific passages in the New Testament are no entirely clear on it. There is nothing wrong with admitting this fact, and it does not detract from one's Trinitarian stance to do so. I believe Jesus is the Son of God, the second person of the Trinity. The Old Testament in general and certain select passages in the New Testament do not clearly say that Jesus is the second person of the Trinity, yet one can be strongly Trinitarian while admitting this.

 

We have divided between "eternal relationship" and "temporal", but we often go way beyond what the scriptures actually say. Yes, the Father is the source of the unity, but this would also mean the Father and Son are in unity, so if the Spirit proceeds from the Father, He also proceeds from the Son. It is not the same as Christ "sending" the Church, because the Church is not apart of the Godhead. We are totally separate beings.

 

Interestingly, in Hebrew, it's "mighty wind". The word "God" does not appear where the English translation says it does. Presuming that this is the Holy Spirit, the best translation here is "the Great Spirit". This is just one example (of many) where we need to study the source texts more comprehensively rather than simply taking a translation as authoritative gospel.

 

Helen - that was a good list on the attributes of God the Holy Spirit.

My point was not necessarily claiming that the sin of worshipping Mary (Worshipping at her altars, calling her sinnless-like-Christ and co-redeemer, Mother of God, Queen of Heaven, At Her command even God obeys ... etc) arose from demotion of the Third Person of the Trinity. In fact I think the RCC has been engaging in more of a Quatro-God model and in demoting the Holy Spirit they are finally getting back to a Trinity.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[surfacing]
Then by that logic the Son is eternally begotten of the Father and Holy Spirit since the Father and Holy Spirit are one. (The Son in fact is eternally begotten of the Father, but in time is incarnate of the Spirit and the Virgin Mary.) However, neither (the "double procession" nor "double begetting") is true as the "begetting" and "proceeding" refer not to the singular ousia of the Godhead, but to the uniqueness of the distinct hypostases. In other words, the Father is not begotten nor proceeding; the Son is "begotten" of the Father but not "proceeding"; the Spirit is not "begotten" but "proceeds" from the Father who is the ontological (yet eternal) "source" of both Son and Spirit. If the "begetting" and "proceeding" were referring to the common ousia then it could be said that all three--Father, Son, and Holy Spirit--each "begets" and "causes procession", but this (along with coming very close to modalistic heresy) is not what Scripture teaches.

I didn't say anything about "sending" the Church. I was discussing Christ "sending" (temporally) the Spirit to the Church, which I contrasted with the Spirit eternally "proceeding" from the Father.
[/submerging]

 

I have to weigh in against the filioque. The verses under consideration clearly say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father. That is enough for me to reject the unauthorised addition to the Nicene Creed inserted by the post-Augustinian Western church with its apostate view of the trinity as "one God manifested in three persons," as opposed to the pre-Nicene and Eastern insistence on the monarchy of the Father.
Dean

 

Most Trinitarians say "eternally begotten". From what I see, it appears "begetting" is associated with the incarnation (Luke 1:35, Hebrews 1:5,6). I agree with the KJVO's that there is no "begotten God", as one trasnlation renders it. So a timelike term is used for the incarnation, and contrasted with the "procession" of the Spirit (people wondered why the difference, and just chalked it up to "mystery". The pre-incarnate Word eternally proceeds. So both "begotten" and "proceeds" (John 8:42, 16:28) are used of the Son. So no double begettal/procession.
No, I don't think all three beget or cause procession. Only the Father. Now that you put it that way; perhaps you're right about "sending". I just aways thought that was what filioque was describing, but now I see the point against it.

 

Apostate? Isn't that the official "orthodox" expression of it? I agree, however, about the monarchy of the Father, and how the symmetrical Western expression of it has really clouded it and caused all the confusion that later racked the Western Christian world, and the Pre-Nicene expression should get more attention. Even if you look in the Nicene Creed, you definitely see the monarchy of the Father (though you have to be careful with the term "monarchy" because that usually describes those who completely reject the Trinity in favor of one person only: modalistic monarchianism (Oneness— all three are Father), and dynamic monarchianism (basically, unitarianism— Father is God only).

 

Has anyone found this new position of the RCC having a reference/link on the Web?

IN Christ,

Bob

 

Hi there, yes by default it is the "orthodox" position....simply because they hold to the falsely so-called "seven ecumenical councils." The west added "and the Son" centuries later, so it was never a part of the Nicene formulation. I think the addition was influenced by Augustine's conception of the Trinity which severely compromised the monarchy of the Father in favour of the "one divine essence." I think the reason that Arianism is so strong in the west is precisely because most of Protestant Christianity denies the monarchy of the Father, and much of it is essentially Semi-Sabellian, as Arminius and Bishop Bull and others rightly saw.

Dean

 

I was thinking you were Eastern Orthodox. They accept the seven councils, but most protestants don't. Pretty much only Nicaea and Chalcedon. The ones after that began adding more Catholic doctrine.
I did always think it was ironic that tey started their list of "ecumenical councils" with the one convened by Constantine when the Chirch became favored, and grew big and powerful; but do not count the one in Jerusalem recorded right in scripture, and attended by apostles.

Do you mean Arius, who formulated Arianism; or the Protestant leader Arminius, who gave us Arminianism? If it's the former, it is certainly true how false ideas often start as reactions to other false ideas. If the latter, I never knew he commented on the issue.