Filioque issues.

​

research word  phrases

1) Economy of Trinity

2) Ontological Trinity.

3) Apophatic theology versus cataphatic theology,

The term ontological Trinity focuses on who God is; the term economic Trinity focuses on what God does.

​

Youtube link - Creeds: Filioque .

​

​

1) Is the issue of John 15:26 a diversion tactic, to hide that both the Catholics and Eastern Orthodox have a wayward and oxymoronic view of the Holy Trinity, but speaking of Jesus being "begotten" before Time and Space, and the Holy Ghost "proceeding" from either the Father alone, or the Father and the Son, before time and space?

​

2) That one cannot be baptized (and therefore in Orthodox theology be born again or regenerated, that is become a son of God) unless you submit to the Orthodox view on this as a Catechumen. 

​

At first (quite frankly)  I thought the issue stated as "Proceedeth from the Father" versus "Proceedeth from the Father and the Son"  was one of the Holy Ghost in procession to help humanity as our Teacher and Comforter, and by whom we are reborn.

 

"But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me:" John 15:26.

​

The issue supposedly being it says "from the Father: but not "the Father alone." which is then refuted in Catholic theology with the verse Revelation 22:1 & John 7:39.

​

It seems however this may be (rather) connected to the entire subject of "begotten" as discussed here, that is in effect that the Holy Ghost to the Orthodox eternally proceeds from the Father only, but to the Catholics eternally proceeds from the Father and Son, and this "occurs" (as it is outside of time that word is something of a misnomer) or rather "is so" before all other beings, time and the universe, even existed.

​

If so - As you will see - I think therefore both those statements infer that at one point only God the Father existed, and therefore in such context I would say that "proceeds" is as inappropriate as a theology statement, as the definition of "begotten" is inappropriate when defined in an Orthodox fashion, just as "Mother of God" is inappropriate, even though we all know Jesus was God in the flesh and Mary bore Christ, it infers wrong things. The Son and the Holy Ghost simply have always existed co-equally with God the Father. The bible does not say the Holy Ghost "proceeds from the Father" or "proceeds from the Father and Son" before all time, as if the Son and Holy Ghost were drawn into existence from God the Father but outside of time..... but I have yet to verify that is what they mean by this.

​

To me both undermine what Jesus said when he said "Before Abraham was I AM". The Holy Ghost is also the great I AM. The phrase "proceedeth from" is therefore misleading, the Holy Ghost simply IS, and the Son simply IS. The entire phrase "of the same substance as" is a man made expression. Father, Son and Holy Spirit are three persons in One God, the great I AM, uncreated, co-equal and co-eternal. Bringing man made expressions like "of the same substance as the Father" into things is doubtless where the Orthodox developed the heresy of the Ousia and Energia of God.

God is Spirit, not a substance, all knowing and seeing, all powerful, all spiritual, that is what the 7 eyes, 7 horns and 7 spirits of God symbolically represent in the Book of Revelation.

​

to sum up.....  The question is.... is this total subject of a disagreement over John 15:26 a diversion from the real topics of the Catholic and Orthodox definition of "Only Begotten Son" and the subject of whether both the Catholics and the Orthodox have rather taught the Holy Ghost "proceedeth" from either the Father, or the Father and Son, before Time, Space or any created being were made? The Catholics want to now emphasise John 15:26 as if THAT is the issue, when in reality both the Catholics and Orthodox believe in what amounts to a wayward view of the Holy Trinity that oxymoronically has Jesus "begotten" in an "happening" outside of time (rendered not a happening by being outside of time) and the Holy Ghost being of "the same substance of the Father" by proceeding from Him before time began, with no proper definition of either "begotten" or "proceedeth" being offered. Both views while correctly believing in a Trinity attack the "I am" status of both Jesus and the Holy Ghost. This diversion tactic from past shallow theology is to in other words hide the fact that the Protestant generally have a correct view of the Holy Trinity as "I am" seeing "begotten" as that Jesus is the only revealed Son of God (the only uncreated one) and that the Holy Spirit is "I am" thus it is inappropriate language to say he "proceedeth from the Father before time" as both imply (yet emphatically deny with sunclauses) that at one point only God the Father existed and drew the Son and Holy Spirit out of Himself, which would be heresy.

​

Right or wrong on the Filioque issue is beside the point. It is in itself an issue of far less doctrinal importance than is suggested by Orthodoxy, and worse non compliance on the doctrine is seen as a blocking issue on baptism (though it becomes warped further by the fact that Orthodox triple baptism by priests who make the whole ceremony a fiasco of man made religious witchcraft rites and rituals is a bogus sacrament.)

​

Devious

An example of just how devious the Orthodox can be about doctrine, on the subject of the Filioque, is the following statement from their renunciation of errors ceremony that a convert must go through

​

quote:

"Dost thou renounce the false doctrine that, for the expression of the dogma touching the Procession of the Holy Spirit, the declara­tion of our Saviour Christ himself: "who proceedeth from the Father": doth not suffice; and that the addition, of man's inven­tion: "and from the Son": is required?"

​

Notice how they deviously side step whether their doctrine is right or wrong, by the changing of the subject to "doth not suffice". Catholics do not say the Orthodox are heretics or wrong for saying the truth that the Holy Spirit "Proceeds from the Father" they say it will suffice, it just so happens they believe it is more accurate to also add "and from the Son", to establish Trinity, Also "suffice" for what? Salvation? The fact is the profession of the entire doctrine is superfluous to Salvation.

​

​

research notes -

1) First we must define the Latin word Procedit and Greek Word “ἐκπορευόμενον” . Both have different meaning but doesn’t have same exact parallel translation.
ἐκπορευόμενον about generation before time and space existed
but Procedit about flowing where time and spacd existed
明白嗎？

​

2) 

​