– 1 –
Teaching of the Catholic Church on the mystery of the Holy Trinity

1. The Old Testament and divine apparitions:

The Catholic Church rejects, or at least mitigates, the reality of the Trinitarian appearances in the Old Testament. There is no doubt that the origins of this position go back to the opinions of the Blessed Augustine and the scholastics who believed that the angel of Jehovah in the appearances of God in the Old Testament was nothing but a created angel used by the divine Word. Although they acknowledged that the Fathers saw in him the Divine Word Himself, based in particular on what was stated in (Isaiah 9:6) “The angel of great counsel or counsel μεγάλης βουλής Άγγελος” the Septuagint translation (LXX) or the Hebrew text, “wonderful counselor.” Compare with (Judges 13:18-33 and in Malachi 3:1) “the angel of the covenant.”

2. The issuance of the Holy Spirit by emanating from the Father and the Son:

The Western Church accuses the Greek Orthodox Church of teaching since the ninth century that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone. A council was held in Constantinople (876), headed by its Patriarch Photius, and rejected the word “and the Son,” which the Latins considered a heresy, despite the Catholic doctrinal books acknowledging that the word “and the Son,” added to the Nicene-Constantinople Code, was first mentioned at the Council of Toledo (Toledo). ) The third (589).

The Catholic Church supports its belief in the Philosophy with the following evidence (A Short Book of Doctrinal Theology, “Al-Mardini Translation”):

1. The Holy Spirit, according to the teaching of the Bible, is not only the Spirit of the Father (Matthew 10:20) (John 15:26) (1 Corinthians 2:11), but also the Spirit of the Son (Galatians 4:6), the Spirit of Christ (Romans 8:9), and the Spirit of Jesus (Acts 16). :7) And the Spirit of Jesus Christ (Philippians 1:11).
2. The Holy Spirit was sent not only by the Father, but also by the Son (John 15:26) (John 16:7) (Luke 24:49) (John 20:22). Sending outward is, in a sense, the continuation of the eternal issuance in time. From this transmission we can infer the eternal origin.
3. The Holy Spirit takes his knowledge from the Son (John 16: 13-14) “He speaks everything he hears, he glorifies me, because he takes what is mine and declares it to you.” It is not possible to speak of a divine person as having learned and taken anything except in the sense that he has received divine knowledge. Therefore, the divine essence is one in God from eternity, in another divine person whom He shared in his essence.
   Since the Holy Spirit takes his knowledge from the Son, it must emanate from the Son, just as the Son takes his knowledge from the Father (John 8:26) and emanates from the Father.
4. The Holy Spirit emanates from the Father and the Son as one principle and one breath. This is what we conclude from (John 16:15): “All that the Father has is mine,” and since the Son, due to his eternal birth, possesses everything that the Father possesses except paternity and lack of breastfeeding. Since he cannot associate anyone else with them, the Son must also have the ability to breathe the Spirit and thus have a connection with the Holy Spirit of origin and source.
5. Catholic doctrine books cite the sayings of some Western and Eastern fathers to confirm their acceptance of the idea of the Holy Spirit issuing from the Father and the Son, or from the Father through the Son.

3. The issuance of the Holy Spirit from the will of the Father and the Son:

Western educational books explain the issue of the Son coming from the Father and the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son in a theoretical way. So you declare that the Son, because he is a word, proceeds from the mind of the Father, or that the birth of the Son from the Father must be a purely mental birth, or as an act of knowledge, while you say about The Holy Spirit emanates from the will of the Father and the Son or from their mutual love. This is inferred from the name of the Holy Spirit itself, as it is (the spirit - the wind - the breath - the exhalation - the principle of life - the soul) that indicates a principle of movement and activity and a connection to the will. The epithet (Jerusalem) also indicates breasts and will. Because holiness is only in the will, the Book and Tradition attribute acts of love to the Holy Spirit, but the actions of love are attributed to the Spirit because they are among its personal properties and indicate its origin. It follows that the spirit emerges from an act of love.

The subject of the divine will by which the Father and the Son issue the Holy Spirit is:

• ano – What God necessarily wants and loves: The Divine Self and the Divine Persons.
• secondly – What God wants and loves by choice: Created things, and according to some theologians, possible things as well.

Here we must point out, albeit quickly, the third and final point, which is the issuance of the Holy Spirit from the will of the Father and the Son. We note, according to the teaching of the fathers, especially the Eastern ones, that the issuance of the Holy Spirit from the Father is like the issuance of the Son from the Father, that is, according to nature, and not according to His will, but of course. He is not against this will, and as a result, he does not emanate from the will of the Father and the Son or from their mutual love as if he were one of the creatures or one of their actions, but rather he is one in essence with them.

– 2 –
The Orthodox position on the issue of the emanation of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son

In conclusion of this research (The Mystery of the Trinity), it is necessary to show the opinion of the Orthodox Church with regard to the special points mentioned in the teaching of the Catholic Church on the Mystery of the Holy Trinity, contenting ourselves with answering the last two points (2/3). With regard to the second point, that is, the issue of the issuance of the Spirit by emanation from the Father. And the Son, it is known that it was the main subject of disagreement between the Western and Eastern churches. To the point that it became the most important factor that drove them apart and led to their final split in the year 1054. It is historically certain that the Orthodox Church has not only taught since the ninth century that the Holy Spirit emanates from the Father alone, but rather this has been its teaching from the beginning. Which I received since the first century from the Lord Jesus himself, who taught, “And when the Comforter comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, Who proceeds from the Father He bears witness of me” (John 15:26). It is clear that the Sayyed is not speaking here in a general way that can be interpreted. Rather, he clearly and specifically specifies that the transmission in time is from the Father and the Son, or from the Father through the Son (see Luke 24:49). While the emanation is from the Father alone. If the Holy Spirit actually proceeded from the Father and the Son, the Lord Jesus would have mentioned as he did regarding sending, and it would have been natural for him to say: “And when the Comforter comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from us, or from the Father and to me.” If the Eastern Church had been the one who had taught since the ninth century that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone, as the Catholic books claim, it would have been the one that had deleted from the Constitution of the Faith of the Universal Church the word “and the Son,” and not the Western Church that had added it to this Constitution in the year 1014 after a long period of discussion. Under pressure from the Frankish and Teutonic (Germanic) kings.

Historically, it is no secret now that the popes have long opposed this addition since the sixth century, and the story of Pope Leo III, who ordered the original Constitution of Faith to be engraved without adding “and the Son” on two silver plates and hung on the door of St. Peter’s Church “in order to preserve the Orthodox faith.” He became a confessor. Even from Catholics themselves.

Regarding the Catholic Church’s support for its belief in “Philocianism” or by adding “and the Son” with verses from the Bible, we respond to the paragraphs mentioned as follows:

1. The Holy Spirit was called the Spirit of the Son once in the Bible: “And because you are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of His Son into your hearts, crying out, Father” (Galatians 4:6). This is in line with the idea of God’s sonship through Christ, which dominates the entire passage from which this verse is taken.

Catholics conclude that just as the Holy Spirit is called the Spirit of the Father (Matthew 10:20) because he proceeds from the Father, so he is called here the Spirit of the Son because he proceeds from the Son. In fact, the Holy Spirit is called the Spirit of the Father, not only because he proceeds from the Father, but because he is one in essence with him. This is why it is not necessary for the Holy Spirit to be called “the Spirit of the Son” because it proceeds from Him as a hypostasis, but rather because He is one in essence with Him, and remains in total and permanent communion with Him, and exactly because He takes from what He has and declares it to you (John 16:13-14), that is, here it takes from the reality of His true sonship. To the Father, to make the redeemed adoptive to Him, and to cry out with Him and in Him, “O Father.” Indeed, the Apostle Paul, in emphasizing this idea, goes further and calls the Spirit itself the Spirit of adoption: “For you did not receive the spirit of slavery again for fear, but you received the Spirit of adoption, by which we cry out, Father” (Romans 8:15), does the Spirit also emanate from adoption?

As for calling the spirit the Spirit of Christ, the Spirit of Jesus, or the Spirit of Jesus Christ, it is also clear from the context of the aforementioned texts that what is meant is not to refer to the emanation of the Spirit from the Son, but rather to emphasize the special participation of the Lord Jesus Christ in the work of the aforementioned Spirit, in view of the unity of the divine actions of the Trinity. That is, because the three hypostases participate in one work.

For example, the expression “the Spirit of Christ” mentioned in (Romans 8:9) refers to the state of grace experienced by the believer who has put on Christ (Galatians 3:27).

In fact, the Fathers generally explain the naming of the Spirit as the Spirit of the Son or the Spirit of Christ either because of the similarity or unity of essence between the Spirit and the Son and thus the unity of their divine actions. Or because the Holy Spirit was sent by the Son and not emanated from him. Because emanation is a hypostatic characteristic that distinguishes the Holy Spirit. Emergence is a hypostatic quality that distinguishes the Father. The Fathers strictly forbid generalizing the hypostatic attributes, which, according to their consensus, cannot be shared or generalized (ακοινώτητα ακίνητα), since through them the specificity and distinction of the hypostases in the Trinity is established.

Saint Basil, after emphasizing the hypostatic properties of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and that through them their hypostasis is distinguished, he adds, for this reason we do not say: “The Spirit is from the Son, but rather we call it the Spirit of the Son, and we acknowledge that it was through the Son that he appeared and was given to us.”

This same observation appears in Saint Cyril of Alexandria because “if the Holy Spirit emanates from the Father, it comes from the Son and is his own.” Saint Athanasius the Great even calls the anointing of the Spirit that was given to the believers the breath of the Son and a seal that imprints Christ on the souls of the sealed believers. By this he means the proclamations of the Word and the Spirit outward, intending to send the Spirit and receive it from the believers. Not the internal particularities of the hypostases of the Trinity. This is why we make a mistake if we infer from the external actions of the Spirit and their results on human beings the connections of the divine persons - hypostases - according to their inner life.

2. Westerners consider that sending the Holy Spirit abroad, which was done not only by the Father but also by the Son, is in some way a continuation of the eternal emanation in time. For this reason, the expression (He who proceeds from the Father) does not, in their view, deny emanation from the Son, but rather assumes it because of the equality or unity of the Son with the Father in essence (John 16:25). But this assumption is fundamentally wrong. It is true that the unity of the essence of the Father and the Son presupposes the unity of eternal attributes such as presence everywhere, power over everything…. But it also assumes that they are two distinct hypostases, and this distinction, according to the Fathers, only distinguishes their hypostatic qualities, which cannot be generalized, as we have seen, lest confusion arise and we reach Sabalism. It invalidates the existence of a trinity.

Question: Is the emanation of the Holy Spirit an essential characteristic or a hypostatic characteristic?

If it is an essential characteristic that we can generalize, then the emanation of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son must be accepted. But in this case we arrive at results whose blasphemy and strangeness have no limits. For example, if the Holy Spirit emanates from the Son because the Son is united with the Father in essence, and everything that the Father has is the Son’s, then why do not the Father and the Son emanate from the Spirit as well? - The Son is born from the Father, so why do not the Father and the Spirit also have the quality of birth as long as he is united in essence with them and everything that is theirs is his? Why do the Son and the Spirit not have the attributes of non-origination and generation that the Father has...?

In order for the Catholics not to reach conclusions like this, they said that the Son, because of his eternal birth, possesses everything that the Father possesses, except paternity and lack of procreation, as he can associate with others through creation, but he cannot associate with others through birth. Isn't this an arbitrary exception based on no basis?

Some Catholic theologians have another answer, which is that the order of the divine persons is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Because the Holy Spirit is third in order, he cannot give birth to the Son or emanate from someone before him. Of course, if accepted, this leads to a kind of hierarchy and precedence among the hypostases, given that the Son is born from the Father before the Holy Spirit emanates from him.

Perhaps the claim stated in paragraph (D) that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, as from a single principle and with a single breath, is an attempt to evade reaching this order and temporal precedence between the hypostases that the Blessed Augustine must have noticed and therefore stressed: “You must not We accept (from two principles) because this is completely fabricated and foolish. No, it is heresy and not according to the universal doctrine.” In fact, simply defending the emanation of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son is in itself saying that the Holy Spirit emanates from two principles, that is, two sources, namely the Father and the Son, and thus to consider the Spirit to be complex and not simple, because it is taken from two sources, and in this case it is not useful to add words (such as from the principle One and one blow) as it cannot change the reality of the first claim and in this regard he says Patriarch Photius: “Who among the Christians can allow the introduction of two causes into the Holy Trinity of the Son and the Holy Spirit, making the Spirit also (the Son)... And why does the Spirit emanate (and from the Son) if the emanation from the Father is complete (and it is complete because the Spirit is a perfect God from a perfect God)? Why then proceed from the Son? And why?

Based on the above, the exudation of the Holy Spirit is not an essential characteristic that can be generalized to the hypostases, but rather it is a personal hypostatic characteristic that pertains to the Father alone, and by it He is distinguished from the Son and the Holy Spirit. It is radically different from sending the Holy Spirit in time, which is meant to bestow His gifts and powers on creation that the Son redeemed through His incarnation and resurrection. Perhaps this is what the Master meant when he combined in one phrase between transmission and emanation (John 15:26) in order to clearly distinguish between them and not to indicate that transmission outward necessarily presupposes the continuation of eternal emanation as claimed by Catholic theological books. To prove the error of this claim, it suffices to say that if we accept it, we must accept that the Son is born from eternity by the Holy Spirit, because the Holy Bible teaches us that the Son sends the Holy Spirit into the world: “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor... He has sent me to heal the brokenhearted.” (Isaiah 61:1 and Luke 4:18).

The Catholics' answer to this proof is to say that the Holy Spirit here sends the Son as a human being and not according to his divine nature, which is present everywhere and is not capable of being sent. We responded to their answer by saying that the Holy Spirit, according to His divine hypostasis, is present everywhere and is not capable of being sent. Rather, He was sent in a visible form in time, that is, in the form of fiery tongues at Pentecost, in order to remain with the entity, according to His consoling, guiding, and sanctifying powers.

The Holy Fathers: They explain the sending of the Holy Spirit into the world through the Son, and the sending of the Son through the Holy Spirit through the unity of the divine essence expressed by the unity of their external work. Therefore, where one of the hypostases works, the other two hypostases are automatically present and active. That is why the fathers say that the Son was sent into the world by the Father and the Holy Spirit, in order to show through this that the Father and the Spirit are not strangers to the saving work of the Son, but rather participate in this work. This is also the case with sending the Holy Spirit into the world from the Father and the Son.

Saint Ambrose is one of the fathers who confirm this idea: “The Father and the Spirit send the Son, also the Father and the Son send the Spirit... As a result, if the Son and the Spirit send each other as the Father sends them, this happens not because of some submission (from one to the other), but because they have a common power.” “. This interpretation also applies to other similar biblical proofs that Catholics present to confirm their opinion, such as Jesus Christ breathing and saying to his disciples: “Receive the Holy Spirit.” If this action shows us that the Holy Spirit emanates from the Son, then we must also say that the Holy Spirit emanates as well. From the holy apostles and even from the bishops, because these also give the Holy Spirit by the laying on of hands. The truth is that the Master here gave his disciples the power or grace of the Holy Spirit for the forgiveness of sins, as we learn from the holy fathers, and not because this is linked to the eternal emanation of the Holy Spirit from the Son.

3. “But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but from what he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.” He will glorify me because he will take what is mine and declare it to you. Everything that is the Father’s is mine. That is why I said, ‘He will take what is mine and declare it to you’” (John 16:13-14).

In this verse, Westerners place special emphasis on the phrase (for he will take of what is mine and declare it to you) to conclude that he takes his knowledge from the Son and thus his essence or being. This is why it must come from the son. The fact is that this verse in particular makes clear what we previously pointed out in our previous answers, that when the Lord spoke about the promised Holy Spirit, he was not speaking about its origin or eternal source, but rather about its coming in time. The verbs (λήψεται-ακούση-λαλήσει) which were placed here in the future tense clearly indicate this. In addition to the truths that the teacher had told his students, there were also other truths that he had not told them clearly because they were not yet able to accept them. Therefore, when this promised Spirit of truth comes, he will complete his work, because he will inspire, sanctify, and teach all truth. He will not speak for himself because there is no new teaching, but rather there is illumination and clarification of the same truths that they were previously prepared to know from the Master. It is obvious that the Lord Jesus did not want to say that the Holy Spirit would accept a teaching that he did not know before, but rather he wanted to emphasize the unity of the truth that the incarnate God came to earth to proclaim. This truth is the divine teaching, that is, the teaching of the Father taught by the Son, and now this same teaching is in the custody of the Holy Spirit, who is charged with enlightening humans so that they can accept it. To confirm that this is the concept of the fathers, we give St. John Chrysostom’s interpretation of this passage as an example in this regard: “The Son said: Of what is mine he will receive, that is, what I have spoken will be spoken by the Holy Spirit, and when he speaks then he will not say anything of himself, that is, no.” Something opposite, nothing of his own, just what is mine. And just as He (the Son) testified about Himself when He indicated: “I do not speak on my own authority” (John 16:10), that is, I do not speak anything outside of what is the Father’s, that is, nothing of my own, nothing alien to Him. Likewise, what is related to the Holy Spirit must be understood, so the expression (He will take from what is mine) meaning from what I know, from my knowledge because my knowledge and the knowledge of the soul are one of what is mine. He will take, that is, he will speak in agreement with me. All that is the Father’s is mine because it is mine, and because the Holy Spirit will speak of the Father’s, and therefore he will speak of mine.”

St. John Chrysostom continues by summarizing: “From what is mine he will receive, that is, from the same knowledge that I have. He will receive, not as someone who has a deficiency or as someone who will learn from another, but because With us One knowledge itself.”

Thus, the words (All that is the Father's are mine) do not indicate the emanation of the Holy Spirit from the Son, but rather the divine essential properties, which in this case are the divine knowledge that pertains to the one divine essence of the three hypostases.

4. Catholic doctrine books cite some councils’ statements, such as the Third Ecumenical Council’s approval of the twelve anathemas of Saint Cyril of Alexandria, including the ninth anathema in which the Holy Spirit specifically names the Son. In fact, if we delve deeper into the text of this sanctuary, we will find that the emphasis against Nestorius is that Jesus performed miracles by means of the Holy Spirit, not as if it were a force alien to him, but rather through him as a force of his own because the Holy Spirit is united with him in essence. Saint Cyril later clarified this fact in his answer to some points raised by Theodoret of Cyrus, including this particular point. He says that he specifically called the Holy Spirit the Son because, although it emanates from the Father, it is not alien to the Son.

Catholic writers also cite the sayings of some fathers and interpret some phrases in a way that is consistent with their support for Philosophy, such as: The Holy Spirit resides in the Son, rests in the Son, is the icon of the Son, has its source in the Son... But if we also look at these phrases in the entire text that was found In it and in its relationship with the general doctrine of the holy fathers who used it, we find that it speaks of the temporal transmission of the Spirit or the unity of essence with the Son, and not at all about the emanation of the Spirit from the Son. For example, Saint Athanasius the Great calls the Son: the source of the Holy Spirit, because the Son is the one who sends the Holy Spirit into the world to help humans receive salvation.

Saint John of Damascus uses the phrase: “The Holy Spirit rests in the Son” because he is one with the Father in essence, and so on….

Catholics add that in addition to these indirect patristic statements, there are fathers and church writers who teach emanation from the Son directly. They conclude from this the antiquity and generality of this doctrine in the Christian Church. However, as it is noted (B. Bartman (Catholic), the Philochovi appears for the first time in Augustine, who declared, “We cannot say that the Holy Spirit does not proceed” “from the Son,” because it is not without purpose to say of the Spirit itself that it is the Spirit of the Father or the Spirit of the Son.” He was followed in this by other Western church writers, such as Pope Leo the Great, Gennadius of Marsili, Felix de Lula, and Fulgenzio de Rossii. However, the opinion of Augustine himself was not always consistent on this point, and the opinion of these church writers does not constitute proof that this was the belief of the early church, but rather it is merely a personal opinion that deviated from the teaching of the universal church.

There are some fathers who used the phrase “The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son” (δι' Υιού) (διά του Υιού), and it was used in particular by some Eastern fathers. Of course, Western theologians consider that the phrase (δι' Υιού) expresses the idea (of the Son εξ (Υιού) or (εκ του Υιού) and there is no difference between them.

As for the fathers, some of them used the phrase (δι' Υιού) to express the manifestation of the Holy Spirit in the world, not its emanation. While others used it in relation to its origin.

For example, with regard to the first use, we read about Saint Gregory the Wonderworker: “The Holy Spirit has the entity from God and was revealed to people through the Son,” and likewise from Saint Cyril of Alexandria, “Truth comes from the Father through the Son.” “It comes from Him according to the essence and is given to creation through the Son.” That is, these fathers want to say that the Son is the reason for which the Father sent the Holy Spirit. If the Son had not come into the world, the Holy Spirit would not have been sent.

Regarding the second use of the phrase (δι' Υιού), there are some fathers who used it when they were speaking about the origin of the Holy Spirit, but despite that, they did not mean the emanation of the Holy Spirit (and from the Son), that is, they did not use it in the sense of (εξ Υιού), but rather they were approving another, radically different meaning. About it, for example, Saint Gregory of Nyssa writes that “the Son proceeds from the Father without an intermediary, but the Holy Spirit is also from the Father, but through the Son, that is, through Him who is without an intermediary.”

With these words, he does not want to say that the Holy Spirit emanates (and from the Son). Rather, according to his expression: We humans think that the Father is before the Son, but through the Son and with Him the Son knows the Spirit in unity, and this is without the Holy Spirit being an existence after the Son.

This is why some theologians use the phrase (through the Son) to mean: “and the Son,” “with the Son,” meaning “at the same time with the Son.” So they want to say that the Holy Spirit has existence or emanates from eternity from the Father with the Son (at the same time with the Son).

the Saint Maximus the Confessor (662+) also has an expression (δι' Υιού), but he himself excludes the possibility of interpreting this phrase according to the Western concept. In a letter he addressed to the priest Marin from Cyprus, he says, defending the Westerners of that time: “When the Latins accept that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son They do not make the Son the cause (source) of the Spirit, but they say this in order to show that the Holy Spirit emanates through the Son and to indicate by this the unity and sameness of essence.”

the Saint John Damascene He used several times the phrase that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son, and in both of the above-mentioned meanings. Regarding the first meaning, he says: “We do not say the Spirit is from the Son (εκ του Υιού), but we acknowledge that through the Son (δι' Υιού) he appeared and was revealed to us... a Holy Spirit of God the Father. It proceeds from Him, but if it is said that the Spirit of the Son is said, this means that through Him He appeared and was revealed to creation, without obtaining His existence from Him.”

As for the second meaning, he says: “The Holy Spirit is not the Son of the Father, but rather the Spirit of the Father because it emanates from the Father... and the Spirit of the Son does not mean that it is from Him, but rather in the sense that it emanates from the Father through Him, because only the Father is the cause.”

As a result, we Orthodox, along with the Fathers, emphasize that the Father alone is the cause of the emanation of the Holy Spirit, and for this reason we cannot accept the expression “and from the Son” (εκ του Υιού), which makes the Son a second source of the Holy Spirit. All we can accept is the expression “through the Son” (διά του Υιού), which was mentioned as a theological opinion by some fathers. Because it does not contradict, as they interpreted, the Father being the only source.

– 3 –

In conclusion, we draw attention to the seriousness of the third point of the private Catholic teaching on the Holy Trinity, which in its entirety constitutes a model of comparison and purely rational thinking in Western theology. We suffice here to stop at saying that the Holy Spirit emanates from the will of the Father and the Son or from their mutual love. We note that this is a clear confirmation that the Scholastic theologians did not distinguish between the divine hypostasis and the powers and actions that emanate from it. For this reason, they reduce the hypostasis of the Holy Spirit not only to the level of the uncreated divine forces that emanate from the Holy Trinity, but even to the level of the created actions that result from these forces, as they declare that it emanates from the will of the Father and the Son or their mutual love, or they say that it emanates from an act of love. . Because according to the Fathers, created beings emanate from the will of the hypostases and because of their love, and it is precisely the act of their love. The meaning of this claim, then, is that it leads, unknowingly, to the status of the hypostasis of the Holy Spirit among creatures, thus canceling the concept of the Holy Trinity, or at least making it limited to only two hypostases, namely the Father and the Son. Because the emanation of the Spirit according to the Church Fathers is like the birth of the Son, and does not emanate from the will of the Father or from His love, but rather from His own nature, but of course it is not against this will.

Also, this strange division that obeys the Greek thinkers’ contemplations of abstract philosophical divinity, between what God loves by necessity and what He loves by choice, is in our view a clear accusation of the Holy Trinity, the God of love, of forced selfishness, because according to their concept, He loves Himself necessarily!!!