[Decebal]

Pentru că nu am făcut-o în postarea anterioară, am să aduc acum şi texte de la Sinodul de la Florenţa pentru a se vedea că ceea este expus în acel document al Consiliului Pontifical pentru Promovarea Unităţii Creştine, deci nu al papei Ioan Paul II ca să nu se mai facă confuzii, nu este în acord cu dogma bisericii romano-catolice referitoare la purcederea Duhului Sfânt.

For when Latins and Greeks came together in this holy synod, they all strove that, among other things, the article about the procession of the holy Spirit should be discussed with the utmost care and assiduous investigation. Texts were produced from divine scriptures and many authorities of eastern and western holy doctors, some saying the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, others saying the procession is from the Father through the Son. All were aiming at the same meaning in different words. The Greeks asserted that when they claim that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, they do not intend to exclude the Son; but because it seemed to them that the Latins assert that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as from two principles and two spirations, they refrained from saying that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. The Latins asserted that they say the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son not with the intention of excluding the Father from being the source and principle of all deity, that is of the Son and of the holy Spirit, nor to imply that the Son does not receive from the Father, because the holy Spirit proceeds from the Son, nor that they posit two principles or two spirations; but they assert that there is only one principle and a single spiration of the holy Spirit, as they have asserted hitherto. Since, then, one and the same meaning resulted from all this, they unanimously agreed and consented to the following holy and God-pleasing union, in the same sense and with one mind.

In the name of the holy Trinity, Father, Son and holy Spirit, we define, with the approval of this holy universal council of Florence, that the following truth of faith shall be believed and accepted by all Christians and thus shall all profess it: that the holy Spirit is eternally from the Father and the Son, and has his essence and his subsistent being from the Father together with the Son, and proceeds from both eternally as from one principle and a single spiration. We declare that when holy doctors and fathers say that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son, this bears the sense that thereby also the Son should be signified, according to the Greeks indeed as cause, and according to the Latins as principle of the subsistence of the holy Spirit, just like the Father.

And since the Father gave to his only-begotten Son in begetting him everything the Father has, except to be the Father, so the Son has eternally from the Father, by whom he was eternally begotten, this also, namely that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Son.

Sesiunea a VI-a a Sinodului de la Florenţa (1439), definiţia sinodului

sursa: http://www.ewtn.com/library/councils/florence.htm

Făcând o comparaţie între cele două texte, între cel de la Florenţa şi cel de mai sus citat din postarea Deliei, cred că este evidentă diferenţa dintre ele când vine vorba despre purcederea Duhului şi cred că este evident dezacordul dogmatic între cele două texte. De aceea poziţia subliniată de Delia în respectivul document nu este şi nu poate fi susţinută de biserica romano-catolică, dealtfel nu a fost asumată de nimeni dintre romano-catolici la nivel oficial, la un nivel dogmatic. Documentul Consiliului Pontifical merge pe interpretarea că Tatăl ar fi singura sursă a ekporeusis-ului Duhului Sfânt, iar Duhul ar purcede din Tatăl şi din Fiul în sensul comunicării dumnezeirii consubstanţiale, pe când definţia dogmatică de la Florenţa afirmă explicit că Duhul îşi are atât dumnezeirea sau esenţa consubstanţială precum şi hipostasa de la Tatăl şi de la Fiul, de la Tatăl împreună cu Fiul, ca dintr-un singur principiu şi o singură spiraţie. Cele două poziţii sunt în mod evident în contradicţie şi ireconciliabile.