PADA AWALNYA:
ORTHODOX:
BAPA ROH KUDUS
ANAK
ROMA:
BAPA 
ROH KUDUS
ANAK
HASIL KONSILI OIKUMENE:
BAPA ANAK ROH KUDUS
HAL INI SUDAH DIAMINI DAN TIDAK ADA LAGI MASALAH ANTARA ORTHODOX
DAN ROMA.
* Ignas wrote:
dulu kalau tidak salah pernah dibahas di fesbuk, dan iman GK sama dengan iman GO..
bahwa :
Bapa --> Anak --> Roh Kudus
========
kadang umat katolik sendiri juga salah dalam memahami ini,
ini adalah pemahaman yang salah:
Bapa
\
\
Roh Kudus
/
/
Anak
aku setuju sama bro Yopi..
bahwa :
Bapa --> Anak --> Roh Kudus
========
kadang umat katolik sendiri juga salah dalam memahami ini,
ini adalah pemahaman yang salah:
Bapa
\
\
Roh Kudus
/
/
Anak
aku setuju sama bro Yopi..
* Jenova wrote:
AFAIK, justru salah kalo seorang katolik memahami prosesi Roh Kudus adalah: Bapa --> Anak ---> Roh Kudus.
Hal ini sudah ditegaskan dalam Second Council of Lyon, 1274:
"We confess that the Holy Ghost proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son, not as from two principles, but as from one principle, not by two spirations, but by one single spiration"
Kalo mau digambarkan dalam diagram, IMHO lebih tepat kalo iman GK akan prosesi Roh Kudus adalah demikian:
------------
| Bapa |
| | ---> Roh Kudus
| Anak |
------------
Hal ini sudah ditegaskan dalam Second Council of Lyon, 1274:
"We confess that the Holy Ghost proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son, not as from two principles, but as from one principle, not by two spirations, but by one single spiration"
Kalo mau digambarkan dalam diagram, IMHO lebih tepat kalo iman GK akan prosesi Roh Kudus adalah demikian:
------------
| Bapa |
| | ---> Roh Kudus
| Anak |
------------
* St Yopi:
Tertullian
"I believe that the Spirit proceeds not otherwise than from the Father through the Son" (Against Praxeas 4:1 [ca. A.D. 220])
Origen
“We believe, however, that there are three persons: the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit; and we believe none to be unbegotten except the Father. We admit, as more pious and true, that all things were produced through the Word, and that the Holy Spirit is the most excellent and the first in order of all that was produced by the Father through Christ" (Commentaries on John 2:6 [ca. A.D. 277])
Hilary
"Concerning the Holy Spirit ... it is not necessary to speak of him who must be acknowledged, who is from the Father and the Son, his sources" (Trinity 2:29 [A.D. 359])
Ephipanus
"The Father always existed and the Son always existed, and the Spirit breathes from the Father and the Son" (The Man Well-Anchored 75 [A.D. 374])
Augustine
"If that which is given has for its principle the one by whom it is given, because it did not receive from anywhere else that whcih proceeds from the giver, then it must be confessed that the Father and the Son are the principle of the Holy Spirit, not two principles, but just a the Father and the Son are one God ... relative to the Holy Spirit they are one principle" (The Trinity 5:14:15 [ca. A.D. 405])
Cyril of Alexandria
"Since the Holy Spirit when he is in us effects our being conformed to God, and he actually proceeds from the Father and the Son, it is abundantly clear that he is of the divine essence, in it in essence and proceeding from it" (Treasury of the Holy Trinity, thesis 34 [ca. A.D. 424])
Fulgence
"Hold most firmly and never doubt in the least that the only God the Son, who is one person of the Trinity, is the Son of the only God the Father; but the Holy Spirit himself also one person of the Trinity, is spirit of not the Father only, but of Father and of Son together" (The Rule of Faith 53 [A.D. 524])
St. Athanasius dari Alexandria
"For as the Son, who is in the Father and the Father in him, is not a creature but pertains to the essence of the Father (for this you also profess to say); so also it is not lawful to rank with the creatures the Spirit who is in the Son, and the Son in him"
Athanasius,To Serapion,I:21(A.D. 360),in SHA,119
"For He, as as been said, gives to the Spirit, and whatever the Spirit hath, He hath from the Word."
Athanasius,Against the Arians,III:24(A.D. 362),in NPNF2,IV:407
St. Basilius
"Even if the Holy Spirit is third in diginity and order, why need he be third also in nature? For that he is second to the Son, having his being from him and receiving from him and announcing to us and being completely dependent on him, pious tradition recounts; but that his nature is third we are not taught by the Saints nor can we conclude logically from what has been said."
Basil, Against Eunomius,3, PG 29:653B(A.D. 365),in HS,44
"[A]lthough the Holy Spirit is behind the Son in dignity, yet not in nature. We have received that he is numbered third from the Father, the Lord saying in the tradition of baptism....But that he is thrust out to some third nature we have neither learnt nor ever heard."
Basil,Homilies,Against Eunomius,PG 29:657D-660A(A.D. 365),in GIL,204-205
"One, moreover, is the Holy Spirit, and we speak of Him singly, conjoined as He is to the one Father through the one Son, and through Himself completing the adorable and blessed Trinity."
Basil,On the Holy Spirit,18:45(A.D. 375),in NPNF2,VIII:28
"One, moreover,is the Holy Spirit and we speak of Him singly, conjoined as He is through Himself completing the adorable and blessed Trinity."
Basil,On the Holy Spirit,18:45(A.D. 375),in NPNF2,VIII:28
"Thus the way of the knowledge of God lies from One Spirit through the One Son to the One Father, and conversely the natural Goodness and the inherent Holiness and the royal Dignity extend from the Father through the Only-begotten to the Spirit. Thus there is both acknowledgment of the hypostases and the true dogma of the Monarchy is not lost."
Basil,On the Holy Spirit,18:47(A.D. 375),in NPNF2,VIII:28
"One Father, one Son, one Holy Spirit must be confessed according to the divine tradition. Not two Fathers, nor two Sons, since the Spirit neither is the Son nor is called. For we do NOT receive anything from the Spirit in the SAME way as the Spirit from the Son; but we receive him (ie. the Spirit) coming to us and sanctifying us, the communication of divinity, the pledge of eternal inheritance, and the first fruits of the eternal good."
Basil,Homilies,PG 31:1433(ante A.D. 379),in GIL,204
St. Gregorius Nazianze
If ever there was a time when the Father was not, then there was a time when the Son was not. If ever there was a time when the Son was not, then there was a time when the Spirit was not."
Gregory of Nazianen,5th Oration(31),3(A.D. 380),in NPNF2,VII:318
"I have very carefully considered this matter in my own mind...but I have been unable to discover any thing on earth with which to compare the nature of the Godhead...I picture to myself an eye, a fountain, a river, as others have done before, to see if the first might be analogous to the Father, the second to the Son, and the third to the Holy Ghost....Again I thought of the sun and a ray and light. But here again there was a fear lest people should get an idea of composition in the Uncompounded Nature, such as there is in the Sun and the things that are in the Sun. And in the second place lest we should give Essence to the Father but deny Personality to the Others, and make Them only Powers of God, existing in Him and not Personal."
Gregory of Nazianen,5th Oration(31),31,32(A.D. 380),in NPNF2,VII:328
"I believe that the Spirit proceeds not otherwise than from the Father through the Son" (Against Praxeas 4:1 [ca. A.D. 220])
Origen
“We believe, however, that there are three persons: the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit; and we believe none to be unbegotten except the Father. We admit, as more pious and true, that all things were produced through the Word, and that the Holy Spirit is the most excellent and the first in order of all that was produced by the Father through Christ" (Commentaries on John 2:6 [ca. A.D. 277])
Hilary
"Concerning the Holy Spirit ... it is not necessary to speak of him who must be acknowledged, who is from the Father and the Son, his sources" (Trinity 2:29 [A.D. 359])
Ephipanus
"The Father always existed and the Son always existed, and the Spirit breathes from the Father and the Son" (The Man Well-Anchored 75 [A.D. 374])
Augustine
"If that which is given has for its principle the one by whom it is given, because it did not receive from anywhere else that whcih proceeds from the giver, then it must be confessed that the Father and the Son are the principle of the Holy Spirit, not two principles, but just a the Father and the Son are one God ... relative to the Holy Spirit they are one principle" (The Trinity 5:14:15 [ca. A.D. 405])
Cyril of Alexandria
"Since the Holy Spirit when he is in us effects our being conformed to God, and he actually proceeds from the Father and the Son, it is abundantly clear that he is of the divine essence, in it in essence and proceeding from it" (Treasury of the Holy Trinity, thesis 34 [ca. A.D. 424])
Fulgence
"Hold most firmly and never doubt in the least that the only God the Son, who is one person of the Trinity, is the Son of the only God the Father; but the Holy Spirit himself also one person of the Trinity, is spirit of not the Father only, but of Father and of Son together" (The Rule of Faith 53 [A.D. 524])
St. Athanasius dari Alexandria
"For as the Son, who is in the Father and the Father in him, is not a creature but pertains to the essence of the Father (for this you also profess to say); so also it is not lawful to rank with the creatures the Spirit who is in the Son, and the Son in him"
Athanasius,To Serapion,I:21(A.D. 360),in SHA,119
"For He, as as been said, gives to the Spirit, and whatever the Spirit hath, He hath from the Word."
Athanasius,Against the Arians,III:24(A.D. 362),in NPNF2,IV:407
St. Basilius
"Even if the Holy Spirit is third in diginity and order, why need he be third also in nature? For that he is second to the Son, having his being from him and receiving from him and announcing to us and being completely dependent on him, pious tradition recounts; but that his nature is third we are not taught by the Saints nor can we conclude logically from what has been said."
Basil, Against Eunomius,3, PG 29:653B(A.D. 365),in HS,44
"[A]lthough the Holy Spirit is behind the Son in dignity, yet not in nature. We have received that he is numbered third from the Father, the Lord saying in the tradition of baptism....But that he is thrust out to some third nature we have neither learnt nor ever heard."
Basil,Homilies,Against Eunomius,PG 29:657D-660A(A.D. 365),in GIL,204-205
"One, moreover, is the Holy Spirit, and we speak of Him singly, conjoined as He is to the one Father through the one Son, and through Himself completing the adorable and blessed Trinity."
Basil,On the Holy Spirit,18:45(A.D. 375),in NPNF2,VIII:28
"One, moreover,is the Holy Spirit and we speak of Him singly, conjoined as He is through Himself completing the adorable and blessed Trinity."
Basil,On the Holy Spirit,18:45(A.D. 375),in NPNF2,VIII:28
"Thus the way of the knowledge of God lies from One Spirit through the One Son to the One Father, and conversely the natural Goodness and the inherent Holiness and the royal Dignity extend from the Father through the Only-begotten to the Spirit. Thus there is both acknowledgment of the hypostases and the true dogma of the Monarchy is not lost."
Basil,On the Holy Spirit,18:47(A.D. 375),in NPNF2,VIII:28
"One Father, one Son, one Holy Spirit must be confessed according to the divine tradition. Not two Fathers, nor two Sons, since the Spirit neither is the Son nor is called. For we do NOT receive anything from the Spirit in the SAME way as the Spirit from the Son; but we receive him (ie. the Spirit) coming to us and sanctifying us, the communication of divinity, the pledge of eternal inheritance, and the first fruits of the eternal good."
Basil,Homilies,PG 31:1433(ante A.D. 379),in GIL,204
St. Gregorius Nazianze
If ever there was a time when the Father was not, then there was a time when the Son was not. If ever there was a time when the Son was not, then there was a time when the Spirit was not."
Gregory of Nazianen,5th Oration(31),3(A.D. 380),in NPNF2,VII:318
"I have very carefully considered this matter in my own mind...but I have been unable to discover any thing on earth with which to compare the nature of the Godhead...I picture to myself an eye, a fountain, a river, as others have done before, to see if the first might be analogous to the Father, the second to the Son, and the third to the Holy Ghost....Again I thought of the sun and a ray and light. But here again there was a fear lest people should get an idea of composition in the Uncompounded Nature, such as there is in the Sun and the things that are in the Sun. And in the second place lest we should give Essence to the Father but deny Personality to the Others, and make Them only Powers of God, existing in Him and not Personal."
Gregory of Nazianen,5th Oration(31),31,32(A.D. 380),in NPNF2,VII:328
St. Didymus si Buta
"Our Lord teaches that the being of the Spirit is derived not from the Spirit Himself, but from the Father and the Son; He goes forth from the Son, proceeding from the Truth; He has no subsistence but that which is given Him by the Son."
Didymus the Blind,The Holy Spirit, 37(ante A.D. 381),in SW,22
"Our Lord teaches that the being of the Spirit is derived not from the Spirit Himself,but from the Father and the Son; He goes forth from the Son, proceeding from the Truth; He has no subsistence but that which is given Him by the Son."
Didymus the Blind of Alexandria,The Holy Spirit,37(ante A.D. 381),in SW,224,225
St. Gregorius Nyssa
"For as the Son is bound to the Father, and, while deriving existence from Him, is not substantially after Him, so again the Holy Spirit is in touch with the Only-begotten, Who is conceived of as before the Spirit's subsistence only in the theoretical light of a cause. Extensions in time find no admittance in the Eternal Life; so that, when we have removed the thought of cause, the Holy Trinity in no single way exhibits discord with itself; and to It is glory due."
Gregory of Nyssa,Against Eunomius,1:42(A.D. 384),in NPNF2,V:100
" If, however, any one cavils at our argument, on the ground that by not admitting the difference of nature it leads to a mixture and confusion of the Persons, we shall make to such a charge this answer;--that while we confess the invariable character of the nature, we do not deny the difference in respect of cause, and that which is caused, by which alone we apprehend that one Person is distinguished from another;-by our belief, that is, that one is the Cause, and another is of the Cause; and again in that which is of the Cause we recognize another distinction. For one is directly from the first Cause, and another by that which is directly from the first Cause; so that the attribute of being Only-begotten abides without doubt in the Son, and the interposition of the Son, while it guards His attribute of being Only-begotten, does not shut out the Spirit from His relation by way of nature to the Father."
Gregory of Nyssa,To Ablabius-There are not three gods(A.D. 375),in NPNF2,V:336
"For the plea will not avail them in their self-defence, that He is delivered by our Lord to His disciples third in order, and that therefore He is estranged from our ideal of Deity. Where in each case activity in working good shows no diminution or variation whatever, how unreasonable it is to suppose the numerical order to be a sign of any diminution or essential variation! It is as if a man were to see a separate flame burning on three torches(and we will suppose that the third flame is caused by that of the first being transmitted to the middle, and then kindling the end torch), and were to maintain that the heat in the first exceeded that of the others; that that next it showed a variation from it in the direction of the less; and that the third could not be called fire at all, though it burnt and shone just like fire, and did everything that fire does. But if there is really no hindrance to the third torch being fire, though it has been kindled from a previous flame, what is the philosophy of these men, who profanely think that they can slight the dignity of the Holy Spirit because He is named by the Divine lips after the Father and the Son?"
Gregory of Nyssa,Against Macedonians,6(A.D. 377),in NPNF2,V:317
"For neither did the Universal God make the universe 'through the Son,' as needing any help, nor does the Only-begotten God work all things 'by the Holy Spirit,' as having a power that comes short of His design; but the fountain of power is the Father, and the power of the Father is the Son, and the spirit of that power is the Holy Spirit"
Gregory of Nyssa,Against Macedonians,13(A.D. 377),in NPNF2,V:320
St. Maximos si Pengaku Iman
"Those of the Queen of the cities(Constantinople) have attacked the synodal letter of the present very holy Pope, not in the case of all chapters that he has written in it, but only in the case of two of them. One relates to the theology (of the Trinity) and, according to them says:'The Holy Spirit also has his ekporeusis(ekporeuesthai) from the Son'. The other deals with the divine incarnation. With regard to the first matter, they(the Romans) have produced the unanimous evidence of the Latin Fathers, and also of Cyril of Alexandria, from the study he made of the gospel of St. John. On the basis of these texts, they have shown that they have not made the Son the cause(aitian) of the Spirit--they know in fact that the Father is the only cause of the Son and the Spirit, the one by begetting and the other by ekporeusis(procession)--but that they have manifested the procession through him (to dia autou proienai) and have thus shown the unity and identity of the essence....They (the Romans) have therefore been accused of precisely those things of which it would be wrong to accuse them, whereas the former (the Byzantines) have been accused of those things of which it has been quite correct to accuse them (Monothelitism). They have up till now produced no defence, although they have not yet rejected the things that they have themselves so wrongly introduced. In accordance with your request, I have asked the Romans to translate what is peculiar to them (the 'also from the Son') in such a way that any obscurities that may result from it will be avoided. But since the practice of writing and sending (the synodal letter) has been observed, I wonder whether they will possibly agree to do this. It is true, of course, that they cannot reproduce their idea in a language and in words that are foreign to them as they can in their mother-tongue, just as we too cannot. In any case, having been accused, they will certainly take some care about this."
Maximus the Confessor,To Marinus(A.D. 655),in HS,III:52-53
"[T]he Holy Spirit (he writes elsewhere), as He is by nature and in the way of essence [the Spirit] of God the Father, so is He also the Son's by nature and in the way of essence, since He proceeds from the Father essentially and ineffably through the Son, who is begotten."
Maximus the Confessor,Quaestiones ad Thalassium, 63(ante A.D. 662),in SW,279-280
"Our Lord teaches that the being of the Spirit is derived not from the Spirit Himself, but from the Father and the Son; He goes forth from the Son, proceeding from the Truth; He has no subsistence but that which is given Him by the Son."
Didymus the Blind,The Holy Spirit, 37(ante A.D. 381),in SW,22
"Our Lord teaches that the being of the Spirit is derived not from the Spirit Himself,but from the Father and the Son; He goes forth from the Son, proceeding from the Truth; He has no subsistence but that which is given Him by the Son."
Didymus the Blind of Alexandria,The Holy Spirit,37(ante A.D. 381),in SW,224,225
St. Gregorius Nyssa
"For as the Son is bound to the Father, and, while deriving existence from Him, is not substantially after Him, so again the Holy Spirit is in touch with the Only-begotten, Who is conceived of as before the Spirit's subsistence only in the theoretical light of a cause. Extensions in time find no admittance in the Eternal Life; so that, when we have removed the thought of cause, the Holy Trinity in no single way exhibits discord with itself; and to It is glory due."
Gregory of Nyssa,Against Eunomius,1:42(A.D. 384),in NPNF2,V:100
" If, however, any one cavils at our argument, on the ground that by not admitting the difference of nature it leads to a mixture and confusion of the Persons, we shall make to such a charge this answer;--that while we confess the invariable character of the nature, we do not deny the difference in respect of cause, and that which is caused, by which alone we apprehend that one Person is distinguished from another;-by our belief, that is, that one is the Cause, and another is of the Cause; and again in that which is of the Cause we recognize another distinction. For one is directly from the first Cause, and another by that which is directly from the first Cause; so that the attribute of being Only-begotten abides without doubt in the Son, and the interposition of the Son, while it guards His attribute of being Only-begotten, does not shut out the Spirit from His relation by way of nature to the Father."
Gregory of Nyssa,To Ablabius-There are not three gods(A.D. 375),in NPNF2,V:336
"For the plea will not avail them in their self-defence, that He is delivered by our Lord to His disciples third in order, and that therefore He is estranged from our ideal of Deity. Where in each case activity in working good shows no diminution or variation whatever, how unreasonable it is to suppose the numerical order to be a sign of any diminution or essential variation! It is as if a man were to see a separate flame burning on three torches(and we will suppose that the third flame is caused by that of the first being transmitted to the middle, and then kindling the end torch), and were to maintain that the heat in the first exceeded that of the others; that that next it showed a variation from it in the direction of the less; and that the third could not be called fire at all, though it burnt and shone just like fire, and did everything that fire does. But if there is really no hindrance to the third torch being fire, though it has been kindled from a previous flame, what is the philosophy of these men, who profanely think that they can slight the dignity of the Holy Spirit because He is named by the Divine lips after the Father and the Son?"
Gregory of Nyssa,Against Macedonians,6(A.D. 377),in NPNF2,V:317
"For neither did the Universal God make the universe 'through the Son,' as needing any help, nor does the Only-begotten God work all things 'by the Holy Spirit,' as having a power that comes short of His design; but the fountain of power is the Father, and the power of the Father is the Son, and the spirit of that power is the Holy Spirit"
Gregory of Nyssa,Against Macedonians,13(A.D. 377),in NPNF2,V:320
St. Maximos si Pengaku Iman
"Those of the Queen of the cities(Constantinople) have attacked the synodal letter of the present very holy Pope, not in the case of all chapters that he has written in it, but only in the case of two of them. One relates to the theology (of the Trinity) and, according to them says:'The Holy Spirit also has his ekporeusis(ekporeuesthai) from the Son'. The other deals with the divine incarnation. With regard to the first matter, they(the Romans) have produced the unanimous evidence of the Latin Fathers, and also of Cyril of Alexandria, from the study he made of the gospel of St. John. On the basis of these texts, they have shown that they have not made the Son the cause(aitian) of the Spirit--they know in fact that the Father is the only cause of the Son and the Spirit, the one by begetting and the other by ekporeusis(procession)--but that they have manifested the procession through him (to dia autou proienai) and have thus shown the unity and identity of the essence....They (the Romans) have therefore been accused of precisely those things of which it would be wrong to accuse them, whereas the former (the Byzantines) have been accused of those things of which it has been quite correct to accuse them (Monothelitism). They have up till now produced no defence, although they have not yet rejected the things that they have themselves so wrongly introduced. In accordance with your request, I have asked the Romans to translate what is peculiar to them (the 'also from the Son') in such a way that any obscurities that may result from it will be avoided. But since the practice of writing and sending (the synodal letter) has been observed, I wonder whether they will possibly agree to do this. It is true, of course, that they cannot reproduce their idea in a language and in words that are foreign to them as they can in their mother-tongue, just as we too cannot. In any case, having been accused, they will certainly take some care about this."
Maximus the Confessor,To Marinus(A.D. 655),in HS,III:52-53
"[T]he Holy Spirit (he writes elsewhere), as He is by nature and in the way of essence [the Spirit] of God the Father, so is He also the Son's by nature and in the way of essence, since He proceeds from the Father essentially and ineffably through the Son, who is begotten."
Maximus the Confessor,Quaestiones ad Thalassium, 63(ante A.D. 662),in SW,279-280
Ketika Gereja Katolik mengatakan bahwa Roh Kudus berasal [procedit] dari Bapa dan Putra yang dimaksud adalah seperti ini:
Bapa ----> Putra ----> Roh Kudus
Dan bukannya:
Bapa
\
\
\
Roh Kudus
/
/
/
Putra
Jadi tulisan Tertullianus tidak bertentangan dengan apa yang diyakini Gereja Katolik.
2. Origen
“We believe, however, that there are three persons: the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit; and ...we believe none to be unbegotten except the Father. We admit, as more pious and true, that all things were produced through the Word, and that the Holy Spirit is the most excellent and the first in order of all that was produced by the Father through Christ" (Commentaries on John 2:6 [ca. A.D. 277])"
"Kami percaya, bagaimanapun, bahwa ada tiga hakekat: Bapa dan Anak dan Roh Kudus, dan kami percaya tidak akan ada yang dikeluarkan kecuali dari Bapa. Kami mengakui, dengan kesalehan dan kebenaran, bahwa segala sesuatu telah dihasilkan melalui Firman, dan bahwa Roh Kudus adalah yang paling baik dan yang pertama dalam urutan semua yang dikeluarkan oleh Bapa melalui Kristus."
Sekali lagi disebutkan bahwa Roh Kudus hanya dikeluarkan oleh Bapa melalui Perutusan Kristus.
Yang ini tetap tidak menunjukkan bahwa Roh Kudus berasal dari Bapa SAJA dan sekaligus tetap tidak bertentangan dengan teologi Trinitas Katolik.
Bapa ----> Putra ----> Roh Kudus
Dan bukannya:
Bapa
\
\
\
Roh Kudus
/
/
/
Putra
Jadi tulisan Tertullianus tidak bertentangan dengan apa yang diyakini Gereja Katolik.
2. Origen
“We believe, however, that there are three persons: the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit; and ...we believe none to be unbegotten except the Father. We admit, as more pious and true, that all things were produced through the Word, and that the Holy Spirit is the most excellent and the first in order of all that was produced by the Father through Christ" (Commentaries on John 2:6 [ca. A.D. 277])"
"Kami percaya, bagaimanapun, bahwa ada tiga hakekat: Bapa dan Anak dan Roh Kudus, dan kami percaya tidak akan ada yang dikeluarkan kecuali dari Bapa. Kami mengakui, dengan kesalehan dan kebenaran, bahwa segala sesuatu telah dihasilkan melalui Firman, dan bahwa Roh Kudus adalah yang paling baik dan yang pertama dalam urutan semua yang dikeluarkan oleh Bapa melalui Kristus."
Sekali lagi disebutkan bahwa Roh Kudus hanya dikeluarkan oleh Bapa melalui Perutusan Kristus.
Yang ini tetap tidak menunjukkan bahwa Roh Kudus berasal dari Bapa SAJA dan sekaligus tetap tidak bertentangan dengan teologi Trinitas Katolik.
Sudah sesuai dengan:
Yoh 15:26 Jikalau Penghibur yang akan Kuutus dari Bapa datang, yaitu Roh Kebenaran yang keluar dari Bapa, Ia akan bersaksi tentang Aku
Yoh 15:26 Jikalau Penghibur yang akan Kuutus dari Bapa datang, yaitu Roh Kebenaran yang keluar dari Bapa, Ia akan bersaksi tentang Aku
Paus mempunyai kuasa untuk merubah dekrit konsili ekumenis:
COUNCIL OF FLORENCE
Laetentur Coeli (decree of unions with the Greeks)
We also define that the holy apostolic see and the Roman pontiff holds the primacy over the whole world and the Roman pontiff is the successor of blessed Peter prince of the apostles, and that he is the true vicar of Christ, the head of the whole church and the father and teacher of all Christians, and to him was committed in blessed Peter the full power of tending, ruling and governing the whole church, as is contained also in the acts of ecumenical councils and in the sacred canons.
FIRST COUNCIL OF VATICAN
Pastor Aeternus
8. Since the Roman Pontiff, by the divine right of the apostolic primacy, governs the whole Church, we likewise teach and declare that he is the supreme judge of the faithful [52], and that in all cases which fall under ecclesiastical jurisdiction recourse may be had to his judgment [53]. The sentence of the Apostolic See (than which there is no higher authority) is not subject to revision by anyone, nor may anyone lawfully pass judgment thereupon [54]. And so they stray from the genuine path of truth who maintain that it is lawful to appeal from the judgments of the Roman pontiffs to an ecumenical council as if this were an authority superior to the Roman Pontiff.
KONSILI FLORENCE
Laetentur Coeli (dekrit persekutuan dengan pihak Yunani)
Kami juga mendefinisikan bahwa tahta apostolik kudus dan Paus Roma memegang keutamaan atas seluruh dunia dan [bahwa] Paus Roma adalah penerus dari Petrus terberkati sang pangeran rasul, dan bahwa dia adalah wakil Kristus sejati, kepala dari seluruh Gereja dan bapa dan guru dari semua umat Kristen, dan dalam Petrus yang terberkati kepadanya [ie. Paus Roma] diberikan kuasa penuh untuk menggembalakan, memerintah dan mengatur seluruh Gereja, sebaimana terkandung dalam akta-akta konsili-konsili ekumenis dan kanon-kanon keramat.
KONSILI VATIKAN YANG PERTAMA
Pastor Aeternus
8. Karena Paus Roma, berkat hak ilahi atas keutamaan apostolik, memerintah seluruh Gereja, kami olehnya mengajarkan dan mendeklarasikan bahwa dia adalah hakim utama para umat beriman [52], dan bahwa dalam semua kasus yang berada dalam yurisdiksi gerejawi [umat beirman boleh meminta] keputusannya [53]. Keputusan dari Tahta Apostolik (yang darinya tidak ada otoritas yang lebih tinggi) tidak dapat direvisi oleh siapapun ataupun bisa dihakimi secara sah oleh siapapun [54]. Oleh karena itu mereka telah tersesat dari jalan kebenaran bila mereka meyakini bahwa adalah sah untuk banding dari keputusan-keputusan Paus Roma kepada suatu konsili ekumenis seakan-akan konsili ekumenis ini adalah suatu otoritas yang superior dari Paus Roma.
Lalu juga ada keputusan kuno berikut (lihat tanggalnya):
ST BONIFACE I 418-422
The Primacy and Infallibility of the Roman Pontiff
[From the epistle (13) "Retro maioribus tuis" to Rufus, Bishop of Thessaly, March 11, 422]
(2) . . . To the Synod [of Corinth]. . . . . we have directed such writings that all the brethren may know. . . . . that there must be no withdrawal from our judgment. For it has never been allowed that that be discussed again which has once been decided by the Apostolic See.
(2) . . . Kepada Sinode [di Korintus]. . . . . kami telah mengarahkan suatu tulisan-tulisan sehingga semua saudara menjadi tahu. . . . . bahwa haruslah tidak ada penarikan dari keputusan kami. Karena tidaklah pernah diijinkan untuk mendiskusikan kembali apa yang sudah diputuskan oleh Tahta Apostolik.
Surat yang bernada sangat otoritatif ini ditujukan kepada Uskup-uskup di daerah yang bukan ke-Patriarkh-an Roma [ie. Korintus]. Ini menunjukkan bahwa Paus jaman dahulu sadar akan kuasanya atas seluruh Gereja Katolik. Surat Paus St. Boniface I lebih keras karena dia secara eksplisit mengatakan bahwa apa yang diputuskan oleh Tahta Apostolik (ie. Roma) adalah final dan tidak diijinkan untuk didiskusikan kembali.
COUNCIL OF FLORENCE
Laetentur Coeli (decree of unions with the Greeks)
We also define that the holy apostolic see and the Roman pontiff holds the primacy over the whole world and the Roman pontiff is the successor of blessed Peter prince of the apostles, and that he is the true vicar of Christ, the head of the whole church and the father and teacher of all Christians, and to him was committed in blessed Peter the full power of tending, ruling and governing the whole church, as is contained also in the acts of ecumenical councils and in the sacred canons.
FIRST COUNCIL OF VATICAN
Pastor Aeternus
8. Since the Roman Pontiff, by the divine right of the apostolic primacy, governs the whole Church, we likewise teach and declare that he is the supreme judge of the faithful [52], and that in all cases which fall under ecclesiastical jurisdiction recourse may be had to his judgment [53]. The sentence of the Apostolic See (than which there is no higher authority) is not subject to revision by anyone, nor may anyone lawfully pass judgment thereupon [54]. And so they stray from the genuine path of truth who maintain that it is lawful to appeal from the judgments of the Roman pontiffs to an ecumenical council as if this were an authority superior to the Roman Pontiff.
KONSILI FLORENCE
Laetentur Coeli (dekrit persekutuan dengan pihak Yunani)
Kami juga mendefinisikan bahwa tahta apostolik kudus dan Paus Roma memegang keutamaan atas seluruh dunia dan [bahwa] Paus Roma adalah penerus dari Petrus terberkati sang pangeran rasul, dan bahwa dia adalah wakil Kristus sejati, kepala dari seluruh Gereja dan bapa dan guru dari semua umat Kristen, dan dalam Petrus yang terberkati kepadanya [ie. Paus Roma] diberikan kuasa penuh untuk menggembalakan, memerintah dan mengatur seluruh Gereja, sebaimana terkandung dalam akta-akta konsili-konsili ekumenis dan kanon-kanon keramat.
KONSILI VATIKAN YANG PERTAMA
Pastor Aeternus
8. Karena Paus Roma, berkat hak ilahi atas keutamaan apostolik, memerintah seluruh Gereja, kami olehnya mengajarkan dan mendeklarasikan bahwa dia adalah hakim utama para umat beriman [52], dan bahwa dalam semua kasus yang berada dalam yurisdiksi gerejawi [umat beirman boleh meminta] keputusannya [53]. Keputusan dari Tahta Apostolik (yang darinya tidak ada otoritas yang lebih tinggi) tidak dapat direvisi oleh siapapun ataupun bisa dihakimi secara sah oleh siapapun [54]. Oleh karena itu mereka telah tersesat dari jalan kebenaran bila mereka meyakini bahwa adalah sah untuk banding dari keputusan-keputusan Paus Roma kepada suatu konsili ekumenis seakan-akan konsili ekumenis ini adalah suatu otoritas yang superior dari Paus Roma.
Lalu juga ada keputusan kuno berikut (lihat tanggalnya):
ST BONIFACE I 418-422
The Primacy and Infallibility of the Roman Pontiff
[From the epistle (13) "Retro maioribus tuis" to Rufus, Bishop of Thessaly, March 11, 422]
(2) . . . To the Synod [of Corinth]. . . . . we have directed such writings that all the brethren may know. . . . . that there must be no withdrawal from our judgment. For it has never been allowed that that be discussed again which has once been decided by the Apostolic See.
(2) . . . Kepada Sinode [di Korintus]. . . . . kami telah mengarahkan suatu tulisan-tulisan sehingga semua saudara menjadi tahu. . . . . bahwa haruslah tidak ada penarikan dari keputusan kami. Karena tidaklah pernah diijinkan untuk mendiskusikan kembali apa yang sudah diputuskan oleh Tahta Apostolik.
Surat yang bernada sangat otoritatif ini ditujukan kepada Uskup-uskup di daerah yang bukan ke-Patriarkh-an Roma [ie. Korintus]. Ini menunjukkan bahwa Paus jaman dahulu sadar akan kuasanya atas seluruh Gereja Katolik. Surat Paus St. Boniface I lebih keras karena dia secara eksplisit mengatakan bahwa apa yang diputuskan oleh Tahta Apostolik (ie. Roma) adalah final dan tidak diijinkan untuk didiskusikan kembali.
Mengenai Paus Leo I:
Setelah Tome of Leo dibacakan di Konsili Kalsedon yang dihadiri 630 uskup, semua uskup (kecuali empat orang dari daerah kekaisaran bagian timur) menyerukan: “Ini adalah iman para Bapa Gereja; ini adalah iman para Rasul: oleh karena itu kami percaya; iman yang ortodoks (asli); karena itu terkutuklah (anathema) ia yang tidak percaya. Petrus telah berbicara melalui Leo; oleh karena itu para rasul telah mengajar [demikian].”
Inilah contoh bagaimana Paus Roma BERKUASA dalam hal pengajaran Iman dan Moral!
Setelah Tome of Leo dibacakan di Konsili Kalsedon yang dihadiri 630 uskup, semua uskup (kecuali empat orang dari daerah kekaisaran bagian timur) menyerukan: “Ini adalah iman para Bapa Gereja; ini adalah iman para Rasul: oleh karena itu kami percaya; iman yang ortodoks (asli); karena itu terkutuklah (anathema) ia yang tidak percaya. Petrus telah berbicara melalui Leo; oleh karena itu para rasul telah mengajar [demikian].”
Inilah contoh bagaimana Paus Roma BERKUASA dalam hal pengajaran Iman dan Moral!
