And the Son

[Aramis]

You seem to think that the tradition of the Church must be changed to fit the Latin developments. As Rome has affirmed, the Greeks are not to include the filioque in their creed. The approach of the Capadocians and the rest of the Greek fathers does not teach that the Son is a source. You wish the east to bow to the west. It will not happen.

I never said that the Latins and easterns profess two faiths. I disagree with your interpretation of the faith though.

Eastern priests should start saying the novus ordo instead of the Liturgy of St. James and the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom. After all, it was promulgated by an infallible pope.

It was also promulgated only for the Latin Church, to which Eastern Catholic Priests do not belong.

They are in union with, but not part of, the Latin Church. The Pope is 1st and Foremost, the head of the Union, and then in praxis, the head of the Latin Church and its cadet rites (Ambrosian, Mozarabic, etc)…

 

[jimmy]

It was also promulgated only for the Latin Church, to which Eastern Catholic Priests do not belong.

They are in union with, but not part of, the Latin Church. The Pope is 1st and Foremost, the head of the Union, and then in praxis, the head of the Latin Church and its cadet rites (Ambrosian, Mozarabic, etc)…

That is great but the point is that the pope has to bend to tradition like the rest of the Church. If the fathers professed one cause and source of the Trinity the pope can not simply tell the Greeks there are two causes. It doesn’t work that way. No matter what you think of the pope he can’t change the tradition. The pope can’t simply make doctrine up as he goes. He must submit to tradition.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Jimmy,

You seem to think that the tradition of the Church must be changed to fit the Latin developments. As Rome has affirmed, the Greeks are not to include the filioque in their creed. The approach of the Capadocians and the rest of the Greek fathers does not teach that the Son is a source. You wish the east to bow to the west. It will not happen.

I never said that the Latins and easterns profess two faiths. I disagree with your interpretation of the faith though.

Eastern priests should start saying the novus ordo instead of the Liturgy of St. James and the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom. After all, it was promulgated by an infallible pope.

I can appreciate why you are so tough on brother East and West. But perhaps you have misinterpreted him. What he states is basically correct. The theology of filioque IS the common theology of all the Fathers, East, West and Orient. Thank you for that beautiful quote from HE Metr. Zizioulas. It truly reflects the united Catholic thought on the matter:

The thing that stands out most from the quote is his understanding that the Spirit receives his Essence/Substance FROM the Father THROUGH the Son.

From this we can conclude, in agreement with the Council of Florence (and ALL the orthodox Catholic Fathers of the Church), that the Spirit “proceeds (proienai or procedere) ETERNALLY from Father and the Son as from one principle” - translated into Eastern/Oriental terms as “eternally from Father through the Son”). Note that the confession from Florence utilizing filioque necessarily includes the clause “as from one principle,” for it is only by this clarification that it can be understood to be equated to common parlance of the Eastern/Oriental Churches.

Of course, we still have some Easterns who believe, despite the mountain of evidence from the Eastern/Oriental Fathers, that only the Energies of God flow from Father through the Son, and not the Divine Essence as well.

The distinction made by HE Metr. Zizioulas between the origin of the Spirit’s hypostatis from the Father alone, on the one hand, and the origin of the Spirit’s ousia from the Father and the Son as from one principle/from the Father through the Son, deserves some deep discussion.

IMHO, since the Fathers distinguish the Hypostases (i.e., Persons) by virtue of their relations to one another ALONE, then it cannot be that the Son has no connection with the origin of the Spirit’s Hypostasis. For we have many Eastern/Oriental Fathers describe the Spirit not only as proceeding from the Father, but ALSO as receiving of the Son. This relationship with the Son is eternal, and is part and parcel of the Spirit’s identity AS Spirit within the Godhead.

What do you think, brother Jimmy? I know you stated you do not quite understand HE’s words because they are new to you. Have you given some thought on the matter. I would love to hear/read them.

Blessings,
Marduk

P.S. I know I stated earlier this week that I would provide the quotes from the Eastern/Oriental Fathers by this weekend which demonstrates exactly what HE Metr. Zizioulas stated - what brother Ghosty and I have also been claiming in the face of brother Apotheoun’s denials that the very Essence of the Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son - but I became unexpectedly preoccupied, so you will have to give me several more days.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Jimmy,

That is great but the point is that the pope has to bend to tradition like the rest of the Church. If the fathers professed one cause and source of the Trinity the pope can not simply tell the Greeks there are two causes. It doesn’t work that way. No matter what you think of the pope he can’t change the tradition. The pope can’t simply make doctrine up as he goes. He must submit to tradition.

The Pope has never said there were two causes. Where did you get that info? The Faith Tradition of the Catholic Church today on the matter (East, West and Orient) is the same Faith Tradition of the Catholic Church in the first millenium (East, West, and Orient), different language, but the same Tradition.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Apotheoun]

. . . that the Spirit “proceeds (proienai or procedere) ETERNALLY from Father and the Son as from one principle” - translated into Eastern/Oriental terms as “eternally from Father through the Son”). Note that the confession from Florence utilizing filioque necessarily includes the clause “as from one principle,” for it is only by this clarification that it can be understood to be equated to common parlance of the Eastern/Oriental Churches.

The text in bold face print in the quotation above is contrary to the teaching of the East as exemplified in the writings of St. John Damascene, who said: “All the terms, then, that are appropriate to the Father, as cause, source, begetter, are to be ascribed to the Father alone” [St. John Damascene, *De Fide Orthodoxa, book I, chap. 12]. Thus, it is not possible to ascribe terms like cause, source, principle, etc., to the Father and the Son conjointly, because these terms are proper to the person of the Father alone, and not to the common divine nature, within the immanent life of the Triune God.

Now, taking into account what I have already said in this thread, it is clear that anything that tries to make the Son a principle of divinity in relation to the Spirit will be unacceptable to the East, because – as St. John Damascene, and the Eastern patristic tradition in general, taught – the Spirit receives His eternal origin from the Father alone, coming forth (ekporeusiV) from the Father, and not from the Son [cf., St. John Damascene, *De Fide Orthodoxa, book I, chap. 8; “. . . we do not speak of the Spirit as from the Son”]; nevertheless, He (i.e., the Spirit) is eternally manifest (pefenoV), sent forth (proienai), and poured out (anabluzein), from the Father through the Son, and because He is manifest through the Son, we can speak of the Holy Spirit as the “. . . Spirit of the Son, not as though proceeding from Him, but as proceeding through Him from the Father” [St. John Damascene, *De Fide Orthodoxa, book I, chap. 12].

Finally, for the sake of clarity, the terms cause, source, principle, unbegotten, etc., are – in the writings of the Eastern Fathers – hypostatic properties proper to the Father’s person, and so they cannot be shared with either the Son or the Spirit without falling into the heresy of Sabellian Modalism.

 

[jimmy]

The distinction made by HE Metr. Zizioulas between the origin of the Spirit’s hypostatis from the Father alone, on the one hand, and the origin of the Spirit’s ousia from the Father and the Son as from one principle/from the Father through the Son, deserves some deep discussion.

IMHO, since the Fathers distinguish the Hypostases (i.e., Persons) by virtue of their relations to one another ALONE, then it cannot be that the Son has no connection with the origin of the Spirit’s Hypostasis. For we have many Eastern/Oriental Fathers describe the Spirit not only as proceeding from the Father, but ALSO as receiving of the Son. This relationship with the Son is eternal, and is part and parcel of the Spirit’s identity AS Spirit within the Godhead.

What do you think, brother Jimmy? I know you stated you do not quite understand HE’s words because they are new to you. Have you given some thought on the matter. I would love to hear/read them.

I still don’t understand it. How can there be a procession on the level of the ousia but not on the level hypostasis? The only thing I can really say from it is that it is the Fathers will(not the Son’s) to Spirate the Spirit. The Father is the sole cause but the Son is still a principle.

I was reading more of what Metr. Ziz. thought last night and it seems that what he says further in his critique contradicts what he says here. He says basically that the filioque can’t be projected into the immanent Trinity. It can only be said of the economic Trinity. Here is the response of Metr. Ziz. so you can read it and come to your own conclusions.

geocities.com/trvalentine/orthodox/zizioulis_onesource.html

 

[jimmy]

Dear brother Jimmy,

The Pope has never said there were two causes. Where did you get that info? The Faith Tradition of the Catholic Church today on the matter (East, West and Orient) is the same Faith Tradition of the Catholic Church in the first millenium (East, West, and Orient), different language, but the same Tradition.

Blessings,
Marduk

I am sick of the western superiority complex that says, if the pope says it then the east must profess it. It doesn’t matter what the east thinks, only what the west thinks. Consequently it doesn’t matter what the Greek fathers actually thought, only that they can be bent to fit the thought of the west. Whether the pope actually said there are two sources or causes of the Spirit is not necessarily the point.

 

[Apotheoun]

Apotheoun wrote:

This position is completely untenable since it basically claims that an Ecumenical Council is required to proclaim heretical teachings. If that were the case then there would be no heresies at all, since no Ecumenical Council can proclaim heresy by definition.

Regardless, the Latin Church has made it quite clear that it upholds the teaching of Florence. This can be seen from the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

246 The Latin tradition of the Creed confesses that the Spirit “proceeds from the Father and the Son (filioque)”. The Council of Florence in 1438 explains: "The Holy Spirit is eternally from Father and Son; He has his nature and subsistence at once (simul) from the Father and the Son. He proceeds eternally from both as from one principle and through one spiration. . . . And, since the Father has through generation given to the only-begotten Son everything that belongs to the Father, except being Father, the Son has also eternally from the Father, from whom he is eternally born, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son."75

Since I do not accept the teachings of the Latin councils of the second millennium as ecumenical, it follows that I do not accept the opinions espoused at them as “definitive” in any sense, but as merely the promotion of theologoumena peculiar to the Latin Church. Now, as I am sure you already know, theologoumena (i.e., theological opinions) are binding upon no one, and – as a consequence – I do not hold that the opinions expressed in the Latin Church’s catechism, which reflect the ideas promoted at its particular synods, are binding upon anyone.

You may side with your bishop if you so desire, but I will stand with the Melkite Patriarch and Holy Synod in rejecting the ecumenicity of the Latin Church’s particular synods.

If that teaching is heretical, then the Latin Church and their Catechism is also heretical. That would make the Catholic Communion a Communion with heretics, something you should seriously consider.

The things espoused at the Latin Church’s particular councils cannot be heretical, because nothing promoted at those synods can be held to be universally definitive and binding.

God bless,
Todd

 

[Formosus]

The so called “General councils” are not general councils. They are Ecumenical councils and that is the teaching of the Catholic Church. Also how would it matter if they were or not. If they were general councils and what the professed is heretical, then they were heretical councils. Their ability to bind teaching on the Church is not related to whether or not something professed in them is heretical.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother jimmy,

I am sick of the western superiority complex that says, if the pope says it then the east must profess it. It doesn’t matter what the east thinks, only what the west thinks. Consequently it doesn’t matter what the Greek fathers actually thought, only that they can be bent to fit the thought of the west. Whether the pope actually said there are two sources or causes of the Spirit is not necessarily the point.

I don’t understand your response. I appeal to Tradition, yet you keep trying to wend the conversation back to “what the Pope says.” In any case, YOU are the one that accused the Pope of teaching two sources. I ask again, where did you get that info?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[jimmy]

Dear brother jimmy,

I don’t understand your response. I appeal to Tradition, yet you keep trying to wend the conversation back to “what the Pope says.” In any case, YOU are the one that accused the Pope of teaching two sources. I ask again, where did you get that info?

Blessings,
Marduk

It was just an example of what East and West’s mode of approach is. Namely that, if the pope says or said that there are two sources then there are two sources. It is irrelevant whether it is a historically accurate to say that the pope has professed two sources. The point is his insistance on the idea that we should just submit to the western theology because the west says so. If we hold to Greek or Syriac tradition then we are considered to be stiff necked and proud.

 

[Ghosty]

Apotheoun:

The things espoused at the Latin Church’s particular councils cannot be heretical, because nothing promoted at those synods can be held to be universally definitive and binding.

I don’t think this position requires much work to refute, as it’s quite plainly illogical. A teaching is either heretical, against the Faith, or it is not. It doesn’t have to be “Ecumenical” in order to be heresy, and indeed can’t be Ecumenical if it’s heresy.

Take Arianism, for example. By your argument it is not heretical since no Ecumenical Council promoted Arianism. That is an utterly unworkable definition of heresy.

Again, the fact is that the Latin Church teaches the Filioque as held at Florence, and that is either heretical or it is not. If it is not heretical due to the non-Ecumenicity of Florence, then no other “heresy” is heretical.

Jimmy:

I think there is a problem with some other defenses of the filioque though that I have seen. The single source is often defended by saying that since the Son was begotten by the Father then even though He Spirates the Spirit as well there is still only one source. It seems to imply a double procession of the Spirit with the Son contributing what He has and the Father contributing what He has.

That would indeed be a poor defense and explaination of the Filioque, and would seem to contradict even the Latin Councils which spoke on the matter. Since Florence says that the Father is Source, and that the Son receives the Spiration from the Father, it doesn’t make much sense to say that the Father and Son are together one Source; that would make two Sources in the Trinity, one being the Father alone towards the Son, and the other being the Father and Son together towards the Holy Spirit. If it was argued that the combination of the Father and Son together are the “one Source”, then the Son would be the Source of Himself, which is non-sense.

I still don’t understand it. How can there be a procession on the level of the ousia but not on the level hypostasis?

That’s something I also don’t understand either, and it seems to be a contradiction in terms. The Ousia does not exist apart from Person, and the Person does not exist apart from Ousia; where you have one you would necessarily have the other since a Person without Essence is a contradiction in terms, as it at the very least has the Essence of Personhood.

It’s one thing to take the primacy of Person, which to me means nothing else than the fact that the Ousia doesn’t float around in itself, but is eternally and “first” the Father. It’s another to distinguish between them to the point that you can say that the Divine Essence passes one way, and Personhood another. Ironically I think such a distinction actually causes the problem of the question of “which is primary, Essence or Personhood?”, rather than resolving it. It doesn’t actually resolve anything at all, but actually divides the Godhead in a manner that is both illogical and unsupported by Patristics and Scripture.

Perhaps we’re simply misunderstanding Sayedna John.

Peace and God bless!

 

[mardukm]

I still don’t understand it. How can there be a procession on the level of the ousia but not on the level hypostasis?

I don’t understand HE Metr Zizioulas’ claim in that regard, either. But I think we must all admit that the Fathers East, West and Orient all profess that the Ousia of the Spirit proceeds from the Father THROUGH the Son, and not just His Energies.

The only thing I can really say from it is that it is the Fathers will(not the Son’s) to Spirate the Spirit. The Father is the sole cause but the Son is still a principle.

I think you have hit the nail on the head. Metr. Zizioulas also understands that there is a distinction between “source” and “principle.” IIRC, he stated that dialogue can continue from that point.

I was reading more of what Metr. Ziz. thought last night and it seems that what he says further in his critique contradicts what he says here. He says basically that the filioque can’t be projected into the immanent Trinity. It can only be said of the economic Trinity.

HE Metr. Zizioulas does not say it can ONLY be said of the economic Trinity. He states that on this level the Orthodox have absolutely no problem with it.

HE Metr. Zizioulas is willing to admit however that further discussion is merited on the point regading the Spirit receiving his ousia THROUGH the Son because that is what the Eastern and Oriental Fathers clearly taught. There seems to have been a development away from this primordial understanding within Eastern Orthodoxy to the point that many deny that the Son has any role in the Procession of the Spirit.

To preserve the EO development on the matter, he introduces the distinction between the ousia of the Spirit and His hypostasis, which, like you, I don;t fully understand (personally, nor accept).

I am not sure I understand his reference to the “immanent Trinity.” If he is saying that the Son is not Source of the Trinity itself, that is certainly easily agreed upon. But I don’t understand why that even needs to be said. The doctrine of filioque does not touch upon the role of the Son in relation to the Trinity, but only the role of the Son in relation to the Holy Spirit. Why bring in confusion where there is none?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

It was just an example of what East and West’s mode of approach is. Namely that, if the pope says or said that there are two sources then there are two sources. It is irrelevant whether it is a historically accurate to say that the pope has professed two sources. The point is his insistance on the idea that we should just submit to the western theology because the west says so. If we hold to Greek or Syriac tradition then we are considered to be stiff necked and proud.

Well. if that is your point, then I would agree with you. I know I’ve had my share of arguments with some Latins on that point with regards to ecclesiology and discplines.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Apotheoun,

The text in bold face print in the quotation above is contrary to the teaching of the East as exemplified in the writings of St. John Damascene, who said: “All the terms, then, that are appropriate to the Father, as cause, source, begetter, are to be ascribed to the Father alone” [St. John Damascene, *De Fide Orthodoxa

, book I, chap. 12]. Thus, it is not possible to ascribe terms like cause, source, principle, etc., to the Father and the Son conjointly, because these terms are proper to the person of the Father alone, and not to the common divine nature, within the immanent life of the Triune God.

Now, taking into account what I have already said in this thread, it is clear that anything that tries to make the Son a principle of divinity in relation to the Spirit will be unacceptable to the East, because – as St. John Damascene, and the Eastern patristic tradition in general, taught – the Spirit receives His eternal origin from the Father alone, coming forth (ekporeusiV) from the Father, and not from the Son [cf., St. John Damascene, *De Fide Orthodoxa, book I, chap. 8; “. . . we do not speak of the Spirit as from the Son”]; nevertheless, He (i.e., the Spirit) is eternally manifest (pefenoV), sent forth (proienai), and poured out (anabluzein), from the Father through the Son, and because He is manifest through the Son, we can speak of the Holy Spirit as the “. . . Spirit of the Son, not as though proceeding from Him, but as proceeding through Him from the Father” [St. John Damascene, *De Fide Orthodoxa, book I, chap. 12].

Finally, for the sake of clarity, the terms cause, source, principle, unbegotten, etc., are – in the writings of the Eastern Fathers – hypostatic properties proper to the Father’s person, and so they cannot be shared with either the Son or the Spirit without falling into the heresy of Sabellian Modalism.
Did you read brother Jimmy’s link to HE Metr. Zizioulas discussion? HE brings up a distinction between “source” and “principle” which I think is worthy of note and perhaps can become a basis for future discussion. What do you think?

Blessings,
Marduk

P.S. Brother Ghosty, can I have your comments on the matter also?

 

[Ghosty]

Diak: Thanks for the article, it is a very interesting summary of the controversy.

There is at least one historical/Patristic point I take exception to from the article, however. Fr. Paul writes:

the Cappadocian Fathers, the Great fathers of the East Basil the Great (d 379AD), Gregory of Nazianzus (d 390AD) and Gregory of Nyssa (d 395AD) developed their teaching on the Holy Trinity along the lines of the Antiochene school. They stressed the real distinction of the Divine Persons and defined the distinguishing characteristic of the Father as Unoriginate Origin or Unbegotten, the Son as Begotten and the Holy Spirit as Proceeding. In this system, filioquist thought is entirely out of place because it obscures what is unique to the Hypostasis of the Father: the Son is generated from, or born of the Unoriginate Origin, the Father, while the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, and not from the Begotten.

This is actually contrary to what St. Gregory of Nyssa himself says in “Not Three Gods”, and I’m a bit surprised that Fr. Paul seemingly overlooks this entirely. St. Gregory of Nyssa writes:

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.

Not only does St. Gregory explicitely put the Son “in between” the Father and the Holy Spirit as a participant in the Spiration, he implies that this is necessary in order to guard the “only-begotteness” of the Son!

At the very least Fr. Paul is incorrect in his assertion that, according to the Cappadocians, “the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and not from the Begotten.” St. Gregory makes it quite clear that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Begotten.

Incidently, I’m not the only one who’s noticed this fact regarding St. Gregory’s teaching. Metropolitan John says the same in the link Jimmy provided:

Saint Gregory of Nyssa explicitly admits a mediating role of the Son in the procession of the Spirit from the Father.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Apotheoun]

Apotheoun:

I don’t think this position requires much work to refute, as it’s quite plainly illogical. A teaching is either heretical, against the Faith, or it is not. It doesn’t have to be “Ecumenical” in order to be heresy, and indeed can’t be Ecumenical if it’s heresy.

Ghosty,

If you wish to assert that the Latin Church’s late medieval theory of the filioque is heretical that is your business, but as far as I am concerned, it is a theologoumenon, an erroneous one in my opinion, but not in itself heretical.

In fact, the Latin confusion about the Spirit’s procession (ekporeusis) of origin, which is from the Father alone as sole cause (aitia), source (pege), and principle (arche) of divinity, and His (i.e., the Spirit’s) manifestation (pephenos) from the Father through the Son, sprang up because the Scholastics did not understand the different shades of meaning attached to the words ekporeusis, proienai, pephenos, anabluzein, pempo, etc., in the Greek language. Sadly, until the West takes into account the distinct nuances of meaning attached to these terms there can be no ecumenical advancement between the Roman Church and the Orthodox Churches.

Nevertheless, as an Eastern Catholic I will work tirelessly in order to restore communion between East and West, because – as the Vatican itself has indicated – it is the particular charism of the Eastern Catholic Churches to work for the restoration of communion with the Orthodox East.

God bless,
Todd

 

[jimmy]

That’s something I also don’t understand either, and it seems to be a contradiction in terms. The Ousia does not exist apart from Person, and the Person does not exist apart from Ousia; where you have one you would necessarily have the other since a Person without Essence is a contradiction in terms, as it at the very least has the Essence of Personhood.

It’s one thing to take the primacy of Person, which to me means nothing else than the fact that the Ousia doesn’t float around in itself, but is eternally and “first” the Father. It’s another to distinguish between them to the point that you can say that the Divine Essence passes one way, and Personhood another. Ironically I think such a distinction actually causes the problem of the question of “which is primary, Essence or Personhood?”, rather than resolving it. It doesn’t actually resolve anything at all, but actually divides the Godhead in a manner that is both illogical and unsupported by Patristics and Scripture.

Perhaps we’re simply misunderstanding Sayedna John.

Peace and God bless!

That is how I have understood the primacy of hypostasis over ousia; namely that the ousia is identified with the Father and not with some impersonal substance. It does seem like a contradiction of terms

Regarding whether Florence being ecumenical or not affects whether it is a heresy or not for the west to profess the filioque I have to agree that it is illogical to say the filioque is heretical but the west is not heretical. The Latin Church proclaims the filioque as dogma. Either the west is heretical and so is the filioque or neither is. Either Florence is orthodox(irrelevant of whether it is confusing or not) or it is a heretical council held by heretical bishops.

 

[Ghosty]

Apotheoun:

If you wish to assert that the Latin Church’s late medieval theory of the filioque is heretical that is your business, but as far as I am concerned, it is a theologoumenon, an erroneous one in my opinion, but not in itself heretical.

That’s interesting given what you said earlier in the thread.

If the word “proceeds” is meant to convey the meaning of the Greek word proienai it is – prescinding from the non-sense about the Father and the Son being “one origin” – acceptable, but it is heretical if it is meant to convey the procession (ekporeusis) of origin of the Holy Spirit, which is from the Father alone.

:juggle:

Peace and God bless!

 

[Apotheoun]

Apotheoun:

That’s interesting given what you said earlier in the thread.

If the word “proceeds” is meant to convey the meaning of the Greek word proienai it is – prescinding from the non-sense about the Father and the Son being “one origin” – acceptable, but it is heretical if it is meant to convey the procession (ekporeusis) of origin of the Holy Spirit, which is from the Father alone.

Ghosty,

I am quite precise in what I say, but sadly you seem incapable of a close reading of a text.

The filioque as proposed by the Scholastics is simply a theologoumenon, and an erroneous one in my opinion, but not a dogma. Now if you were to assert that the filioque were a dogma, and not merely a liturgical theologoumenon of the Latin Church, then it would be heretical.

God bless,
Todd

P.S. - Ghosty, are you saying that the ekporeusis of the Spirit is from the Son? If you read my comment above you will see that I used that specific term in speaking about the Spirit’s procession (ekporeusis) of origin from the Father alone. For goodness sake, even the Vatican accepts what I have said in my original post as true.