Filioque??

[Nicholas82]

Yes, both councils teach double procession. That much is clear. Neither council affirms that both are equally the principle or origin of the Holy Spirit. Try again.

“…and the Holy Ghost equally from both…” so the Holy Spirit proceeds equally from both… how can something(or in this case Someone) proceed equally from both the one who is the origin as well as the one who just sends?

 

[Aramis]

“…and the Holy Ghost equally from both…” so the Holy Spirit proceeds equally from both… how can something(or in this case Someone) proceed equally from both the one who is the origin as well as the one who just sends?

An Extremely Rough Analogy: Imagine that I am a coin minter… I have a box of gold coins that I made. I give you permission to distribute them freely. From the point of view of the beggar or the coin collector, it matters not that I made them, only that you are one of two sources of those coins uncirculated.

The action of the coin is at the will of him who has it, even tho it has but one origin: the minter.

 

[Ghosty]

Another rough analogy: I walk from my bedroom, into the livingroom, into the kitchen. I come from the bedroom and the livingroom equally (it wasn’t a 60/40 split, with most of me coming from the bedroom), but the bedroom is the origin of my movement.

Or here’s one that has Patristic roots: the lake comes equally from the river and the spring, since the water from the spring flows entirely into and through the river, with no parts left out. We can say. If someone were to ask whether the lake comes more from the river, or more from the spring, the only reasonable answer would be that it is equally from both, since the water is not divided between them. We would say, however, that the water’s source is the spring, and that the river receives the same water and contribution from the spring without becoming the source of the lake; this is exactly what Florence says about the Son’s relationship to the Father:

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

So “equal”, according to the context, can’t mean that the Son has the same role in the Spiration as the Father.

Another point to consider is that we’re reading an English translation, not the Latin original. The term may have a different nuance in the Latin, much like how the Latin term for “burden of the consequences of an act” is often translated as “guilt”, as in “the guilt of Original Sin”, which gives modern readers a totally different impression of the meaning of the teaching.

Peace and God bless!

 

[anthony022071]

[Turtullian]

Yes, both councils teach double procession. That much is clear.

That’s not what the councils say. It’s only a double procession if you make a dichotomy between the Father and the Son. But the Father and Son are eternally one in being.

Neither council affirms that both are equally the principle or origin of the Holy Spirit. Try again.

If the Holy Spirit proceeds equally from both,then obviously both are equally the origin of the Holy Spirit. The ultimate cause of the Spirit is the Father,but the Son participates in being the ultimate cause of the Spirit,because the Son is consubstantial with the Father.

 

[Ghosty]

The ultimate cause of the Spirit is the Father,but the Son participates in being the the ultimate cause of the Spirit,because the Son is consubstantial with the Father.

The Son participates in the Spiration, but can’t participate in being the ultimate cause; that would require Him to not be the Son. Only the Father can be the ultimate cause of anything in the Trinity, because only the Father gives without receiving first.

The Council of Florence explicitely states that the Son receives the Spiration of the Holy Spirit from the Father, so He can’t share in being the ultimate cause. Fortunately no Latin theologian (that I’ve ever heard of) or Council has said that the Son is equally the ultimate cause with the Father, and as I said Florence rejects such an interpretation.

Peace and God bless!

 

[anthony022071]

[Turtullian]

Right, which means the Father through the Son as the Ecumenical Council of Florence teaches.

No,that is what the Greeks taught. The Council of Florence affirmed also that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and Son.

ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/FLORENCE.HTM#3
Session 6—6 July 1439

[Definition of the holy ecumenical synod of Florence]

< 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.

We define also that the explanation of those words “and from the Son” was licitly and reasonably added to the creed for the sake of declaring the truth and from imminent need. >

 

[anthony022071]

[Ghosty]

The Son participates in the Spiration, but can’t participate in being the ultimate cause; that would require Him to not be the Son. Only the Father can be the ultimate cause of anything in the Trinity, because only the Father gives without receiving first.

It doesn’t make sense to say that the Son does not participate in being the ultimate cause. The Son is eternally one in being,consubstantial,with the Father,who is the ultimate cause.

The Council of Florence explicitely states that the Son receives the Spiration of the Holy Spirit from the Father, so He can’t share in being the ultimate cause. Fortunately no Latin theologian (that I’ve ever heard of) or Council has said that the Son is equally the ultimate cause with the Father, and as I said Florence rejects such an interpretation.

Peace and God bless!

The council does not say that the Son receives the spiration of the Holy Spirit from the Father. The Son has all that the Father has because he is one in being with the Father. It is not a matter of spiration. The Son’s reception of the Spirit is one thing,and the Spirit’s spiration is another. The Son eternally receives of the Father because he is eternally one with the Father,who is the ultimate cause. The Son is eternally dependent upon the Father,but he is also one in being with him,has all that he has,and does what he does.

The council did not reject the interpretation that the Son is equally the ultimate cause with the Father. That would be like denying the Son’s consubstantiality with the Father.

< 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. >

 

[Turtullian]

SNIP

Anthony, the same Council also decreed a single source of the spiration of the holy Ghost. You are trying to interpret the Council apart from what it also said.

 

[Ghosty]

It doesn’t make sense to say that the Son does not participate in being the ultimate cause. The Son is eternally one in being,consubstantial,with the Father,who is the ultimate cause.

Then the Holy Spirit is the ultimate cause of Himself, which is false. This is why we must be very clear on how the distinction is made between the Father and the Son in the Spiration of the Holy Spirit, and it is why great theologians like St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Augustine said that the Father alone is “principaliter”, or ultimate source, of the Holy Spirit.

The council does not say that the Son receives the spiration of the Holy Spirit from the Father.

It does, actually, and in the portion you quoted. Everything the Son has is received from the Father; that much is Scriptural.

The council did not reject the interpretation that the Son is equally the ultimate cause with the Father. That would be like denying the Son’s consubstantiality with the Father.

< 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. >

You’re confusing two very different things. Yes, they are one principle because the Holy Spirit is one and does not come in parts, nor as two distinct Persons with the same name. They are not identical in HOW the Spirit comes forth from them, because the Son receives the Spiration, and the Father puts it out from Himself. In other words, they share equally in the Spiration (one Holy Spirit is Breathed entirely by both together), but not in their relation to the Spiration.

It is one movement, one motion, and one result, but the Father and Son do not stand side-by-side in Spirating the Holy Spirit, but rather “in line”, with the Father as Source, and the Son as conjoined conduit. Furthermore, it is not the common substance that Spirates the Holy Spirit, since the Holy Spirit shares this same substance, so we must say that the relationship both Father and Son have to the Spirit reflects their Personal status of Father and Son; so the Father is source, the Son the participant in the Spiration.

Again, the analogy of the spring, the river, and the lake is quite important and useful. The river receives the water from the spring, and therefore is not the source, but it shares in the transmission of the water from the spring to the lake equally with the spring since one motion is shared between them. There is one principle of the lake, it is the flowing of water, and this is equally from the river and the spring, but only the spring is the source of water, and only the river is the conduit. Even though the spring gives everything it has to the river, the river never becomes the spring, the source of water.

Peace and God bless!

 

[anthony022071]

[Turtullian]

Anthony, the same Council also decreed a single source of the spiration of the holy Ghost. You are trying to interpret the Council apart from what it also said.

The Father and Son are the single source,because they are one in being.

 

[anthony022071]

[Ghosty]

Then the Holy Spirit is the ultimate cause of Himself, which is false.

Where did you get that conclusion anyway? The Father is the ultimate cause of the Spirit,remember?

This is why we must be very clear on how the distinction is made between the Father and the Son in the Spiration of the Holy Spirit, and it is why great theologians like St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Augustine said that the Father alone is “principaliter”, or ultimate source, of the Holy Spirit.

And it also true that the Son eternally participates in the Father,the ultimate source. The Spirit spirates from both as from one single principle. So there is in fact,no distinction between the Father and Son in the spiration.
There is only a distinction between the persons of Father and Son,who are consubstantial.

It does, actually, and in the portion you quoted. Everything the Son has is received from the Father; that much is Scriptural.

No,it does not say that the Spirit spirates from Father to Son. The Son receives from the Father,but there is no spiration in consubstantiality. Spiration refers to the Spirit’s going forth from both Father and Son.

You’re confusing two very different things. Yes, they are one principle because the Holy Spirit is one and does not come in parts, nor as two distinct Persons with the same name. They are not identical in HOW the Spirit comes forth from them,

Yes,they are. They are together the single source of the Spirit.

because the Son receives the Spiration, and the Father puts it out from Himself.

The councils do not say that the Son receives the spiration.
Spiration refers to the going forth of the Spirit from Father and Son as from one single source.

In other words, they share equally in the Spiration (one Holy Spirit is Breathed entirely by both together), but not in their relation to the Spiration.

That doesn’t make sense. If they are together a single source,then they identical in reagard to the spiriation.

It is one movement, one motion, and one result, but the Father and Son do not stand side-by-side in Spirating the Holy Spirit, but rather “in line”, with the Father as Source, and the Son as conjoined conduit.

The Father and Son are consubstantial! No one is saying that they stand side by side in spirating the Spirit. The Son is eternally one in being with the Father. They are the one single source of the spiration.

Furthermore, it is not the common substance that Spirates the Holy Spirit, since the Holy Spirit shares this same substance,

It is the person that spirates.

so we must say that the relationship both Father and Son have to the Spirit reflects their Personal status of Father and Son;

The Father and Son are together the principle of the Spirit’s subsistence.

< 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. >

so the Father is source, the Son the participant in the Spiration.

The Son is participant for the very reason that he is one in being with the Father,who is the source.

Again, the analogy of the spring, the river, and the lake is quite important and useful. The river receives the water from the spring, and therefore is not the source, but it shares in the transmission of the water from the spring to the lake equally with the spring since one motion is shared between them. There is one principle of the lake, it is the flowing of water, and this is equally from the river and the spring, but only the spring is the source of water, and only the river is the conduit. Even though the spring gives everything it has to the river, the river never becomes the spring, the source of water.

If you draw water from the river,you have also drawn water from the spring. They are both your source,or sources,of water.

But the Father and the Son are not separate locales like a spring and a river. And they are not temporal like a spring and a river. They are eternally one in being and they give forth the Spirit as one.

 

[Nicholas82]

[Turtullian]

The Father and Son are the single source,because they are one in being.

…as is the Holy Spirit, so maybe no One is really the source of any Other, or maybe that just doesn’t make sense.

 

[Nicholas82]

[Ghosty]Where did you get the conclusion anyway? The Spirit spirates from the Father and Son,remember?

Since the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are of one substance, the argument that the Holy Spirit “spirates” or eternally proceeds from the Son as well

 

[anthony022071]

…as is the Holy Spirit, so maybe no One is really the source of any Other, or maybe that just doesn’t make sense.

We don’t doubt that the Father is the ultimate source of the Spirit. And no one should doubt that the Son is one in being with the ultimate source,even though he is dependent.

Since the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are of one substance, the argument that the Holy Spirit “spirates” or eternally proceeds from the Son as well as the Father due to their being of one substance would lead one to conclude that (according to you) the Holy Spirit could also be said to proceed from Himself, since He is of the same substance as the Father as is the Son.

No,that doesn’t follow. Being one in substance does not mean that there is no hierarchy.

The Father has logical priority over the Son and Spirit simply because he is the Father. The Father is uncaused cause,the Son caused,and the Spirit proceeds from both.

 

[Ghosty]

The Father is the ultimate cause of the Spirit,remember?

No, according to you the Father AND the Son are the “ultimate source”, owing to their consubstantiality. Therefore, the Holy Spirit who is equally consubstantial must be equally the “ultimate source”, since consubstantiality is what makes the Father and Son the same “ultimate source”.

No,it does not say that the Spirit spirates from Father to Son.

Nobody is saying the Holy Spirit is Spirated TO the Son, He is Spirated THROUGH the Son. Where are you getting that?

The Son is participant for the very reason that he is one in being with the Father,who is the source.

Then the Holy Spirit is also a participant in His own Spiration, since He is one in being with the Father.

They are together the single source of the Spirit.

Nope, and Florence doesn’t say that they are. “Single source” is never used to refer to the Father and Son together; source only refers to the Father. They are one principle, but principle is NOT the same as source.

Incidently, you are making the exact errors that are rejected by the East, and also by Latin theologians; what you are saying is rightly rejected as heretical, and it is this idea which Eastern theologians have railed against in their polemics against the Latins (of course, they have been wrong about what the Latins believe, but apparently you follow in the straw-man errors they deride). I recommend reading up on folks like St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Augustine in order to clear up these errors; both insist that the Father is “principaliter”, or “ultimate principle” which is something the Son does not share in.

Peace and God bless!

 

[anthony022071]

[Ghosty]

No, according to you the Father AND the Son are the “ultimate source”, owing to their consubstantiality.

There’s no dichotomy between them.
The Son is dependent on the Father,or ultimate source,but he is also one in being with him. The difference is only that the Son is not the Father. He is not the principle without principle.

Therefore, the Holy Spirit who is equally consubstantial must be equally the “ultimate source”, since consubstantiality is what makes the Father and Son the same “ultimate source”.

The Spirit spirates from the Father and Son as from one principle.
There’s no separating the Father and Son in regard to the origination of the Spirit.

Nobody is saying the Holy Spirit is Spirated TO the Son, He is Spirated THROUGH the Son. Where are you getting that?

You said that the Son receives the spiration. Now you are saying that the Spirit spirates through the Son. That is not what the Church teaches.

Spiration refers to the outward movement of the Spirit from God to creation.

Then the Holy Spirit is also a participant in His own Spiration, since He is one in being with the Father.

He is being spirated,so of course he participates in the spiration.

Nope, and Florence doesn’t say that they are. “Single source” is never used to refer to the Father and Son together; source only refers to the Father. They are one principle, but principle is NOT the same as source.

Principle is indeed the same as source when it comes to the spiration of the Spirit. The Son is one in being with the Father,has all that he has,and does what he does. And the nature and subsistence of the Spirit is from both. That means the Spirit exists because both Father and Son exist.

Incidently, you are making the exact errors that are rejected by the East, and also by Latin theologians; what you are saying is rightly rejected as heretical,

No,you are making the same error that Photius made,who thought that the properties of the divine persons could not be communicated.

and it is this idea which Eastern theologians have railed against in their polemics against the Latins (of course, they have been wrong about what the Latins believe, but apparently you follow in the straw-man errors they deride). I recommend reading up on folks like St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Augustine in order to clear up these errors; both insist that the Father is “principaliter”, or “ultimate principle” which is something the Son does not share in.

The Son does share in being the principle of the Spirit.

Council of Florence (1439):
"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…

Catholic Catechism:
‘…the eternal order of the Divine Persons in their consubstantial communion implies that the Father, as the ‘principle without principle,’ is the first origin of the Spirit, but also that, as Father of the only Son, He is, with the Son, the single Principle from which the Spirit proceeds.’ (Council of Lyons II, DS 850).’ "

 

[anthony022071]

I recommend reading up on folks like St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Augustine in order to clear up these errors; both insist that the Father is “principaliter”, or “ultimate principle” which is something the Son does not share in.

Where do they say that the Son does not share in the first principle? Augustine used the word “principally” because the Spirit proceeds from the Son also. But he did not say that the Son does not share in the first principle of the Spirit. That would be like saying that the Son does not share in the Father.

Augustine,On the Trinity,XV:17,29

“And yet it is not to no purpose that in this Trinity the Son and none other is called the Word of God, and the Holy Spirit and none other the Gift of God, and God the Father alone is He from whom the Word is born, and from whom the Holy Spirit principally proceeds. And therefore I have added the word principally, because we find that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son also. But the Father gave Him this too, not as to one already existing, and not yet having it; but whatever He gave to the only-begotten Word, He gave by begetting Him. Therefore He so begat Him as that the common Gift should proceed from Him also, and the Holy Spirit should be the Spirit of both.”

 

[Alethiaphile]

Christy74: First of all, the filioque was taught by St. Cyril of Alexandria, St. Ambrose, St. Augustine, St. Leo the Great and many others before the “Constinopolitan” portion of the Creed was even officially added to the Nicaean Creed

Ok, let’s be clear that what these Fathers taught, with the exception of St. Augustine, was the idea of some participation by the Son in the procession of the Spirit; in some cases the language is “thorught” the Son, some mya be referring to the economic procession of the Spirit, which the Orthodox don’t object to; in any case, I don’t believe any of these taught the full-blown doctrine that later became associated with the Filioque in the West, except aghain possibly Augustine, who, as someone else mentioned, I believe clarified his position in the Retractions.

Secondly, there is no record of any opposition to the filioque at the time of the Council of Toledo, which occurred a century or so after Chalcedon. No Popes condemned it at the time, and in fact we know that Rome was using the filioque (though perhaps not in the Nicene Creed)

 

[Alethiaphile]

any claim that Lyons and Florence preclude any teaching that the procession of the Holy Ghost procedes from the Father through the Son is false. Infact, the orthodox teaching of Florence teaches thusly:
“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.”
The Ball is in your court.

“Has his essence and his subsistent being from the Father together with the Son”-

In other words, the Son as well as the Father is an origin and cause of the Spirit, unless someone tries to drive some sort of semantical wedge between “has his subsistent being from” and is originated by or is caused by, which I simply don’t find credible.

“proceeds from both eternally as from one principle and a single spiration”

In other words there isone eternal Act which spirates the Spirit, i.e. no “pass through” (so to speak)

“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.”

Yes, it says that “through the Son” is to be interpreted as meaning what the Greeks mean by “cause”. The Council had to deal with the Patristic language “through the Son”; you’re right, they didn’t explicitly reject it, they reinterpreted it into something way beyond the Patristic language. At any rate, “principle of the subsistence of the Holy Spirit” is clealry inconsistent with any notion of the Father as sole arche. Joe

 

[Ghosty]

Ok, let’s be clear that what these Fathers taught, with the exception of St. Augustine, was the idea of some participation by the Son in the procession of the Spirit; in some cases the language is “thorught” the Son, some mya be referring to the economic procession of the Spirit, which the Orthodox don’t object to; in any case, I don’t believe any of these taught the full-blown doctrine that later became associated with the Filioque in the West, except aghain possibly Augustine, who, as someone else mentioned, I believe clarified his position in the Retractions.

They weren’t speaking of temporal procession. I won’t bother to post all the various quotes that indicate they are speaking about eternal, personal origins, but you’re welcome to read the quotes provided at this secondary source and look up the original sources yourself. I’ll provide just one quote which shows unequivocally that at least at the time of St. Hilary (a Western saint and theologian prior to Augustine, and contemporary to St. Ambrose):

But I cannot describe Him, Whose pleas for me I cannot describe. As in the revelation that Thy Only-begotten was born of Thee before times eternal, when we cease to struggle with ambiguities of language and difficulties of thought, the one certainty of His birth remains; so I hold fast in my consciousness the truth that Thy Holy Spirit is from Thee and through Him, although I cannot by my intellect comprehend it.

Clearly speaking of eternal matters, not the temporal procession which no one anywhere has stressed, since it’s an obvious account of Scripture. The argument of temporal versus eternal does not appear to be in any of the old debates between Latins and Greeks, so it doesn’t seem to have been a matter of concern.

Rome was definitely not using it in the Creed, and where else would it have been used?

I don’t even know if Rome was Liturgically using the Creed at all at that point. Even so, not using it doesn’t remotely equal opposition.

Your statement is also a little misleading in that the East did not know about the Filioque until the Frankish missionaries tried to get one of the Slavic peoples (I think the Bulgars) to recite it, at which point they objected to it consistently, and from then after.

Simply false. St. Maximos the Confessor was defending Rome over the question of the filioque centuries before the missions to the Slavs under Photius.

Again, it is clear what St. Maximos defended was the procession through the Son, which the Filioque could have been construed as stating at the time, since the definitions of Lyons and Florence were in the future.

Through the Son is still the teaching of Lyons and Florence. It hasn’t changed. Likewise, St. Maximos wasn’t defending temporal procession, since the Latins never claimed the filioque referred to temporal procession.

“Utterly embedded in the West since at least St. Ambrose” is a in my opinion a gross misstatement. It had little currency at all until the supposed views of St. Augustine (“supposed” because there is doubt whether his statements in De Trinitae support the view later attributed to him) were publicized after his death, and even then it remained at most a minority opinion until it was adopted first by Visigothic Spain and later the Franks. If you are denying that the Franks played a significant role in promoting use of the Clause and adoption of the theology behind it, then I think you are wrong on that score.

St. Hilary of Portiers and Origen never read St. Augustine, and died before him. Both taught the eternal filioque. Incidently, so did certain Fathers in the East, such as St. Gregory of Nyssa in “Not Three Gods”:

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.

Once again, this is clearly not referring to temporal matters, but eternal personal procession.

I don’t see how that inference follows at all.

If Photius was opposing Rome over the issue of the filioque a century before it was added to the Roman Creed, then Rome was teaching the filioque a century before it was added to the Roman Creed. That’s pretty basic logic, I think.

There is a huge difference, at least from the Orthodox pov, between the issue of adding to the Creed, and the issue of use or nonuse of the vernacular.

Banning an addition to a Creed while supporting the teaching is something that can be overturned later without jeopardizing infallibility, which is the point I was addressing.

Peace and God bless!