Filioque??

[buffgbob]

You started your post by “nothing in the Creed is easy” and you ended up with “relatively easy” when it came to Filioque.?

Relatively easy; meaning in comparison to the difficulty of other ideas. Like this: “Nothing in upper level math is easy” and “Linear algebra is relatively easy compared to numerical electromagnetics.” Those statements don’t contradict; neither do Ghosty’s.

An aside: I agree. I find the Filioque much easier to understand than the fact Christ is both fully human and fully divine (a conversation briefly discussed in this thread.) Neither ideas I would consider simple.

 

[Ignatios]

Perhaps, but not for the reason that eternal procession through the Son somehow breaks the unity of the Incarnation.

Procession and Begotten are eternal both from the FATHER, once you say eternal you cannot apply directly or indirectly anything that would indicate explained or unexplained “prior to”, for if the HOLY SPIRIT Proceeds eternally from the FATHER and the SON, then , the SON must have been “prior to” the H.S. in order for the H.S. to be proceeded from HIM as well, thus you have applied priority of existence and/or once you spoke of priority of existence then automatically you introduced Time.
Now, the word “through” is to be applied to the mnifestation of the H.S. “in time” to the world " Temporal " because it is Biblical that the H.S. came to us “through” the SON, IAW HE was both manifested sent to us “through the SON”

Ghosty already replied to this, but can you really explain how the Holy Spirit eternally proceeds from the Father? I assume most of us believe it because the apostolic fathers believed it, not necessarily because we perfectly understand it. (emphasis mine)

Well it seems like your church already knows how = Eternally through the SON.
We (Orthodox) believe it because it was both Biblical and was handed down to us through the Apostolic Fathers.

To the Greek acts was afterwards added a (pretended) letter of Pope John VIII. to Photius, declaring the Filioque to be an addition which is rejected by the church of Rome, and a blasphemy which must be abolished calmly and by, degrees.
. . .
The Roman Catholic historians regard this letter as a Greek fraud. “Ich kann nicht glauben,” says Hefele (IV. 482), “dass je ein Papst seine Stellung so sehr vergessen habe, wie es Johann VIII. gethan haben müsste, wenn dieser Brief ächt wäre. Es ist in demselben auch keine Spur des Papalbewusstseins, vielmehr ist die Superiorität des Photius fast ausdrücklich anerkannt.” ccel.org/s/schaff/history/4_ch05.htm#_edn7

This is to be expected from RCs scholars , however , not all of them had the same idea in regard to this matter, even the one that you have quoted from read his Notes at the end :

                                   Notes.

The accounts of the Roman Catholic historians, even the best, are colored by sectarianism, and must be accepted with caution. Cardinal Hergenröther (Kirchengesch. I. 684) calls the Council of 879 a “Photianische Pseudo-Synode,” and its acts “ein aecht byzantinisches Machwerk ganz vom Geiste des verschmitzten Photius durchdrungen.” …ccel.org/ccel/schaff/hcc4.i.v.iv.html?highlight=pope,john,viii,blasphemy,filioque#highlight

If you ask my opinion in this I say that there is a good chance that it happened, based on what Dvornik( RC ) said concerning this controversy which it was not to your favor the least to say.
here is some names to research if you are up to it;

• Dvornik, The Ρhotian schism (cited in note 62 above); idem, “The Patriarch Photius in the light of recent research” (cited in note 140 above), gives a full bibliography.The Homilies of Photius are now available in a new edition of the Greek text by Basileios Laurdas, 2 vols. (Thessalonike, 1959); and in English translation by Cyril Mango (Dumbarton Oaks Studies, 3 [Cambridge, Mass., 1958]). See also Β. Laurdas, “Α new letter of Photius to Boris,” Hellenika, 13 (1954), 263-65; Georg Hofmann, Photius et ecclesia Romans: Documenta notis illustrata, 2 vols. (Pontificia Universitas Gregoriana, Textus et documenta, Ser. theol. 6 and 8 [Rome, 1932]). Though superseded by Dvornik so far as the relations of Photius with Rome are concerned, J. Her-genröther, Photius, Patriarch νon Constantinopel, 3 vols. (Regensburg, 1867-69), still retains its value, especially for literature and theology; n.b. 3, 170 ff, 186 ff., and passim. Cf. Martin Jugie, Theologia dogmatica, 1, 179-263; Josef Slipy, “Die Τrinitätslehre des byzantinischen Patriarchen Photios,” Zeitschrift für katholische Theologie, 44 (1920), 538-62; 45 (1921), 66-95, 370-404; Κ. Ziegler, “Photios,” RE, 20, 1, 667-737. On Photius as a saint, see Μ. Jugie, “Le culte de Photius dans l’église byzantine,” ROC, 23 (1922-23), 105-22; Α. Papadopulos-Kerameus, “The Patriarch Photius as a holy father of the Orthodox Catholic Church” (in Greek), ΒΖ, 8 (1899), 646-71. Note that, though controversy over Photius still waxes hot, it is now universally agreed that Pope John VIII approved the rehabilitation of Photius in 879-80. Αctually both Dvornik (Byzantion, 8 [1933], 425-74) and Grumel (Revue des sciences philosophiques et théologiques, 12 [1933], 432-57) discovered what actually happened in 879-80 simultaneously and independently; and Grumel, though still critical of Photius, has not changed his mind about this episode: “La liquidation de la querelle photienne,” ΕΟ, 33 (1934), 257-88. Other experts agree: Ambrosius Esser, “Photius, Patriarch von Konstantinopel,” ΕΟ, 9 (1960), 26-46; Emile Amann, L’époque carolingienne (cited in note 132 above), 465-501; idem, “Photius,” DTC, 12, 2 (1935), 1593-95 and passim.

 

[Ignatios]

Relatively easy; meaning in comparison to the difficulty of other ideas. Like this: “Nothing in upper level math is easy” and “Linear algebra is relatively easy compared to numerical electromagnetics.” Those statements don’t contradict; neither do Ghosty’s.

Is this a math lesson … just kiddin you

An aside: I agree. I find the Filioque much easier to understand than the fact Christ is both fully human and fully divine (a conversation briefly discussed in this thread.) Neither ideas I would consider simple.

Again how do you explain only on this thread 46 pages plus over 1000years of accusations that one not understanding what one party means concerning the Filioque and then full agreement on the deity ???
If we are speaking historicaly, then the history prooves you wrong, if you are speaking about yourself, then this does not go beyond yourself.

GOD bless all †††

 

[buffgbob]

I meant for me it is personally less confusing. I see a lot of things getting in the way comprehension. For one, it can easily be said that few have come to this thread to honestly try to understand Catholic position, but to mock it and attempt to demonstrate that it is false.

 

[tdgesq]

Procession and Begotten are eternal both from the FATHER, once you say eternal you cannot apply directly or indirectly anything that would indicate explained or unexplained “prior to”

I agree that “procession” and “begotten” are not to be understand temporally as applied to relationship between the persons of the trinity. I don’t know what that has to do with what I was discussing with John about those relationships somehow destroying the unity of the Incarnation.

for if the HOLY SPIRIT Proceeds eternally from the FATHER and the SON, then , the SON must have been “prior to” the H.S. in order for the H.S. to be proceeded from HIM as well, thus you have applied priority of existence and/or once you spoke of priority of existence then automatically you introduced Time.

No I haven’t. You have. I am not asserting that “procession” when it comes to the trinity denotes priority of existence. On the one hand you state that procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father is eternal, but procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son must be temporal. Why?

Now, the word “through” is to be applied to the mnifestation of the H.S. “in time” to the world " Temporal " because it is Biblical that the H.S. came to us “through” the SON, IAW HE was both manifested sent to us “through the SON”

I agree that in the economy of salvation the Holy Spirit was sent from/through the Son. I think everybody here agrees with that. It doesn’t follow that it excludes the Holy Spirit processing eternally from/through the Son.

Well it seems like your church already knows how = Eternally through the SON.
We (Orthodox) believe it because it was both Biblical and was handed down to us through the Apostolic Fathers.

Many Western Fathers and some from the East taught it. That is primarily why I believe it.

This is to be expected from RCs scholars , however , not all of them had the same idea in regard to this matter, even the one that you have quoted from read his Notes at the end :

Schaff was a protestant, and the fact is if you read the entire article he doesn’t put much stock in what either Catholic or Orthodox theologians have to say on the matter. The authenticity of the letter is certainly disputed by some at any rate.

If you ask my opinion in this I say that there is a good chance that it happened, based on what Dvornik( RC ) said concerning this controversy which it was not to your favor the least to say.
here is some names to research if you are up to it;

I have read some of Dvornik’s work. He does not find good historical evidence for a second Photian schism. I have never seen any commentary by him though on the legitimacy of the supposed letter of Pope John condemning the filioque.

 

[Taboric_Light]

Now, the word “through” is to be applied to the mnifestation of the H.S. “in time” to the world " Temporal " because it is Biblical that the H.S. came to us “through” the SON, IAW HE was both manifested sent to us “through the SON”

Ignatios,

I do not think that the procession of the Holy Spirit being only temporal is set-in-stone for the Orthodox. St. Gregory Palamas did allow for an eternal procession, progression, manifestation (take your pick) of the Holy Spirit through the Son. In an earlier post (#586, pg. 40) I put a quote from St. Palamas; he says:

“The Spirit of the Word from on high is like a mysterious love of the Father possessed by the Word and the well-beloved Son of the Father towards him who begat him; this he does in so far as he comes from the Father conjointly with this love, and this love rests naturally on him.”

Here St. Palamas is not talking about the economic Trinity, but the immanent Trinity: the love of the Father, possessed by the Son, proceeds through the Son back towards the Father. This is clearly a statement concerning the inner relationship of the persons of the Trinity: from the Father, through the Son, back to the Father. However, this is not to say that the Son pre-exists the Spirit. St. Palamas is able to say this because the Son comes from the Father with the Holy Spirit. I think what this shows though is a reciprical relationship. Just as the Son is intimately involved with the procession of the Spirit so too the Spirit is intimately involved with the generation of the Son.

Peace and God bless you.

In Christ through Mary

 

[SFH]

Although that may be true of the Clause by itslef, what is always ingored by Catholic e-pologists, and this is very tiresome, is that the domgatic pronouncements of Lyons and Florence, whihc Catholics consider to be ecumenical councils, further define that the Spirit proceeds “equally” and “eternally” from the Father and the Son “as from one principle”. These definitions quite clearly proclaim a double procession of the Spirit from the Father and the Son, and preclude any interpretation that the Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son (“equally” “as from one principle”). It isn’t so much the Clause itslef, but these definitions that are the problem. Joe

Actually, there is no “double procession”. Because the Son proceeds from the Father, the statement that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son does not impair the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father as originating principle.

As an aside, I would think the Eastern Orthodox would be very hesitant to throw stones at Catholics for adding the “filioque” to the Nicene Creed (basically, a liturgical modification) given their own history of hacking the decrees of the Council of Nicea with Canon 28 of the Council of Chalcedon.

 

[Formosus]

You made several statements in your post SFH, but you did not provide reasoning for them. Could you do so? I read canon 28 and I don’t quite understand what you are talking about there.

 

[Allyson]

Actually, there is no “double procession”. Because the Son proceeds from the Father, the statement that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son does not impair the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father as originating principle.

As an aside, I would think the Eastern Orthodox would be very hesitant to throw stones at Catholics for adding the “filioque” to the Nicene Creed (basically, a liturgical modification) given their own history of hacking the decrees of the Council of Nicea with Canon 28 of the Council of Chalcedon.

Watch your wording, the Son does not proceed from the Father; the Son is “begotten of the Father before all ages.” Begetting and proceeding are two distinct acts of the Father, and being begotten sets the Son apart from the Holy Spirit who proceeds. They can not be used synonymously.

God Bless,
R.

 

[Ghosty]

Watch your wording, the Son does not proceed from the Father; the Son is “begotten of the Father before all ages.” Begetting and proceeding are two distinct acts of the Father, and being begotten sets the Son apart from the Holy Spirit who proceeds. They can not be used synonymously.

God Bless,
R.

Actually, proceeds applies to both, since proceeds is a general term. It is ekporousis that applies only to the Holy Spirit, but even then certain Fathers, such as St. Cyril, have used it to express the relationship of the Son to the Father, since it means “proceeding from the Source”, and this is technically applicable to the Son as well as the Holy Spirit.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Taboric_Light]

Actually, proceeds applies to both, since proceeds is a general term. It is ekporousis that applies only to the Holy Spirit, but even then certain Fathers, such as St. Cyril, have used it to express the relationship of the Son to the Father, since it means “proceeding from the Source”, and this is technically applicable to the Son as well as the Holy Spirit.

Peace and God bless!

However, it is important to seek precision of language to articulate the difference of manner in which the Son and the Holy Spirit come from the Father. They most certainly do not come from the Father in the same manner, so it is desirable to limit ekporousis to describing the manner in which the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father. I believe this is what the Theologian did when speaking on this matter.

In Christ through Mary

 

[Ghosty]

However, it is important to seek precision of language to articulate the difference of manner in which the Son and the Holy Spirit come from the Father. They most certainly do not come from the Father in the same manner, so it is desirable to limit ekporousis to describing the manner in which the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father. I believe this is what the Theologian did when speaking on this matter.

In Christ through Mary

I agree, just pointing out that the use of certain terms must be understood in context, since they can and have been used in various ways.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Taboric_Light]

Agreed. And I figured since you’re always on top of things.

 

[Aramis]

To be blatently dense:

The prohibition on changing the creed is broken the moment one translates it, period.

Latin from Greek is a change in paradigms and linguistic precision. Roman precision tends towards worldliness; Greek towards the philosophical terms.

Like Shakespear’s work loses its wit when translated into modern American English, the Creed loses precision in translation from Koine into Latin.

 

[Apotheoun]

Ignatios,

I do not think that the procession of the Holy Spirit being only temporal is set-in-stone for the Orthodox. St. Gregory Palamas did allow for an eternal procession, progression, manifestation (take your pick) of the Holy Spirit through the Son. In an earlier post (#586, pg. 40) I put a quote from St. Palamas; he says:

“The Spirit of the Word from on high is like a mysterious love of the Father possessed by the Word and the well-beloved Son of the Father towards him who begat him; this he does in so far as he comes from the Father conjointly with this love, and this love rests naturally on him.”

Here St. Palamas is not talking about the economic Trinity, but the immanent Trinity: the love of the Father, possessed by the Son, proceeds through the Son back towards the Father. This is clearly a statement concerning the inner relationship of the persons of the Trinity: from the Father, through the Son, back to the Father. However, this is not to say that the Son pre-exists the Spirit. St. Palamas is able to say this because the Son comes from the Father with the Holy Spirit. I think what this shows though is a reciprical relationship. Just as the Son is intimately involved with the procession of the Spirit so too the Spirit is intimately involved with the generation of the Son.

Yes, St. Gregory Palamas believes that the manifestation (phanerosis) of the Spirit comes through the Son, for the Spirit’s energies progress (proienai) through the Son, and this progression (proienai) is both a temporal and an eternal reality; but he simultaneously rejects anything that would make the Son the cause of the Spirit’s hypostasis, because as he puts it, “. . . the Spirit has His existence from the Father alone, and hence He proceeds (ekporeusis) as regards His existence only from the Father.” (Capita Physica, no. 36)

 

[Taboric_Light]

Yes, St. Gregory Palamas believes that the manifestation (phanerosis) of the Spirit comes through the Son, for the Spirit’s energies progress (proienai) through the Son, and this progression (proienai) is both a temporal and an eternal reality; but he simultaneously rejects anything that would make the Son the cause of the Spirit’s hypostasis, because as he puts it, “. . . the Spirit has His existence from the Father alone, and hence He proceeds (ekporeusis) as regards His existence only from the Father.” (Capita Physica, no. 36)

Hey Apo,

Agreed. I’ve noticed that the Orthodox who are posting on this thread have been very strict about limiting any kind of procession of the Spirit through the Son to the temporal sphere. At least, that’s the impression that I am getting. If I am wrong I hope that they will clarify their position.

I’ll admit that I was rather vague at the end of my post concerning the Son’s and Spirit’s relation to one another in their generation (the Son’s) and procession (the Spirit’s) from the Father. Thank you for the clarification.

Peace and God bless you.

In Christ through Mary

 

[Ignatios]

I agree that “procession” and “begotten” are not to be understand temporally as applied to relationship between the persons of the trinity. I don’t know what that has to do with what I was discussing with John about those relationships somehow destroying the unity of the Incarnation.

hello tdgesq
You have said Earlier in your post# 676>>>

Quote:
Originally Posted by tdgesq
Perhaps, but not for the reason that eternal procession through the Son somehow breaks the unity of the Incarnation.

My reply in post # 679 was for the above phrase in blue, We beleive that Procession of the Holy Spirit is Eternal, and that “from” the FATHER, when we say “through the SON” it is not to be understood as an Eternal but Temporal that is the manifestation of the Holy Spirit to the Faithfull was “through the SON” In time Temporal that is.

No I haven't.  You have.

Ok, let me try to elaborate and maybe clear this,
what I was saying is that when you say that the Lord Holy Spirit† proceed Eternally through the SON, then, you are, or you would be applying time to eternal, this cant be, why? because in order for the Holy Spirit to proceed through the SON eternally then the SON must have been first and prior to, In order for the Holy Spirit to proceed through, thus, by doing so you have applied priority of existence to.

I am not asserting that “procession” when it comes to the trinity denotes priority of existence.

And is the Holy Trinity Eternal or not? if yes ( I do not beleive that your answer to this would be NO) , then, how could you apply the Procession of the Holy Spirit through the SON Eternally?

… On the one hand you state that procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father is eternal, but procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son must be temporal. Why?

It is not “must be” but it is so long you use and understand the term " manifestation", why? Simply because that is what had been revealed to us, we cannot afford to interject things that was not revealed to us.

I agree that in the economy of salvation the Holy Spirit was sent from/through the Son.  I think everybody here agrees with that.  It doesn't follow that it excludes the Holy Spirit processing eternally from/through the Son.

I already went through this, if you like me to clearify it further more please let me know.

Many Western Fathers and some from the East taught it.  That is primarily why I believe it

None of the Estern Fathers had in mind the Filioque (and the SON) as defined by the RCC.

Schaff was a protestant

True, but nonetheless, it is clear, that he favored the RCC, in this issue.

…and the fact is if you read the entire article he doesn’t put much stock in what either Catholic or Orthodox theologians have to say on the matter.

I have read the entire article, and yes, I agree.

The authenticity of the letter is certainly disputed by some at any rate.

True, but on what ground? I beleived that the Letter is genuine since. Pope John and the RCC at that time agreed to omit any additions or subtractions to the Creed, and they were on the same line with the Eastern Fathers.

I have read some of Dvornik's work.  He does not find good historical evidence for a second Photian schism.  I have never seen any commentary by him though on the legitimacy of the supposed letter of Pope John condemning the filioque.

But there is more reason in his work to beleive that such thing could have been, rather then not have been ( the letter of Pope JohnVIII that is).

GOD bless you all †††.

 

[Ignatios]

Ignatios,

I do not think that the procession of the Holy Spirit being only temporal is set-in-stone for the Orthodox.

The procession of the LORD Holy Spirit† is never Temporal, the procession of the Holy Spirit is always Eternal. John 15:26

St. Gregory Palamas did allow for an eternal procession, progression, manifestation (take your pick) of the Holy Spirit through the Son.

I think that is where the error is. Procession is as our LORD and Savior JESUS CHRIST said, that the Holy Spirit proceed from the FATHER.Period.
Manifestation again, is to become known to the world, we knew or received the Holy Spirit in time (temporal) “through the SON” now, this is not Eternal unless you are ready to accept the world the creation as Eternal which it will be absurdity.

In an earlier post (#586, pg. 40) I put a quote from St. Palamas; he says:
“The Spirit of the Word from on high is like a mysterious love of the Father possessed by the Word and the well-beloved Son of the Father towards him who begat him; this he does in so far as he comes from the Father conjointly with this love, and this love rests naturally on him.” emphasis in red mine

now if we take just this quote ( although this does not justify completely what St. Gregory Palamas is saying) which it should be sufficient enough to show that this does not suppoprt your understanding:
1)" …mysterious love of the Father…" it says of the FATHER and not the FATHER and the SON.
2) “…POSSESSED…” is not Proceed.
3) “…possessed by the Word and the well-beloved Son of the Father …” consider proper interpretation of this, I will not go into it for now since it requires a lot of knowledge in order to be understood properly.
4) “…this love rests naturally on him” Note the word “rests” he did not say proceed, Orthodox Theology we say that the Holy Spirit rests on the SON

Here St. Palamas is not talking about the economic Trinity, but the immanent Trinity: the love of the Father, possessed by the Son, proceeds through the Son back towards the Father. This is clearly a statement concerning the inner relationship of the persons of the Trinity: from the Father, through the Son, back to the Father. However, this is not to say that the Son pre-exists the Spirit. St. Palamas is able to say this because the Son comes from the Father with the Holy Spirit. I think what this shows though is a reciprical relationship. Just as the Son is intimately involved with the procession of the Spirit so too the Spirit is intimately involved with the generation of the Son.

All I can say for this, that is a very bad startegy to take St. Gregory Palamas’s work and try to use it to support a Western look or Idea, It wont work, you have a better shot at using the Christology in Islam to support the Christology in Christianity.

GOD bless you all †††

 

[tdgesq]

hello tdgesq
You have said Earlier in your post# 676>>>
My reply in post # 679 was for the above phrase in blue, We beleive that Procession of the Holy Spirit is Eternal, and that “from” the FATHER, when we say “through the SON” it is not to be understood as an Eternal but Temporal that is the manifestation of the Holy Spirit to the Faithfull was “through the SON” In time Temporal that is.

I know that is what you mean - that the words “through the Son” are only to be understood temporally. I agree that is what you mean. I disagree with you that Catholics and the Fathers mean that the Holy Spirit only proceeds temporally through (or from) the Son. The Holy Spirit proceeds eternally through the Son as well.

Ok, let me try to elaborate and maybe clear this,
what I was saying is that when you say that the Lord Holy Spirit† proceed Eternally through the SON, then, you are, or you would be applying time to eternal, this cant be,why?

No, I would not be doing that. I am saying that the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally through/from the Son.

because in order for the Holy Spirit to proceed through the SON eternally then the SON must have been first and prior to, In order for the Holy Spirit to proceed through, thus, by doing so you have applied priority of existence to.

This is not an explanation. I could just as easily accuse you of holding that the Son proceeding from the Father denotes a priority of existence. Nobody on this Earth has ever experienced something “proceeding from” something else except temporally. We use temporal terms to describe the eternal relationships between the persons of the trinity because we don’t have any choice. We accept based upon our faith and tradition that there is eternal procession of the Spirit from the Father. Just as the Father did not exist prior to the Spirit because the Spirit proceeds from him, neither did the Son exist prior to the Spirit because he proceeds through him.

And is the Holy Trinity Eternal or not? if yes ( I do not beleive that your answer to this would be NO) , then, how could you apply the Procession of the Holy Spirit through the SON Eternally?

I accept that the trinity is eternal. And I can apply the procession of the Spirit through the Son eternally just like you can apply the procession of the Spirit from the Father eternally. There is no logical impossibility in doing so as long as we understand that we are describing a relationship between the persons of the trinity.

It is not “must be” but it is so long you use and understand the term " manifestation", why? Simply because that is what had been revealed to us, we cannot afford to interject things that was not revealed to us.

I base my understanding on the Fathers from both East and West, which if I am not mistaken have already been provided in this thread. In other words, I find that it has been revealed to the Church that the Spirit proceeds both eternally through the Son (eternal relationship) and temporally through the Son (the Incarnation). You have not provided anything that demonstrates it is logically impossible for the Spirit to proceed eternally through the Son.

None of the Estern Fathers had in mind the Filioque (and the SON) as defined by the RCC.

So you say. I will look for the quotes already provided in this thread when I have an opportunity.

True, but nonetheless, it is clear, that he favored the RCC, in this issue.

You are correct on this. Schaff did favor the Catholic explanation.

True, but on what ground? I beleived that the Letter is genuine since. Pope John and the RCC at that time agreed to omit any additions or subtractions to the Creed, and they were on the same line with the Eastern Fathers.

Do you have a source for this? I am interested in pursuing this line of discussion.

But there is more reason in his work to beleive that such thing could have been, rather then not have been ( the letter of Pope JohnVIII that is).

Not really. It is something that the Western Fathers spoke plainly about. It would be strange to see the Patriarch of the West completely condemn it in such stark terms. If you have something from Dvornik on it, I would be happy to take a look.

 

[marlo]

What ever the case maybe, the filioque is found in a copy of the Acts of the Seventh Ecumenical of the Latins.

ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.ix.iv.html

It is true that at the Council of Florence it was asserted that the words were found in a copy of the Acts of the Seventh Ecumenical which they had, but no stress was even at that eminently Western council laid upon the point, which even if it had been the case would have shewn nothing with regard to the true reading of the Creed as adopted by the Second Synod.[210](javascript:toggle(‘fnf_ix.iv-p10.1’)210

In fact the contention of the Latins was that the words were inserted by II. Nice! To this the Easterns answered most pertinently “Why did you not tell us this long ago?” They were not so fortunate when they insisted that St. Thomas would have quoted it, for some scholars have thought St. Thomas but ill acquainted with the proceedings at the Seventh Synod. Vide Hefele, Concil. XLVIII., § 810. On this point there never was nor can be any doubt.