Yes, and the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are Divine Persons. Persons are Free, Unique and Relational. The Trinity is not made up of cookie-cutter identical beings, but 3 very distinct unique Persons who are One God. They relate to each other by Loving each other, They appreciate what is unique about each Person and They each express Their Own uniqueness while at the same time affirming their common Divinity.
Where did I say we believe councils pull out doctrines out of thin air?
Of course we do.
Indeed, he was off by two centuries, for it was only in the 11th century when the filioque was added into the creed at Rome.Yes the Creed of 325 had not filioque.
9th century? Better check you history.
Indeed he was off.Indeed, he was off …
Do you deny that Pope Benedict VIII was the first Pope to use the Creed with the filioque interpolation in the year 1014, in direct violation of the policies of his predecessor, Pope Leo III?
No, because that verse refers to the Spirit’s economic and energetic outpouring to the world as life, not to the Spirit’s eternal receiving of existence.
The use of the verb ekporeuo has the implication of being caused to proceed from a source. Because the divine nature is in some sense the source of the energies, the energies too are said to proceed from the essence in the sense of ekporeuo, and this is why it can be said that the river of life, which is the manifestation of the Spirit into this world qua energy (but not qua hypostasis), proceeds from the Father and the Son. It is, however, an error from the Orthodox perspective to assert that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son hypostatically or that the Spirit receives existence from both.
It might be Basil. He emphasized the scriptures as the only source of doctrine.
Are you imaging that that was the first use of the filioque?
How’s this (from the link in my post above using explicitly “and the Son”):
Hilary of Poitiers said:
It was added earlier, but removed, then restored. I may be off still, I think it was much earlier.Indeed, he was off by two centuries, for it was only in the 11th century when the filioque was added into the creed at Rome.
But that is not what the Creed is stating.
Most ECFs did. I don’t think it was St. Basil. I think it was one of those others that I have difficulty recalling their name. I read it about a month ago.
I understand that clearly (I was RC for 33 years) and that is why I say that you disregard John 15:26 because that verse does not have the Filioque.
They can’t be both valid, two different statements about the same thing cannot be true. That is ridiculous. If you say that the Greek says something and the Latin says something else, then it is not the same Creed if you are talking about two different things. Both cannot be valid because they are contradictory. Either you believe the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father only, or from both the Father and the Son. Can’t be both.
Then drop the Filioque.
