Regarding an Orthodox objection to the Filioque..

[Parmandur]

"Through" is not a bandwagon; it is the teaching of the Greek Fathers (St. Gregory of Nyssa said that the Son was to the Holy Ghost as cause is to effect!) and the Ecumenical Councils from Constantinople I on down.

You missed the entire meaning of that sentence.

I bet I can name more Fathers that you can that said the same thing. Then again, that wasn't the point.

The Arians, between Nicea and Constantinople, did in fact mock the belief in the Son and Holy Ghost's consubstantial divinity by saying that He was just a second Son, and that logically there should be infinite more "Sons" emanating from the Father, as a reductio ad absurdum of the orthodox position, trying to make it seem that neither the Son nor the Holy Ghost were really God like the Father.  That is what the Cappadocians were responding to when they developed their Pneumatology which underlies the Western Filioque, which itself was a response to the Arian presence in Spain.  The Filioque is all about contradicting Arianism (When St. Thomas Aquinas writes "Against the Errors of the Greeks," this is referring to Arianism, Nestorianism, Monophytism and the other -isms of Trinitarian and Christological import, not the Orthodox, btw).

Sure, but that's not what you originally said. And that being said, is irrelevant to the objection to the filioque...

I agree with you, that picture is bad.  Honestly, just about any picture of the Trinity is bad, even the famous Rublev icon is super-problematic.  The one you posted is worse than most.  But the Athanasian "Shield of the Trinity" is probably the best, being a visual approximation of the Athanasian Creed.  It is still imperfect, for instance making the Divine Essence seem like a fourth Person, but that is the limit of our visualization capabilities.

And that's the reason the filioque is rejected. It can, has, and is, in numerous different ways, be misunderstood. That lack of clarity is the problem. If the Roman church changed to "through the Son" or "per Filium", then I seriously doubt there would be the same Bru-ha-ha that is what it is now. It's even worse in English, than the possible misunderstanding from the Latin.

I'll agree that the Creed as professed for 1000 years in the West is probably what should be adopted, in order to reduce confusion and as a concession.  But the doctrine of Florence is rock solid.

[TrentCath]

The point is that this thread does not show that the filioque doesn't clarify anything because disagreement does not equal a lack of clarity.

Really, this comes straight from the Greek Fathers.

I wondered how long it would be, before someone did the obvious and mentioned that document

You didn't read much of the previous pages did you?

Start with page 2.

No, theres not much point with the Orthodox, any group that spends 900 odd years arguing over whether one could use leavened or unleavened bread and should fast on saturdays or not isn't likely to listen to reason 

[Azurestone]

The point is that this thread does not show that the filioque doesn't clarify anything because disagreement does not equal a lack of clarity.

Really, this comes straight from the Greek Fathers.

I wondered how long it would be, before someone did the obvious and mentioned that document

You didn't read much of the previous pages did you?

Start with page 2.

No, theres not much point with the Orthodox, any group that spends 900 odd years arguing over whether one could use leavened or unleavened bread and should fast on saturdays or not isn't likely to listen to reason 

Especially since the Latin church originally used leavened... 

[Parmandur]

The point is that this thread does not show that the filioque doesn't clarify anything because disagreement does not equal a lack of clarity.

Really, this comes straight from the Greek Fathers.

I wondered how long it would be, before someone did the obvious and mentioned that document

You didn't read much of the previous pages did you?

Start with page 2.

No, theres not much point with the Orthodox, any group that spends 900 odd years arguing over whether one could use leavened or unleavened bread and should fast on saturdays or not isn't likely to listen to reason 

Well, those of us Latins who live in glass houses ought not to throw stones.  Theological and liturgical arguments of any stripe look nutty from the outside, across the board.

[TrentCath]

The point is that this thread does not show that the filioque doesn't clarify anything because disagreement does not equal a lack of clarity.

Really, this comes straight from the Greek Fathers.

I wondered how long it would be, before someone did the obvious and mentioned that document

You didn't read much of the previous pages did you?

Start with page 2.

No, theres not much point with the Orthodox, any group that spends 900 odd years arguing over whether one could use leavened or unleavened bread and should fast on saturdays or not isn't likely to listen to reason 

Especially since the Latin church originally used leavened... 

You're just proving my point 

[TrentCath]

The point is that this thread does not show that the filioque doesn't clarify anything because disagreement does not equal a lack of clarity.

Really, this comes straight from the Greek Fathers.

I wondered how long it would be, before someone did the obvious and mentioned that document

You didn't read much of the previous pages did you?

Start with page 2.

No, theres not much point with the Orthodox, any group that spends 900 odd years arguing over whether one could use leavened or unleavened bread and should fast on saturdays or not isn't likely to listen to reason 

Well, those of us Latins who live in glass houses ought not to throw stones.  Theological and liturgical arguments of any stripe look nutty from the outside, across the board.

You are conceding far too much in this discussion, last time I checked we didn't go around breaking into tabernacles and trampling on the blessed sacrament because as it was unleavened bread it was only 'dried mud' nor accuse people of being judaizers for fasting on Saturday, use this evidence of their heresy and excommunicate them.

[Azurestone]

The point is that this thread does not show that the filioque doesn't clarify anything because disagreement does not equal a lack of clarity.

Really, this comes straight from the Greek Fathers.

I wondered how long it would be, before someone did the obvious and mentioned that document

You didn't read much of the previous pages did you?

Start with page 2.

No, theres not much point with the Orthodox, any group that spends 900 odd years arguing over whether one could use leavened or unleavened bread and should fast on saturdays or not isn't likely to listen to reason 

Well, those of us Latins who live in glass houses ought not to throw stones.  Theological and liturgical arguments of any stripe look nutty from the outside, across the board.

You are conceding far too much in this discussion, last time I checked we didn't go around breaking into tabernacles and trampling on the blessed sacrament because as it was unleavened bread it was only 'dried mud' nor accuse people of being judaizers for fasting on Saturday, use this evidence of their heresy and excommunicate them.

Yes, the Latins are spotless when it comes to relations with the Orthodox. 

[TrentCath]

The point is that this thread does not show that the filioque doesn't clarify anything because disagreement does not equal a lack of clarity.

Really, this comes straight from the Greek Fathers.

I wondered how long it would be, before someone did the obvious and mentioned that document

You didn't read much of the previous pages did you?

Start with page 2.

No, theres not much point with the Orthodox, any group that spends 900 odd years arguing over whether one could use leavened or unleavened bread and should fast on saturdays or not isn't likely to listen to reason 

Well, those of us Latins who live in glass houses ought not to throw stones.  Theological and liturgical arguments of any stripe look nutty from the outside, across the board.

You are conceding far too much in this discussion, last time I checked we didn't go around breaking into tabernacles and trampling on the blessed sacrament because as it was unleavened bread it was only 'dried mud' nor accuse people of being judaizers for fasting on Saturday, use this evidence of their heresy and excommunicate them.

Yes, the Latins are spotless when it comes to relations with the Orthodox. 

Hardly as bad I'm afraid and hardly authorised, whereas the orthodox actions were ordered by the patriarch of Constantinople.

[Parmandur]

The point is that this thread does not show that the filioque doesn't clarify anything because disagreement does not equal a lack of clarity.

Really, this comes straight from the Greek Fathers.

I wondered how long it would be, before someone did the obvious and mentioned that document

You didn't read much of the previous pages did you?

Start with page 2.

No, theres not much point with the Orthodox, any group that spends 900 odd years arguing over whether one could use leavened or unleavened bread and should fast on saturdays or not isn't likely to listen to reason 

Well, those of us Latins who live in glass houses ought not to throw stones.  Theological and liturgical arguments of any stripe look nutty from the outside, across the board.

You are conceding far too much in this discussion, last time I checked we didn't go around breaking into tabernacles and trampling on the blessed sacrament because as it was unleavened bread it was only 'dried mud' nor accuse people of being judaizers for fasting on Saturday, use this evidence of their heresy and excommunicate them.

I am glad we are perfect, unlike those tax collectors. 

[TrentCath]

The point is that this thread does not show that the filioque doesn't clarify anything because disagreement does not equal a lack of clarity.

Really, this comes straight from the Greek Fathers.

I wondered how long it would be, before someone did the obvious and mentioned that document

You didn't read much of the previous pages did you?

Start with page 2.

No, theres not much point with the Orthodox, any group that spends 900 odd years arguing over whether one could use leavened or unleavened bread and should fast on saturdays or not isn't likely to listen to reason 

Well, those of us Latins who live in glass houses ought not to throw stones.  Theological and liturgical arguments of any stripe look nutty from the outside, across the board.

You are conceding far too much in this discussion, last time I checked we didn't go around breaking into tabernacles and trampling on the blessed sacrament because as it was unleavened bread it was only 'dried mud' nor accuse people of being judaizers for fasting on Saturday, use this evidence of their heresy and excommunicate them.

I am glad we are perfect, unlike those tax collectors. 

 

No, but let us deal with truth here not lies or half truths and nothing I have said is untrue, the church has always been reasonable towards the greeks, they on the other hand have always broken their word and repaid kindness with insult, see for example their reply to the letter to the eastern patriarchs.