Replies

the disproving of the filioque by the words of the Saints you claim affirm the filioque!

we will discover all these things also in the Spirit, through the Son. - St. Athanasius, 3rd Letter to Serapion of Thmuis, 1 (360 AD)

they know in fact that the Father is the only cause of the Son and the Spirit, the one by begetting and the other by ekporeusis (procession) - St. Maximus the Confessor, Letter to Marinus, PG 91, 136

The Spirit of the Word is like a love of the Father...and it naturally rests on the Son - St. Gregory Palamas, Chapters, 36, PG 150:1144D-1145A

St. Cyril of Alexandria says that "the Holy Spirit flows from the Father into the Son (en to Uiou)," (Thesaurus, XXXIV, PG 75, 577A). You used a bogus Latin translation. For it to be "and the Son" would be expressed in Greek "kai to Uiou".

[Latins] know in fact that the Father is the only cause of the Son and the Spirit, the one by begetting and the other by ekporeusis (procession) - St. Maximus the Confessor, Letter to Marinus, PG 91, 136 in which St. Maximus gives the benifit of the doubt to Latins and chastises their translation - if their Latin filioque words mean that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son that is fine. He hopes that is the case because if the Latins really mean that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son then it would be in error. In other words the Greek understanding of the Trinity is correct and the Latin understanding of the Trinity is only correct if the Latin translation is in synch with the Greek meaning.

We Latins don't see a difference in "through the Son" and "and the Son" that you do. We view the phrases as equivalent. They are merely two different ways of saying the same thing to us, given your starting perspective on how to explain the Trinity's Person's.

WE ARE NOT MAKING THE SON A PRIMARY SOURCE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT, even if it looks that way to you. IT DOESN'T TO US. You need to read our works from our mindset, not yours. This is no different than the trouble I could stir up by reading Greek works from the Latin mindset. It doesn't work.

St. Cyril of Alexandria says that "the Holy Spirit flows from the Father into the Son (en to Uiou)," (Thesaurus, XXXIV, PG 75, 577A). You used a bogus Latin translation. For it to be "and the Son" would be expressed in Greek "kai to Uiou".

I quoted this passage below. I'm not sure if you are saying the passage you are quoting is the same or not, but there are others of St. Cyril if you need the citations (try googling St. Cyril of Alexandria filioque):

Since the Holy Spirit when he is in us effects our being conformed to God, and he actually proceeds from the Father and Son, it is abundantly clear that He is of the divine essence, in it in essence and proceeding from it.
-St. Cyril of Alexandria, The Treasury of the Holy and Consubstantial Trinity, Thesis 34, (423-425 AD)

I will let your greatest modern Doctor, St. Gregory Palamas, explain it for you, and I will leave it at that. His explanation seems reasonable to me, and is in line with Catholic thought on the meaning of our traditional Latin phraseology, as well as the < ahref="http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Atrium/8410/filioque.html">official Catholic text you linked to.

Explaining St. Cyril he writes: "When you understand that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Two, because it comes essentially from the Father through the Son, you should understand this teaching in this sense: it is the powers and essential energies of God which pour out, not the divine hypostasis of the Spirit. ... The hypostasis of the All Holy Spirit does not come from the Son; it is not given or received by anybody; it is only the divine grace and energy which are received." (St. Gregory Palamas, Apodictic Treatise, II, fol. 41 and fol. 51, quoted in J. Meyendorff, "A Study of Gregory Palamas", p. 230, 1998 ed.)

There is no reaqson for "filioque" and the like to divide us if both sides are understood.