[annalex]

I will appreciate your input here.

The issues that are not clear to me are:

1. Is the Catechism stating the double procession of the Holy Ghost anywhere? The quoted chapters shy away form that.
2. Is Summa I.36.2 dogma or doctrine? Parenthetically, what of the Summa is dogma or doctrine?
3. Is the sharp distintion between the temporal or external realm, where Christ breathes the Holy Ghost, and the eternal or internal realm valid theology? Should we not see the temporal events as icons of the eternal relations? If so, should the Son be dually begotten from the Spirit also?
4. If the Son is begotten from the Father alone, and the Spirit proceeds from the Son alone in the Orthodox model, then what is the relation between the Son and the Spirit?
5. Where is the Orthodox view on single procession of the Spirit stated in the patristic literature?

There seems to be never a particularly good time to discuss this. I first posted it at Orthodox lent, now Kolokotronis in on vacation. Let us not make it a thread of a thousand quick replies, but rather post when we feel moved to it.

[Aquinasfan]

Is Summa I.36.2 dogma or doctrine? Parenthetically, what of the Summa is dogma or doctrine?

As far as I know, the Summa is simply St. Thomas' personal "basic introduction" to theology.

The teachings of the Summa have no doctrinal standing per se, but the Summa carries considerable weight since St. Thomas is regarded as the preeminent Doctor of the Church.

[kosta50]

If the Son is begotten from the Father alone, and the Spirit proceeds from the Son alone in the Orthodox model

I think you are confused. This is not the Orthodox model. The "model" of the Church, east and west, was and to this day is (as inscribed in the Vatican) that the Son is begotten of the Father and that the Holy Spirit/Ghost proceeds from the Father. I am not sure where you are getting your "models."

The Father is the cause and source of everything and all. The Trinity is in an eternal relationship. The Holy Spirit is not a "product" of the Father and the Son, eternally and transcendentally speaking. This does not mean that, while in Flesh, the Spirit could not be sent -- from the Father -- through the Son, but that does not, and I repeat does not describe the ternal relationship of the Triune God. The Creed -- as formulated by the Ecumenical Council -- does.

I would like to remind everyone here that the addition of "filioque" was done to combat heresy and not to change the Creed. It acquired a life of its own and was perverted into something that it never was by the Franks who, in ignorance and arrogance, accused the Greeks of committing "heresy" for omitting the "filioque"!

Perhaps you should revist your old Church and learn more about it annalex. What I gather from your comments is that you left it without ever having known it.