Replies

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.

Of course I meant "proceeds from the Father alone" as the Orthodox model. Sorry.

Not to enter into a discussion of personalities, indeed I was evangelized by the Roman Catholic Church (though baptized by the Orthodox in infancy), and this is why I ask the Orthodox these questions.

I would also like to avoid the discussion of the procedure by which Filioque was added, not because it is inimportant, or because the Orthodox do not have a point on that, but because I want to focus on the comparative trinitarian theology on this particular thread.

I would like to remind everyone here that the addition of "filioque" was done to combat heresy and not to change the Creed.

In practice, most dogmas are promulgated in response to heresies.

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"!

A development in doctrine isn't necessarily an error, is it?