I thought so. We must steer the middle ground on this - not forgeting Whom God is, nor that He has given us a great dignity (as in Psalms 8 or Genesis 1).
that we must give ourselves totally to God and I will say that none of us does. The woman who gave her last two copper coins to God, gave little, but she gave everything to Him
Good point. To God, WHAT we give it immaterial. It is what it means to US, I believe. If it is out of surplus wealth, what sort of sacrifice is that?
but he makes sure to underscore that the Holy Spirit exists only from the Father, as does the Son
Rest assured the formula change NEVER meant to imply that we believe in TWO divine principles. But I understand that the word "and" can give that impression. That is why I, personally, thought "through" would make more sense, as then it more clearly describes the Spirit's origin within the Godhead from the Father. The beliefs we share from Nicea has not changed, just the wording. It is the belief, not the words, which are infallible. If there is an Ecumenical Council, perhaps we'll see a quick change there. I don't know what it would take to change the formula, ecclesiastically, but it would be a step forward, and would not deny anything of the faith.
Regards
Jo, little things can be priceless. If your child draws a picture or gives you a gift that comes from his or her heart, it's not the value of the gift but the love behind it that counts. By doing that, the child did not earn favor, or privilege, or food and shelter. Your children are your children and they don't have to earn their stay and food. Likewise,their contributions to the household are exactly zero.They pay no rent, gas, electricity...they stay because they are loved and they are cared for because they are loved. So, when they draw a scribble, it's worthless as a piece of art, but it's everything to you. But it's meaningless to speak of a relationshp between the one who privdes (gives) all and the one who depends on your provision 100% (takes all).
We can only love God with all our heart, mind and soul. That is the only contribution we can provide. And none of us does. So, how can we really call it a relationship of any kind? One way relationships are not relationships because self-love is not love.
Rest assured the formula change NEVER meant to imply that we believe in TWO divine principles
Jo, I believe and trust that the Roman Catholic Church does not believe in, teach or suggest two divine principles, which is one more reason why it should abandon the filioque.
Whereas the filioque is understandable and taught even by hesychastic fathers, in context of the Holy Trnity if not in those same words, it is not the truth purposefully expressed in the Symbol of Faith (the Creed), as finalized by the 4th Ecumenical Council; it does not so much teach error as it leaves room for it.
St. Symeon the New Theologian mentions that the Holy Spirit proceeds form the Father and through the Son. St. Gregory of Thessaloniki (aka Palamas) says that the Holy Spirit is a "kind of ineffable yet intense longing or eros experienced by the Begetter for the Logos born ineffably from Him, a longing experienced also by the beloved Logos and Son of the Father for His Begetter."
This is in perfect agreement with the Latin teaching that the Holy Spirit is the love experienced by the Father for the Son, and by the Son for the Father; that the Spirit is given to the Son by the Father and is His as much as it is the Father's.
"Yet," continues St. Gregory Palams, "the Spirit belongs also to the Son, Who receives Him from the Father as the Spirit of Truth, Wisdom and Logos."
Thus we are on the same plane here; we teach and believe the same thing here; theologically in this instance we do not profess two different faiths.
But, St. Gregory Palams makes sure that this is not confused with filioque, for the Creed must express the founding truth, the one that existed before all else existed: "Yet the Spirit has His existence from the Father alone, and hence He proceeds as regards His existence only from the Father." That truth is expressed in the Creed and it is the truth before all existence, that pertains solely to the Unbegotten God, the Intellect, the Wisdom, from Whom everything and all came to be, even the Holy Trinity.
I will leave it at that. I want to assure you that we are not on a collision course when it comes to the filioque. But I think it is now almost an agreed upon fact that filioque does not belong in the Creed.