You're not a trial lawyer, are you! ten eyewitnesses almost invariably tell ten noticeably different stories, FK, without any of them being either a liar or crazy.
"In the proper context it is fully consistent with co-equality. Many times the Bible explains concepts that are in truth beyond our complete comprehension in terms we can best understand. What is described here are roles of Persons, for our benefit, not superior-subordinate relationships. Throughout all of the Gospels Jesus says that He is there to do the will of the Father, yet no Christian interprets this to mean the Son is inferior to the Father."
Very good, FK. +Gregory Palamas would be pleased!
"To interpret this theme as a superior-subordinate relationship is to simply declare the whole of Christianity void on its face."
But it's OK to deny the "monarchy" of the Father by an embrace of the filioque clause?
You're not a trial lawyer, are you! ten eyewitnesses almost invariably tell ten noticeably different stories, FK, without any of them being either a liar or crazy.
I'm not a trial lawyer, but any lawyer knows that different eyewitnesses often give very different accounts. But different accounts can also be 100% factually true. There are many many minor surface discrepancies in certain details of the same event in different Gospels. That doesn't mean any of them are wrong. It just means that certain facts were emphasized and some were not mentioned.
For example, Luke 24:12 says that Peter ran to the tomb. But John 20:4 says that both Peter and John ran to the tomb. Is one wrong? No, both are 100% factually correct. Luke simply emphasizes Peter and omits that John was also there. No big deal. Therefore, I submit that my statement stands. If John's eyewitness testimony was FACTUALLY WRONG, then he had to know it and was lying or crazy. By the manner of presentation, there is no room here for simple mistake, either Jesus said what He said or He didn't, etc. Of course, all of this presupposes that John was writing on his own, which is not what the Church holds, so it is a bit of a moot point. The only errors in John's Gospel would be ones made by God. It's my understanding that at least the Latins would agree with this.
FK: "To interpret this theme as a superior-subordinate relationship is to simply declare the whole of Christianity void on its face."
But it's OK to deny the "monarchy" of the Father by an embrace of the filioque clause?
As far as I understand the issue, yes. Everyone agrees that the Father sent the Son, and there is no issue of subordination. Why then would there arise an issue over whether the Holy Spirit "proceeded" from the Father alone or the Father and Son? Either way, there should still be no issue of subordination. Whatever the precise meaning of "proceeded" is, I wouldn't think it would infringe on the Three being co-eternal and co-equal.