You are inconsistent on this.
One the one hand, you speak of the Traditions of EO, RCC, Copts as being roughly the same, mostly cultural differences, etc. etc., but then when it is convenient you change your argument to fundamental changes to the teaching of Christ, a different Christ in fact according to this latest argument you have put forth.
Actually, my position has been this:
1. look at what is still held in common by the Tradition Churches, what the varieties are, their importance, and when the varieties arose
2. Latin does not have separate terms for 'send' and 'proceed', which contributed mightily to the matter
3. English does, so why do SS Churches accept the
filioque version of the Creed ?
Since Tradition itself is vague and undefined, it is of no great surprise that the arguments can change with the circumstances that they are made in, as now, as throughout history.
A scriptural case can and has been made for the 'and the Son'; a scriptural case can and has been made for the exclusion of such a prhase.
Yes, but I have asked for the Scripture that supports the use of the
filioque in English, and would like for someone to provide this.
Christ states that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, a term that demonstrates origin; where does Christ state that the Holy Spirit has His eternal origin in the Son ?
The usual objections made by EO agaisnt the filioque, on theological grounds, are as often as not countered by the Catholic side by statements that that was not what was meant by the filoque at all.
Yes (see my statements above) and thus this aspect of the schism can be and should be a matter for discussion to reach understanding (in the Latin usage).
There are other matters (ecclesiology) which must be discussed as well - such as abrogating the agreement at the Council which produced the Creed that changes to the Creed could not be made without a full Council (which didn't happen).
For their parts, Mark of Ephesus and Gennadius Scholarius were no doubt being sincere enough in their convictions, and no doubt the 699 to 1 vote against their positions was motivated by a whole lot of factors, including desparation.
I think they were sincere as well - and ultimately both were against the union. They, many priests, monks, bishops, and the laity stood for the faith once received and the adherence to the teaching of Christ in the Scriptures. And this is something we are all charged with doing.
Bottom line is that even the combined armies of the East and West were no match for the Ottoman armies, the ceremony of union that had already occurred was erased from legitimacy, and the Caliph's Patriarch was hand picked to do what the caliph correctly saw was in his own interests, which was to ensure that the leaders of the EO from that time on would have no truck nor trade with the RCC.
Yet how did this change the teachings we received ? It didn't. The patriarch himself is not the sole guarantor of the faith; as before, it is the responsibility of the whole Church and each member of the Church.
That the Ottoman yoke interrupted further talks is clear; but, like the matter of the Copts and Chalcedon, this indeed provides an opportunity for those interested to determine what was held in common and its survival in each Church.
IN terms of this thread, because Mark of Ephesus and Gennadius are now St. Mark of Ephesus and St. Gennadius because of their heroic stance against the authorities of a council of biships and emperors, it is clear that neither bishops nor councils can any longer be held to be Standards of Truth by EO.
The truth is the truth; this is not determined by the role of the person who iterates truth.
In fact, there are a number of Councils that were refused, because their findings were not true.
This may be foreign to others, but Councils, bishops, patriarchs, monks, laity, elders - none are assumed to be
automatically correct. It is the truth, the faith once delivered, Tradition which includes the
right interpretation of the Scriptures - that "judges" these - not vice versa.
The list of six or seven other standards of truth in addition to the Bible continues to decline as possibilities for the mantle of standards of truth.
From your perspective, sure. But as above, for the EO it is the truth that matters, and Tradition is included.
The received teachings interpret the Bible; in fact, Tradition interprets
your Bible. It was the received teachings, Tradition, that were used to supply the separation of words and division of these words further into "sense units" (which are now presented in your Bible as sentences, etc.). This was done by people illumined by God who held to Tradition - what was received - and battled to preserve it for me and you and every other Christian, and by the grace of God they won ... despite great sacrifice.
We held and hold to the faith once received in the form of Holy Tradition, which includes the Scriptures, the crown of Tradition.