Which Canon? As far as I read the Council of Florence conflates the two terms "Through the Son" and "And the Son" as being equal.
Session 6.
“In the name of the holy Trinity, Father, Son and holy Spirit, we define, with the approval of this holy universal council of Florence, that the following truth of faith shall be believed and accepted by all Christians and thus shall all profess it: that the holy Spirit is eternally from the Father and the Son, and has his essence and his subsistent being from the Father together with the Son, and proceeds from both eternally as from one principle and a single spiration. We declare that when holy doctors and fathers say that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son, this bears the sense that thereby also the Son should be signified, according to the Greeks indeed as cause, and according to the Latins as principle of the subsistence of the holy Spirit, just like the Father.
And since the Father gave to his only-begotten Son in begetting him everything the Father has, except to be the Father, so the Son has eternally from the Father, by whom he was eternally begotten, this also, namely that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Son.”
Job 33:4
Job 33:4
Job 38:1-2Job 33:4
Sure it’s always me and never you.and here we go again...
That does seem to be the case.Sure it’s always me and never you.
Nothing here refutes what I originally said, Being a cause of the Holy Spirit doesn’t mean being its originator. The council’s statements don’t deny the authority over the Holy Spirit was something given to the Son by the Father. The Son received the authority to send the spirit from the Father and proceeds from him and through him. Technically if the spirit proceeded through the Son it would also make him a cause either way.Session 6.
“In the name of the holy Trinity, Father, Son and holy Spirit, we define, with the approval of this holy universal council of Florence, that the following truth of faith shall be believed and accepted by all Christians and thus shall all profess it: that the holy Spirit is eternally from the Father and the Son, and has his essence and his subsistent being from the Father together with the Son, and proceeds from both eternally as from one principle and a single spiration. We declare that when holy doctors and fathers say that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son, this bears the sense that thereby also the Son should be signified, according to the Greeks indeed as cause, and according to the Latins as principle of the subsistence of the holy Spirit, just like the Father.
And since the Father gave to his only-begotten Son in begetting him everything the Father has, except to be the Father, so the Son has eternally from the Father, by whom he was eternally begotten, this also, namely that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Son.”
Believe in what you want to believe.That does seem to be the case.
Sure it’s always me and never you.
Nothing here refutes what I originally said, Being a cause of the Holy Spirit doesn’t mean being its originator. The council’s statements don’t deny the authority over the Holy Spirit was something given to the Son by the Father. The Son received the authority to send the spirit from the Father and proceeds from him and through him. Technically if the spirit proceeded through the Son it would also make him a cause either way.
I’m actually using Rome’s arguments, you also seem to have this habit of using the term Rome as if it’s separate entity all together.it is. the last time we went through this rodeo, you were defending Rome using your own arguments and not what Rome actually says.
I think you should read post 170.like right here.
That describes perfectly what you are doing.Believe in what you want to believe.
It describes what we all do.That describes perfectly what you are doing.
I’m actually using Rome’s arguments, you also seem to have this habit of using the term Rome as if it’s separate entity all together.
I think you should read post 170.
did I say it does??and that doesn't support the Filioque.