Anglicans encouraged to drop Filioque

My church isn't going to change it, so I think of the matter as a minor academic one, with emphasis upon minor.

Mockingbird0 said:

The doctrine of the filioque has always been a part of English Christianity. Bede, HE 4.17. But I deem it unlikely that the filioque phrase was in the Nicene Creed as it was recited in the earliest English churches. So there is no contradiction between holding the doctrine on the one hand, and translating the Greek text of the creed accurately on the other.

Click to expand...

I think I tried to make this point earlier in the discussion. The evidence in Bede is that either he, or the Council of Hatfield in 680 supported a theology of Double Procession. The anathemas of Ephesus I suspect dissuaded them from any attempt to change the Nicene Creed.
There is indeed some evidence to suggest a theology of Double Procession was discussed/taught in Antioch before the 1st Council of Constantinople.
I personally believe that the Cappadocian Fathers had considered it, and were not ready to include it in the creed.
It is quite reasonable to hold a theology of double procession and still embrace the Nicene Creed without inserting the Filioque.

I think what I am trying to say is that the doctrine is 'double procession'. Filioque is not the doctrine, it is the phrase being inserted into the Nicene Creed. I think that talking of the doctrine of Filioque simply confuses the discussion.

Asking Anglicans to stop inserting the Filioque into the Nicene Creed is not asking them to abandon their position on double procession.


This is in a way the distinction between the point of origin and the point of departure that plagues the discussion in two languages - Greek and Latin.

Albion said:

My church isn't going to change it, so I think of the matter as a minor academic one, with emphasis upon minor.

Click to expand...

The Church I belong to has been encouraged by the Lambeth Fathers on three occasions to consider the change. I hope that we do. I don't think it will fix anything, but at least it would show an openness to fix things.

I do however think it is a little dismissive to call it minor in light of the impact and hurt that this has caused the Church, and the expression of our Unity in Christ throughout the ages.

Philip_B said:

I do however think it is a little dismissive to call it minor in light of the impact and hurt that this has caused the Church, and the expression of our Unity in Christ throughout the ages.

Click to expand...

Well, that's your opinion. I'm usually not that dramatic.

Whoa, this thread has evolved a bit since I last checked it. Philip, thank you for answering my question. I really was just curious and not trying to make a point for or against anything. I'm a traditional Anglican in a traditional jurisdiction so, to borrow Albion's phrase this whole conversation is academic for me as well. That being said, don't think I don't care or think it is important for a lot of people. My wife is a convert to Greek Orthodoxy and both Trinitarian theology and Pneumatology were important issues for her (and she obviously agrees with the Orthodox).

Dear Mark,

mark46 said:

BTW, do you think that 21st Century Anglicanism is equivalent to the teachings of Cranmer?

Click to expand...

To answer your question, the reason that I mentioned Cranmer was because as I understand it he represents a wing of Anglicanism today, as. Albion wrote earlier in this section that he generally shares Cranmer's views on the Eucharist.

mark46 said:

In any case, I think that we are nitpicking if we reject Calvinists because their view of Real Presence is insufficient.

Click to expand...

Would you be able to find any Anglican commentaries on the verse 1 Cor 11:29:
"For he who eats and drinks in an unworthy manner eats and drinks judgment to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body."

I was unable to.

mark46 said:

Calvin explained his view of the Eucharist in his Institutes:

"The rule which the pious ought always to observe is, whenever they see the symbols instituted by the Lord, to think and feel surely persuaded that the truth of the thing signified is also present. For why does the Lord put the symbol of his body into your hands, but just to assure you that you truly partake of him? If this is true let us feel as much assured that the visible sign is given us in seal of an invisible gift as that his body itself is given to us."

Click to expand...

In your quote above, Calvin asserts that the bread is a symbol and that the body symbolized is also present. But in the passage, do you find Calvin asserting that this presence is in the bread? For example, Calvin asserts that you partake of Jesus, but do you read this as Calvin asserting that this particular kind of partaking means by mouth?

rakovsky said:

Dear Mark,

To answer your question, the reason that I mentioned Cranmer was because as I understand it he represents a wing of Anglicanism today, as. Albion wrote earlier in this section that he generally shares Cranmer's views on the Eucharist.


Would you be able to find any Anglican commentaries on the verse 1 Cor 11:29:
"For he who eats and drinks in an unworthy manner eats and drinks judgment to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body."

I was unable to.


In your quote above, Calvin asserts that the bread is a symbol and that the body symbolized is also present. But in the passage, do you find Calvin asserting that this presence is in the bread? For example, Calvin asserts that you partake of Jesus, but do you read this as Calvin asserting that this particular kind of partaking means by mouth?

Click to expand...

. "For why does the Lord put the symbol of his body into your hands, but just to assure you that you truly partake of him? If this is true let us feel as much assured that the visible sign is given us in seal of an invisible gift as that his body itself is given to us."

You can choose to be believe that Calvin did not really mean it when he said "that the BODY ITSELF is given to us." After all, amy think that Jesus was kidding in the Book of John when he said that we were to chew his body.

mark46 said:

. "For why does the Lord put the symbol of his body into your hands, but just to assure you that you truly partake of him? If this is true let us feel as much assured that the visible sign is given us in seal of an invisible gift as that his body itself is given to us."

You can choose to be believe that Calvin did not really mean it when he said "that the BODY ITSELF is given to us." After all, amy think that Jesus was kidding in the Book of John when he said that we were to chew his body.

Click to expand...

Hello, Mark!
Calvin did believe that the body was given to him during the ritual. But as I understand his position, he did not believe that the body was given in or under the bread. How else to understand him when he writes in the Institutes:

19. The presence of Christ in the Supper we must hold to be such as neither affixes him to the element of bread, nor encloses him in bread, nor circumscribes him in any way...; and it must, moreover, be such as neither divests him of his just dimensions, nor dissevers him by differences of place, nor assigns to him a body of boundless dimensions, diffused through heaven and earth.

Click to expand...

Mcdonnell writes in John Calvin, the Church, and the Eucharist:

Calvin... invokes reason in his polemic against both the Lutherans and the Romans. (p. 55)
[Calvin wrote:]"A doctrine carrying many absurdities with it is not true. The doctrine of the corporeal presence of Christ is involved in many absurdities; therefore it follows that it is not true..." (pp.207-208)
"There is nothing more incredible than that things severed and removed from one another by the whole space between heaven and earth should not only be connected across such a great distance..."

Click to expand...

That is, isn't Calvin making the argument that Christ's body cannot be in two places at once - in heaven and in the bread - at the same time?

I would also ask what you make of Calvin's long letter refuting the Lutheran view of the Eucharist, where he writes for example:

[The Lutheran Westphal] accumulates all the passages in which the bread of the sacred Supper is called the body of Christ. Any one endued with moderate judgment will not only laugh at the silly garrulity of the man, but also feel indignant that such a show is made out of nothing. ... The only question is, Whether he means that the bread is his body properly and without figure, or whether he transfers the name of the tiling signified to the symbol?
...
The fiction which the [Lutheran] men of Bremen obtrude for the genuine sense, viz., This is my body which is broken for you or distributed in the bread, is nothing better than a brutish profanation, which will I hope excite the disgust; of all the godly against them and their error, which they cannot defend without perverting every thing.

Click to expand...

http://www.godrules.net/library/calvin/142calvin_b12.htm

Seeing as a longer discussion on this would be off-topic, I please ask that we continue this on another thread, like this one:
http://www.christianforums.com/thre...formed-exaggerate-the-role-of-reason.7932441/

graceandpeace said:

Anglicans encouraged to drop filioque from Nicene Creed

Thoughts?

I usually recite the Filioque but occasionally drop it. TEC approved an update to the BOCP, I wonder if the phrase will be dropped?

What about your church?

Click to expand...

I don't know if it is uncouth to reply to this old thread. My two cents are: acknowledge that the filoque is not part of the "official" Nicene Creed, while then stating it anyways because it's proved by scripture. Scripture should always trump tradition. We should only be stating the Nicene Creed because it summarizes Christian beliefs. It is a creed, not scripture.

John 15:26, "But when the Helper comes, whom I WILL SEND to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who PROCEEDS from the Father, he will bear witness about me."

In this verse we have the trinity. Clearly Jesus and the Father are both "sending/proceeding" the Spirit forth. See also Romans 8:9 and Galatians 4:6. In Gal 4:6, the spirit is referred to as the "Spirit of his Son..." which of course means the Holy Spirt comes from both.

CanadianAnglican said:

ACNA's liturgical resources place it in parentheses and admit that it is basically a historical relic of Roman Catholic influence, even though it was never accepted in any of the ecumenical councils (which would be the only authority that could legitimately change the creed). I'm not sure why it wasn't just done away with entirely.

Click to expand...

I believe it is scriptural. Scripture trumps tradition. I'm fine with acknowledging that the original or "official" Nicene Creed did not include "and the Son." But will say it because I'm stating a summary of my faith based upon the Word of God. John 15:26, "But when the Helper comes whom I WILL SEND to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth; who proceeds from the Father, he will bear witness about me."

Clearly Trinitarian...the Holy Sprit is sent/proceed from both.

Also, is changing the Nicene Creed really going to make the Orthodox Churches happy all of a sudden? They don't even acknowledge Anglican Holy Orders. However, they acknowledge the Roman Catholic Church's who by the way will never drop the Filoque.

David Goforth said:

John 15:26, "But when the Helper comes, whom I WILL SEND to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who PROCEEDS from the Father, he will bear witness about me."

Click to expand...

The truth is scripture is as supportive of the western position as it is of the Eastern Position. One of the problems with the filioque is that it inelegantly expresses a theology of double procession which leaves it open to a range of heterodox interpretations. To suggest that John 15:26 is the end of the discussion because it is scriptural is a weak argument. I am certain you would not want to use the same logic with Psalm 137:9, in support of infanticide.

David Goforth said:

Also, is changing the Nicene Creed really going to make the Orthodox Churches happy all of a sudden?

Click to expand...

The Orthodox are not noted for the embracing of novelty, and indeed it is anathema to them. I for one do not suggest that discontinuing the insertion of the filioque will make the Orthodox love us, though I am certain that they have more respect for us than you suggest. I do however suggest that the logic should be that we should express the faith in the words agreed to and support by three oecumenical councils.

David Goforth said:

However, they acknowledge the Roman Catholic Church's who by the way will never drop the Filioque.

Click to expand...

I am not so certain about this, to quote Monte Python, no one expects the Spanish Inquisition, and it is clear that more than one Pope when saying to Nicene Creed with the Oecumenicasl Patriarch have omitted the Filioque. Times are a changing.

Philip_B said:

John 14:26
But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you everything, and remind you of all that I have said to you.

John 15:26
‘When the Advocate comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who comes from the Father, he will testify on my behalf.

John 20:22
When he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit.​

The truth is scripture is as supportive of the western position as it is of the Eastern Position. One of the problems with the filioque is that it inelegantly expresses a theology of double procession which leaves it open to a range of heterodox interpretations. To suggest that John 15:26 is the end of the discussion because it is scriptural is a weak argument. I am certain you would not want to use the same logic with Psalm 137:9, in support of infanticide.

Happy shall they be who take your little ones
and dash them against the rock!​

The Orthodox are not noted for the embracing of novelty, and indeed it is anathema to them. I for one do not suggest that discontinuing the insertion of the filioque will make the Orthodox love us, though I am certain that they have more respect for us than you suggest. I do however suggest that the logic should be that we should express the faith in the words agreed to and support by three oecumenical councils.



I am not so certain about this, to quote Monte Python, no one expects the Spanish Inquisition, and it is clear that more than one Pope when saying to Nicene Creed with the Oecumenicasl Patriarch have omitted the Filioque. Times are a changing.

Click to expand...

Philip,


John 15:26 is plenty and is not a weak Trinitarian argument by far. I didn't see a need to discuss it further. It was more like an reminder of an established belief. 15:26 is cited as a proof text in the Anglican Church in North America (ACNA) Catechism. ACNA is technically not a part of the “Anglican Communion.” It is recognized by the Provinces in GAFCON. I don’t know if that matters to you or not down under. Cheers by the way, no hard feelings over this discussion. A google search will immediately show that many other theologians also consider 15:26 as a proof text.

Psalm 137:9 is not a good example of showing how that one text like John 15:26 is somehow enough to make a theology. We all know what the Psalm is about. I could have traded a bunch of texts in addition to John 15:26; but my point was just to remind everyone that the filioque is scriptural. It’s three equal divine persons, one being or one God. The filioque better expresses that.

I don’t think including the filioque is going to lead to a heterodox belief. Makes no sense to me. I think the exact opposite. Excluding “and the Son” is more likely to do that; which could lead to interpreting the Son as somehow subordinate or not co-equal to the Father.

I hold scripture in higher supremacy than any councils or tradition. Holy Scripture is typically supreme in the Anglican tradition. I state the Creed only because it summarizes Christian beliefs. As a personal study, I have gone through all scriptures line by line with multiple texts for each line of the Creed. I’m first and foremost a Christian, my core is evangelical. Still, in this particular case, the Roman Catholic official theological position for “and the Son” is Biblical. They explain it really well; almost sounds like a Baptist wrote it! A Pope omitting the filioque is simply to make nice with the Orthodox Church. The ACNA position is that the filioque may be used for “elucidation of doctrine” (2019 BCP, page 768) or “explication of doctrine” (Catechism, 142). They want to officially exclude it for ecumenical reasons with the Orthodox Church; while simultaneously say it’s not the fullest doctrine and can be used for correct theology.

I did not think that the Orthodox Church has or had much love for Anglicans. I guess I should be optimistic like you say. I did a search of whether or not the Orthodox Church will ever accept Anglican Holy Orders. What I read were a lot of stipulations like practically recanting the 39 Articles. I wish that Anglicans were more concerned with ecumenical relations with Lutherans and Presbyterians than the RCC and Orthodox Church. They at least both hold Holy Scripture as Supreme. The Early Church Fathers held Holy Scripture to be the Supreme authority; if tradition is important to you besides the Scriptures, then that means we should state the filioque.

David Goforth said:

A google search will immediately show that many other theologians also consider 15:26 as a proof text.

Click to expand...

And are any of these theologians eastern theologians?

David Goforth said:

I don’t think including the filioque is going to lead to a heterodox belief. Makes no sense to me. I think the exact opposite. Excluding “and the Son” is more likely to do that; which could lead to interpreting the Son as somehow subordinate or not co-equal to the Father.

Click to expand...

The Filioque does open a discussion about procession. One of the problems it presents is that it does not answer it. Both Augustine and Aquinas argued for double procession, clarifying their position that where the Spirit might be said to have proceeded from the Son, in the first instance the Spirit has proceeded from the Father, and even in cases where it appeared to be contemporaneous (as if a single procession) in the first instance the Spirit proceeds from the Father. Many who assert the filique are not so fine on this theological point.

David Goforth said:

They at least both hold Holy Scripture as Supreme.

Click to expand...

Whilst I may not quite express it in these terms I do understand that Holy Scripture is the bedrock of the tradition, and we call it the canon for it is the measure of the tradition. The movement of the Spirit in Genesis 1, and the descent of the Holy Spirit in the Baptism narratives point to a procession of the Spirit from the Father. I previously referred to John 14:26 which also expresses procession from the Father, and in one breath I have acknowledged John 15:26 where an understanding of double procession is more clearly expressed.

It is a principle of Anglican theology that one not expound one part of scripture in a manner that is repugnant to another. That I believe is the nature of the position taken by both Aquinas and Augustine.

The history of the Filioque is a little mirky. It make an appearance in the Carolingian period where the Popes expressed a view that it should not be used, and Charlmagne HRE batted on using it as a mark of distinction from the Byzantines. Ultimately there was a lot more politics than piety involved, and ultimately when it was used in Rome on the 14th of February 1014, it was used as a rod to assert the universal sovereignty of the Bishop of Rome.

In short, and without criticism, I vary from you view that the filioque is scriptural.

It has been suggested from time to time that a more appropriate phrasing might be: "who proceeds from the Father through the Son." That modest change seems to be in conformity with the witness of the various Johannine passages.

Philip_B said:

And are any of these theologians eastern theologians?


The Filioque does open a discussion about procession. One of the problems it presents is that it does not answer it. Both Augustine and Aquinas argued for double procession, clarifying their position that where the Spirit might be said to have proceeded from the Son, in the first instance the Spirit has proceeded from the Father, and even in cases where it appeared to be contemporaneous (as if a single procession) in the first instance the Spirit proceeds from the Father. Many who assert the filique are not so fine on this theological point.


Whilst I may not quite express it in these terms I do understand that Holy Scripture is the bedrock of the tradition, and we call it the canon for it is the measure of the tradition. The movement of the Spirit in Genesis 1, and the descent of the Holy Spirit in the Baptism narratives point to a procession of the Spirit from the Father. I previously referred to John 14:26 which also expresses procession from the Father, and in one breath I have acknowledged John 15:26 where an understanding of double procession is more clearly expressed.

It is a principle of Anglican theology that one not expound one part of scripture in a manner that is repugnant to another. That I believe is the nature of the position taken by both Aquinas and Augustine.

The history of the Filioque is a little mirky. It make an appearance in the Carolingian period where the Popes expressed a view that it should not be used, and Charlmagne HRE batted on using it as a mark of distinction from the Byzantines. Ultimately there was a lot more politics than piety involved, and ultimately when it was used in Rome on the 14th of February 1014, it was used as a rod to assert the universal sovereignty of the Bishop of Rome.

In short, and without criticism, I vary from you view that the filioque is scriptural.

Click to expand...

I grant that you make some very good points. Yes, the filioque was added in a very aggressive non-ecumenical way. And it makes perfect sense to officially recognize (in solidarity), that it was added in a way it should not have been. A sincere apology should be sent to them. They should in turn forgive; but not insist. A Creed is not an authoritative statement of Christian belief.

What if, "We believe in God the Father Almighty" was never part of the Creed because the council was mainly concerned with Christ's deity. Very possibly someone could have added that later on also.

In the same 39 Articles that you quote where we are instructed to not expound any one piece of scripture we also have Article 5 of the 39 Articles. You have to throw out Article 5. The founders of the Anglican Church believe scripture taught the filioque as did many of the Apostolic Fathers.

Jesus Christ fully took on human flesh. In that historical moment, it makes sense to state that the text indicates that the Holy Spirit descended from the Father. Yes, I've read that argument. But immediately thought how shortsighted it is. God is the Alpha and Omega. The Creed should speak to that; not one moment in time and space.

I'm very evangelical and hold to a high standard of scripture. Personally, I wish that Anglicanism was more concerned with building ecumenical relationships with Lutherans, Presbyterians, Baptists, and than Roman Catholic/Orthodox (in that order). Most protestants agree with Rome regarding the filioque, but it has not helped build ecumenical relationships.

In this particular debate, I really think that the Roman Catholic Church's theology makes the most sense. These links will take you to multiple texts since you insist that John 15:26 was expounded too much.

How can we use Scripture to show the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son?

Filioque

David Goforth said:

I grant that you make some very good points. Yes, the filioque was added in a very aggressive non-ecumenical way. And it makes perfect sense to officially recognize (in solidarity), that it was added in a way it should not have been. A sincere apology should be sent to them. They should in turn forgive; but not insist. A Creed is not an authoritative statement of Christian belief.

What if, "We believe in God the Father Almighty" was never part of the Creed because the council was mainly concerned with Christ's deity. Very possibly someone could have added that later on also.

In the same 39 Articles that you quote where we are instructed to not expound any one piece of scripture we also have Article 5 of the 39 Articles. You have to throw out Article 5. The founders of the Anglican Church believe scripture taught the filioque as did many of the Apostolic Fathers.

Jesus Christ fully took on human flesh. In that historical moment, it makes sense to state that the text indicates that the Holy Spirit descended from the Father. Yes, I've read that argument. But immediately thought how shortsighted it is. God is the Alpha and Omega. The Creed should speak to that; not one moment in time and space.

I'm very evangelical and hold to a high standard of scripture. Personally, I wish that Anglicanism was more concerned with building ecumenical relationships with Lutherans, Presbyterians, Baptists, and than Roman Catholic/Orthodox (in that order). Most protestants agree with Rome regarding the filioque, but it has not helped build ecumenical relationships.

In this particular debate, I really think that the Roman Catholic Church's theology makes the most sense. These links will take you to multiple texts since you insist that John 15:26 was expounded too much.

How can we use Scripture to show the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son?

Filioque

Click to expand...

I have been clear about procession. In that sense I believe the Filioque can be accepted as true, though a particularly inelegant and unnecessarily ambiguous expression of it. As such I can simply just get my head around Article 5.

Some suggest that it means that the Spirit always proceeds from the Son which I would struggle to accept, as the Baptism narratives would then be about a self authentication which is clearly not the point.

When the RCC Mass is said in Greek the creed does not include the Filioque as they believe that in Greek it carries a sense of origin which would be a contradiction with the patristic section of the Creed.

Philip_B said:

Some suggest that it means that the Spirit always proceeds from the Son which I would struggle to accept, as the Baptism narratives would then be about a self authentication which is clearly not the point.

When the RCC Mass is said in Greek the creed does not include the Filioque as they believe that in Greek it carries a sense of origin which would be a contradiction with the patristic section of the Creed.

Click to expand...

My last response. Cheers!

I think I better understand your theological difficulties. I always thought the Nicene/Apostles Creed were not speaking to any particular moment in time and space; so it's easy to see some nuances. Also, the Greek translations to English or previous Latin translations definitely carry different meanings. That did not occur to me! Thank you for mentioning that! This could have been part of my problem. "Lost in translation." I would agree to dropping the filioque for theological reasons if stating the Nicene Creed in Greek...though I haven't signed up for any Greek language courses yet.

At the same time, I guess I don't fully understand. The trinity is always was and is. God hovering over the water as a spirit, does not deny that the Son was still not present. I don't understand why the "sense of origin matters" since God always was.

Anyways, I wish Anglicans could just adhere to the 39 Articles, 1662 BCP (w/ Homilies), and Ordinal as the base "denomination" documents. Deviations to that would only be personal theological viewpoints, but never official. Article 6 gives an out, anything necessary for salvation must come from the Bible. Not adhering to a basic standard is what has led to a very diverse sometimes disjointed/non-unified denomination. Even a departure from the filioque demonstrates another tweak to whatever "Anglicanism" means. Trying to build ecumenical relationships while our house is not in order might not be a good strategy. I think Reformation Anglicanism recovered the Apostolic Church (just my opinion) and that it better serves the Kingdom.

David Goforth said:

At the same time, I guess I don't fully understand. The trinity is always was and is. God hovering over the water as a spirit, does not deny that the Son was still not present. I don't understand why the "sense of origin matters" since God always was.

Click to expand...

That of course is one of the Easts problems with it. They reject absolutely the stance of the pneumatomaci as do I.

Never heard of pneumatomaci before. Apparently, Wikipedia said it was a heresy in the 4th century. You compared what I wrote to a 4th century heresy, which is a postion compatible with western evangelical theology or a complete mischaracterization of what I wrote.

Once again, I think the Catholic Church explains this very well.

"Macedonius and his followers, the so-called Pneumatomachi, were condemned by the local Council of Alexandria (362) and by Pope St. Damasus (378) for teaching that the Holy Ghost derives His origin from the Son alone, by creation."

That is exactly what I DID NOT write. Nothing with what you quoted comes close to saying that the Holy Ghost derives it's "origin" from the Son alone. Never wrote that, nor mean that. The Holy Spirit, proceeds from the Father and the Son. Three persons, one being.

"As to Sacred Scripture, the inspired writers call the Holy Ghost the Spirit of the Son (Gal., iv, 6), the Spirit of Christ (Rom., viii, 9), the Spirit of Jesus Christ (Phil., i, 19), just as they call Him the Spirit of the Father (Matt., x, 20) and the Spirit of God (I Cor., ii, 11). Hence they attribute to the Holy Ghost the same relation to the Son as to the Father. Again, according to Sacred Scripture, the Son sends the Holy Ghost (Luke, xxiv, 49; John, xv, 26; xvi, 7; xx, 22; Acts, ii, 33; Tit., iii, 6), just as the Father sends the Son (Rom., viii, 3; etc.), and as the Father sends the Holy Ghost (John, xiv, 26)."

Filioque

David Goforth said:

Never heard of pneumatomaci before. Apparently, Wikipedia said it was a heresy in the 4th century. You compared what I wrote to a 4th century heresy, which is a postion compatible with western evangelical theology or a complete mischaracterization of what I wrote.

Once again, I think the Catholic Church explains this very well.

"Macedonius and his followers, the so-called Pneumatomachi, were condemned by the local Council of Alexandria (362) and by Pope St. Damasus (378) for teaching that the Holy Ghost derives His origin from the Son alone, by creation."

That is exactly what I DID NOT write. Nothing with what you quoted comes close to saying that the Holy Ghost derives it's "origin" from the Son alone. Never wrote that, nor mean that. The Holy Spirit, proceeds from the Father and the Son. Three persons, one being.

"As to Sacred Scripture, the inspired writers call the Holy Ghost the Spirit of the Son (Gal., iv, 6), the Spirit of Christ (Rom., viii, 9), the Spirit of Jesus Christ (Phil., i, 19), just as they call Him the Spirit of the Father (Matt., x, 20) and the Spirit of God (I Cor., ii, 11). Hence they attribute to the Holy Ghost the same relation to the Son as to the Father. Again, according to Sacred Scripture, the Son sends the Holy Ghost (Luke, xxiv, 49; John, xv, 26; xvi, 7; xx, 22; Acts, ii, 33; Tit., iii, 6), just as the Father sends the Son (Rom., viii, 3; etc.), and as the Father sends the Holy Ghost (John, xiv, 26)."

Filioque

Click to expand...

I had no intent of suggesting that was your position, however the Filioque has the possibility of being so embraced. That is why I have suggested it is an inelegant expression of double procession.