Define what the Fathers are in unison that cannot be defined? No.
Okay, words not defined are meaningless. Case closed. Remember, Fathers also maintained the filioque.
Since I am not God, and therefore do not know Him as He knows Himself, no.
Right. So how can you argue then against a position you claim you don't to understand?
This does not help the situation. Since these words are not defined, they are meaningless. I’d thought I’d point that out. You are contesting their usage without knowledge. You only gave an excuse as to why you have no idea of their meaning.
Sorry. I am only a finite creature admitting his limits to understand the infinite Creator.
If you were admitting your limits then how can you continue to argue? Why say that you know nothing of the words because you are human and then turn around and argue as if you knew? This is not consistent.
Since the Filioque has the procession begotten, the filioque conflates the two.
Since you have no idea of these differences, how can you know of the represussions?
I do not understand how it conflates the two. There is an obvious disticnction if the Son only is begotten(derives) from the Father, whereas the Holy Spirit proceeds(derives) from both (directly from the Father and indirectly from the Son.)
The Persons are not indirect.
What does this mean? We were writing about the cause, not the person.
And what proceeds from the Son would have to first be begotten by the Father.
Right. Father is first principle. Where is the confusion?
Again, since procession is meaningless, then it follows that hypostatic procession is meaningless. You seem to think that using old words from a different language is going to shed light on a word that you outright say is meaningless.
Who said they were meaningless? God says "proceed (ekporeusis)." I take Him at His word.
If you cannot understand his word, how can you proceed to speak as if you did? This is self refuting. If I hear a foreigner speak and repeat what he said but have no clue of the meaning, how could I argue a case of meaning?...how can you say that your meaning is more correct than mine when you already admit that you have no meaning in the first place?
I really want to know why all the fuss about words the two churches claim to be unknowable? And if the main complaint is because by being caused by another makes Him not equal, than why is this not also the complaint between the Father and Son, since both churches say that the Father causes the Son?
Because it reduces the Spirit to the product of the Two sources of the Trinity, and personalizes Him to the relationship between the two, with all sorts of reprecussions.
Again, this does not address the double standard being done here:
If to be caused by another means to be unequal and therefore offensive as regards to the relationship between the Son and the Holy Spirit, then why is not this same argument launched against the relationship between the Father and Son, since both churchs believe the Father causes the Son?
You're the one saying the Spirit is indirect, whereas the Son is direct. Not I.
In regard to the origin of the Spirit. I am not saying that the Spirit is an indirect person.
If to be caused is to be depersonalized, then why is not the Son depersonalized in the way that you claim the Latin fathers have done to the Holy Spirit via?
The filiqoue apologist claim the Spirit is the relationship between the Father and the Son (at least some have). The Father and the Son have a relationship, but neither the Father nor the Son is a relationship, but Persons.
I have already mentioned what the filioque means: That the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son. The Father as the first source, and the Son and the second. I even produced an analogy.
And telling me that you have no idea what you are talking about, but know why you don't know does not do anything for your case.
You ask Him His name. He said "I Am." Good enough for me.
I am clueless here as to where you are going. You are simply introducing another word that youhave no meaning.
That indirect part. Anything the Son has is begotten of the Father. That would include a hypostatic procession of the Spirit from the Son.
Since you have offered no clue as to meaning, this has no meaning. How can I reply?
To offer an analogy to answer:
It does not follow that we conflate the lake and the stream if we say that the first origin of the lake is a spring, and that since the river orignates from the spring and flows into a lake, that the lake and river are conflated. Again, the spring causes the river that causes the lake. These 3 are not conflated. In this analogy, the Father represents the spring; the Son the river; and the lake the Holy Spirit.
For HS lake to flow out of Son river, Father spring would have to beget the river to process into HS lake. Modellism.
Saying modellism doesn’t answer anything. Again, how am I suppose to reply?
The lake's first direct origin is the spring, but since the water goes through the river before it empties into the lake, then the river becomes the indirect cause.
The Son in His Person receives nothing from the Person of the Father that is not begotten. The Spirit is not begotten.
There you go using words that you claim to not to know. In order to make positive claims, you need to know what the words you are using mean, which, you don’t. You have no light here as to the differences between the words begotten and proceeding. The RC does.
There are two questions of mine not being addressed here:
1) If to be caused is such an offense to the dignity of the Holy Spirit, then why does not the Son suffer this same offense since He is caused by the Father?
2) How is that the Son and Holy Spirit are conflated when as was shown by my above analogy, the lake and river are not conflated?
Instead I am told that words without meaning are meaningful.
Not answered. Ignored.
The Spirit Eternally Proceeds from the Father alone. All else is heresy.
Anyway, don't you believe at times He proceeds through the Son.
Through the Son is not the same as from the Son. Ekporeusis dia is fine, in fact Orthodox. Ekporeusis ek, applied to any but the Father, is heresy.
Straw man, since the RC defines the filiqoue as from the Father through the Son.
Here is the problem: you are claiming to know what the writers gave the meaning to their latin words. Since back then, the east and west spoke different languages, confusion was more or less to be expected. Now however, you can look up Augustine’s usage and philosophy regarding these words as well as look up the current ccc. On both counts, from the early Latin church to the present day, the RC DOES not believe that the Son and father are both the first principle. The beauty of the internet is to eliminate these misunderstandings, not to pretend to know what the opposing view’s side mean by their words and setting up a straw man case, BUT listening and researching what they meant by their chosen words and then coming to conclusions.