The only Alexandrians who taught filioque were the Arians. Neither OO nor EO have ever.
oh that verse is interesting because nowhere does it say The Holy Spirit proceeds from the father "ONLY". As such we too believe what is written
So because Jn 15.26 doesn't explicitly say that the Holy Spirit proceeds ONLY from the Father, we can come up with our own conclusions and add them to the faith? Talk about straining gnats and swallowing camels. Maybe the Protestants are right about Matthew 1.25 after all.
I'm sorry, but yours is a fairly worthless observation. I hope you weren't serious.
No the filioque is based upon other passages in scripture as the fathers explained in their quotes.
Its the faith of the fathers of Alexandria and the west. Even some Eastern ones too
Again make sure you know what is meant by the west and Alexandrians when they taught filioque as you will see its a tradition of the church.
This is rubbish
Filioque was specifically taught to defeat Arianism and prove the divinity of all three persons.
The filioque was taught by Eunomius...
His theology does not accommodate the idea . Its is nothing near to what the catholic church teaches.
Further all theological circles admit Alexandria and the Latins taught filioque. A simple google search shows this
Weasel words. I can cite right off the top of my head one serious theological study on the matter of the Filioque, Siecienski's book (simply titled, The Filioque
), which shows rather well that the Alexandrian fathers did not teach the Son participating in the hypostatic origination of the Holy Spirit, and that later Latin theologians, who could not grasp the difference in connotation between the verbs προειμι, εκχεω, and εκπορευω, were unable adequately to grasp their meaning, and were also thereby confused when the Greeks interpreted the writings of Ss. Cyril and Athanasius not to point towards the Son having a causal role in the Spirit's existence, but to point towards the Spirit's procession through the Son, and the Son's pouring forth and manifestation of the Spirit (Papadakis also argues this in Crisis in Byzantium
, although he does not treat the topic as fully). Frankly, the Latins have always been out of their depth when it comes to the Filioque, because they were unable to understand the intricacies involved in the distinction between proceeding through and proceeding from, and the distinction between the three aforementioned verbs. Thomas Aquinas for example, has no better answer to the insistence by the Greeks that proceeding through is not identical to proceeding from than to exclaim somewhat exasperatedly that they do so out of intransigence.
A simple google search, is going to pick up a bunch of blogs written by amateur Roman Catholic apologists who demonstrate little more knowledge on the topic of the Filioque than the Latins did 800 years ago, and who have no interest in understanding how the Alexandrian fathers have traditionally been understood by Greek-speaking Christians, but only have interest in scoring some apologetics points. If you really want to be convincing, perhaps you could provide some citations from these "theological circles," (which of course should be credible theological circles, not amateurs writing on the web), which you claim believe that the Alexandrians taught the Filioque. And if you really wanted to be convincing (instead of appealing to unnamed theological circles, all of which apparently are of the opinion that the Alexandrian fathers taught the Filioque, and whose opinions are readily available for access through a simple google search), you could even imbibe the arguments they use to support this claim, and attempt to show us through the use of reason how it is sound to believe that the Alexandrian fathers taught the Filioque. But as it stands, pontificating on the matter will convince very few minds.