Photius had a poor understanding of the filioque
Gregory palamas is not really a catholic father but is allowed to be venerated due to respect of carried over eastern traditions upon reunion
Mark of Ephesus , lets not even go there...
So you refuse to attempt to understand the Filioque controversy in full by reading key figures involved in it. What a narrow-minded approach.
Archbishop St. Athanasius the Great of Alexandria
*On the Incarnation of the Word Against the Arians 9 in PG 26:1000A: "David sings in the psalm [35:10], :
'For with You is the Font of Life;' because jointly with the Father the Son is indeed the source of the Holy Spirit." Greek: "Πατρὶ ὄντα τὸυ Υιὸν τὴν πηγὴν τοῦ ἀγίου Πνεὐματος
What a translation hack job. Why is it that it translates πηγὴ ζωῆς correctly as, "the Font of Life," but then imposes filioquism on St. Athanasius by taking τὴν πηγὴν τοῦ αγίου Πνεύματος and rendering it as "the source of the Holy Spirit," rather than keeping the parallelism and translating it correctly as, "the Font of the Holy Spirit?" If the case for the heresy of the filioque were so strong among the Greek fathers, why is it that the proponents of the filioque almost always engage in such dishonest practices when translating the Greek, such as translating the verbs εκπορεύω, εκχέω and προείμι all as 'proceeds' instead of preserving the distinction between these terms, or as seen in the quotation above, translating equivocally a term which is clearly used univocally as part of a parallel construction? It is clear, when one references the Greek, that St. Athanasius, by drawing parallels between the "Font of Life" and the "Font of the Holy Spirit" is speaking of the energetic manifestation of the Holy Spirit through the Son, as Life is an uncreated energy of God, and the Holy Spirit qua Life is thereby made manifest through the Son.
*Orations Against the Arians 3:25:24 in PG 26:376A:
"For He, as has been said, gives to the Spirit, and whatever the Spirit has, He has from the Word" Greek: "Αὐτὸς γἀρ, ὥσπερ εἵρηται, τῷ Πνεύματι δίδωσι, καὶ ὄσα ἓχει τὸ Πνεῦμα παρἀ τοῦ Λόγου ὲχει."
Receiving from the Son is not equivalent to being from the Son.
Bishop St. Gregory of Nyssa
the Spirit both is said to be from the Father, and is further testified to be from the Son. For, it says, "if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of His" [Romans 8:9]. Therefore the Spirit, Who is from God, is also the Spirit of Christ; but the Son, Who is from God, neither is nor is said to be "of the Spirit," nor does this relative order become reversed.
I like how you did not provide a citation (is that not in violation of the forum's rules?). This is allegedly from St. Gregory of Nyssa's 3rd Sermon on the Lord's Prayer, but there is a problem with this, insofar as the presence of the Greek word ἐκ is a variant reading, one which prominent editors of Gregory of Nyssa's works such as Johannes Callahan and Werner Jaeger agree is attested to paleographically, but is unlikely to be original to Gregory of Nyssa, as the ἐκ does not fit in with the actual argument made by Gregory of Nyssa in that passage. Indeed, it is far more likely that the correct reading of this passage does not include the preposition ἐκ, considering that Gregory of Nyssa does not in his other extant and detailed works on the Trinity promote the idea that the Spirit is from the Son, but only that the Spirit proceeds through the Son, and furthermore because this variant reading would put Gregory of Nyssa in direct contradiction with St. John of Damascus if it were original.
Bishop St. Basil the Great of Caesarea [Against Eunomius 3:1 in PG 29:655A]:
"Even if the Holy Spirit is third in dignity and order, why need He be third also in nature? For that He is second to the Son, having His being from Him and receiving from Him and announcing to us and being completely dependent on Him, pious tradition recounts; but that His nature is third we are not taught by the Saints nor can we conclude logically from what has been said."
Again, I see that you fail to do your homework with your prooftexts. Radde-Gallwitz in his edition of St. Basil's Against Eunomius omits this passage, noting in the footnote that it is certainly not genuine to St. Basil. A. Edward Sieciensky also points out in Filioque
that the Modern scholarly consensus is that this text is not original to St. Basil; rather it supports St. Mark of Ephesus' understanding that St. Basil was quoting Eunomius' doctrine by way of concession. St. Basil in the passage, if this passage is genuine, is granting Eunomius his minor premise (that the Holy Spirit is third in dignity), but denying Eunomius' major premise (that being third in nature follows from being third in dignity). And if you doubt that St. Basil is arguing by way of concession, then consider this: in his his dispute with Eunomius, St. Basil was careful to lay out the groundwork to show that the Son is equal in dignity to the Father; why then would St. Basil throw that framework out the window and grant that the Spirit is third (implying that the Son is second) unless he were granting Eunomius' minor premise by way of concession?
this is in total accordance with the degree of Florence teaching a procession of both as from one principle as both roles of the father and son are inseparable i the procession
Perhaps the Decree of Florence is in total accordance with the Eunomian doctrine that the Spirit is third in dignity and the Son second. I am glad, however, that we Orthodox Catholic Christians do not participate in such heretical blasphemies.