And maybe another tiny objection...it's absolutely nowhere in the Scripture. In John, the procession belongs to the Father.

It is not part of the nature of man to be the fountain of life

Besides that, the filioque has no backing in the Scriptures. Actually, it's the opposite. John 15:26 is pretty clear. "When the Counselor comes, whom I will send to you from the Father—the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father—he will testify about me."
John 14:26 "But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and remind you of everything I told you."

That's why Basil said FROM the Father THROUGH the Son and not FROM the Father and FROM the Son.
εκπορευεται (proceed) in the Gospel is used exclusively to define the Father-Holy Spirit relationship, never for the Son.

**John 15:26 - New Revised Standard Version (NRSV)**

```Dust


<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 14:26 - New Revised Standard Version (NRSV)**

```Dust


<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. ```

Now I'm going to dissect your tirade of retardations

First you talk about my "lack of rigorousness", while I have shown absolute rigor while having to point out what is clear against an attack only motivated by Aquinas being cahtolic. If he wasn't there would have been absolutely any objection ot the simple example I have given. The discussion at hand is also not based on any ecumanical canon, but it is obvious that you, as a good NPC, have been programmed by some blog to hate Aquinas because "Aquinas uses false councils!". This, as I have said, has nothing to do with councils nor canons, so spare me your irrelevant retardations

Using false councils is just a tiny detail

You're so ethical

You know the ecumenical councils are the second authoritative source in Christianisty right?

And as a good orthodox, there is your ever lasting artificial obsession with "muh filioque", that never ceases to amaze me. Nobody has mentioned, it is irrelevant here, but you feel the need to mention, like your blogs have taught you, to tell us how much you haqte the filioque. You say "it is embarassing how he defends him", but you don't say how, nor seem to be able to create any argument or line of reasoning. It seems that, according to you, saying that the HS proceeds from "the Father and the Son" removes any difference between them, as if the only thing that differentiates them is the procession of the Holy Spirit.

You know that this has nothing to do with councils, little NPC?

Yes, amending the creed isn't a serious problem.

And your quotes of John are as relevant as those from protestants who say that we are justified by faith alone, quoting verses when it is said "we are justified by faith"

Ahahaha

The filioque isn't even the first addition to the creed

I don't think you understand the purpose of the creed

It is a statement of basic doctrine to combat heresies and unify

As heresies or falsehood arise, things are added, not because there was something wrong in it, but because they are a convenient reminder

Your Church promised to not remove a single word at the 7th council.

It is you who wants to remove the Filioque

No the filioque is a total heresy. Nowhere in the scriptures. Nowhere in the Early Fathers.

At the 7th ecumenical councils, the creed was achieved. Your church promised To NOT amend it.

The Filioque is added from authoritative sources

The creed is not "achieved"

Which one?

You have no idea of what the purpose of the creed is

Which authoritative source?

The final authority of the roman see

Circular way of thinking....

In the Early Church, where is the authoritative source?

Something coming from the Church fathers is not an authority, since there were heretical Church Fathers

In the Early church, you have either Peter or his successors as final authority

That is, those who have the final word

It seems that you think, as I have mentioned earlies

That there is some magical year from which there are no authoritative statements

Can you tell us exactly what year and why?

Is it the year 300? 400? 401?

So the filioque doesn't come from the scriptures. It doesn't come from the Fathers. So, from where?

Only the Roman Church?

What does it mean that "it comes from the Scriptures"?