Uh, The Lord Jesus Christ Is Literally God Almighty.
So is the Holy Spirit. Does the Holy Spirit proceed from itself?
Indeed, this is precisely the kind of accidental crypto-pneumatomacchianism I am concerned about. I don’t believe there is a vast group of Western Christians that intends to deprecate the Trinity or the Deity of the Holy Spirit, but rather, the filioque has the effect of prompting Pneumatological statements which are inadvertently de-personalizing in nature.
Whether the member you replied to intended it or not, and I believe they did not intend it, the effect of their reply read literally is to elevate the person of Jesus Christ above the person of the holy Spirit on an existential level, which violates the personal identity of the Holy Spirit and violates the triadological (Trinitarian theological) principle of the co-equality of persons.
I assume the individual you replied to has a fully acceptable view of the Trinity, that they would agree with the classical diagrams of who the Trinity is. The problem is that the next person who reads their post might, on the basis of it, and on the basis of attempting allegiance to some church that embraces the Filioque dogmatically, interpret it in such a way as to mean that the Holy Spirit is not really a person of the Trinity in the same sense as the Father or the Son, since the post declares Jesus Christ to be God without also declaring the Holy Spirit to be God or explaining precisely that the Holy Spirit is a person, and the personal relationships between the two, which I would note would be unreasonable, but the problem with the
Filioque is that it creates a situation where the only way to preclude a misunderstanding that leads to Pneumatomachian beliefs is to expressly declare all of the above in practically any writing or discussion of it and also within the context of its use.*
Throughout my entire career, even before I converted to Orthodoxy, I was opposed to the
Filioque because of its potential to cause this kind of confusion, and its been something I’ve been fairly stalwart in regards to.
* In this respect, it has become a bit reminiscent of the another all-too frequently encountered problem in Western Christianity, that being of reading the Psalter in a literal-historical manner rather than as Christological prophecy, because when people do that, and many Anglicans have apparently made this mistake, including even John Wesley, the result is that they react in horror to the concluding verse of
Super Flumina Babylonis (136 in our LXX Psalter, Psalms 137 in an MT-based Psalms) and thus tend to delete it and other “imprecatory verses” from their Psalters without realizing the important messages these verses actually contain, for example, Psalm 136 v. 9 LXX is not a benediction upon those who would dare to murder the youths of Mesopotamia but rather, if read typologically and prophetically, is a benediction upon those who overcome sin, temptation and the sinful passions, which are the offspring of Babylon, which in Scripture is used as an icon to represent the corruption and sinfulness of this world, which will perish, while Jerusalem is used as an icon to represent holiness, purity and all of the virtues that follow from the correct worship of God and which exist in the Church and in the life of the World to Come.