Debating the filioque

[spina1953]

Hi Richca I like your post#394, your explaination is right on!

 

[frjohnmorris]

An outsider to Christianity might say that the Orthodox position on fornication as immoral is legalistic…it is all relative. A Catholic might argue that the Orthodox absolute limit on three marriages is legalistic, as a Catholic woman who is widowed, say, four times can marry four times. The Catholic Church considers valid sacramental marriages for life without exception. Separation is sometimes necessary, but the spiritual bond cannot be broken. We all have our crosses. If my future wife left me (heaven forbid), I could never personally feel comfortable taking another wife - my vows before God, made in good faith, remain vows regardless of whether she keeps hers. St. Paul teaches that husbands must love their wives as Christ loved the Church - my love must be unconditional no matter what. Christianity has always had rules. St. Paul lays out rules / guidelines for the early Church, and the bishops of both the Catholic and Orthodox Churches have continued to do so for the good of the faithful. We can argue over whether particular canons are necessary, but I think we both agree that the bishops have this right by virtue of the power of binding and loosing.

In regards to justification, we are certainly on the same page. This is one of the biggest issues between Catholicism and Protestantism. I often note that the propers of the mass and divine office according to the Roman Rite are full of references to deification…it comes up, implicitly or explicitly, as one of the most central themes of our liturgy. At every mass the priest prays “By the mystery of this water and wine may we come to share in the divinity of Christ who humbled himself to share in our humanity.”
It is for this reason that I am often shocked to hear from some Orthodox Christians that the West abandoned the patristic understanding of deification. To my mind, nothing could be farther from the truth. Protestants abandoned this teaching, not Catholics. When Latins speak of sanctifying grace, we are referring to the indwelling of the divine life within the soul…when we are baptized, we truly “put on Christ” and become holy at that very moment. I once attended a daily mass celebrated by a Dominican priest. During the homily the priest said to the congregation “You are gods.” To those outside of the Dominican spirituality this may sound shocking, even heretical, but it simply refers to the Church’s teaching that by virtue of the sacraments, especially baptism and the eucharist, we truly participate in the divine life in such a profound sense that we become “like gods”. This is especially true of the saints…our veneration of the saints would be madness (as Protestants think it is), if we did not have this understanding of deification. If we understand the Church to be the mystical extension of the Incarnation - the marriage of Man and God, everything else falls into place.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church says:

I agree with you on every issue except marriage and divorce. There are no vows in the Orthodox wedding service. Therefore, we see marriage as a relationship not a legal relationship. We certainly do not encourage divorce, but recognize the reality that now man or woman can walk away from a marriage and get a no fault divorce. Some secular counsels have done a great deal of damage to traditional marriage, because the goal of counseling is to make the person feel fulfilled, and not to preserve a marriage. Radical feminism has also contributed to divorce through feminist counselers who have no commitment to the sanctity of marriage, look negatively at men and encourage women to express their independence. We also live in an age of selfish young men who are too self-centered to make a marriage work, so both men and women are responsible for the breakdown of traditional marriage.
We believe that God forgives all sins, including the sins that lead to the breakdown of a marriage. Therefore, we also believe that He gives us another chance after a period of proper penance and counseling to get it right. A person should not have to live their whole life in pain because they made a mistake in their 20s or their husband or wife abused them, had drug or alcohol problems or was too immature and selfish to make the sacrifices to make a marriage work.

Archpriest John W. Morris

 

[twf]

I agree with you on every issue except marriage and divorce. There are no vows in the Orthodox wedding service. Therefore, we see marriage as a relationship not a legal relationship. We certainly do not encourage divorce, but recognize the reality that now man or woman can walk away from a marriage and get a no fault divorce. Some secular counsels have done a great deal of damage to traditional marriage, because the goal of counseling is to make the person feel fulfilled, and not to preserve a marriage. Radical feminism has also contributed to divorce through feminist counselers who have no commitment to the sanctity of marriage, look negatively at men and encourage women to express their independence. We also live in an age of selfish young men who are too self-centered to make a marriage work, so both men and women are responsible for the breakdown of traditional marriage.
We believe that God forgives all sins, including the sins that lead to the breakdown of a marriage. Therefore, we also believe that He gives us another chance after a period of proper penance and counseling to get it right. A person should not have to live their whole life in pain because they made a mistake in their 20s or their husband or wife abused them, had drug or alcohol problems or was too immature and selfish to make the sacrifices to make a marriage work.

Archpriest John W. Morris

Father, bless.

I’ve highlighted the essential issue here. In the West the vows are all important. In the East, the blessing of the priest is all important. As far as I know, the West has always seen the exchange of vows as the essential element of marriage. In fact, prior to Trent, a marriage contracted between a man and woman without a priest was still seen as valid, by virtue of the vows they exchanged, even if illicit. At Trent, using the power of binding and loosing, the Church decreed that only marriages blessed by a priest would be considered valid, but the exchange of vows remains the essential element. The early Church, as far as I know, did not have a liturgical marriage ceremony at all.

In the case of young men and women who were too selfish or immature to truly make marriage work, an annulment is often a possibility in the Latin Church as those conditions may have presented a serious defect in the individual’s ability to exchange the marital vows. In the Roman Rite the couple confers the sacrament upon each other and thus must understand what they are doing (life-long commitment, desire to sacrifice for the other, open to children, etc). In the Byzantine Rite the priest confers the sacrament…so the situation is quite different. I don’t know if this particular issue can be reconciled but as I believe both positions are ancient we may be able to co-exist on this particular point.

I believe the biggest issue for Latins is the modern Orthodox belief that second or third marriages are sacramental. I have seen it argued that the ancient Byzantine Church, while allowing second and third marriages after a suitable period of penance, did not celebrate these marriages liturgically but simply tolerated a civil marriage after the original sacramental marriage fell apart. As a historian perhaps you have some insight on this issue. When and why did second/third marriages become true sacramental unions conferred by the Church? The West never has done this.

 

[frjohnmorris]

Whoa.

Fr. John, you do realize that the Catholic Church has considerable monastic tradition of our own, right? The contemplative cloistered orders include the Carthusians, the Cistercians, the Carmelites, among others.

Surely Orthodox do not believe that Mt. Athos is the only place where monks and hermits live?

Of course I realize that the Roman Catholic Church has a long and venerable monastic tradition. Unfortunately, there are some Catholic nuns who have fallen under strong feminist influence. These seem to be the nuns that one encounters out in the world. I sent my son to a kindergarten at a local Catholic Church. You could feel the tension between the nun that ran the school and the pastor of the Church. I have already mentioned a couple of unpleasant encounters with feminist nuns. It is a real problem that Rome recognizes and is taking steps to resolve. So I am not criticizing the Catholic Church because I am merely writing about something that is well known and recognized by the leadership of the Catholic Church.
What is the difference between a nun and a religious?

Archpriest John W. Morris

 

[Anthony86]

What is the difference between a nun and a religious?

I believe the current Code of Canon Law is silent on the distinction, but there is a tradition of regarding as ‘religious’ all those who take simple vows, and as ‘nuns’ those who take solemn vows. Nuns are typically cloistered. So not all female religious (sisters) are nuns in the strict sense.

 

[frjohnmorris]

Father, bless.

I’ve highlighted the essential issue here. In the West the vows are all important. In the East, the blessing of the priest is all important. As far as I know, the West has always seen the exchange of vows as the essential element of marriage. In fact, prior to Trent, a marriage contracted between a man and woman without a priest was still seen as valid, by virtue of the vows they exchanged, even if illicit. At Trent, using the power of binding and loosing, the Church decreed that only marriages blessed by a priest would be considered valid, but the exchange of vows remains the essential element. The early Church, as far as I know, did not have a liturgical marriage ceremony at all.

In the case of young men and women who were too selfish or immature to truly make marriage work, an annulment is often a possibility in the Latin Church as those conditions may have presented a serious defect in the individual’s ability to exchange the marital vows. In the Roman Rite the couple confers the sacrament upon each other and thus must understand what they are doing (life-long commitment, desire to sacrifice for the other, open to children, etc). In the Byzantine Rite the priest confers the sacrament…so the situation is quite different. I don’t know if this particular issue can be reconciled but as I believe both positions are ancient we may be able to co-exist on this particular point.

I believe the biggest issue for Latins is the modern Orthodox belief that second or third marriages are sacramental. I have seen it argued that the ancient Byzantine Church, while allowing second and third marriages after a suitable period of penance, did not celebrate these marriages liturgically but simply tolerated a civil marriage after the original sacramental marriage fell apart. As a historian perhaps you have some insight on this issue. When and why did second/third marriages become true sacramental unions conferred by the Church? The West never has done this.

You are right there is a difference in sacramental theology in that in Eastern Orthodoxy, the Priest is the minister of the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony. I understand that a Deacon can preside at a Catholic wedding. A Deacon cannot preside over a wedding in the Orthodox Church, because the emphasis is on the blessing of the union between the man and woman and not on vows that do not exist in an Orthodox wedding.
How could an Orthodox Christian enter into a marriage that was not Sacramental? The development of the Byzantine marriage service took time. Originally the couple simply took Communion together. Eventually the present service developed. I am not sure, but suspect that the service was standardized with the invention of printing.
The norm in Eastern Orthodoxy is one marriage for life. As a Priest, I am expected to uphold that norm. That means that if my wife were to die, I could not remarry and remain a Priest. Occasionally, a Bishop may give permission for a widowed Priest with small children who need a mother to remarry, but this is very rare.
Second and third marriages even for laity after the death of a spouse are considered a concession to human weakness.In Orthodoxy we have the concept of “economy” which means that we can bend the rules for the salvation of souls. If both the man the woman are entering into a second marriage, a slightly different service is used. The service for a third marriage is very different and has a strong penitential character. I have been a priest for 33 years and have never used the service for a third marriage and can only remember using the service for a second marriage once.
I might add that the Catholic Church allows a Catholic to be married by an Orthodox Priest without requiring special permission from the Catholic Bishop. On Saturday, I am presiding over a marriage between a woman in my parish and a man from a local Catholic parish. The Catholic Priest will, be seated in a place of honor next to the Bishop’s throne, however, and will give a blessing to the couple after I am finished with the Orthodox wedding service.

Archpriest John W. Morris

 

[spina1953]

I would like to comment on the posts concerning marriage: Matt. Chapter 19, VI First Steps in Establishing God’s Reign, the question of Divorce it says " Some Pharrisees came up to Him and said, to test Him, ‘May a man divorce his wife for any reason whatsoever?’ He replied, " Have you not read that at the beginning the Creator made male and female and declared, “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and cling to his wife, and the two shall become as one?’ Thus they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore, let no man separate what God has joined.” They said to Him, “Then why did Moses command divorce and the promulgation of a divorce decree?” “Because of your stubborness Moses let you divorce your wives.” He replied, but at the beginning it was not that way. I now say to you, whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and the man who marries a divorced woman commits adultery." Jesus said “Not everyone can accept this teaching, only those to whom it is given to do so. Some men are incalable of sexual activity from birth; some have been deliberately made so; and some there are who have freely renounced sex for the sake of God’s reign.Let him accept this teaching who can.” So according to Jesus the teacher who taught the Apostles, it seems to me that no man has the right to grant a divorce. Since one makes the marriage vows to each other in marriage before God then God is the witness and to divorce makes God a lier or accepting a lie as valid. This is my opinion as to what the Scripture mans to me.

 

[Richca]

I think you are confused about what I wrote. I’m specifically denying that the Son is the Origin of the Procession of the Holy Spirit. The Father is.

tdgesq,
The Father and Son together are the origin of the Holy Spirit. The Father being the first origin as the CCC says.

Well, that’s what you keep stating, and I keep asking for a Church Council, Pope or ECF that supports your view. Can you cite to something, anything, a Magisterial document even, that describes the Holy Spirit as having its origin from the Father and the Son together?

 

[frjohnmorris]

I would like to comment on the posts concerning marriage: Matt. Chapter 19, VI First Steps in Establishing God’s Reign, the question of Divorce it says " Some Pharrisees came up to Him and said, to test Him, ‘May a man divorce his wife for any reason whatsoever?’ He replied, " Have you not read that at the beginning the Creator made male and female and declared, “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and cling to his wife, and the two shall become as one?’ Thus they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore, let no man separate what God has joined.” They said to Him, “Then why did Moses command divorce and the promulgation of a divorce decree?” “Because of your stubborness Moses let you divorce your wives.” He replied, but at the beginning it was not that way. I now say to you, whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and the man who marries a divorced woman commits adultery." Jesus said “Not everyone can accept this teaching, only those to whom it is given to do so. Some men are incalable of sexual activity from birth; some have been deliberately made so; and some there are who have freely renounced sex for the sake of God’s reign.Let him accept this teaching who can.” So according to Jesus the teacher who taught the Apostles, it seems to me that no man has the right to grant a divorce. Since one makes the marriage vows to each other in marriage before God then God is the witness and to divorce makes God a lier or accepting a lie as valid. This is my opinion as to what the Scripture mans to me.

Christ also gave His Apostles the authority to forgive sins. We believe that when a sin is forgiven, it is washed away by the blood of Christ. However, we take marriage and divorce seriously. Only the Metropolitan can give permission for remarriage and only after the person has shown repentance for whatever they did that led to the failure of their first marriage. We would not bless a marriage if a person got a divorce to marry someone else. We would only bless a marriage if a person is divorced and then later marries someone, falls in love and wants to get married. I know of a case where a young woman married a man who physically abused her. In fact, he beat her up in a public parking lot and someone called the police and he was arrested. He had already started dating another girl and filed for divorce. The woman is only 30. Should she remain unmarried for the rest of her life because her first husband beat her and filed for divorce? What about a woman who marries a man who drinks or uses drugs? What about a man who marries a woman who leaves him? I cannot believe that a loving Christ would require them to remain unmarried for the rest of their lives under such circumstances. However, I also believe that it is engaging in a legal fiction to declare that the first marriage was not a real marriage by requiring an annulment.

Archpriest John W. Morris

 

[spina1953]

To frjohnmorris: your post #405 , While I agree that Jesus gave the Apostles the power to forgive, yet, it seems quite clear that what Jesus said let no man seperate what God has joined. I understand forgiveness as it is a sign of love and God does love all He created. But seems to me that Jesus is saying that no one has the right to seperate what God has joined. And if a man or woman should remarry after divorce it is quite clear that they are living in sin and therefore in order to be adsolved from the sin they would have to not be toghter as in a marriage till one or the other dies. At least that seems clear to me. Does not divorce go against the Spirit of God? I also think that Jesus was saying that just because someone divorces does not make it right or correct to remarry someone else.

 

[frjohnmorris]

To frjohnmorris: your post #405 , While I agree that Jesus gave the Apostles the power to forgive, yet, it seems quite clear that what Jesus said let no man seperate what God has joined. I understand forgiveness as it is a sign of love and God does love all He created. But seems to me that Jesus is saying that no one has the right to seperate what God has joined. And if a man or woman should remarry after divorce it is quite clear that they are living in sin and therefore in order to be adsolved from the sin they would have to not be toghter as in a marriage till one or the other dies. At least that seems clear to me. Does not divorce go against the Spirit of God? I also think that Jesus was saying that just because someone divorces does not make it right or correct to remarry someone else.

I suppose that we will just have to recognize that Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism do not agree on this issue. I believe that Catholicism is too legalistic on this issue and that our policy shows God’s love and mercy on a repentant sinner.

Archpriest John W. Morris

 

[Randy_Carson]

Of course I realize that the Roman Catholic Church has a long and venerable monastic tradition. Unfortunately, there are some Catholic nuns who have fallen under strong feminist influence. These seem to be the nuns that one encounters out in the world. I sent my son to a kindergarten at a local Catholic Church. You could feel the tension between the nun that ran the school and the pastor of the Church. I have already mentioned a couple of unpleasant encounters with feminist nuns. It is a real problem that Rome recognizes and is taking steps to resolve. So I am not criticizing the Catholic Church because I am merely writing about something that is well known and recognized by the leadership of the Catholic Church.
What is the difference between a nun and a religious?

Archpriest John W. Morris

Sadly, you are right. The active orders of nuns have been especially decimated by liberalism, and as you have seen in the press, the Vatican is taking some heat for stepping in. Interestingly, NPR interviewed a female religious who had studied the matter, and she agreed that BIG changes are needed to get many American orders back on track. Many of us ask: What took so long?

A religious is anyone who is under monastic vows. A nun is a female religious - though you may get a more nuanced definition from someone with more knowledge of nuns.

 

[spina1953]

To frjohnmorris yur post #407, Yes I agree that there seems to be differences between Orthodox and Catholic teaching concerning marriage. It still my opinion based on Scripture that while one can forgive divorce that does not mean that the one divorced can remarry.

 

[frjohnmorris]

To frjohnmorris yur post #407, Yes I agree that there seems to be differences between Orthodox and Catholic teaching concerning marriage. It still my opinion based on Scripture that while one can forgive divorce that does not mean that the one divorced can remarry.

I am sorry that we disagree, but I believe that the Orthodox position is based on love, forgiveness and mercy. People make mistakes and if they repent God forgives them and gives them another chance.

Archpriest John W. Morris

 

[twf]

I am sorry that we disagree, but I believe that the Orthodox position is based on love, forgiveness and mercy. People make mistakes and if they repent God forgives them and gives them another chance.

Archpriest John W. Morris

Father,
Can you provide any evidence that the ancient Byzantine Church (say pre-9th century) considered second or third marriages sacramental? As I stated earlier, the Western Church has never allowed second or third sacramental marriages except in the event that one spouse passes from this life. I remember a debate on the Byzcath forum (a Ruthenian Greek Catholic forum) where the argument was made that the idea of second sacramental marriages was a post-9th century novelty…but I really don’t know the topic well enough to have an opinion. The second marriage was originally, I understood, simply an exercise in economy of tolerating a strictly civil marriage contract - not a Church conferred sacrament.
I will also state again that, to my knowledge, the West has always seen the exchange of vows as an essential element to marriage. In the event of reunion, we may have to tolerate a difference on this point. Even today, in the Catholic Church, it is only the Latin code of canon law that permits deacons to witness weddings. Both Eastern Catholic canon law and the Catechism are clearly that when marriage is celebrated according to the Eastern / Oriental Rites, the blessing of a priest is absolutely essential. The Catholic Church thus seems to recognize that the two understandings of marriage are both ancient and acceptable.

 

[spina1953]

To frjohnmorris#410, I to am sorry we disagree but I have to say as a Catholic I do believe we have love, and forgiveness and mercy at least that is what I was taught as a Catholic. I do understand that not everyone Catholic or not are willing to forgive.

 

[frjohnmorris]

Father,
Can you provide any evidence that the ancient Byzantine Church (say pre-9th century) considered second or third marriages sacramental? As I stated earlier, the Western Church has never allowed second or third sacramental marriages except in the event that one spouse passes from this life. I remember a debate on the Byzcath forum (a Ruthenian Greek Catholic forum) where the argument was made that the idea of second sacramental marriages was a post-9th century novelty…but I really don’t know the topic well enough to have an opinion. The second marriage was originally, I understood, simply an exercise in economy of tolerating a strictly civil marriage contract - not a Church conferred sacrament.
I will also state again that, to my knowledge, the West has always seen the exchange of vows as an essential element to marriage. In the event of reunion, we may have to tolerate a difference on this point. Even today, in the Catholic Church, it is only the Latin code of canon law that permits deacons to witness weddings. Both Eastern Catholic canon law and the Catechism are clearly that when marriage is celebrated according to the Eastern / Oriental Rites, the blessing of a priest is absolutely essential. The Catholic Church thus seems to recognize that the two understandings of marriage are both ancient and acceptable.

All marriages blessed by the Church are Sacramental. You are right. Second and third marriages are an exercise of economy, but the marriage is still Sacramental. However as I have already written, permission must be received from the Bishop for a second or third marriage. There is a difference in theology in that according to Orthodox theology the priest blessing the marriage, not the couple, is the minister of the Sacrament.
I know for a fact that the Roman Catholic Church recognizes the marriage of a Catholic to an Orthodox Christian presided over by an Orthodox Priest as a valid Sacramental marriage although there are no vows in the Orthodox marriage ceremony. I am doing one Saturday. The man’s Pastor, who is invited and will give a blessing after I finish the Orthodox Marriage Service, told me that the Catholic man did not even need permission from the Catholic Bishop to be married by an Eastern Orthodox Priest. In the past a Catholic being married by an Orthodox Priest had to receive what I believe was called A Dispensation from Form, but at least the local Catholic Diocese no longer requires that.

Archpriest John W. Morris

 

[twf]

All marriages blessed by the Church are Sacramental. You are right. Second and third marriages are an exercise of economy, but the marriage is still Sacramental. However as I have already written, permission must be received from the Bishop for a second or third marriage. There is a difference in theology in that according to Orthodox theology the priest blessing the marriage, not the couple, is the minister of the Sacrament.
I know for a fact that the Roman Catholic Church recognizes the marriage of a Catholic to an Orthodox Christian presided over by an Orthodox Priest as a valid Sacramental marriage although there are no vows in the Orthodox marriage ceremony. I am doing one Saturday. The man’s Pastor, who is invited and will give a blessing after I finish the Orthodox Marriage Service, told me that the Catholic man did not even need permission from the Catholic Bishop to be married by an Eastern Orthodox Priest. In the past a Catholic being married by an Orthodox Priest had to receive what I believe was called A Dispensation from Form, but at least the local Catholic Diocese no longer requires that.

Archpriest John W. Morris

Father, bless.

I believe you are misunderstanding me. I realize that all marriages blessed by the Orthodox Church are considered sacramental; however, it is my understanding that the ancient Church did not bless second or third marriages. As an exercise of economy, bishops sometimes tolerated a second or third civil marriage, but such marriages were never blessed by the Church and thus not sacramental. The ancient Church, like the Catholic Church today, believed that only death could truly dissolve the sacramental bond. I would be interested in any evidence that shows the modern Orthodox practice prior to the 9th century. I realize that the modern Orthodox Church confers second / third sacramental marriages.

I am not surprised that an Orthodox wedding ceremony is recognized as valid for a Catholic. After all, the various Eastern Catholic Churches sui iuris that worship according to the Byzantine Rite (eg. the Melkites) would use a similar service. As the Byzantine form is also a Catholic form, it makes sense that no dispensation from form would be required. In the Latin Church, however, according to our canons and ancient Tradition, the exchange of vows is essential. I do not know why there is this difference between East and West but it appears to be ancient and the Catholic Church, at any rate, seems to accept the difference as one we can live with.

 

[spina1953]

It is my understanging from what I’ve been told by several Catholic priests that marriages proformed in Christian churches are valid and recogized by the Catholic Church. Of course I am speaking of first marriages, not second marriages or third ones. I think also that under certain circumstances the bishop might have a say about some marriages bring valid or not but that I think is in a case to case basis. If a Catholic person gets married by an Orthodox priest it is valid so far as I know and have been told.I do understand that now there is no need for permission for a Catholic to be married by an Orthodox priest, may it was in the past and had to have a dispensation, but not anymore.

 

[mardukm]

Dearst Fr. John, bless,

Sorry for the delay in responding. Very busy time here in the Philippines with All Soul’s feasts. Filipinos actually practically spend the WHOLE DAY at the cemetery in honor of their loved ones, praying, singing, celebrating, and feasting.

I hope you do not take brother Richca’s explanation on the Love between Father and Son as a reflection of actual Catholic teaching on the matter. He claims that his belief is what the Catholic Church teaches, but I’m sure you realize by now that’s not true. A lot of what he says sounds good (and with that veneer of orthodoxy might have actually misled one poster on this thread), yet he somehow insistently and surreptitiously inserts that bit of heterodox element that the Father and Son form the Source of the Holy Spirit . I don’t know about you, but the analogy of a man and woman producing a child was especially grating on my theological senses.

In any case, please consider the following explanation…But before doing so, I would like to ask you to think Latin for a moment, and try to imagine that Love is not Energy, distinct from Essence, but Essence and Energy as one, indistinctly. This is fundamental for a proper understanding of the Latin Catholic analogy of Love.

Generally speaking, the Catholic teaching (the correct one) is not that the love between Father and Son produces the Holy Spirit, but that the Love between the Father and Son IS the Holy Spirit. Do you see the difference? The first (heterodox) explanation conceives of the love between Father and Son as being “prior to” (not in time, mind you) the existence of the Holy Spirit, and is the cause of the existence of the Holy Spirit. This is probably how you naturally and inadvertantly concieve of it, Fr. John, because you regard love not as Essence, but as Energy. In distinction, Latins regard Essence and Energy to be indistinct. God IS love (according to Scripture), and Latins take this quite literally, according to the doctrine of the Simplicity of God. So according to the proper Catholic teaching, it is not that love causes the Essence, but that Love IS the Essence.

In this analogy, it is the Father alone who is the Srouce of this Love (Who is the Holy Spirit). This is rather explicit in the Official Clarification:
The Father is love in its source (2 Cor 13:13; 1 Jn 4:8, 16), the Son is “the Son that he loves” (Col 1:14).
The divine love which has its origin in the Father reposes in "the Son of his love"
The original character of the person of the Spirit as eternal Gift of the Father’s love for his beloved Son…
So the Love (Who is the Holy Spirit) comes FROM the Father and abides in the Son. This is traditionally expressed in the Latin Tradition by calling the Father the Lover, and the Son the Beloved. It is always the Father who is the Initiator and Source of this Love, while the Son is Its Recipient.

So far, I don’t think you have any problem understanding this, Father. That the Holy Spirit originates from the Father and abides in the Son from all Eternity is absolutely certain to be part of Orthodox Trinitarian theology. Just replace “Holy Spirit” with “Love,” and you get the Latin teaching.

But the Latin teaching does not stop there, and I think this is where the need for clarification begins. So, what happens “after” the Holy Spirit abides in the Son? I think this is the actual matter of your query?

At this point, let me stop. I would like to ask if, at this point, it is sufficienly clear that the Latin Catholic Church teaches (as opposed to the opinions of individual apologists) that the Father is the one and only Source of this Love (Who is the Holy Spirit) between Father and Son. If we are in agreement, I’ll continue. If something else needs clarification before proceeding (pun intended ), please advise.

Humbly,
Marduk