Double Procession of the Holy Spirit?

[Pope_Noah_I]

Is it a theological opinion or dogma? New Advent seems to claim that its dogma, but, if thats so, how can we embrace the East’s denial of it?

 

[mardukm]

Is it a theological opinion or dogma? New Advent seems to claim that its dogma, but, if thats so, how can we embrace the East’s denial of it?

First of all, the idea that there are two Processions was anathematized by the Council of Florence.

Secondly, the term “double Procession” does not actually mean that there are two Processions. However, I am not aware of any Magisterial document that uses that term. Mostly lay apologists will use that expression, and that you find it in the Old catholic Encyclopedia is to be expected - but unfortunate, IMO. I personally reject that term. I started a thread on the matter in the Apologetics Forum a long time ago, asking our Latin brethren to remove that from their vocabulary. It is a great stumbling block, liable to the worst interpretations, IMO.

Blessings

 

[dcointin]

Mardukm - is there any way that an Orthodox Christian could properly understand the Filioque, or is it simply a matter of disagreement?

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother dcointin,

Mardukm - is there any way that an Orthodox Christian could properly understand the Filioque, or is it simply a matter of disagreement?

While much of the issue revolves around a difference in terminological understandings, there is an actual theological difference in the way an Eastern understands the matter, and the way a Western understands the matter. However, they are actually both orthodox and compatible.

I am very busy, so I can’t really get into it fully, but I will say the following, which cuts to the theological heart of the issue:

When the Easterns say “the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father,” they intend to affirm the divinity of the Holy Spirit by pointing to His divine Origin.

When the Westerns say “the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son,” they intend to affirm the divinitly of the Holy Spirit by pointing to the consubstantiality of the three Persons of the Trinity.

So, theologically speaking, the intention of the Western Church is just as orthodox as the theological intention of the Eastern Church.

The next 2 questions that need to be answered are:

1. Is it theologically proper for “and the Son” to be added to the statement “The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father?” This is where terminology and definitions come into play, and it is an extensive topic.
2. Was it canonically proper for “and the Son” to be added to the Creed?

I am going to be very busy until next Wednesday, though that’s never stopped me from dropping by and giving short, quick answers when I could. If no one has sufficiently explained the matter by then, I will offer a detailed explanation when I return.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Hesychios]

The Catholic Encyclopedia says this:
" … The dogma of the double Procession of the Holy Ghost from Father and Son as one Principle is directly opposed to the error that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father, not from the Son."

I copped this off of another website somewhere so I thought I would paste it in:

" The Byzantine theologians opposed the addition … because the Filioque clause implied the reduction of the divine persons to mere relations (“the Father and the Son are two in relation to each other, but one in relation to the Spirit”). For the Greeks the Father alone is the origin of both the Son and the Spirit. "

Whether one considers this one Procession or two Processions, the fact remains that the filioque assumes that the Holy Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son equally. As it is, it implies a subordination of the Holy Spirit. It can then be thought by some people the Holy Spirit is like a shared soul for God. That could suggest a Diarchy to some people, or perhaps ditheism.

But no, it is already agreed that God is a Holy Trinity.

The only logical way to negate the concept of subordination of one member of the Trinity is to follow the co-equality in origin argument all the way:

• Father & Son project to the Holy Spirit [proceeds]
• Father & Holy Spirit project to the Son [begets]
• Son & Holy Spirit project to the Father ??? ]

… but it isn’t possible to extrapolate this type of reasoning out to it’s logical conclusion without destroying the Monarchy of the Father. So no one does it.

"You ask what is the procession of the Holy Spirit? Do you tell me first what is the unbegottenness of the Father, and I will then explain to you the physiology of the generation of the Son, and the procession of the Spirit, and we shall both of us be stricken with madness for prying into the mystery of God."
Saint Gregory (the Theologian) of Nazianzus

No one goes there with their thinking and we are stuck with a subordination of the Holy Spirit as a principle suggested to western Christians. It is very problematic.

To Orthodox, the Father is the single origin to both the Son and the Holy Spirit. This does not admit to even a single procession from both. In asserting this, Orthodox are mistakenly assumed to be in error as per the Catholic Encyclopedia.

We moderns are not the first to think deeply on this subject, the early fathers thought about this long and hard, and (philosophically) were probably light years ahead of us. They chose to be minimalists in their expressions, and the Creed of Nicaea-Constantinople reflects that.

“We have learned that there is a difference between begetting and procession, but the nature of the difference we in no wise understand.”
Saint John of Damascus - Doctor of the Church

 

[Hesychios]

The Catholic Encyclopedia says this:
" … The dogma of the double Procession of the Holy Ghost from Father and Son as one Principle is directly opposed to the error that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father, not from the Son."

I copped this off of another website somewhere so I thought I would paste it in:

" The Byzantine theologians opposed the addition … because the Filioque clause implied the reduction of the divine persons to mere relations (“the Father and the Son are two in relation to each other, but one in relation to the Spirit”). For the Greeks the Father alone is the origin of both the Son and the Spirit. "

Whether one considers this one Procession or two Processions, the fact remains that the filioque assumes that the Holy Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son equally. As it is, it implies a subordination of the Holy Spirit. It can then be thought by some people the Holy Spirit is like a shared soul for God. That could suggest a Diarchy to some people, or perhaps ditheism.

But no, it is already agreed that God is a Holy Trinity.

The only logical way to negate the concept of subordination of one member of the Trinity is to follow the co-equality in origin argument all the way:

• Father & Son project to the Holy Spirit [proceeds]
• Father & Holy Spirit project to the Son [begets]
• Son & Holy Spirit project to the Father ??? ]

… but it isn’t possible to extrapolate this type of reasoning out to it’s logical conclusion without destroying the Monarchy of the Father. So no one does it.

"You ask what is the procession of the Holy Spirit? Do you tell me first what is the unbegottenness of the Father, and I will then explain to you the physiology of the generation of the Son, and the procession of the Spirit, and we shall both of us be stricken with madness for prying into the mystery of God."
Saint Gregory (the Theologian) of Nazianzus

No one goes there with their thinking and we are stuck with a subordination of the Holy Spirit as a principle suggested to western Christians. It is very problematic.

To Orthodox, the Father is the single origin to both the Son and the Holy Spirit. This does not admit to even a single procession from both. In asserting this, Orthodox are mistakenly assumed to be in error as per the Catholic Encyclopedia.

We moderns are not the first to think deeply on this subject, the early fathers thought about this long and hard, and IMO (philosophically) were probably light years ahead of most of us here on this discussion board. They chose to be minimalists in their expressions, and the Creed of Nicaea-Constantinople reflects that.

“We have learned that there is a difference between begetting and procession, but the nature of the difference we in no wise understand.”
Saint John of Damascus - Doctor of the Church

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Hesychios,

Whether one considers this one Procession or two Processions, the fact remains that the filioque assumes that the Holy Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son equally. As it is, it implies a subordination of the Holy Spirit. It can then be thought by some people the Holy Spirit is like a shared soul for God. That could suggest a Diarchy to some people, or perhaps ditheism.

The problem with your paragraph here is that (I’m sure you already know, but perhaps you forgot), the word “proceeds” in Latin does not mean the same thing as the word “proceeds” in Greek.

The only logical way to negate the concept of subordination of one member of the Trinity is to follow the co-equality in origin argument all the way:

• Father & Son project to the Holy Spirit [proceeds]
• Father & Holy Spirit project to the Son [begets]
• Son & Holy Spirit project to the Father ??? ]

… but it isn’t possible to extrapolate this type of reasoning out to it’s logical conclusion without destroying the Monarchy of the Father. So no one does it.

For an Eastern, you sure spend a lot of time philosophizing about the matter!

The solution is easy enough - and can be arrived at without the philosophical gymnastics - when one understands that there is simply a difference between what the Greeks mean when they say “proceeds” and what the Latins mean when they say “proceeds.”

The whole problem with the Eastern rhetoric is that it seeks to impose the Greek understanding on the Latins, and then invent a whole slough of false accusations on the Latin teaching.

I’ll explain more as time permits.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Hesychios]

Dear brother Hesychios,

The problem with your paragraph here is that (I’m sure you already know, but perhaps you forgot), the word “proceeds” in Latin does not mean the same thing as the word “proceeds” in Greek.

I think that this is a smoke screen.

I invite you to make a demonstration to show why any difference between the Latin and the Greek languages negates my point.

For an Eastern, you sure spend a lot of time philosophizing about the matter!

Philosophy is rooted in the east.

The solution is easy enough - and can be arrived at without the philosophical gymnastics - when one understands that there is simply a difference between what the Greeks mean when they say “proceeds” and what the Latins mean when they say “proceeds.”

I did not give a definition for “proceeds”. You give one and we’ll see.

The whole problem with the Eastern rhetoric is that it seeks to impose the Greek understanding on the Latins, and then invent a whole slough of false accusations on the Latin teaching.

In your entire post you have offered nothing to show that I have invented a whole slough of false accusations.

Latin teaching, for all that ‘precision’ the Latin language is famous for, is sometimes so nebulous it can mean anything. The filioque is a case in point, most Catholics don’t understand it, so don’t go criticizing “Eastern Rhetoric”. I am taking it straight and showing the Orthodox objections to it as written.

 

[mardukm]

I think that this is a smoke screen.

I invite you to make a demonstration to show why any difference between the Latin and the Greek languages negates my point.

“Proceeds” in the original Latin Creed is procedit

“Proceeds” in the original Greek Creed is ekporeusai

Both ekporeusai and procedit can mean “to go forth,” but ekporeusai denotes something that procedit does not - namely, the concept of ontological origination.

The difference can be perceived between the two phrases:

“I proceeded from the house to go play.” and “I proceeded from my mother at birth.”

The first only denotes a going forth, but the second denotes a going forth in terms of ontological origination.

If ekporeusai and procedit were equivalent, then I can see where the subordination argument comes in because the Son would share in the Father’s arche.

But procedit only refers to “a going forth” not an origination, So what is “going forth” (procedit) from Father and the Son to the Holy Spirit? The Essence of divinity. But from Whom does this Essence of divinity originate (ekporeusai) that goes forth to the Holy Spirit through the Son? The Father alone.

Philosophy is rooted in the east.

But on the deep things of God?

I wish I could give more detailed answers now, but I have little time.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Hesychios]

“Proceeds” in the original Latin Creed is procedit

“Proceeds” in the original Greek Creed is ekporeusai

Both ekporeusai and procedit can mean “to go forth,” but ekporeusai denotes something that procedit does not - namely, the concept of ontological origination.

The difference can be perceived between the two phrases:

“I proceeded from the house to go play.” and “I proceeded from my mother at birth.”

The first only denotes a going forth, but the second denotes a going forth in terms of ontological origination.

If ekporeusai and procedit were equivalent, then I can see where the subordination argument comes in because the Son would share in the Father’s arche.

But procedit only refers to “a going forth” not an origination,

So if the Holy Spirit only goes forth from the Father, but does not originate with Him, that is not better. It suggest the Holy Spirit is created.

 

[mardukm]

So if the Holy Spirit only goes forth from the Father, but does not originate with Him, that is not better. It suggest the Holy Spirit is created.

How so? Both the Latins and Greeks when using the word proceeds (whether as “going forth” or “origination”) intend to express an ETERNAL action. Can anything created by eternal?

Blessings

 

[Vico]

Exactly as mardukm states, compare Greek and Latin:

τὸἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς ἐκπορευόμενον,
Ontological “procession of the Spirit from the Father only”

Qui ex Patre Filióque procédit.
Which from Father and Son proceeds (economic mission or personal - hypostatic - procession through the Son)

The word “procedit” in Latin is used by Pope Saint Leo I, and that word means Greek proinai “to proceed”, which can have meaning of two other Greek words: pemps “to send” (economy) or ekporev- “to come out” (ontology), which leads to difficulty for those familiar to the Greek ontological meaning in the Creed.

Pope Saint Leo I, defined the true doctrine of the two natures of Christ as the hypostatic procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son, in a letter to Bishop St. Turibius of Astoga in 447:

“Thus, in the first chapter it is shown what impious notions they hold concerning the divine Trinity, when they assert that there is one and the same person of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, as though the same God should at one time be named Father, at another time Son, at another time Holy Spirit; and as though there were not one Who begat, another Who is begotten, another Who proceeds from both.”

Latin:

primo itaque capitulo demonstratur quam impie sentiant de Trinitate divina, qui et Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti unam atque eandem asserunt esse personam, tamquam idem Deus nunc Pater nunc Filius nunc Spiritus Sanctus nominetur; nec alius sit qui genuit, alius qui genitus est, alius qui de utroque procedit.

catholicpatristics.blogspot.com/2009/08/filioque.html

Single spiration.

ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/FLORENCE.HTM

From the Council of Florence, Session 6, 6 July 1439:

In the name of the holy Trinity, Father, Son and holy Spirit, we define, with the approval of this holy universal council of Florence, that the following truth of faith shall be believed and accepted by all Christians and thus shall all profess it:
that the holy Spirit is eternally from the Father and the Son, and has his essence and his subsistent being from the Father together with the Son, and proceeds from both eternally as from one principle and a single spiration.
We declare that when holy doctors and fathers say that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son, this bears the sense that thereby also the Son should be signified, according to the Greeks indeed as cause, and according to the Latins as principle of the subsistence of the holy Spirit, just like the Father.

And since the Father gave to his only-begotten Son in begetting him everything the Father has, except to be the Father, so the Son has eternally from the Father, by whom he was eternally begotten, this also, namely that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Son.

We define also that the explanation of those words “and from the Son” was licitly and reasonably added to the creed for the sake of declaring the truth and from imminent need.

 

[Hesychios]

How so? Both the Latins and Greeks when using the word proceeds (whether as “going forth” or “origination”) intend to express an ETERNAL action. Can anything created by eternal?

Blessings

Am I reading you right?

… PROCEEDS FROM THE FATHER AND THE SON

As incredible as it seems, you may be suggesting that the one word “proceeds” used in this sentence could mean one thing in reference to the Father (that being the Holy Spirit originates with Him), and another in reference to the Son (that the Holy Spirit does not originate with Him).

The original term PROCEEDS FROM THE FATHER when written, first in Greek (which the Fathers of the church at Rome knew and used at that time) with the meaning of origin, was then translated into Latin with the intended meaning of origin.

Some centuries later, the phrase “and the Son” is added, but the verb doesn’t mean origin anymore ?

Or are you stating … Proceeds still means origin for the noun Father as originally understood but the same verb used in the same place of the same sentence has a different meaning with the second noun Son?

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Hesychios,

Am I reading you right?

… PROCEEDS FROM THE FATHER AND THE SON

As incredible as it seems, you may be suggesting that the one word “proceeds” used in this sentence could mean one thing in reference to the Father (that being the Holy Spirit originates with Him), and another in reference to the Son (that the Holy Spirit does not originate with Him).

The original term PROCEEDS FROM THE FATHER when written, first in Greek (which the Fathers of the church at Rome knew and used at that time) with the meaning of origin, was then translated into Latin with the intended meaning of origin.

Some centuries later, the phrase “and the Son” is added, but the verb doesn’t mean origin anymore ?

Or are you stating … Proceeds still means origin for the noun Father as originally understood but the same verb used in the same place of the same sentence has a different meaning with the second noun Son?

Thanks for the question, but no, that is not what I am saying. I need to go, and won’t be back until Saturday. If someone else has not explained it ably before then, I’ll do so at that time…

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Aramis]

The latin procedit essentially means “to come out of” without specifying origination or transmission. It’s neither and both… it can mean equally either one, without forcing the same distinction upon other cosubjects.

It’s much like the english “emit”…

a light bulb and a glassed wall sconce emit light. One is the origin of the light, the other isn’t, but both emit the same light, and when you stand in the right spot, you can see the light from the bulb without it having gone through the glass of the sconce. Emit doesn’t specify origination, nor does it require the same condition of the two cosubjects.

 

[Hesychios]

Pope Saint Leo I, defined the true doctrine of the two natures of Christ as the hypostatic procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son, in a letter to Bishop St. Turibius of Astoga in 447:

“Thus, in the first chapter it is shown what impious notions they hold concerning the divine Trinity, when they assert that there is one and the same person of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, as though the same God should at one time be named Father, at another time Son, at another time Holy Spirit; and as though there were not one Who begat, another Who is begotten, another Who proceeds from both.”

Latin:

primo itaque capitulo demonstratur quam impie sentiant de Trinitate divina, qui et Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti unam atque eandem asserunt esse personam, tamquam idem Deus nunc Pater nunc Filius nunc Spiritus Sanctus nominetur; nec alius sit qui genuit, alius qui genitus est, alius qui de utroque procedit.

I could be wrong, but all I see here is an argument against Modalism. It does not address Orthodox concerns over the filioque, but does affirm a dual origin of the Holy Spirit from both the Father and the Son, which is double procession.

Single spiration.

From the Council of Florence, Session 6, 6 July 1439:

In the name of the holy Trinity, Father, Son and holy Spirit, we define, with the approval of this holy universal council of Florence, that the following truth of faith shall be believed and accepted by all Christians and thus shall all profess it:that the holy Spirit is eternally from the Father and the Son, and has his essence and his subsistent being from the Father together with the Son, and proceeds from both eternally as from one principle and a single spiration.
We declare that when holy doctors and fathers say that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son, this bears the sense that thereby also the Son should be signified, according to the Greeks indeed as cause, and according to the Latins as principle of the subsistence of the holy Spirit, just like the Father.

And since the Father gave to his only-begotten Son in begetting him everything the Father has, except to be the Father, so the Son has eternally from the Father, by whom he was eternally begotten, this also, namely that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Son.

We define also that the explanation of those words “and from the Son” was licitly and reasonably added to the creed for the sake of declaring the truth and from imminent need.

This reads to me like a strong exposition of dual origin of the Holy Spirit, or if not that possibly double talk.

To wit: "according to the Greeks indeed as cause ". Which cause … The First Cause? The Unmoved Mover?

It can be used just as strongly to argue against a single origin as for a single origin, depending upon one’s reference point.

One could actually also read this to mean that when the Greek Fathers spoke of “through the Son” we are supposed to read “from the Son” as an originator.

The only clearly discernible point I can see in it is that they declared that the filioque phrase “… was licitly and reasonably added to the creed”. Which is the position the Latin Fathers went in with to that Council.

It is becoming abundantly clear why most Catholics do not understand the dogma.

 

[Hesychios]

The latin procedit essentially means “to come out of” without specifying origination or transmission. It’s neither and both… it can mean equally either one, without forcing the same distinction upon other cosubjects.

It’s much like the english “emit”…

a light bulb and a glassed wall sconce emit light. One is the origin of the light, the other isn’t, but both emit the same light, and when you stand in the right spot, you can see the light from the bulb without it having gone through the glass of the sconce. Emit doesn’t specify origination, nor does it require the same condition of the two cosubjects.

I am not going to argue with you on this, you are correct.

So are we to say that the church at Rome (most of whose clergy knew Greek at the time) deliberately and consciously changed the meaning of ekporeusai as an origin to procedit only in the sense of emission without origin?

I don’t think so.

When they decided to use Procedit, they meant it in the original sense of origin, which is what they knew. When the filioque was adopted, it was a double origin that was professed.

… and when people read it today, that is the first thing that comes to mind.

From An Agreed Statement of the
North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation
Saint Paul’s College, Washington, DC
October 25, 2003

Recommendations:
That the Catholic Church, as a consequence of the normative and irrevocable dogmatic value of the Creed of 381, use **the original Greek text alone **in making translations of that Creed for catechetical and liturgical use. [from Greek to Swahili - or English/Norse/Polish as the case may be, not from the Latin]

That the Catholic Church, following a growing theological consensus, and in particular the statements made by Pope Paul VI, declare that the condemnation made at the Second Council of Lyons (1274) of those “who presume to deny that the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son” is no longer applicable.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Michael,

I don’t have the time to discuss the theological and canonical considerations yet, but I’d like to offer the following:

So are we to say that the church at Rome (most of whose clergy knew Greek at the time)

There no warrant for you to say this. Greek as a language of the Roman empire began its decline in the 4th century for socio-economic reasons. It was practically supplanted ecclesiastically by the use of the Vulgate by the end of the 4th century. By the time of the Council of Chalcedon when the Latin Church received the Creed, it’s hard to imagine the validity of your claim.

deliberately and consciously changed the meaning of ekporeusai as an origin to procedit only in the sense of emission without origin?

It was not deliberate. But the explanation will have to wait until I have more time.

I don’t think so.

Agreed

When they decided to use Procedit, they meant it in the original sense of origin, which is what they knew.

As stated, you have no evidence to support this idea. All they knew was that both procedit and ekporeusai meant “to go forth.” The average Latin would not automatically impose a definition of origination on procedit, because even though procedit can accomodate that meaning, that is not the usual and common meaning of the word…Those who did not know Greek at all would certainly not impose such a meaning on it. The fact is, the Latins did have a word denoting ontological origination, but it was the same word that would be translated as “beget,” So they certainly and definitely could not use that word.

When the filioque was adopted, it was a double origin that was professed.

The council of Lyons specifically condemned the idea of double origin, so I don’t know where you’re getting your ideas from.

Recommendations:

That the Catholic Church, as a consequence of the normative and irrevocable dogmatic value of the Creed of 381, use **the original Greek text alone **in making translations of that Creed for catechetical and liturgical use. [from Greek to Swahili - or English/Norse/Polish as the case may be, not from the Latin]
I believe this is dangerous since there is a lot of Eastern Orthodox who deny the teaching that the Holy Spirit ekporeusai from the Father through the Son. We need to combat the error. Instead of getting rid of filioque, a better solution would be to replace it with per filium. But that has some practical problems with it as well, which I can’t get into now.

That the Catholic Church, following a growing theological consensus, and in particular the statements made by Pope Paul VI, declare that the condemnation made at the Second Council of Lyons (1274) of those “who presume to deny that the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son” is no longer applicable.

I disagree with this a lot. St. Palamas taught that the procession (however way you want to interpret “procession”) is ETERNAL. And so did the Synod of Blarchanae. We need to combat the error that is taking root in the EOC today which claims that the procession is merely temporal.

Blessings

 

[dcointin]

I have a comment and a question.

The comment is that I don’t agree with the logic that since the Son has everything which the Father has, and the Spirit proceeds from the Father, that the Spirit must also proceed from the Son. The Son has everything which the Father has except for those things proper to the nature of the Father. What is proper to the nature of the Father is fatherhood, he is the “arche”, the source, so to speak, of the Trinity. To speak of the Son as a source of the Spirit is to make him share in what is proper to the person of the Father, which is Sabellianism. The Roman Church attempts to work around this by saying that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son “as from one principle”, and this leads to my question. What does that mean? The Father and the Son are not “one principle”, they are two persons.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Dcointin,

I have a comment and a question.

The comment is that I don’t agree with the logic that since the Son has everything which the Father has, and the Spirit proceeds from the Father, that the Spirit must also proceed from the Son. The Son has everything which the Father has except for those things proper to the nature of the Father. What is proper to the nature of the Father is fatherhood, he is the “arche”, the source, so to speak, of the Trinity. To speak of the Son as a source of the Spirit is to make him share in what is proper to the person of the Father, which is Sabellianism. The Roman Church attempts to work around this by saying that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son “as from one principle”, and this leads to my question. What does that mean? The Father and the Son are not “one principle”, they are two persons.

Good question.

This gets to the heart of what I was saying before - the theological purpose of the Greeks being different from that of the Latins. The Greeks intend to assert the divinity of the Holy Spirit by defining his Origin. The Latins, on the other hand, intend to assert the divinity of the Holy Spirit by defining His consubstantiality with the Father and Son.

To wit, the Latins, by saying, “since the Son has everything which the Father has, and the Spirit proceeds from the Father, then the Spirit must also proceed from the Son,” they don’t intend to describe the concept of Origination. Instead, they intend to describe how the Spirit shares in the Essence of Divnity - i.e., the Essence of Being God. The Latins are not saying that the Son becomes the Source like the Father, but merely that the Essence of Divinity comes to the Holy Spirit through the Son.

Recall also what I stated earlier about the difference between ekporeusai and procedit. It must be stressed that procedit does not have the necessary connotation of ontological origination that ekporesuai has.

When YOU write “since the Son has everything which the Father has, and the Spirit proceeds from the Father, then the Spirit must also proceed from the Son,” what you REALLY INTEND to say, as an Eastern, is “since the Son has everything which the Father has, and the Spirit ORIGINATES from the Father, then the Spirit must also ORIGINATE from the Son.” Of course, in your mind, that would be unacceptable. And everyone here would agree.

But as stated already, procedit does not mean “originate” in English, but simply “to go forth.” So when the Latins use the word “proceeds” in their Creed, they do not intend to express origination. The expressions and purposes of the Latins and Greeks are different, but they are both nevertheless equally orthodox, as long as the Greek does not improperly impose his definition of “proceeds” onto what the Latins intend by the same English word.

Does that make sense?

Blessings,
Marduk