Filioque - Distinguishing the Essence and Person of the Holy Spirit

[Mickey]

Please invite him to come here and discuss the matter with us. I would like to read his rejoinders to what I wrote in response to his treatise.

He does not post here much anymore…but I believe he frequents other forums…you can find him you wish. I have seen some of his filioque debates with you and Ghosty.

He tears you guys to pieces.

 

[mardukm]

He does not post here much anymore…but I believe he frequents other forums…you can find him you wish. I have seen some of his filioque debates with you and Ghosty.

He tears you guys to pieces.

Well, since you are bold enough to present his rhetoric here, perhaps you can respond for him. You obviously pretend you understand the issue enough. Please offer rejoinders to to what I stated in response to his treatise.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[George_G]

Forgive me for being so blunt… but in my opinion, Mickey participation in this thread really destroy the whole discussion. The discussion became derailed with snippets of knee-jerk sarcasm instead instead.
I love to see this thread going on though.

I agree. Mickey has disrupted what has been a very good conversation. Everyone else has been rather respectful, I think.

 

[mardukm]

That’s humorous.

The Latins add the filioque clause to the creed…try to justify its usage by saying they are misunderstood and or mistranslated…in the end they cry polemics and blame the East for being confused. Good one Markud!

1000 plus years and it all comes down to a bunch of confused Orthodox polemicists.

Who’da thunk it?

The Official Clarification on Filioque came out over 15 years ago, where it clearly stated that the language of “cause” is only with regards to the ousia, not the hypostasis. Yet, YOU keep insisting that the Latins are using it in regards to the hypostasis. So, yes, current Orthodox polemicists are confused.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Mickey]

You obviously pretend you understand the issue enough.

I do not pretend to know anything. I learned much of this from my Melkite Catholic friend. He is quite brilliant. I am honored to present a fraction of his writings here and it is my hope that he may join your debate so that you may be educated. I will not answer for him.

Most people in the Latin Church have not seen attempted theological justifications using terms such as hypostasis, ousia, energeia, ekporeusis, *proienai, etc *
In fact most people (Catholic and Orthodox) have never seen those terms….will never see those terms….and don’t care if they ever see those terms. They would give you a blank stare if you asked them what they thought about the filioque clause.
What the Latins know is that they recite the creed saying that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. They do not know…and may never know….that this was an addition.
The Orthodox know that they have always recited the creed without the filioque clause. They do not know….and may never know……that the Latins added it.
But here is the clincher. Many Eastern Catholics (Byzantine, Ukrainians and others) recited the filioque clause for a long period of time….and then were told to stop. Books were re-written. Explanations were given. I remember asking clergymen in the Byzantine Catholic Church about the reasons for the change….and they told me that the filioque clause was theologically incorrect and that Rome is mistaken.
There’s your confusion!

 

[Mickey]

I agree. Mickey has disrupted what has been a very good conversation.

My apologies. I will bow out of the discussion.

 

[OrthodoxJosh]

I haven’t seen anyone on this thread, or anywhere else, say that the teaching is the same. The statements of Photius and the teaching of the Fathers are diametrically opposed.

What is often said, and I’m saying it here, is that those who object to the filioque do so on false grounds, not understanding what the filioque actually teaches.

Peace and God bless!

I think it states precisely what it teaches, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father AND THE SON (filioque). The very words of our Lord Himself, teach that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father ALONE. Mickey mentioned this talk about “semantics”. It really kills me to see people try to twist the Faith of the Orthodox to fit their own by saying “you just don’t understand what we’re saying”, when it was clearly stated in the first place, and that’s why the Church called it heresy.

 

[Ghosty]

I think it states precisely what it teaches, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father AND THE SON (filioque). The very words of our Lord Himself, teach that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father ALONE. Mickey mentioned this talk about “semantics”. It really kills me to see people try to twist the Faith of the Orthodox to fit their own by saying “you just don’t understand what we’re saying”, when it was clearly stated in the first place, and that’s why the Church called it heresy.

The words of Christ do not say “from the Father alone” any more than the words of Paul say “you are saved by Faith alone”. Furthermore, Christ did not say “proceeds” but rather “ekporousis”; proceeds has a different meaning. You are falling into the very linguistic error Mardukm and I have highlighted time and time again.

And let this post highlight the reason these discussions continue, and why removing the word “filioque” from the Latin Liturgical Creed wouldn’t solve the problem: there are Orthodox who consider the teaching of the filioque heresy.

I also want to clarify something about what Mickey said earlier: his friend is not Melkite Catholic, but Ruthenian, and his views were disapproved of by the previous U.S. Melkite Bishop Sayedna Cyril. I know this because I personally spoke with Sayedna Cyril about those views and theological interpretations (I haven’t spoken to the new Bishop, Sayedna Nicholas, about these things). More than that I won’t say because that person is not actually posting in this discussion.

I only bring this up because some people may think that what Mickey has posted represents the writings of a Melkite Catholic, or are in some way endorsed by the Melkite Church. I was told by the Melkite Bishop that we are not to view Latin teachings as heretical, though we may understand and express the Faith differently.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Ghosty]

I still think the major problem is that we disagree on what exactly ousia and hypostasis denote. If we could at least find some agreement there, perhaps we’d have at least some sort of starting point.

I think this is excellent advice. I’ll wait to see your response to Mardukm’s proposals before offering my own.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Mickey]

I also want to clarify something about what Mickey said earlier: his friend is not Melkite Catholic, but Ruthenian,

He lists his jurisdiction as Melkite Catholic…that is all that I know.

though we may understand and express the Faith differently.

Interesting.

 

[DadDave]

I would propose that we continue the.discussion directed towards whether the theology behind the filioque as set forth by the Catholic Church and enumerated by Marduk and Ghosty is in keeping with the fathers and scripture or is it theological heretical.
Let’s not discuss whether it should have been added to the Creed in the first place… Let’s deal with that later in another thread.

 

[Ghosty]

I would propose that we continue the.discussion directed towards whether the theology behind the filioque as set forth by the Catholic Church and enumerated by Marduk and Ghosty is in keeping with the fathers and scripture or is it theological heretical.
Let’s not discuss whether it should have been added to the Creed in the first place… Let’s deal with that later in another thread.

I agree completely. Both are important topics, but let’s keep some focus.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Vico]

The Latin Church, by asserting the idea that the Father and the Son form a single principle in the spiration of the Holy Spirit, has fallen into a form of Sabellian modalism, because both begetting and spiration are personal properties of the Father alone, and as personal (hypostatic) properties, they cannot be shared with any other person in the Trinity, or the real distinction between the hypostases collapses.

One further difficulty results from the Latin doctrine which holds that the Father and the Son form a single principle in the spiration of the Spirit, and it is focused upon the nature of the unity of the Godhead. It is an ancient principle of Catholic Triadology that anything that is common to two of the hypostases of the Trinity, is common to all three hypostases, because of their common essence (ousia); in other words, if the Father and the Son are a “single principle” in the spiration of the hypostasis of the Holy Spirit, it follows that the Spirit must also be a “single principle” with them in His own spiration, and that is clearly nonsensical. The hypostases of the Trinity are only distinguished by their unique hypostatic properties (idiotes), and so anything that is common to the Father and the Son, must also be common to the Holy Spirit. As St. Basil said, “The Spirit shares titles held in common by the Father and the Son; He receives these titles due to His natural and intimate relationship with them.”

Thus, the idea that the Father and the Son can be a “single principle” in the spiration of the hypostasis of the Holy Spirit involves a confusion of hypostasis and essence (ousia) within the Godhead, because anything common to the hypostases is founded upon the one divine essence (ousia) that they share, and that is why the Western notion that the Father and the Son can be a “single principle” in the procession of the Holy Spirit’s hypostasis is theologically unworkable. Therefore, to hold that the Father and the Son can be a “single principle” of origin in relation to the hypostasis of the Holy Spirit involves either Sabellian modalism, or an essential subordination of the Spirit to the Father and the Son, because He does not possess a common quality shared by the Father and the Son, and consequently must be essentially distinct and subordinate in relation to them.

St. John Damascene’s doctrine of perichoresis allows the distinct hypostases to indwell each other, while remaining truly distinct, and that is why the Spirit, which is properly the Spirit of the Father, is also the Spirit of the Son, but as St. John goes on to say, “. . . we do not speak of the Spirit as from the Son.” Clearly, there is no filioque in the theology of St. John Damascene…

Moreover, St. John Damascene does not reduce the hypostases to mere relations within the divine essence as do most Western theologians (for example St. Thomas Aquinas), nor does he fail to distinguish between essence (ousia) and hypostasis as Westerners since the time of St. Augustine have tended to do.
[sites.google.com/site/thetaboriclight/filioque](http://sites.google.com/site/thetaboriclight/filioque)

Rephrased: It is an ancient principle of Catholic Triadology that anything that is common essence (*ousia) *means to all three hypostases.

The divine simplicity means (per Patristic works) that the Three share one divine nature and also one divine will. There is no eternal subordination, that is, no relations of command and obedience.

The Latin theology states “as from” a single principle. The “one principle” is not the same as “the source”.

The Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and from the Son as from a single principle through a single spiration. (De fide.) Refer to: Lateran IV (D 428), Lyons II (D 460, 463), and Florence (D 691, 703, 704).

catecheticsonline.com/SourcesofDogma.php

 

[Marybeloved]

Yes.
They enjoy twisting the interpretations of the Fathers to fit their theories. If Ghosty and Marduk have figured out the solution to an issue that has divided the Church for more than 1000 years…

Why is that such a crazy idea? The Orientals were branded monophysites for much longer than 1,000 years. 500 years longer, in fact. Now, we know that it was all a misunderstanding. Yet, you act like the idea that the entire filioque controversy may be a misunderstanding, 1000 years old though it is, is just plain ridiculous. Why?

Just because people believe something of another for a long time doesn’t make it a fact, just a long-held belief. Great scholars have come to admit that the Filioque controversy is mainly semantics. Dialogue and a willingness to let other people state their own belief rather than insist on planting your own ideas on what they do believe- that is what brings out the truth. That’s what the churches recently discovered with the non-chalcedonians. That though they used the phrase “one nature” what they *meant *was actually what the rest called one person. That’s all people have been saying here regarding the Filioque.

You haven’t been able to show by citing Latin teaching, for example, that the Latins have ever taught anything about the filioque other than what they presently teach. You haven’t shown that it contradicts in any way, what the Church and the fathers have ever taught. You haven’t shown that the fathers meant something different when speaking in the manner they did, that the Latins rely on. All you do is insist that it’s only a justification for adding the Filioque to the creed- but failing to explain why it was ever added to begin with: Was it just a fluke that everyone in the West just picked up on and then later looked for justifications for? Insisting without showing by reasoned presentations, that’s hardly a dialogue.

Peace.

 

[Mickey]

The Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and from the Son as from a single principle through a single spiration. (De fide.) Refer to: Lateran IV (D 428), Lyons II (D 460, 463), and Florence (D 691, 703, 704).

The Latin Church’s Florentine decree states:

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 οὐσίαν]
and His subsistent being ύπαρχτιχόν είναι] from the Father together
with the Son, and proceeds ἐκπορεύεται] from both eternally as from
one principle μίᾶς άρχής] and a single spiration. We declare that
when Holy Doctors and Fathers say that the Holy Spirit proceeds
ἐκπορεύεσθαι] 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 αἰτίαν], and according to the Latins as principle
άρχήν] of the subsistence ύπἁρξεως] of the Holy Spirit, just like the
Father.

The problem with the Father and Son as ‘one principle’ is that the Holy Spirit, Who obviously is excluded from that principle, ends up being subordinated — the fundamental problem with the Filioque. Unfortunately, because of Roman Catholicism’s understanding of its ‘teaching authority’ (magisterium) in conjunction with the belief in Roman Catholicism’s infallibility, they are unable to repudiate earlier statements, even after recognising them to be in error.

The Latin Church’s solution to the problem of two principles or causes within the Godhead is to assert that the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son – in the words of the Florentine decree – “. . . as from one principle and a single spiration.”

But this solution causes additional problems, because as St. Gregory Palamas taught, generation and procession are hypostatic properties of the Father alone; and so, to posit the idea that the Son somehow shares in the existential procession of origin of the Holy Spirit confounds the hypostases of the Father and the Son, collapsing them into one and the same hypostasis.

The Latin Church, by asserting the idea that the Father and the Son form a single principle in the spiration of the Holy Spirit, has fallen into a form of Sabellian modalism, because both begetting and spiration are personal properties of the Father alone, and as personal (hypostatic) properties, they cannot be shared with any other person in the Trinity, or the real distinction between the hypostases collapses.

One further difficulty results from the Latin doctrine which holds that the Father and the Son form a single principle in the spiration of the Spirit, and it is focused upon the nature of the unity of the Godhead. It is an ancient principle of Catholic Triadology that anything that is common to two of the hypostases of the Trinity, is common to all three hypostases, because of their common essence (ousia); in other words, if the Father and the Son are a “single principle” in the spiration of the hypostasis of the Holy Spirit, it follows that the Spirit must also be a “single principle” with them in His own spiration, and that is clearly nonsensical. The hypostases of the Trinity are only distinguished by their unique hypostatic properties (idiotes), and so anything that is common to the Father and the Son, must also be common to the Holy Spirit. As St. Basil said, “The Spirit shares titles held in common by the Father and the Son; He receives these titles due to His natural and intimate relationship with them.”

Cont.

 

[Mickey]

Thus, the idea that the Father and the Son can be a “single principle” in the spiration of the hypostasis of the Holy Spirit involves a confusion of hypostasis and essence (ousia) within the Godhead, because anything common to the hypostases is founded upon the one divine essence (ousia) that they share, and that is why the Western notion that the Father and the Son can be a “single principle” in the procession of the Holy Spirit’s hypostasis is theologically unworkable. Therefore, to hold that the Father and the Son can be a “single principle” of origin in relation to the hypostasis of the Holy Spirit involves either Sabellian modalism, or an essential subordination of the Spirit to the Father and the Son, because He does not possess a common quality shared by the Father and the Son, and consequently must be essentially distinct and subordinate in relation to them.

St. John Damascene’s doctrine of perichoresis allows the distinct hypostases to indwell each other, while remaining truly distinct, and that is why the Spirit, which is properly the Spirit of the Father, is also the Spirit of the Son, but as St. John goes on to say, “. . . we do not speak of the Spirit as from the Son.” Clearly, there is no filioque in the theology of St. John Damascene…

Moreover, St. John Damascene does not reduce the hypostases to mere relations within the divine essence as do most Western theologians (for example St. Thomas Aquinas), nor does he fail to distinguish between essence (ousia) and hypostasis as Westerners since the time of St. Augustine have tended to do.
sites.google.com/site/thetaboriclight/filioque

 

[Cavaradossi]

Ok, after reading Marduk’s definition of hypostasis and ousia, I have this to say in response. We agree that ousia reflects the common divinity of the trinity. We seem to disagree on what hypostasis means. From the Orthodox perspective, hypostasis is not just the personal characteristics of a person, but the complete existence of a person. This is how Blachernae defines the term, referring to a definition of St. Maximus the Confessor who says that hypostasis is essence accompanied by individual characteristics, and Basil who similarly says that hypostasis calls to mind what is common, which cannot be described only by personal characteristics.

 

[Mickey]

his views were disapproved of by the previous U.S. Melkite Bishop Sayedna Cyril.

But much of the Melkite Church may agree with what he has to say.

This is one of the most disaffected groups among the Eastern Rite
Catholics. Unlike other Byzantine Catholics, this group is headed by a
patriarch who is accustomed to seeing himself as one of the equals among
whom the Pope of Rome (the Patriarch of the West) is agreed to be the
first. The current patriarch provides them with strong leadership in
objecting to what they see as Rome’s violations of the terms of the Union.
Chief among these is the ordaining of married men. While no Eastern Rite
permits or has ever permitted the marriage of ordained men, the tradition
among them (as with the Orthodox) is to permit the ordaining of men who
have already been married, although they favor a celibate episcopate. (The
marriage of ordained clergy appears to have been a Protestant innovation in
Christendom.) Rome understands her acquiescence in this tradition to apply
only in the homeland of the Rite; most Eastern Rite Catholics rather
expected to be allowed to carry all their traditions, including this one,
to the lands to which they were immigrating. Disputes among the indigenous
clergy and the immigrant Byzantine clergy have often resulted in whole
parishes leaving the Catholic communion to be received back into Orthodox
folds.

**Other sources of disagreement are the Immaculate Conception,
Papal Supremacy and Infallibility, Purgatory, and the Filioque, and
to a lesser extent remarriage after divorce; in short, all the matters
that remain primary points of disagreement between Orthodox and Catholics. **

The terms of the original agreement are clear that agreement with Rome on
these matters is expected.
ewtn.com/library/LITURGY/EASTRITE.TXT

 

[DadDave]

I might suggest that everyone at this juncture read:
The Filioque: a Church-Dividing Issue? An Agreed statement of the North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation
scoba.us/resources/orthodox-catholic/2003filioque.html
usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/dialogue-with-others/ecumenical/orthodox/filioque-church-dividing-issue-english.cfm

Some highlights for me:

In the continuing discussion of the Filioque be*tween our Churches, however, we have found it helpful to keep these two issues methodologically separate from one another, and to recognize that the mystery of the relationships among the persons in God must be approached in a different way from the issue of whether or not it is proper for the Western Churches to profess the faith of Nicaea in terms that diverge from the original text of the Creed of 381.

If “theology” is understood in its Patristic sense, as reflection on God as Trinity, the theological issue behind this dispute is whether the Son is to be thought of as playing any role in the origin of the Spirit, as a hypostasis or divine “person,” from the Father, who is the sole ultimate source of the divine Mystery. The Greek tradition, as we have seen, has generally relied on John 15.26 and the formulation of the Creed of 381 to assert that all we know of the Spirit’s hypostatic origin is that he “pro-ceeds from the Father,” in a way distinct from, but parallel to, the Son’s “generation” from the Father (e.g., John of Damascus, On the Orthodox Faith 1.8). However, this same tradition acknowledges that the “mission” of the Spirit in the world also involves the Son, who receives the Spirit into his own humanity at his baptism, breathes the Spirit forth onto the Twelve on the evening of the resurrection, and sends the Spirit in power into the world, through the charismatic preaching of the Apostles, at Pentecost. On the other hand, the Latin tradition since Tertullian has tended to assume that since the order in which the Church normally names the persons in the Trinity places the Spirit after the Son, he is to be thought of as coming forth “from” the Father “through” the Son. Augustine, who in several passages himself insists that the Holy Spirit “proceeds from the Father,” because as God he is not inferior to the Son (De Fide et Symbolo 9.19; Enchiridion 9.3), develops, in other texts, his classic understanding that the Spirit also “proceeds” from the Son because he is, in the course of sacred history, the Spirit and the “gift” of both Father and Son (e.g., On the Trinity 4.20.29; Tractate on Gospel of John 99.6-7), the gift that begins in their own eternal exchange of love (On the Trinity 15.17.29). In Augustine’s view, this involve-ment of the Son in the Spirit’s procession is not understood to contradict the Father’s role as the single ultimate source of both Son and Spirit, but is itself given by the Father in generating the Son: “the Holy Spirit, in turn, has this from the Father himself, that he should also proceed from the Son, just as he proceeds from the Father” (Tractate on Gospel of John 99.8).

Much of the difference between the early Latin and Greek traditions on this point is clearly due to the subtle difference of the Latin procedere from the Greek ekporeuesthai: as we have observed, the Spirit’s “coming forth” is designated in a more general sense by the Latin term, without the connotation of ultimate origin hinted at by the Greek.

• that all involved in such dialogue expressly recognize the limitations of our ability to make definitive assertions about the inner life of God;
• that in the future, because of the progress in mutual understanding that has come about in recent decades, Orthodox and Catholics refrain from labeling as heretical the traditions of the other side on the subject of the procession of the Holy Spirit;
• that Orthodox and Catholic theologians distinguish more clearly between the divinity and hypostatic identity of the Holy Spirit, which is a received dogma of our Churches, and the manner of the Spirit’s origin, which still awaits full and final ecumenical resolution;
• that those engaged in dialogue on this issue distinguish, as far as possible, the theological issues of the origin of the Holy Spirit from the ecclesiological issues of primacy and doctrinal authority in the Church, even as we pursue both questions seriously together;
• that the theological dialogue between our Churches also give careful consideration to the status of later councils held in both our Churches after those seven generally received as ecumenical.
• 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.
• 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 found the read quite enlightening. I can certainly see how both sides view their theology of the origin of the Spirit and why they would think so.

 

[Vico]

Thus, the idea that the Father and the Son can be a “single principle” in the spiration of the hypostasis of the Holy Spirit involves a confusion of hypostasis and essence (ousia) within the Godhead, because anything common to the hypostases is founded upon the one divine essence (ousia) that they share, and that is why the Western notion that the Father and the Son can be a “single principle” in the procession of the Holy Spirit’s hypostasis is theologically unworkable. Therefore, to hold that the Father and the Son can be a “single principle” of origin in relation to the hypostasis of the Holy Spirit involves either Sabellian modalism, or an essential subordination of the Spirit to the Father and the Son, because He does not possess a common quality shared by the Father and the Son, and consequently must be essentially distinct and subordinate in relation to them.

St. John Damascene’s doctrine of perichoresis allows the distinct hypostases to indwell each other, while remaining truly distinct, and that is why the Spirit, which is properly the Spirit of the Father, is also the Spirit of the Son, but as St. John goes on to say, “. . . we do not speak of the Spirit as from the Son.” Clearly, there is no filioque in the theology of St. John Damascene…

Moreover, St. John Damascene does not reduce the hypostases to mere relations within the divine essence as do most Western theologians (for example St. Thomas Aquinas), nor does he fail to distinguish between essence (ousia) and hypostasis as Westerners since the time of St. Augustine have tended to do.
[sites.google.com/site/thetaboriclight/filioque](http://sites.google.com/site/thetaboriclight/filioque)

What Steven Todd Kaster states there is not a correct presentaion of the Latin Church teaching, particularly when he states:

“… the West has confused two distinct – but inseparable – divine realities: (1) the existential procession of the Holy Spirit as person (hypostasis), which is from the Father alone; and (2) the Spirit’s eternal manifestation as divine energy (i.e., as uncreated grace), which is from the Father through the Son.”

The generation of the Son and the procession of the Holy Spirit are the two internal processions, uncreated and eternal, and are not acts: item 1 above. Uncreated grace is expressed through an act, and all acts are created: item 2 above. These two are distinct in the sense of eternal and temporal. They are inseparable in the sense that in both are the uncreated grace. Therefore they are not confused.

St. Thomas Aquinas and the Church are saying that the Father is the cause, but the Father and the Son together are the source, as St. Thomas explained in detail in Part I, Query 36, Article 3: “Whether the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father through the Son?” posted earlier #147. Aquinas:

“Sometimes, however, that which is covered by this preposition “through” is the cause of the action regarded as terminated in the thing done; as, for instance, when we say, the artisan acts through the mallet, for this does not mean that the mallet is the cause why the artisan acts, but that it is the cause why the thing made proceeds from the artisan, and that it has even this effect from the artisan. This is why it is sometimes said that this preposition “through” sometimes denotes direct authority, as when we say, the king works through the bailiff; and sometimes indirect authority, as when we say, the bailiff works through the king. Therefore, because the Son receives from the Father that the Holy Ghost proceeds from Him, it can be said that the Father spirates the Holy Ghost through the Son, or that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father through the Son, which has the same meaning.”

Here the analogy is:

Father = artisan (cause of action) and
Son = mallet (acts because of the artisan) and
Procession = action.

Also St. Aquinas expressed how the persons indwell in one another:

Objection 3: Further, one of two opposites cannot be in the other. But the Son and the Father are relatively opposed. Therefore one cannot be in the other. On the contrary, It is said (Jn.14:10): “I am in the Father, and the Father is in Me.”

I answer that, There are three points of consideration as regards the Father and the Son; the essence, the relation and the origin; and according to each the Son and the Father are in each other. The Father is in the Son by His essence, forasmuch as the Father is His own essence and communicates His essence to the Son not by any change on His part. Hence it follows that as the Father’s essence is in the Son, the Father Himself is in the Son; likewise, since the Son is His own essence, it follows that He Himself is in the Father in Whom is His essence. This is expressed by Hilary (De Trin. v), “The unchangeable God, so to speak, follows His own nature in begetting an unchangeable subsisting God. So we understand the nature of God to subsist in Him, for He is God in God.” It is also manifest that as regards the relations, each of two relative opposites is in the concept of the other. Regarding origin also, it is clear that the procession of the intelligible word is not outside the intellect, inasmuch as it remains in the utterer of the word. What also is uttered by the word is therein contained. And the same applies to the Holy Ghost.

christianbookshelf.org/aquinas/summa_theologica/whether_the_son_is_in.htm