Hesychios:
At first glance it looks a bit like the Latin church has modified it’s position between 1274AD and the modern CCC (1983AD). But then it goes on to say: “he is, with the Son, the single principle from which the Spirit proceeds”. So it looks like the modern Catechism is no different after all.
The whole “single principle” concept is just not clear, taking us back to the Father AND the Son. It sounds a bit like lawyers talking.
The problem is that in modern English we don’t differentiate between “principle” and “Source”, but Latin theology always has. Principle is a broad term, which encompasses anything that another comes “out of”. For example, the coffee can is the principle of coffee.
Source is a narrow term, which applies to the immediate origin of a thing. Using the previous example, the coffee plant is the source of coffee. Of course, the coffee plant is also the principle of coffee, since source is a kind of principle but principle is not necessarily a source (principle being the broader, generic term).
This distinction can be found in the language of the
Council of Florence, which says these two things:
The Latins asserted that they say the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son not with the intention of excluding the Father from being the source and principle of all deity, that is of the Son and of the holy Spirit, nor to imply that the Son does not receive from the Father, because the holy Spirit proceeds from the Son
In the above it says the Father is “source and principle” of the Son and Holy Spirit, but when it comes to speak of the Son’s relation to the Holy Spirit a little later:
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.
Here the term source is not used, because it doesn’t apply to both the Father and the Son. Source is exclusive to the Father, as regards both the Son and the Holy Spirit, but the Son absolutely is involved in the singular procession of the Holy Spirit. What’s more, this is the same position of the
Cappadocian Fathers, as expressed by St. Gregory of Nyssa:
If, however, any one cavils at our argument, on the ground that by not admitting the difference of nature it leads to a mixture and confusion of the Persons, we shall make to such a charge this answer—that while we confess the invariable character of the nature, we do not deny the difference in respect of cause, and that which is caused, by which alone we apprehend that one Person is distinguished from another—by our belief, that is, that one is the Cause, and another is of the Cause; and again in that which is of the Cause we recognize another distinction. For one is directly from the first Cause, and another by that which is directly from the first Cause; so that the attribute of being Only-begotten abides without doubt in the Son, and the interposition of the Son, while it guards His attribute of being Only-begotten, does not shut out the Spirit from His relation by way of nature to the Father.
So the Latin theology is merely following the Patristic teaching, even the Greek/Cappadocian Patristic teaching, but the matter was defined according the peculiar language of the Latin Scholastics of the Middle Ages.
As for why “through” isn’t used, I think the fact that it wasn’t the original term used for the filioque is the only real reason. There’s no sense changing it again until the Filioque as such is properly understood by both sides, and when it’s properly understood it would be better simply to drop it entirely (the word, not the teaching which is Patristic), if any change is even needed at that point.
Remember also, Hesychios, that many Eastern Orthodox object even to the word “through” being used, insisting that it can only apply to the mission of the Holy Spirit in this world, rather than to His personal procession in eternity as the Fathers state. This is another reason for not using the term at this point, because it could be taken as saying something that it doesn’t, dropping a theological truth that shouldn’t be dropped.
Peace and God bless!
