[Agrarian]

Thank you for posting this. This is certainly what I have understood Catholic teaching to be, and it differs from Orthodox teaching.

What do you mean, BTW, by "both formulas are valid?" Where is there a Catholic formulation that is the same as the Orthodox understanding? And how could it be just as valid as an interpretation that is completely different? Or do you mean something else by that?

My objection to the Catholic lines of discussion on this point is that the claim is often made that "we mean the same thing." I just don't see that.

A similar claim is that "both interpretations are equally valid." In some points of theology this could certainly be true, but not in this one.

A final approach is the proposition that "well, we'll just take the filioque out to please the Orthodox but we won't reject the theological truthfulness of the filioque." This seems disingenuous.

When all the talking is done, this seems to be one where we have to agree to disagree, and understand that this is a key theological point that will keep us apart. There are other things for us to talk about in the meantime.

[annalex]

Having reflected on this some more, I emerge from this thread with a better understanding of the difficulty. I agree that it should not be minimized as breezily as the Catholics in their quest for unity sometimes do.

The Holy Ghost cannot proceed from the Father in the trinitarian eternal realm any differently than He proceeds from the Father in the temporal realm. The latter procession is from the Father through the Son and, the Catholics teach, the former must be also.

Augustine

"If that which is given has for its principle the one by whom it is given, because it did not receive from anywhere else that which proceeds from the giver, then it must be confessed that the Father and the Son are the principle of the Holy Spirit, not two principles, but just as the Father and the Son are one God . . . relative to the Holy Spirit, they are one principle" (The Trinity 5:14:15 [A.D. 408]).

"[The one] from whom principally the Holy Spirit proceeds is called God the Father. I have added the term ‘principally’ because the Holy Spirit is found to proceed also from the Son" (ibid., 15:17:29).

"Why, then, should we not believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds also from the Son, when he is the Spirit also of the Son? For if the Holy Spirit did not proceed from him, when he showed himself to his disciples after his resurrection he would not have breathed upon them, saying, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit’ [John 20:22]. For what else did he signify by that breathing upon them except that the Holy Spirit proceeds also from him" (Homilies on John 99:8 [A.D. 416]).

Both "through the Son" and "and the son" are equally valid because of the interpenetration of the Father and the Son persons relative to the Holy Ghost, as the above quote explains.

If the Orthodox understanding is that the Son and the Holy Ghost proceed symmetrically from the Father, and not sequentially, first the Son and then the Holy Ghost, then indeed that is not compatible. But is it truly Orthodox understanding? Why is it that Christ alone claims to be at the beginning of Creation in John? Why is the temporal order in salvation history different than the procession order in the Trinity? Isn't it true that we only perceive Trinity through salvation history?

Know what. I will post that Filoque article tonight along with the relevant cathechism. If you feel like a brief comment here, I'd appreciate it, but I think it is worth a dedicated thread, so hold your horses till then, OK?