[Mad Dawg]

Well, since this is the mother of all omnibus threads, May I wonder 'aloud' if our Orthodox brethren would settle for a compromise along the lines of "through the Son" or "with the Son in a supporting role" or something. I am WAY ignorant on these things, but I've never understood how the Son could originate anything, even in the mysterious economy of the Trinity, but I CAN see how He could have been involved with the procession of the Holy Spirit. It's the miserable "que" that gives me the heebie jeebies because it is so vague and does admit of an equal role of the Son, which just doesn't seem to me to b e possible.

But what do I know?

[annalex]

"Through the Son" is both a correct translation and acceptable to the Orthodox, as far as I know (I believe St. John Damascene writes that as well).

The analogy that Damascene has is a tree consisting of a trunk, a branch, and a fruit. The fruit this comes initially from the trunk but through the branch.

Kolokotronis, on the Erasmus thread you posted something from the Holy Father (or perhaps from then Cardinal Ratzinger) about the Holy Ghost proceeding from the mutual longing between the Father and the Son. You said it was from Deus Caritas Est, but I do not see it there. Do you rememeber what I am talking about?

[Kolokotronis]

"Well, since this is the mother of all omnibus threads, May I wonder 'aloud' if our Orthodox brethren would settle for a compromise along the lines of "through the Son" or "with the Son in a supporting role" or something."

"Procession" and "through" as regards the Spirit are two different concepts and phrased as two separate concepts we could have a theologically correct statement. But that doesn't solve the filioque problem in any fashion since the Spirit "proceeds" only from the Father.