Vatican Clarification on Filioque
[…] We grant that the Holy Spirit proceeds principally from the Father, in the technical sense. That means, the Father is his principal without principal. It is not that the Spirit proceeds “less” from the Son. But that the Son, his principal, is himself from a principal. In short, the teaching here shores up the monarchy of the Father.
But it is odd to say that the HS proceeds from the Father alone in a “proper” manner. Is this opposed to an “improper” manner? Does it mean the term “proceeds” should not be linked to the Son? Does it mean that “proceeds” means only coming from an ultimate principal? Why then should the document include the expression “proceeds (ekporeuetai) from the Father through the Son?” Wouldn’t that be oxymoronic? Or is “proper” simply a redundant synonym for “principal”? These are questions. […]
• Vatican Clarification on Filioque, Thomistica.net, 7/xi/2014.
Overlord In Terms of Core Issues Around Maximal Engagement with Key Notions of the Über-Feral 
Think of the complete Love the Father and the Son have for each other. The complete giving of one’s self to the other. So complete that the Love itself is the person of the Holy Spirit. That is how it proceeds from the Father and the Son.
Thanks. The concept of the Trinity is very difficult to understand, but lots of people think they do understand it. Unfortunately, they don’t agree with each other. There is no way to settle who’s right, except the same thing used by Marxists who disagree. But then Marxism is another form of religion where the degree of certainty is not commensurate with the degree of proof.
You’d think they could have just written “God is source of everything” and saved some space. Although maybe that’s like a physicist writing “hydrogen and time is the source of everything”. You’ve got to give the punters their money’s worth.
You’ve got to give the punters their money’s worth.
Or justify your salary:
Ink for Your Pelf.