What you say regarding active and passive participation is correct. It means, as the Council of Florence affirmed, that the Logos both a) receives His power to spirate the Holy Ghost from the Father, and b) actively spirates the Holy Ghost with the Father.

The problem here is the reason you offer for for that conclusion, namely, what is commonly called in theology the “appropriations.” We appropriate to the Father creation, to the Son, redemption, and to the Holy Ghost, sanctification; yet, all Three created, redeemed, and sanctify. Because these three realities have some analogous correspondence to the essential and eternal realities of the Persons, or a real correspondence to their missions in time, we “appropriate” these three acts to the three respective Persons individually.

Let me explain: In the Trinity, the Father is the Origin without Origin, so we call him “Creator”; the Son died on the Cross, so we appropriate redemption to Him, even though the other Two Persons redeemed us; and the Holy Ghost is the mutual Love of Father and Son, so we attribute Sanctification to Him, even though the Father and the Son also sanctify us. (Much more can be said on this heading.)

The big distinction here is between what are called the acts “ad intra” and the acts “ad extra”; the former are eternal realities in God, and this is the only place where we can really distinguish the acts of God as acts of individual Persons. The latter are acts which God does in creation. The theological axiom about these latter is: “the acts ad extra are acts of all Three Persons.”

Because the spiration of the Holy Ghost is an “ad intra” act, you cannot discuss it in terms of the appropriations, which are acts “ad extra.”

I hope this helps. I know it’s not easy reading; but neither is it easy to explain!

Since my conclusion is based on this teaching, please, please correct me if this not true or if I got it mixed up. And also, if my conclusion is not sound, can you please comment.

BTW, I really enjoy your articles. God Bless you and the Center.

Jennifer

You are correct in saying that “through the Son” was a Greek formula approved by the Fathers of Florence. Here are a few paragraphs from the acts of the Council (Session 6, on 6 July 1439), with some emphasis of mine. Note, both of your points are found here:

For when Latins and Greeks came together in this holy synod, they all strove that, among other things, the article about the procession of the holy Spirit should be discussed with the utmost care and assiduous investigation. Texts were produced from divine scriptures and many authorities of eastern and western holy doctors, some saying the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, others saying the procession is from the Father through the Son. All were aiming at the same meaning in different words. The Greeks asserted that when they claim that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, they do not intend to exclude the Son; but because it seemed to them that the Latins assert that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as from two principles and two spirations, they refrained from saying that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. 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, nor that they posit two principles or two spirations; but they assert that there is only one principle and a single spiration of the holy Spirit, as they have asserted hitherto. Since, then, one and the same meaning resulted from all this, they unanimously agreed and consented to the following holy and God-pleasing union, in the same sense and with one mind.

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 and his subsistent being from the Father together with the Son, and proceeds from both eternally as from one principle and a single spiration. We declare that when holy doctors and fathers say that the holy Spirit proceeds 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, and according to the Latins as principle of the subsistence of the holy Spirit, just like the Father.

And since the Father gave to his only-begotten Son in begetting him everything the Father has, except to be the Father, so the Son has eternally from the Father, by whom he was eternally begotten, this also, namely that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Son.

We define also that the explanation of those words “and from the Son” was licitly and reasonably added to the creed for the sake of declaring the truth and from imminent need.

— taken from http://www.piar.hu/councils/ecum17.htm

This bears upon two other Trinitarian teachings. First, at Florence (I believe), the Church said that the Filioque could be understood in Greek by “dia tou Huiou” (*through* the Son) as opposed to the literal rendering “ek Patros kai Huiou.” Why? As you’ve discussed here before, the Latin formula emphasized the Son’s equality with the Father in the active spiration of the Holy Ghost. The Greek formula emphasizes the Son’s “reception” of active spiration from the father. So one could say that the Latin “from the Son” and the Greek “through the Son” were equally orthodox, provided both sides mean that the Holy Ghost proceeds from them both as from one principle.

Secondly, the idea of the Son receiving spiration from the Father fits nicely with the teaching that the Holy Ghost is Love or Gift. The Father gives personal Love to the Son, Who receives it. To say that Paternity and Filiation together constitute active spiration is the same as saying that this act of begetting naturally entails love.