That the Council of Florence teaches a heretical Pneumatology is as plain as the nose on one’s face. Articles on this subject tend to be very long, but this one will be short.
During the sixth session of the Council of Florence, the Roman Catholic Church dogmatized the meaning of the Filioque as follows:
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.
This does not mean all iterations of the Filioque are bad. The Filioque itself is found in several pre-schism writings of saints such as Augustine and Maximus the Confessor. So, the term in of itself is not automatically heretical (though it is certainly an extrabibilical gloss going beyond John 15:26). However, the meaning to the Filioque that Florence gives is clearly at variance with the pre-schism explanation of its meaning. This is evidenced by not only the explanation of Saint Maximus, but also the fact the Roman Catholic faction in Florence tentatively denied the authenticity of Maximus’ explanation–which is as follows:
Those of the Queen of cities have attacked the synodal letter of the present very holy Pope (Martin I), not in the case of all the chapters that he has written in it, but only in the case of two of them. One relates to theology, because it says he says that ‘the Holy Spirit proceeds (ἐκπορεύεσθαι) also from the Son.’…With regard to the first matter, they (the Romans) have produced the unanimous documentary evidence of the Latin fathers, and also of Cyril of Alexandria, from the sacred commentary he composed on the gospel of St. John. On the basis of these texts, they have shown that they have not made the Son the cause of the Spirit — they know in fact that the Father is the only cause of the Son and the Spirit, the one by begetting and the other by procession; but [they use this expression] in order to manifest the Spirit’s coming-forth (προϊέναι) through Him [the Son] and, in this way, to make clear the unity and identity of the essence (Letter to Marinus).
What Saint Maximus is speaking of is pretty simple and it is clearly the stance of the Orthodox Catholic, as opposed to the Roman Catholic, Church. In Florence, the Roman Catholics, though having the copy of the letter in a pro-Filioque florilegium, would disown the letter explicitly because they disagreed with its content:
When presented with the testimony of the letter from the Latin side, the Greeks jumped at the opportunity to offer union on its basis: “If this letter is accepted gladly on your part,” so they are reported to have said, “the union will happily proceed.” At this the Latin delegation chastened Andrew [of Rhodes] and denied their willingness to admit the letter for any purpose on the grounds that it was “not found to be complete.”
Twice more, in the course of debates over the orthodoxy of the Filioque, during which it appeared to the Greeks at times that the Latins were saying substantively the same things as the letter, they offered the wording of the Letter to Marinus as a formula for union (irrespective of whatever inherent authority it might have). They were rebuffed on both occasions (Chapter by Fr. Jacob van Sickle).
Unlike Florence, which explicitly denied Maximus’ doctrine of the Filioque, we Orthodox have actually dogmatized his thought. The Council of Blachernae (1285) stated succinctly in its fourth and fifth anathemas against John Bekkos:
In certain texts [of the Fathers], the phrase [“through the Son”] denotes the Spirit’s shining forth and manifestation. Indeed, the very Paraclete shines from and is manifest eternally through the Son, in the same way that light shines forth and is manifest through the intermediary of the sun’s rays; it further denotes the bestowing, giving, and sending of the Spirit to us. It does not, however, mean that it subsists through the Son and from the Son, and that it receives its being through Him and from Him….According to the common mind of the Church and the aforementioned saints, the Father is the foundation and the source of the Son and the Spirit, the only source of divinity, and the only cause.
This exegesis of Pneumatological doctrine is not some sort of outlier, because it was both implied by Maximus and explicitly taught by Saint John of Damascus. The Damascene’s writings were employed by Roman Catholic progenitors of the Councils of Lyon and Florence, but they were not relying upon reliable sources. “[During Florence] both parties often relied on preexisting anthologies (florilegia) that comprised the crucial passages of a work, the textual accuracy of which was never guaranteed,” according Alexander Alexakis (p. 154). “To quote only one example, the quality of most quotations included in the Pro-Union collection of about 300 testimonia called Epigraphai of John Vekkos (patriarch of Constantinople between 1276-1282) is very poor.”
In short, there appeared to be no serious interaction with John’s thought during Florence. A careful reading of the Damascene’s Exposition of the Orthodox Faith reveals to us how thoroughly he taught the Pneumatological doctrine we see in Blachernae:
Likewise we believe in the Holy Spirit…in all things like to the Father and Son: proceeding from the Father and communicated through the Son, and participated in by all creation, through Himself creating, and investing with essence and sanctifying, and maintaining the universe: having subsistence, existing in its own proper and peculiar subsistence, inseparable and indivisible from Father and Son, and possessing all the qualities that the Father and Son possess, save that of not being begotten or born. For the Father is without cause and unborn: for He is derived from nothing, but derives from Himself His being, nor does He derive a single quality from another. Rather He is Himself the beginning and cause of the existence of all things in a definite and natural manner. But the Son is derived from the Father after the manner of generation, and the Holy Spirit likewise is derived from the Father, yet not after the manner of generation, but after that of procession. And we have learned that there is a difference between generation and procession, but the nature of that difference we in no wise understand. Further, the generation of the Son from the Father and the procession of the Holy Spirit are simultaneous. All then that the Son and the Spirit have is from the Father, even their very being.
…And we speak likewise of the Holy Spirit as from the Father, and call Him the Spirit of the Father. And we do not speak of the Spirit as from the Son : but yet we call Him the Spirit of the Son. For if any one has not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of His Romans 8:9, says the divine apostle. And we confess that He is manifested and imparted to us through the Son. For He breathed upon His Disciples, says he, and said, Receive the Holy Spirit. John 20:29 It is just the same as in the case of the sun from which come both the ray and the radiance (for the sun itself is the source of both the ray and the radiance), and it is through the ray that the radiance is imparted to us, and it is the radiance itself by which we are lightened and in which we participate. Further we do not speak of the Son of the Spirit, or of the Son as derived from the Spirit. (Exposition, Book I, Chap 8).
All the terms, then, that are appropriate to the Father, as cause, source, begetter, are to be ascribed to the Father alone: while those that are appropriate to the caused, begotten Son, Word, immediate power, will, wisdom, are to be ascribed to the Son: and those that are appropriate to the caused, processional, manifesting, perfecting power, are to be ascribed to the Holy Spirit. The Father is the source and cause of the Son and the Holy Spirit: Father of the Son alone and producer of the Holy Spirit…And we speak also of the Spirit of the Son, not as through proceeding from Him, but as proceeding through Him from the Father. For the Father alone is cause (Ibid., Chap 12).
In summary, the Son and Spirit have different modes of eternal causation (one via being begotten and the other procession) and that both modes are alone caused by the Father. The existence of the hypostasis of the Spirit is not contingent upon the Son, but (instead) He manifests through the Son–just as the radiance of the sun is manifested in a sun ray, but the sun ray does not cause radiance. The sun is the sole source of radiance.
Before concluding this article about how the Filioque of Florence is heretical, it is worth pointing out that it explicitly contradicts the Second Council of Nicea. Therein, Saint Tarasius in his confession during the third session states that the Holy Spirit “proceedeth from the Father by the Son.” Taking into account contemporary Greek Pneumatology, it would seem that the statement must be understood consistently with the “manifestation” doctrine of the Spirit as laid out by John of Damascus. Tarasius’ statement, perhaps not making sense in Latin (especially without John’s explanation being available in Latin), went right over the heads of the forefathers of future Latin Christendom–particularly the Carolinigan theologians. (see footnotes in pages 91-93).
The Carolingians read the statement to mean that the Spirit was caused by some separate event by the Son and therefore made the Spirit of a different essence. They then argued that while it was not by birth, but procession, the Spirit must originate via procession by both. Pope Adrian I, in keeping with the preceding orthodox explanations of the Filioque, responded defending the temporal, as opposed to eternal, procession of the Spirit from the Son and the consubstantiality of the Spirit as evidenced by such a procession. (Ibid., p. 93)
___
As a side note, when Saint Photius took issue with the Frankish usage of the Filioque, Anastasius the Librarian defended its usage citing Maximus’ letter. Anastasius said succinctly, “we do not claim that the Son is cause or principle of the Holy Spirit.”
Help Grow the Orthodox Church in Cambodia!
Has this article blessed you? Please bless the Moscow Patriarchate’s missionary efforts in Cambodia to bring the Gospel to a people who have not heard it!
$1.00
Orthodox Christian Theology 
Good article, Craig.
My biggest problem with Florence is that the 5th EC clearly defined authoritative Councils as those with a collegiality of bishops in union with the pope, so in theory, Florence met the standard. But it’s heretical tendencies were rejected by the laity, so Orthodoxy discounted it’s validity.
The standard of “being accepted by the people” was never authoritatively defined by an EC in Union with the pope.
That opens a big can of worms.
If acceptance by the people is the authoritative standard, then how can the 4th EC be accepted when it was rejected mostly wholesale by the people of Alexandria, India, Armenia ,Assyria and Ethiopia?
We have a serious problem no matter how it’s sliced, as I see it.
Anyway we slice it, we have a
I have a quick response to this. The 7th ecumenical council gives an explicit definition of what a council is:
Again how could that be Great or Ecumenic which the Presidents of other Churches have never received or assented to but which on contrary they have anathematized it, had not as its fellow the then Pope of Rome or his conclave [i.e. was not “ratified by the Pope” as we coin it now], neither was it authorized by his Legate, nor by Encyclic Epistle from him as the custom is for Councils. Neither do we find that the Patriarchs of the East, Antioch, Alexandria, and the holy City [Jerusalem] did at all consent thereto any of their great doctors or high priests…neither did their voice go forth into all lands as did that of the Apostles, nor their words unto the ends of the world as did those of those six holy Ecumcnic Councils (Sixth Session).
So, a council is ecumenical if the following hierarchy accepts it: 1. Pope, 2. Bishops answerable to Pope, 3. Eastern Patriarchs, 4. Bishops answerable to Eastern Patriarchs, 5. reception to lands beyond the ecumene.
All the councils generally attain to the first four right away, the fifth takes time. Nicea took almost a century to be accepted by all the churches of the east. Constan I took about 125 years to be accepted by Egypt. Chalcedon took about 100 years to be accepted by the eastern Roman Empire. Constantinople II took about 125 years to get acceptance in Africa and northern Italy. Constantinople III appears to have attained to acceptance by all pretty quickly (monothelitism appears to be a dead letter at that point.) Nicea II took about 100 years to be accepted in the West.
So, the definition in the 7th council was uncannily accurate.
However, you speak of “Alexandria, India, Armenia ,Assyria and Ethiopia.” If you notice, these lands accepted the councils that existed up until the point-in-time they left the communion of the Church. Alexandria had Bishops that accepted Chalcedon for example, and it was only with the creating of a parallel church hierarchy that the non-chalcedonians won out. Ethiopia, Sabinus signed onto the Council of Chalcedon and from we can tell, a slow nationalist drift away from Chalcedon happened in Ethiopia after the fact (though I presume the average layperson probably had no real knowledge of what was going on.) Nestorians in fact went into schism before Nestorius. So, I think a real case could be made historically that the churches who did not accept the ecumenical councils did in fact do so until splinter groups disowned the councils or left the Church before them.
God bless,
Craig
Also, i just want to add that florence really did not even have all the patriarchs sign. one died, the others disowned the decisions of their legates. so, it is sort of silly RCs assert that Florence would have even approached the bar of an ecumenical council by the nicea ii standard. 🙂
If I may spout off some rudimentary and unpolished thoughts on the subject, I’ve been wondering for quite some time why “ecumenical councils” became reifeid in their modern sense. When you think about it, under the Roman Empire, it was typical of the Roman emperor to take part in religious/political affairs (the two were inseparable back then). But the difference between taking part in pagan affairs compared to Christian affairs was that paganism in the empire from its very origins prior to the advent of the empire, was mostly what was called polis-religion. That meant that every pagan cult was intricately tied with city governments and thus making it difficult to really develop a centralized authority or mechanism for managing pagan cults throughout the empire, even if a multitude of cities happened to share the same god, etc. It is partly for this reason why Emperor Julian (the Apostate) failed in creating an analogous central network for paganism to rival Christianity. The imperial cult was slightly different, but that’s a subject for another time. Christianity, however, never really had this limitation of being a polis-religion in the traditional sense. Bishops were certainly based in cities and would eventually over time take over many of the political duties of the individual cities, much how like pagan city magistrates often doubled as religious leaders as well. But what St. Constantine managed with the Nicaea I was really quite remarkable. At the same time, however, what Constantine was doing was also very Roman – that is the emperor taking a direct interest in religious affairs because the empire’s welfare was seen as dependent upon appeasing the god(s), which coincided with one of the central duties of the emperor, the other being providing for general happiness.
Which brings me to my next point. Christianity existed for about 300 years without ecumenical councils. This fact is not accidental. Christianity was often seen as inimical to the empire until Constantine. Once converted, it was no surprise that he would facilitate the new religion by forming Nicaea, with himself and his successors going on to play a big role in this new institution. I suppose what I am trying to say here is that the institution of the “ecumenical council” has a Roman imperial origin. The later morphing or reification of the institution as something separate from the empire, especially in the Catholic Church, is just a long development from the decline and disintegration of the empire.
With all of these things considered, one should ask though: Should the Orthodox Church follow in the same footsteps as the Catholic Church to reify the institution of the “ecumenical council” in a modern context absent of the imperium? It is not obvious to me that it should. The Orthodox Church has had a number of pan-Orthodox synods for the past four or more centuries with varying degrees of success. And by and large, Orthodoxy has weathered pretty well. But none of these really come close to the organizational status of the ecumenical council. Yet, the Holy Spirit still guides us. To me, it just seems that the Holy Spirit is the sine qua non for Orthodoxy, while the modalities of its expression are heavily dependent upon historical situations. Whether it be the ecumenical councils, pan-Orthodox synods, local synods, or even a revolt from the laity, all of these are just modalities of the Holy Spirit acting in history. If Orthodoxy can have a history without ecumenical councils for 300 years, then it would not be surprising for it to have a future without them too. If they are replaced with something else, then it would seem only that the institutional modality of Holy Spirit’s expression has changed.
Some might say that the previous point undermines epistemological certainty, but I am not convinced that this is true. If people don’t believe doctrine X or Y, then having a post-facto criteria made by theologians to buttress authority all means very little. If someone, say denies the homoousia formula and prefers Arianism, they aren’t going to stay in the Catholic or Orthodox churches because an ecumenical council said so. The phenomenon of Protestantism seems to undermine these arguments too. Protestants still split off, regardless of how much the Catholic Church claimed for ecumenical councils, or the papacy for that matter. For these reasons, the epistemological claims in the name of doctrinal clarity often just sound like special pleading to me. I often see the ecumenical councils as refineries of arguments on particular doctrines. Thus far, I haven’t really found a doctrine I disagree with or have cared to disagree with. Therefore, I find myself as a member of the Orthodox Church. I take the councils seriously, but I don’t believe what they say just because of claims to authority, but rather on the merits of the arguments that they offer. This is also why I think Catholic apologetics just goes about ecumenical councils in an entirely backwards fashion.
Probably not the best meditation on a subject I’ve ever dabbled in, but certainly not the worst.
I can’t give a simple written answer to this question, but it was one I have seriously considered and I feel have an epistemologically sound answer to. It probably makes more sense in a conversation then me laying out an argument for it.
In short, revelation is found most distilled in the Scripture. The Scriptures are both materially sufficient and word-for-word contain nothing but God inspired truth. The Scripture’s are God Himself speaking.
Outside of this there is the Church, which is God’s people speaking and expressing themselves, preserved by God from overt, categorical, and pervasive error. Hence, out liturgical life is important and cannot be compromised, but we can make disciplinary changes (we added to the Nicene Creed for example), add holidays, and make new hymns…yet, these things are all doctrinally indispensable, because they preserve the mind of God’s people which is protected from error and communicates God’s truth, albeit differently, than the Scriptures…sometimes better in a sense, in that they explain the Scriptures and their allegories for us.
I see an “Ecumenical Council” as something of an anachronism. The Council of Jerusalem in the first century is never called an ecumenical council, but it carried the authority of one (and in Nicea II, they cited fake canons from it.) Yet, no one confused it as ecumenical.
The Novationist and Rebaptism Controversies in the third century likewise settled huge issues. Novationists were schismatics, and schismatics must be considered as categorically outside of the Church; and we cannot accept the baptisms of Christological heretics. The results of both controversies had obvious ripple effects on future councils, and in fact affected many of their canons–yet both of these were not the result of ecumenical councils themselves. Rather, they were the result of local councils that would send letters to the other local councils, and consensus was achieved by a sort of compromise between everyone’s positions.
After there first seven ecumenical councils, we have Constantinople IV–which meets the criteria of an ecumenical council in every way other than no one considering it ecumenical. The Palamite councils, as well as the anti-Protestant/RC councils (Moldova in 1642 and Jerusalem in 1672) have authority and obviously informed doctrine, but they never quite took on the same importance.
In summary, it seems to me what the Church over time receives as important is simply…important. THe Church categorizes some things separate from other things, and I think there is wisdom to this…it underscores the importance of Nicea I to Nicea II. THose councils took on topics more important than Jerusalem in the first century (as I think the Judaizing faction did not ultimately hold sway with the bishops, in Acts James claims they never spoke for him) and the disciplinary creedal issues in the 8th council, or the fine Palamite distinctives in the “9th” councils, or even the sort of rehashing of stuff in the 17th centuries (no real major doctrine was really elaborated in those.) For this reason, the first 7 will always stick out. They deal fundamentally with the nature of Jesus Christ and worship. We have pretty much settled every *really* important doctrinal issue. It seems to me everything else is window dressing and while we will continue to work things out, and have disciplinary authority via the Bishops (heck we might see some depositions soon), none of these I think will ever compare to the first 7. They stand so absolutely above everything the Church did except the Scriptures, it seems to me no surprise that the Orthodox Church puts the Scriptures first, but thsoe 7 councils as an indispensible 2nd. Third would be the Menaion, the liturgical calendar, etc. Fourth is sort of all dispensible to a degree, as long as we keep everything else together.
This is your typical Eastern Orthodoxy roller coaster, going to middle age history and personalities, rather than Tradition and Scripture. Keep it simple and clear as Catholicism knows how to do (Galatians 4,6) in defending the filioque not to mention the placement of the Holy Spirit in the Creed as Third Person.
I will take this to mean that you realize that the Orthodox case is more cogent. St John of Damascus literally addresses Gal 4:6 in the article. 😉
From a strict historian viewpoint, you do not really give an quotations from the other side of the debate. Furthermore, you mention two Theologians who seem to contradict your thesis: Augustine and Maximus but passively insist they’re really on your side, again, not convincing, Could you develop how exactly Augustine sees it your way? How could I be convinced without a proper dialectic?
Perhaps you can post a more thorough argument?
This is sort of lame tbh. Maximus literally gives damascene’s interpretation and I quoted Florence to show they repudiated Maximus. I trust Maximus reading of Augustine than people in the 1400s.
A bit rude. I wrote a rather lengthy comment that I thought may be rude, so I thought maybe better to have you explain. I don’t think any of us should look to Augustine through a lens—his works are mostly preserved, but okay I see actual dialogue here is a waste of time.
Your initial comment was rude because you literally did not read what I wrote. As for a lens, we use the saints as a lens. Maximus interacted with western thought and I trust his explanation. Honestly I think you are hurt by the simplicity of the air tight assertions in the article.
Huh? Are you being serious? I just asked for a more in depth explanation because I found your post interesting enough to ask for it. This is unhinged…
I found it odd that you cit d Maximus against me when he was discussed in detail in the post.
I’m just asking questions, I’m not taking any sort of hard position, I’m not citing anyone. I am trying to understand your view point better.
I guess you’re trying to predict my motivations. In this regard, I’m just interested in hearing and seeing Augustine’s voice within the discussion.
I was typing on my phone, so I couldn’t give a more nuanced answer and sadly I cannot get into more detail now. Your initial reply did not seem to take into account I discussed Maximus, which explains the tone of my frank reply. If you are interested in more detail about Augustine, I both linked onto another article at the end of my own article about Augustine specifically, as well as linked to the Youtube that I posted previous in the comments section. I hope this helps.
I’ll take a look at those. Augustine fascinates me and his breadth of work is so expansive that for any scholar to synthesis it all is next to nil. So, I found it interesting that your incorporated him in your work here, so I was more or less looking for your references to specific works so I can take a look at them.
Thanks.
Sorry about any misunderstanding, let me know what you think of the video.
If you are interested in Augustine in more detail I give an explanation here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RirUYcWGQJo
Thanks.
I like this picture, which is on the top of the article, so much. It has so many details and elements. Can anybody tell me the name of the artist of this painting?
Thank you very much for a clear and thorough explanation of Saint Maximus letter to Marinus and the Orthodox position. There are many somewhat lazy Orthodox who seem to condemn everything the Latin Church did, calling it all heretical – which is inconsistent and unfair.
What you point out very clearly is that the Orthodox position has always been the same and crystal clear from the 2nd Ecumenical Council onward, and the West did not understand the translations adequately and rejected Saint Maximus and Saint John Damascene’s clear, Orthodox and Apostolic teachings. It is a shame because Saint Maximus defended “and the Son” on Orthodox grounds, likely consistent with Holy Pope Martin I – both of whom were martyred or suffered in the Church for the fulness of truth and the faith.
I never knew that the Latin Church had rejected a simple and clear teaching of Saint Maximus. It is very sad – and the Western Church is not only in schism with the East, but with some of their greatest Saints like Saint Pope Martin I. Thank you for an informative and educational article. We always keep praying in our liturgy that the schisms will end and those prayers continue – and perhaps that is the only real way schism gets solved – prayer.
Andy
Well said, let us double our prayers.
Hello Craig,
Thank you for writing this article.
I have a hard time seeing how the radiance of the sun would exist without the ray. It seems the ray is at least necessary for the radiance to exist. It may not be the ultimate cause, but perhaps something akin to a lesser cause?
I’m continually unclear on what the fathers exactly meant by cause. It seems like they could be read as meaning origin of the entire Trinity. And then the Son could be a cause of the Spirit in the qualified sense that his existence is necessary for the Spirit’s existence (like rays and radiance) – not that he is the origin of the Trinity.
Florence’s definition still seems remarkably unhelpful. As it takes the word employed by the Greeks (“cause”) that seems to mean Arche Origin and applies it to the Son.
“I have a hard time seeing how the radiance of the sun would exist without the ray. It seems the ray is at least necessary for the radiance to exist. It may not be the ultimate cause, but perhaps something akin to a lesser cause?”
Not exactly. What kind of ray does not have radiance? Intrinsic to the ray *is* radiance. The Son is incarnate of the Holy Spirit. The Paraklesis, during the Liturgy, is the calling of the Spirit and is necessary for the consecretation of bread and wine into Christ’s flesh and blood. I’m surprised no one ever invented the inverse heresy (that the Spirit is secondary cause of the Spirit). In reality, they are both contingent upon one another, as the Spirit proceeds from the Father and rests in the Son. The Son must exist for the Spirit to proceed to. Yet, the Son is begotten from the Love of the Father, who is the Spirit. So, the SPirit’s procession is intertwined with the Son’s eternal origin–making both contingent upon one another in terms of eternal causation.
It may help to read in detail St Augustine’s “On the Trinity.” This website has a commentary on it.
Thanks, Craig. I think that’s fair.
I too have been surprised that the heresy of the Spirit causing the Son didn’t ever take root. This seems more in line with the incarnation as you note, as well as the familial model where the Father and a spouse unite to create a Son.
Additionally, I don’t see how the Catholics aren’t often having their cake and eating it too. Because they consistently label the Spirit the love of the Father and Son, but it is obvious that this love starts in the Father and rests in the Son since the Father “exists” first, then begets/loves the Son. Therefore, either the love is not the Spirit and the love exists in the Father and rests in the Son before the Spirit is originated, or the Spirit/love does in fact originate in the Father and then rest in the Son.
I don’t see how this avoid this.
It’s one of those obvious things that’s stares people in the face and no one seems to audience.
It seems that we might have an analogy of St. Maximus’ understanding in the creation of Adam:
“And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.” – Genesis 2:7
Analogically, we could see the dust of the ground formed into a man as the Son and the breath of life as the Holy Spirit. To say that the Son is a cause of the Holy Spirit is like saying that the dust of the ground formed into a man is a cause of the breath of life. On the contrary, the dust-man is given the breath of life from God the Father, and this breath of life is manifested through the dust-man. The dust-man apart from the breath is lifeless and thus can’t be a cause. The breath exists in and through the dust-man, but does not get it’s existence from it. Indeed, we see that it returns to God after the dust-man dies:
“and the dust returns to the earth as it was, and the spirit returns to God who gave it.” – Ecclesiastes 12:7