when asked how that doesn't make the Son an "origin" of the Spirit, you say it doesn't--that it means origin when it refers to the Father and motion when it refers to the Son, even if that's not at all the plain sense of the Latin.
No the Latin term means what the Latin term means, "to go forth". However I was explaining Latin filioque in the creed keeping in mind the original Greek meaning coupled with the Latin meaning due to the use of procedit. And BOOM!... You have a logical explanation.
Not really, you had an explanation riddled with parenthetical phrases intended to preserve an orthodox understanding of the Holy Spirit's origin from the Father and his economic sending forth from the Son when the same could have been done by omitting Filioque in the first place.
If you neglect the original Greek meaning then STILL the filioque is orthodox as all the creed is saying (in the strictly Latin sense) is ... " We believe in the Holy Spirit... Who goes forth (proceeds/ procedit) from the father and the son..."
If you eliminate from your Latin "procedit" the Greek sense of "origin", then all you've got left is "motion" or economy. That's fine, but...
But of course we don't neglect the original Greek meaning and that's why I explained the creed that way to you
...you don't take this to its logical conclusion. If you don't neglect--but rather acknowledge as valid--the "original Greek meaning", then you have to admit that the Greek term only allows for "origin" and not "motion". Your answer to that is to say that the Latin term encompasses both meanings, and so you come up with this mouthful:
" We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord the giver of life. Who proceeds from the father (Eternally in staining origin and in motion) and the son (eternally in motion but not origin). Who with the father and the son is worshiped and glorified..."
That's not how your Creed reads. That's how you want us to believe you mean it, but you can't prove that conclusively from your own Church's historical records, nor can you argue that this is the plain sense of the Latin text or its various translations. Heck, apparently even in Dutch it's translated in a heterodox way even though that language supposedly has terms that would assure an orthodox interpretation (if Cyrillic, as a native speaker who is also conversant in Greek and Latin, is to be believed). Is that because the Dutch RC bishops don't know their own faith? Or is it because they understand Filioque--on its face and consistent with Latin teaching as opposed to Orthodox teaching--to be their faith?