that Latin theology has been deficient in comparison to Eastern theology with respect to the Holy Spirit (until, maybe, rather recently)? Were the medieval theologians, both the scholastics and the monastics, lacking with respect to Pneumatology? How good, then, is Yves Congar's I Believe in the Holy Spirit?
How about the place of the Holy Spirit in the Roman-rite liturgy, which is said to be more Christocentric than the othe rites of the Church given its antiquity? (I believe this is the thesis established by Fr. Jungmann.) In contrast, could it be said that the Byzantine rite is more "Trinitarian" (or, perhaps, it gives attention or invokes both Christ and the Holy Spirit in the worship of the Father)?
Is it possible for the Roman rite to "organically" develop in such a way that it retains the Christocentric texts for certain parts of the liturgy while other texts are added or emphasized in order to draw our attention to the work of the Holy Spirit in the liturgy? (I am thinking beyond the addition of a [quasi-]epiclesis to Roman rite.)
Fr. Hunwicke: The epiclesis of the Roman Rite
Fr. Z: QUAERITUR: Epiclesis in the Roman Canon
Discussion at the Byzantine Forum.