Anselm and the Procession, part 1

[Schism_hater]

These are some thoughts I recently wrote down regarding this issue. My purpose in posting this is so that we can be clear on where the present positions came from, and the rationale behind them. this will have to be in two parts.

A preamble: I contend that the “Filioque” problem is not so much the clause itself, although I believe it should not have been added without the consent of the entire Church( but I do not wish to discuss this issue now). While misleading, I believe it is capable of an orthodox interpretation. Famously, St. Maximus the Confessor gave it an orthodox interpretation in the 600s. I believe the problem is with the later western theology that developed around it.

Although the theology on the procession of Spirit from the Father and the Son was first set forth in some detail by St. Augustine, it was St. Anselm of Canterbury who first undertook to systematically defend it (undoubtably in response to the widening schism with the “Greeks”; Anselm wrote shortly after 1054). He laid the basic groundwork of the theology, which was expounded on (but I would argue not significantly further developed, and certainly not inconsistently with Anselm) by Aquinas, and was dogmatized, in its various aspects, by the councils of Lateran IV, Lyons II, and Florence (note that Lateran IV, in 1215, was directly after Anselm and before Aquinas). Thus, I think it may be fairly said that it was Anselm more than any other Catholic theologian who developed the theology behind the doctrine. He deals systematically with this doctrine in De Processione Spiritus Sancti.

I will try to make this short and sweet. St. Anselm’s basic rationale and motivation for the “double procession” (as it is commonly known) is as follows (very briefly summarized): the Persons of the Trinity are distinguished by their relations (I don’t wish to discuss this aspect here). The Father is unoriginate, and the Son originates from the Father. Therefore, to uniquely distinguish the Spirit, it must originate from the Father and the Son. It’s pretty simple in its essence.

In order to avoid the undesirable conclusion that the Spirit proceeds from two sources, Anselm makes it clear that, in this theology, the Spirit proceeds from the Father and Son together. This was later dogmatized in the west as the Spirit proceeding (eternally) from the Father and Son “as from one principle”. The problem comes in when Anselm describes this one principle further. For him, it is the Father and the Son together. And he makes it clear that, for him, the Father and the Son together are “God”. Of course, in other places he refers to each of the Persons as “God”, which is perfectly orthodox, but Anselm specifically refers to the Father and Son (considered apart from the Holy Spirit) as God. Here is a representative (and I would argue, the central) passage (emphases are mine throughout):

But if the Greeks say that the Holy Spirit cannot be from two causes or two sources, we answer that, as we do not believe that the Holy Spirit is such by reason of which the Father and the Son are two, but from that by which they are one, so we do not say that there are two sources of the Spirit, but that there is one source… Therefore, the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, although each is the source of creatures, are none the less not three sources but one. Just so, the Holy Spirit, when we say that He is from the Father and the Son, is not from two sources but one, which is the Father and the Sonas the Spirit is from God, who is Father and Son…” DPSS, 10, I.

I would encourage everyone reading this to read De Processione Spiritus Sancti, or at least chapters 9 and 10, to see that I have quoted Anselm accurately and fairly here.
A scholarly commentary, in summarizing Anslem’s argument here, writes: “Anselm replies [to the Greek argument against two sources] in accordance with his standard formula: the Holy Spirit does not exist from the Father and the Son insofar as they are different persons but insofar as they are one God”. Jasper Hopkins, A Companion to the Study of St. Anselm (University of Minnesota, 1972), p. 118.

 

[Schism_hater]

Con’t from previous
Now clearly, in orthodox Trinitarian doctrine, it is permissible and common to speak of the Three Persons taken together as “God”,and of each of the three persons considered singularly as God. But Is there any precedent in the Fathers, eastern or western, for referring to *any two Persons, considered apart from the remaining Person, as “God”? I can’t claim to have read the Fathers exhaustively, but I feel safe in saying that there is no such precedent, and that, considered in the light of Patristic Trinitarian theology , that it is erroneous to do so. Generally, in patristic theology, one can talk about the One, or one can talk about the Three, but never about two of the persons apart from one of the others. The only exception would be, in speaking of the monarchy of the Father, that the Father is the source of Godhood for the Son and the Spirit, the converse of which is that the Son and the Spirit are both originate, as opposed to the Father who is unoriginate. I would consider that the exception that proves the rule. It flows out of the model for the Trinity (an inverted “V” with the Father at apex, and Son and Spirit at respective endpoints) with which the double procession is inconsistent.

Further, St. Anselm seemingly opposes any notion of the Spirit proceeding from the Father through the Son, which is often put forward as a reconciling position.

*For the Holy Spirit is from the Father and the Son being the same, that is, from the Father and the Son being God, not from that whereby the Father and the Son differ from one another. But since God (from whom the Holy Spirit is) is Father and Son, we on that account truly say that the Spirt is from the Father and the Son (who are two). And since the Father is not… greater than or lesser than, the Son… the Holy Spirit is not from the Father before he is from the Son. Nor is he from the Son before he is from the Father. Not is his originating from the Father greater or lesser than is his originating from the Son. Not is he more or less from one than from the other. For if he were to be before or after, or greater or lesser, or more or less from one than from the other, it would necessarily follow that the Holy Spirit would be from that in which the Father and the Son are one. Or it else it would follow that their very unity would not be complete and absolute… But we cannot say that the Holy Spiirit is not from that in which the Father and the Son are one (otherwise, the Holy Spirit cannot be from God), not ought we to believe that there is in the very unity any difference. *DPSS, 14, I.

To my mind, Anselm cannot have made it more clear that he regards the Father and the Son to play exactly equal and equivalent roles in proceeding the Spirit, and that the Son is not to be regarded as a sort of “pass-through” between the Father and the Spirit. And, again, he could not have been clearer that the Father and the Son together are the “God”, from whom the Spirit receives its being. To be sure, Anselm also speaks many times of the Spirit as “God”. So, to make sense of Anselm, I think we must say he divided the Godhead into 1. the supreme originating God (the Father) 2. the intermediary originating God (Father and Son together, equally) and 3. the non-originating God (the Holy Spirit). That is the model followed by Lateran IV (again, less than a century after Anselm, and before Aquinas)(“The Father is from no one, the Son is from the Father, and the Holy Spirit is from the Father and the Son, equally”), Lyons II (“The Holy Spirit proceeds etenrally from the Father and the Son, not as by two principles, but as from one; not by two spirations, but by one”) and Florence (again “The Holy Spirit alone proceeds equally from the Father and the Son”). Further, with regard to Florence, when it makes an equivalence between the patristic formula of “From the Father through the Son” and “From the Father and the Son”, it makes clear that it is assimilating “through” to “and”, and not vice-versa.

 

[mardukm]

*For the Holy Spirit is from the Father and the Son being the same, that is, from the Father and the Son being God, not from that whereby the Father and the Son differ from one another. But since God (from whom the Holy Spirit is) is Father and Son, we on that account truly say that the Spirt is from the Father and the Son (who are two). And since the Father is not… greater than or lesser than, the Son… the Holy Spirit is not from the Father before he is from the Son. Nor is he from the Son before he is from the Father. Not is his originating from the Father greater or lesser than is his originating from the Son. Not is he more or less from one than from the other. For if he were to be before or after, or greater or lesser, or more or less from one than from the other, it would necessarily follow that the Holy Spirit would be from that in which the Father and the Son are one. Or it else it would follow that their very unity would not be complete and absolute… But we cannot say that the Holy Spiirit is not from that in which the Father and the Son are one (otherwise, the Holy Spirit cannot be from God), not ought we to believe that there is in the very unity any difference. *DPSS, 14, I.

To my mind, Anselm cannot have made it more clear that he regards the Father and the Son to play exactly equal and equivalent roles in proceeding the Spirit, and that the Son is not to be regarded as a sort of “pass-through” between the Father and the Spirit. And, again, he could not have been clearer that the Father and the Son together are the “God”, from whom the Spirit receives its being. To be sure, Anselm also speaks many times of the Spirit as “God”. So, to make sense of Anselm, I think we must say he divided the Godhead into 1. the supreme originating God (the Father) 2. the intermediary originating God (Father and Son together, equally) and 3. the non-originating God (the Holy Spirit). That is the model followed by Lateran IV (again, less than a century after Anselm, and before Aquinas)(“The Father is from no one, the Son is from the Father, and the Holy Spirit is from the Father and the Son, equally”), Lyons II (“The Holy Spirit proceeds etenrally from the Father and the Son, not as by two principles, but as from one; not by two spirations, but by one”) and Florence (again “The Holy Spirit alone proceeds equally from the Father and the Son”). Further, with regard to Florence, when it makes an equivalence between the patristic formula of “From the Father through the Son” and “From the Father and the Son”, it makes clear that it is assimilating “through” to “and”, and not vice-versa.

Interesting. Thank you for the analysis. It makes it more clear now.

I see that Lyons did not dogmatize everything from Anselm, but only the orthodox portion that agrees with the common teaching that there are not two sources of the Spirit.

I also see a dramatic difference between Anselm and Florence. Whereas Anselm seems to make the Father and Son together as the principle of being “FROM,” Florence in distinction makes the Son only the principle of being “THROUGH,” while maintaining that it is the Father alone who is the principle of being "FROM."

Again, thank you for the analysis. It explains for me where all the disagreement began. I can see that Blacharnae must have been addressing the Anselmian theory (the idea that the Father and Son together are the principle of “FROM”). via Beccus. But the opinions of singular theologians do not mean much unless they are dogmatized by the Church. The more detailed explanations/theories of Latin theologians can run into problems, as is evident from this post, but I don’t see anything objectionable about what few things the CC has actually dogmatized on the matter (via Lyons and FLorence).

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Cavaradossi]

Interesting. Thank you for the analysis. It makes it more clear now.

I see that Lyons did not dogmatize everything from Anselm, but only the orthodox portion that agrees with the common teaching that there are not two sources of the Spirit.

I also see a dramatic difference between Anselm and Florence. Whereas Anselm seems to make the Father and Son together as the principle of being “FROM,” Florence in distinction makes the Son only the principle of being “THROUGH,” while maintaining that it is the Father alone who is the principle of being "FROM."

Florence makes no such distinction. Rather, Florence reasserts that the Father and Son are together one principle from which the Holy Spirit proceeds, like Anselm and Thomas Aquinas taught, and that through the Son is specifically supposed to be understood in this way, such that the Son is both the cause and principle of the Spirit. That is to say, it privileges the formula ‘from the Father and the Son,’ and interprets through the Son to hold the same meaning as the former, that the Father and the Son are equally the principle of the Spirit, and that the Son therefore can be called cause and principle of the Spirit. From the Council of Florence: 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.

 

[Vico]

Florence makes no such distinction. Rather, Florence reasserts that the Father and Son are together one principle from which the Holy Spirit proceeds, like Anselm and Thomas Aquinas taught, and that through the Son is specifically supposed to be understood in this way, such that the Son is both the cause and principle of the Spirit. That is to say, it privileges the formula ‘from the Father and the Son,’ and interprets through the Son to hold the same meaning as the former, that the Father and the Son are equally the principle of the Spirit, and that the Son therefore can be called cause and principle of the Spirit. From the Council of Florence: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.

Blessed Pope John Paul II explains:After the schism various Councils during the second millennium tried to reconstruct the unity between Rome and Constantinople. The issue of the Holy Spirit’s procession from the Father and from the Son was the object of clarification especially at the Fourth Lateran Council (1215), the Second Council of Lyons (1274) and finally at the Council of Florence (1439). At this last Council we find a statement which has the value of a historical clarification and at the same time of a doctrinal declaration: “The Latins state that by saying that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and from the Son they do not mean to exclude that the Father is the source and the principle of all divinity, that is, of the Son and the Holy Spirit. Nor do they wish to deny that the Son learned from the Father that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son; nor do they hold that there are two principles or two spirations. Rather they assert that one only is the principle and one only the spiration of the Holy Spirit, as they have asserted up to now” (cf. Conciliorum Oecumenicorum Decreta, Bologna 1973, p. 526).

That was an echo of the Latin tradition which St. Thomas had well defined theologically 3] by referring to a text of St. Augustine, according to which " Pater et Filius sunt unum principium Spiritus Sancti " 4] .

The problems on the order of terminology seem thus to be resolved and the intentions clarified, to the extent that each party, the Greeks and the Latins, during the sixth session (July 6, 1439) were able to sign this common definition: “In the name of the Holy Trinity, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, with the approval of this sacred and universal Council of Florence, we establish that this truth of faith must be believed and accepted by all Christians: and thus all must profess that the Holy Spirit is eternally of the Father and the Son, that he has his existence and his subsistent being from the Father and the Son together, and that he proceeds eternally from the one and from the other as from a single principle and from a single spiration” (DS 1300).

There is an additional clarification to which St. Thomas had devoted an article of the Summa (" Utrum Spiritus Sanctus procedat a Patre per Filium ," I, q. 36, a. 3): “We declare,” said the Council, “what the holy Doctors and Fathers stated ”that is, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son” tends to make understandable and means that the Son too, like the Father, is the cause, as the Greeks say, and the principle, as the Latins say, of the subsistence of the Holy Spirit. And since all that the Father has he has given to the Son in his generation, with the exception of being Father, this very procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son the Son himself has eternally from the Father, from whom he has been eternally generated” (DS 1301)

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/audiences/alpha/data/aud19901107en.html

 

[mardukm]

Florence makes no such distinction.

Yes it does.

Rather, Florence reasserts that the Father and Son are together one principle from which the Holy Spirit proceeds,

True

like Anselm and Thomas Aquinas taught,

Anselm seems to teach that Father and Son are both the principle of “FROM” as if the Father depended on the Son by necessity to be the principle of FROM. But Florence taught that the Father is the Source of both the Son and Holy Spirit (it used a very specific term for “First Cause” applied to the Father which Florence did not apply to the Son), which undoubtedly proves that Florence made the distinction, whereas Anselm may have not.

and that through the Son is specifically supposed to be understood in this way,

Understood in what way - that it should be understood as “from?” Where does it say that? Please quote us the exact line that states that “through” should be interpreted as “from.”

such that the Son is both the cause and principle of the Spirit.

No that’s not what it says. It states that the Greek Cause should be interpreted in the same sense as the Latin Principle, but “principle” and “cause” are not perfectly equivalent in the Latin philosophical mindset, so there is no justification for this statement. It goes back to our discussion in the other thread on the filioque - remember that the Son is never thought of by Aquinas, nor the Fathers of Florence to be the causative power of the Spirit. I think Anselm did not make this distinction, but Aquinas and Florence did.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

It goes back to our discussion in the other thread on the filioque - remember that the Son is never thought of by Aquinas, nor the Fathers of Florence to be the causative power of the Spirit. I think Anselm did not make this distinction, but Aquinas and Florence did.

I find it highly relevant that the Official Clarification on Filioque quotes Aquinas, but never Anselm.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Cavaradossi]

Anselm seems to teach that Father and Son are both the principle of “FROM” as if the Father depended on the Son by necessity to be the principle of FROM. But Florence taught that the Father is the Source of both the Son and Holy Spirit (it used a very specific term for “First Cause” applied to the Father which Florence did not apply to the Son), which undoubtedly proves that Florence made the distinction, whereas Anselm may have not.

Does the council use this term first cause, or is that your gloss of the council’s use of the term source?

Understood in what way - that it should be understood as “from?” Where does it say that? Please quote us the exact line that states that “through” should be interpreted as “from.”

Strawman argument. I said that the council privileges the first by first declaring it and then declaring that the second should be interpreted in such a way as to be consistent with the conclusions if the first. That is to say, the council first establishes that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as one principle. It then goes on to establish that the phrase through the Son ought to be be understood as meaning that the Son is to be signified as cause by the Greeks and principle by the Latins of the subsistence/existence if the Holy Spirit, just as the Father. This conclusion is the natural conclusion of procession from both, but it is not necessarily the only conclusion one could draw from procession from the Father through the Son. The council thereby restricts the interpretation of proceeding from the Father through the Son so that it is completely consonant with proceeding from both. But it is clear from the text that the understanding of from both is privileged as the definition of faith, to which the more vague (or more open to interpretation) formula through the Son is made to conform, rather than the other way around. In this, they are following Aquinas who also privileges from the Son over through the Son, in arguing that through the Son ought to be understood as referring to the Son’s receiving from the Father that the Spirit proceeds from Him.

No that’s not what it says. It states that the Greek Cause should be interpreted in the same sense as the Latin Principle, but “principle” and “cause” are not perfectly equivalent in the Latin philosophical mindset, so there is no justification for this statement.

That is a fundamental misreading of the text. The council states: “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.” The error being made in the above interpretation is that two words signified of the same subject do not necessarily have identical meanings (this is in fact the most common case, that their meanings are not identical), or even meanings which overlap at all. The council, far from making the two equivalent in meaning, declares only that the Son ought to be signified as aitia according to the Greeks and principle according to the Latins, not that the two words have equivalent meanings. Even if, however, the council did intend to argue that aitia should be understood to have the same meaning as the Latin principle, this only hurts your argument, because a principle is that from which something proceeds. So just as creation is said in Latin theology to be from the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as one principle, and the Son is said to be from the Father as principle, so too the Holy Spirit is said to be from the Father and the Son as one principle.

It goes back to our discussion in the other thread on the filioque - remember that the Son is never thought of by Aquinas, nor the Fathers of Florence to be the causative power of the Spirit. I think Anselm did not make this distinction, but Aquinas and Florence did.

Such an interpretation of through the Son is rejected by both sides. It is not where the disagreement lies, so I am unsure how this is relevant.

 

[mardukm]

Does the council use this term first cause, or is that your gloss of the council’s use of the term source?

No, it’s not a gloss. There is a specific term used by Florence in reference to the Father that means “First Cause.” I forget what the Latin phrase is, but that’s what it means.

Strawman argument. I said that the council privileges the first by first declaring it and then declaring that the second should be interpreted in such a way as to be consistent with the conclusions if the first. That is to say, the council first establishes that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as one principle. It then goes on to establish that the phrase through the Son ought to be be understood as meaning that the Son is to be signified as cause by the Greeks and principle by the Latins of the subsistence/existence if the Holy Spirit, just as the Father.

It’s not a straw man argument because the above argument exactly proposes that the Son according to the Latins is the principle of “from” along w/ the Father. In contradiction to that, not only does Florence affirm positively that the Son is the principle of “through” (by equating “and” and “through,” not “from” and “through”), but Florence also called the Father “First Cause” of both the Son and HS, indicating that whatever is meant when Florence says that the Son is Cause just as the Father is Cause cannot mean First Cause, because the Son does not generate Himself.

This conclusion is the natural conclusion of procession from both

It’s not the natural conclusion if one take the full context of the decree (see highlighted portions above)

but it is not necessarily the only conclusion one could draw from procession from the Father through the Son.] The council thereby restricts the interpretation of proceeding from the Father through the Son so that it is completely consonant with proceeding from both. But it is clear from the text that the understanding of from both is privileged as the definition of faith,

I can agree with this, but only with the condition that “from” in reference to the Son is to be taken in the same way that St. Cyril uses the term “from” - i.e., as agency or second cause. Remember that procedit is equivalent to proienai, not ekporeusai, and St. Cyril and other Fathers have no problem using the term “from” in reference to the Son when proienai (or, equivalently, procedit) is utilized.

to which the more vague (or more open to interpretation) formula through the Son is made to conform, rather than the other way around. In this, they are following Aquinas who also privileges from the Son over through the Son, in arguing that through the Son ought to be understood as referring to the Son’s receiving from the Father that the Spirit proceeds from Him.

That’s a good analysis, but the very argument collapses at this point, because if the Son is receiving of the Father in this one principle, then the Son cannot be the causative power or the Source, exactly as Aquinas and Florence teach.

The council states: “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.” The error being made in the above interpretation is that two words signified of the same subject do not necessarily have identical meanings (this is in fact the most common case, that their meanings are not identical), or even meanings which overlap at all. The council, far from making the two equivalent in meaning, declares only that the Son ought to be signified as aitia according to the Greeks and principle according to the Latins, not that the two words have equivalent meanings. Even if, however, the council did intend to argue that aitia should be understood to have the same meaning as the Latin principle, this only hurts your argument, because a principle is that from which something proceeds.

That’s all wrong. This argument is forgetting the fact that the Latins use procedit, and the Greeks use ekporeusai, which are not equivalent terms. It is clear that the Latins and Greeks at Florence understood that the phrase “ekporeusai from the Father through the Son” was equivalent to “procedit from the Father and the Son.” However, the problem was that the Latins thought that by the admission of this equivalence, when the Greeks used “aitia,” the Greeks included"through the Son" in its definition of the term in the same way that “and/through the Son” is included in the Latin use of “principaliter.” Hence, the decree states that the Greek aitia is to be understood in the same way as the Latin principaliter, But the premise was erroneous, because the Greek use of "aitia does not in fact include “through the Son” in the definition of the term,. Whatever else may be said, the Latins did not think of aitia in the sense that the Son should be the Causative power.

CONT’d

 

[mardukm]

CONT’d

So just as creation is said in Latin theology to be from the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as one principle, and the Son is said to be from the Father as principle, so too the Holy Spirit is said to be from the Father and the Son as one principle.

It is a proper analogy, but the argument disproves your argument that the Latins think of the Father and Son as being the Source together of the Holy Spirit, because even in Creation, the Son is differentiated from the Father in that the Son is never considered the Source or First Cause, even while they can both be called “causes.”

Such an interpretation of through the Son is rejected by both sides. It is not where the disagreement lies, so I am unsure how this is relevant.

That’s exactly where the disagreement lies because while the Latins teach that the Son is not the Causative power (only the Father is the Causative power), non-Catholics insist that is what they are teaching, and thereby pretend to charge Catholics with heterdoxy.

Here is what the Official Clarication on Filioque, promulgated by HH JP2 of thrice-blessed memory, states:
“Without wishing to resolve yet the difficulties which have arisen between East and West concerning the relationship between the Son and the Spirit, we can already say together that this Spirit, which proceeds from the Father (Jn. 15:26) as the sole source in the Trinity…The Father alone is the principle without principle (arche anarchos) of the two other persons of the Trinity, the sole source (peghe) of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit, therefore, takes his origin from the Father alone (ek monou tou Patros) in a principal, proper, and immediate manner”

In a footnote to these statements, the Official Clarification indicates that this is the terminology that Aquinas himself uses.

So what is the source for claiming that “such an interperetation is rejected by [the Catholic Church]?” Your own interpretation? Shouldn’t we let the Magisterium of the CC herself interpret her own Latin theologians?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Cavaradossi]

No, it’s not a gloss. There is a specific term used by Florence in reference to the Father that means “First Cause.” I forget what the Latin phrase is, but that’s what it means. Have you never read the decree of Florence aside from the snippets proferred by non-Catholic polemicists?

I have in fact read several segments from the council as well as the decree (the phrase first cause, however, appears nowhere in the decree, to my knowledge), both in secondary literature and segments from the council itself. I know, for example, that the Latins rejected Maximus’ Letter to Marinus as being of dubious origin. When Andrew or Rhodes accidentally introduced the letter again later in order to support the filioque by showing that the addition to the creed was of ancient origin, the Greeks seized upon this opportunity by trying to use the Letter to Marinus as a means for reunion, telling the Latins, “If this letter is accepted gladly on your part, the union will happily proceed.” The Latin delegates, instead of accepting these terms, chided Andrew of Rhodes for including the letter, and continued to maintain that Maximus’ Letter was of dubious authenticity.

Nilus Cabasilas, writing many decades before Florence, commented rather humorously on the tendency of the Latins to vacillate on the authenticity of Maximus’ letter, sometimes affirming it when it was convenient and other times denying that it was authentic when the Letter became inconvenient: “But it is completely ridiculous for the Latins to be at war against themselves, sometimes not being ashamed to bring it forth against us declaring that this letter of the divine Maximus is genuine… and other times, when we defend ourselves from this letter in a way that seems best to us, they maintain the opposite, ashamed to agree with their earlier position.” Nothing seems to have changed since then.

I also know that at the council of Florence, the terms first and second cause were discussed (yet they seem to be absent from the decree). It was Bessarion who was the first in the Greek party to try and draw up such a distinction, trying to argue that what Maximus and John of Damascus meant when they wrote that the Son is not cause of the Spirit was that the Son was not the cause of the Spirit in the sense of being the primordial cause, but that the Son was a cause of the Spirit. This suggestion was of course gladly accepted by the Latins, but it caused an immediate split in the Greek party, a majority of whom opposed Bessarion and sided with Mark of Ephesus’ reading of Maximus and John of Damascus, that they intended to exclude the Son from causality in general, and not to exclude the Son only from being the primordial cause.

And yet again, I also know that Palamas’ teachings as well as teachings regarding the Spirit’s eternal manifestation through the Son were forbidden by imperial intervention to be mentioned at the council, despite Mark of Ephesus’ desire to do so. When the Latins, for example, asked Mark of Ephesus whether the gifts of the Spirit were created or uncreated, the Emperor demanded that he not mention Palamas, and obediently Mark of Ephesus remained silent. When the Latins continued to insist that he answer, the Emperor intervened reminding them that these questions were not on the agenda.

It’s not a straw man argument because the above argument exactly proposes that the Son according to the Latins is the principle of “from” along w/ the Father. In contradiction to that, not only does Florence affirm positively that the Son is the principle of “through” (by equating “and” and “through,” not “from” and “through”), but Florence also called the Father “First Cause” of both the Son and HS, indicating that whatever is meant when Florence says that the Son is Cause just as the Father is Cause cannot mean First Cause, because the Son does not generate Himself.

The Latin teaching is that the Son is one principle with the Father. There is no mean or difference between the Father and the Son as far as the power of spiration is concerned. The only difference is that the power of spiration is proper to the Father and given to the Son, but as far as the Spirit’s origin is concerned, the two are one, and the Spirit is from them. The Father and the Son cannot be regarded as different kinds of principles (for then there would be two principles), nor can one be said to be more cause of the Spirit than the other, rather, the Father is said to be the primordial or first cause only because the power of spiration is proper to Him, and not because the Holy Spirit proceeds from one more than the other. It is this teaching that the Council is declaring the phrase ‘from the Father through the Son’ to be equivalent to. They are not trying to define what is already known (the meaning of proceeding from both) by the meaning of what is more vague (from the Father through the Son), but they are working the other way around, as Thomas Aquinas does in ST I.36.iii, defining what is more vague to conform to what is known.

 

[Cavaradossi]

It’s not the natural conclusion if one take the full context of the decree (see highlighted portions above)

So then Son being called principle of the Holy Spirit’s subsistence is not the natural conclusion of the affirmation that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as from one principle? That is a pretty funny joke.

I can agree with this, but only with the condition that “from” in reference to the Son is to be taken in the same way that St. Cyril uses the term “from” - i.e., as agency or second cause.

Cyril only uses the term from the Son in connection to verbs like πρόειμι and προχέω, but not with the verb ἐκπορεύω. Nowhere does St. Cyril ever suggest, as the Latins do, that the Spirit is said to progress from the Son because the Father gives to the Son the power to spirate the Spirit.

Remember that procedit is equivalent to proienai, not ekporeusai, and St. Cyril and other Fathers have no problem using the term “from” in reference to the Son when proienai (or, equivalently, procedit) is utilized.

Strange, because when Scholarius issued the statement, “We Greeks confess and believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds ἐκπορεύεσθαι] from the Father, is proper to the Son and gushes forth ἀναβλύζειν] from him, and we affirm and believe that he flows forth προχεῖσθαι] substantially from both, namely from the Father through the Son,” the Latins rejected it, precisely because they did not understand what was meant by terms like προχεῖσθαι. In fact, if the Latins properly understood procedere to mean progression or pouring forth, then this would mean that they never had any word to convey the teaching of the eternal origination of the Spirit from the Father, which would be truly an absurd thing to believe.

That’s a good analysis, but the very argument collapses at this point, because if the Son is receiving of the Father in this one principle, then the Son cannot be the causative power or the Source, exactly as Aquinas and Florence teach.

Again the Son being the causative power is not what has ever been in dispute, because nobody has taught such a blasphemous teaching. Nor is the dispute over whether the Son could be accounted the primordial cause of the Spirit. Both of these are so plainly wrong that they have always been rejected. What is in dispute is whether or not the Spirit can be understood as taking its very origin from the Father and the Son as one principle, in such a way that the Son can be said to be the principle of the Spirit, as the Latins teach, and whether the Son can be accounted as a cause of the Spirit in any sense of the term cause. We reject both of these, knowing that the Spirit originates from the Father alone, proceeding from him and proceeding through the Son, but not from the Son as origin.

That’s all wrong. This argument is forgetting the fact that the Latins use procedit, and the Greeks use ekporeusai, which are not equivalent terms.

No, I have not forgotten of this fact. But anybody who has read even a miniscule amount of Latin theology should know that in claiming that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, what is meant is that the Spirit takes origin from both as one principle, and this we deny and have always denied.

It is clear that the Latins and Greeks at Florence understood that the phrase “ekporeusai from the Father through the Son” was equivalent to “procedit from the Father and the Son.”

Anybody who reads the acts and commentaries on the council will know that this is the furthest thing from the truth. Who were these Greeks? Perhaps Bessarion did. But then he was so blinded by his pro-unionism that he affirmed that through and from were equivalent, and furthermore believed that there was no difference between verbs like ἐκπορεύω and πρόειμι, something which everybody knows is false. Mark of Ephesus? Surely he did not believe that the two were equivalent. In fact, when the Latins first sent the Greeks the formula calling the two equivalent, a majority of the Greeks rejected it. Only later was it accepted with the promise of military aid, and several pleas from pro-unionists in the Greek party for the anti-unionists to think of their homeland.

 

[Cavaradossi]

However, the problem was that the Latins thought that by the admission of this equivalence, when the Greeks used “aitia,” the Greeks included"through the Son" in its definition of the term in the same way that “and/through the Son” is included in the Latin use of “principaliter.” Hence, the decree states that the Greek aitia is to be understood in the same way as the Latin principaliter, But the premise was erroneous, because the Greek use of "aitia does not in fact include “through the Son” in the definition of the term,. Whatever else may be said, the Latins did not think of aitia in the sense that the Son should be the Causative power.

Again with this stuff about the Son as causative power. This is nothing but a red herring, To my knowledge, it is not a point of contention, as nobody has taught such a thing, that having the Spirit proceed from Him is proper to the Son (I do not recall this ever coming up at Florence, for example). The contention still remains over whether the Son can be said to be a cause of the Spirit, and whether the Spirit proceeds from both equally, the first of which we deny without hesitation, and the second of which we deny in the sense that proceeds means to originate from.

It is a proper analogy, but the argument disproves your argument that the Latins think of the Father and Son as being the Source together of the Holy Spirit, because even in Creation, the Son is differentiated from the Father in that the Son is never considered the Source or First Cause, even while they can both be called “causes.”

The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit have always been understood to be the principle and origin of creatures. The only thing that differs is that the persons have the power of creation in different ways, owing to the differing personal relations. However, it still does not mean that the Son is not held to be the origin of the Spirit, as the Latin theologians teach.

That’s exactly where the disagreement lies because while the Latins teach that the Son is not the Causative power (only the Father is the Causative power), non-Catholics insist that is what they are teaching, and thereby pretend to charge Catholics with heterdoxy.

The Catholics (by your own admission) teach that the Son is a cause of the Holy Spirit, and this is what we object to. We do not quarrel over the idea that the Son is the causative power which causes the Spirit because nobody teaches that, so it is irrelevant.

Here is what the Official Clarication on Filioque, promulgated by HH JP2 of thrice-blessed memory, states:
“Without wishing to resolve yet the difficulties which have arisen between East and West concerning the relationship between the Son and the Spirit, we can already say together that this Spirit, which proceeds from the Father (Jn. 15:26) as the sole source in the Trinity…The Father alone is the principle without principle (arche anarchos) of the two other persons of the Trinity, the sole source (peghe) of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit, therefore, takes his origin from the Father alone (ek monou tou Patros) in a principal, proper, and immediate manner”

In a footnote to these statements, the Official Clarification indicates that this is the terminology that Aquinas himself uses.

Aquinas also writes that the Spirit takes his origin from the Son in a mediate manner, and that this distinction is made only insofar as the power of spiration is proper to the Father and given to the Son, such that both are one principle from which the Spirit proceeds.

So what is the source for claiming that “such an interperetation is rejected by [the Catholic Church]?” Your own interpretation? Shouldn’t we let the Magisterium of the CC herself interpret her own Latin theologians?

You wrote: It goes back to our discussion in the other thread on the filioque - remember that the Son is never thought of by Aquinas, nor the Fathers of Florence to be the causative power of the Spirit. I think Anselm did not make this distinction, but Aquinas and Florence did.

In response, I wrote: Such an interpretation of through the Son is rejected by both sides. It is not where the disagreement lies, so I am unsure how this is relevant.

Should it not be clear that I was saying that both sides reject the interpretation of through as meaning that the Son is the causative power of the Spirit? What, does the Roman Catholic Church secretly teach this? I was under the impression that it did not, and so I dismissed it as irrelevant because it is not a point of contention.

We are getting far afield from the topic of economic procession .

The topic actually was Anselm… Perhaps we should return to it.

 

[mardukm]

I have in fact read several segments from the council as well as the decree (the phrase first cause, however, appears nowhere in the decree, to my knowledge), both in secondary literature and segments from the council itself.

The term Florence uses is “principle without principle.” It is cited in the Official Clarification I quoted earlier (thankfully, I didn’t have to do research on the original Latin text, which I don’t have time to do, and I don’t know where to start on the I-net. ). In Greek, it is arche anarchia. That refers to nothing more nor less than “First Cause.”

I know, for example, that the Latins rejected Maximus’ Letter to Marinus as being of dubious origin. When Andrew or Rhodes accidentally introduced the letter again later in order to support the filioque by showing that the addition to the creed was of ancient origin, the Greeks seized upon this opportunity by trying to use the Letter to Marinus as a means for reunion, telling the Latins, “If this letter is accepted gladly on your part, the union will happily proceed.” The Latin delegates, instead of accepting these terms, chided Andrew of Rhodes for including the letter, and continued to maintain that Maximus’ Letter was of dubious authenticity.

Thanks for that info. I had surmised they had theological grounds to refuse it But I guess their reason was more pragmatic. Too bad it was refused.

Nilus Cabasilas, writing many decades before Florence, commented rather humorously on the tendency of the Latins to vacillate on the authenticity of Maximus’ letter…Nothing seems to have changed since then.

Can you cite a Catholic source that today refuses its authenticity?

at the council of Florence, the terms first and second cause were discussed (yet they seem to be absent from the decree).

Florence affirmed that the Father was arche anarchia, and affirmed that “and” should be equated with “through.” Same thing. No need to get stuck on terminologies. The concept is definitely there.

It was Bessarion who was the first in the Greek party to try and draw up such a distinction, trying to argue that what Maximus and John of Damascus meant when they wrote that the Son is not cause of the Spirit was that the Son was not the cause of the Spirit in the sense of being the primordial cause, but that the Son was a cause of the Spirit. This suggestion was of course gladly accepted by the Latins, but it caused an immediate split in the Greek party, a majority of whom opposed Bessarion and sided with Mark of Ephesus’ reading of Maximus and John of Damascus, that they intended to exclude the Son from causality in general, and not to exclude the Son only from being the primordial cause.

Interesting. St. Photius definitely spoke only in terms of the primordial cause. His whole point was making the Son the Origin of the Holy Spirit, either separately, or together with the Father. Maximus cannot be counted on the anti-filioque side because he accepted the Latin understanding of “through the Son.” The Damascene also taught explicitly “ekporeusai through the Son, not from the Son” so neither can he be counted on the anti-filioque side. Blacharnae also makes the same point about refusing to make the Son the Origin. This is nothing more than the traditional Cappadocian distinction. I haven’t investigated St. Palamas to see if his main objection is also about making the Son the Origin of Hypostasis). I have noticed Mark of Ephesus distinguished the concepts of “cause” and “source,” but it is not at all clear that when he stated “cause,” he meant “cause in all its senses” or merely “causative power” or “source.”

CONT’d

 

[mardukm]

CONT’d

Here is what MofE states: "Behold how we, together with the Damascene and all the Fathers, do not say that the Spirit proceeds from the Son, while they, together with the Latins, say that the Spirit proceeds from the Son. And we, together with the divine Dionysios say that tte Father is the sole Source of the supernatural divinity while say togther with the Latins that the Son also is the Source of the Holy Spirit, by this clearly excluding the Spirit from the Divinity. And we, togther with Gregory the Theologian, distinguishes Father from the Son in His capacity of being Cause, while they together with the Latins unite Them into one in the capacity of being Cause. And we, together with St. Maximus and the Romans of that time and the Western Fathers, "do not make the Son the Cause of the Spirit,’ while they, in their Conciliar Decree (Act of Union), proclaim the Son ‘in Greek, Cause and in Latin, Principle’ of the Spirit. And we, together with the Philosopher and Justin Martyr affirm ‘As the Son is from the Father, so is the Spirit form the Father’ while they say together with the Latins that the Son proceeds from the Father immediately, and the Spirit from the Father mediately…"
I have a few comments/criticisms on this excerpt, to demonstrate that Mark of Ephesus did not really grasp the Latin teaching (which is good as far as ecumenical relations go):
(1) MofE states that the Latins say that the Spirit “proceeds from the Son.” It must be pointed out that the Greeks were using ekporeusai, while the Latins were using procedit. While it is perfectly orthodox for Latins to say “procedit from the Son” (in the same sense that several Fathers write that HS proienai from the Son - i.e., as second cause or agency), it is heterodox to say “ekporeusai from the Son.” So he was probably as unaware as the Latins that ekporeusai was not equivalent to procedit.
(2) MofE accuses Florence as teaching that the Son is the source of the HS along with the Father, which is clearly not the case. The only place where he could have conceivably obtained that impression is where the decree states that the Son is Cause just as the Father is Cause. This dictates that MofE understood “Cause” to mean “Source.” His point here is that it excludes HS from the divinity.
(3) He continues by criticizing the application of the term “cause” to the Son, but there is no indication here that he means “cause in all senses,” because he just very plainly equated “cause” and “source.” Further, he indicates that he understands “cause” in the same sense as St. Gregory Nazianzen. But it is a fact that though St. Gregory wrote that only the Father is Cause, he nevertheless states that "If ever there was a time when the Father was not, then there was a time when the Son was not. If ever there was a time when the Son was not, then there was a time when the Spirit was not. St. Gregory is clearly distinguishing the concept of second cause, dictating that when St. Gregory stated the Father alone is “Cause,” he meant the primordial or First Cause (i.e., Source/Origin).
(4) MofE states that the Western Fathers do not make the Son the Cause of the Spirit, but they do in fact refer to the Son as cause, but not as First Cause or Source – only second cause or agency. Again, this statement indicates that MofE understood “Cause” in terms of “source.”
(5) MofE criticizes the Latins for teaching the Son proceeds (ekporeusai) from the Father immediately, and the Spirit from the Father mediately, indicating that he understands “cause” to mean “causative power.” But the CC does not teach this. As you know, Aquinas proposed that concept, but he had to clarify that the Son’s involvement is not as causative power, because it is certainly possible to assume that the Son is some sort of causative power with the statement MofE criticized.

So there is no warrant for condemnation of the actual Latin teaching on filioque from Mark of Ephesus, and no indication that he understood “cause” to mean “cause in all senses.” Where do modern EO apologists get the idea that “Cause” should mean “cause in all senses,” and not First Cause or Source/Origin?

And yet again, I also know that Palamas’ teachings as well as teachings regarding the Spirit’s eternal manifestation through the Son were forbidden by imperial intervention to be mentioned at the council, despite Mark of Ephesus’ desire to do so. When the Latins, for example, asked Mark of Ephesus whether the gifts of the Spirit were created or uncreated, the Emperor demanded that he not mention Palamas, and obediently Mark of Ephesus remained silent. When the Latins continued to insist that he answer, the Emperor intervened reminding them that these questions were not on the agenda.

Seems sensible if the issue was about the internal/eternal relations, and not the economic activity of God.

CONT’d

 

[mardukm]

CONT’d

The Latin teaching is that the Son is one principle with the Father. There is no mean or difference between the Father and the Son as far as the power of spiration is concerned. The only difference is that the power of spiration is proper to the Father and given to the Son

That’s quite a difference , not believably described as “NO mean or difference.” Even Aquinas insisted on this difference in Question 36, despite past claims to the contrary that Aquinas did not dstinguish “from” and “through” in the Godhead. In fact, in Question 36 (I finally took the time to read some Aquinas on the matter), he admits that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father ALONE. The divine relations are a great mystery indeed, and we can only see as through a glass darkly on this matter.

but as far as the Spirit’s origin is concerned, the two are one, and the Spirit is from them.

I disagree with this characterization. None of the magisterial documents speak of the Son as Origin. They speak only of the Son as principle, which has two philosophical causes - the Origin or Source Who is the Father, and the agency Who is the Son. I don’t doubt that there may be individual theologians who use the term “Origin” in reference to the Son. All I’m saying is that I haven’t found it in MAGISTERIAL documents, which is the only basis for my belief.

The Father and the Son cannot be regarded as different kinds of principles (for then there would be two principles), nor can one be said to be more cause of the Spirit than the other, rather, the Father is said to be the primordial or first cause only because the power of spiration is proper to Him, and not because the Holy Spirit proceeds from one more than the other. It is this teaching that the Council is declaring the phrase ‘from the Father through the Son’ to be equivalent to.

I agree with this explanation. Thank you.

So then Son being called principle of the Holy Spirit’s subsistence is not the natural conclusion of the affirmation that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as from one principle? That is a pretty funny joke.

No. That was not the conclusion claimed. You stated “But it is clear from the text that the understanding of from both is privileged as the definition of faith, to which the more vague (or more open to interpretation) formula through the Son is made to conform, rather than the other way around.” It’s not the natural conclusion to make the Son the principle of being "from"along with the Father, especially after Florence asserted that the Father is the arche anarchia of both Son and Holy Spirit. One cannot draw this conclusion, unless one shows that Florence called the Son arche anarchia also. Good luck with doing the impossible. That is the not-funny non-Catholic misinterpretation of the Catholic teaching.

Cyril only uses the term from the Son in connection to verbs like πρόειμι and προχέω, but not with the verb ἐκπορεύω.

That’s what I said.

Nowhere does St. Cyril ever suggest, as the Latins do, that the Spirit is said to progress from the Son because the Father gives to the Son the power to spirate the Spirit.

Where does the CC teaches that “the Father gives to the Son the power to Spirate the Spirit?” Can you please quote it? What the CC teaches is that the Father alone has the power to spirate, and that the spiration is through the Son. That is not the same as saying that the Son is given the power to spirate, for that would then either make the Son another causative power or principle, or cause the Son to intrude on the Father’s prerogative as Arche, neither of which the CC teaches. I can see that the argument here depends on a misinterpretation of the Catholic teaching.

Strange, because when Scholarius issued the statement, “We Greeks confess and believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds ἐκπορεύεσθαι] from the Father, is proper to the Son and gushes forth ἀναβλύζειν] from him, and we affirm and believe that he flows forth προχεῖσθαι] substantially from both, namely from the Father through the Son,” the Latins rejected it, precisely because they did not understand what was meant by terms like προχεῖσθαι.

That proves my point exactly, as related in the Official Clarification. The Latins thought that the Greek ekporeusai of the Creed was equivalent to the Latin procedit. They would naturally reject a Greek term other than ekporeusai, for they were trying to remain faithful to the Creed according to their understanding. Introducing another Greek word would not do. Understand that BOTH ekporeusai AND proienai were traditionally translated as procedit.

In fact, if the Latins properly understood procedere to mean progression or pouring forth, then this would mean that they never had any word to convey the teaching of the eternal origination of the Spirit from the Father, which would be truly an absurd thing to believe.

That’s exactly what St. Maximos understood. There is a Latin word for “originates,” but it would be the same word used of the Son’s generation. So, yes, there was no word the Latins could conceivably have used to properly translate ekporeusai, while distinguishing from the Son’s generation.

CONT’d

 

[mardukm]

CONT’d

What is in dispute is whether or not the Spirit can be understood as taking its very origin from the Father and the Son as one principle, in such a way that the Son can be said to be the principle of the Spirit, as the Latins teach, and whether the Son can be accounted as a cause of the Spirit in any sense of the term cause. We reject both of these, knowing that the Spirit originates from the Father alone, proceeding from him and proceeding through the Son, but not from the Son as origin.

Well, then. Problem solved, because it is obvious the objection is based on a misinterpretation of the Catholic teaching. The CC teaches that the Father ALONE is the Origin of HS, and in the one principle of the Procession, the Father is the principle of being “from” while the Son is only the principle of being “through.” Never has the CC taught otherwise.

No, I have not forgotten of this fact. But anybody who has read even a miniscule amount of Latin theology should know that in claiming that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, what is meant is that the Spirit takes origin from both as one principle, and this we deny and have always denied.

Anyone who has read the Official Clarification will know that this is a false understanding of the Catholic teaching. I know you love the theologians, but try sticking to the Magisterial documents.

Anybody who reads the acts and commentaries on the council will know that this is the furthest thing from the truth. Who were these Greeks? Perhaps Bessarion did. But then he was so blinded by his pro-unionism that he affirmed that through and from were equivalent, and furthermore believed that there was no difference between verbs like ἐκπορεύω and πρόειμι, something which everybody knows is false.

I can agree with the criticism that he thought ekporeusai, proienai, proxeisthai, etc. were equivalent. It appears everyone had that impression. But I’m not sure I can agree that Bessarion believed “through” and “from” were equivalent - at least you haven’t presented such evidence.

Mark of Ephesus? Surely he did not believe that the two were equivalent. In fact, when the Latins first sent the Greeks the formula calling the two equivalent, a majority of the Greeks rejected it.

Of course. I was speaking of those who agreed to the union. But regrding the verbs, I’m sure MofE had the same misconception on their equivalence as everyone else - otherwise, he would not have objected if he understood they were not equivalent. Here’s the difference between the pro-union and anti-union positions, even with the same misconception on the verbs:
The pro-unionists understood that the Latins did not teach that the Son is a causative power, source, or origin of HS (which is the actual Latin teaching, and the teaching of the CC).
The anti-unionists understood that the Latins were exactly teaching that the Son is a causative power, source and origin of HS (which is not the Latin teaching). This misunderstanding is very evident in MofE’s own Letter against the union, and also evident in your own comments.

Only later was it accepted with the promise of military aid, and several pleas from pro-unionists in the Greek party for the anti-unionists to think of their homeland.

I can’t believe bishops would support a union based on purely political motives. They must have had a real theological basis for their belief in the union.

Again with this stuff about the Son as causative power. This is nothing but a red herring, To my knowledge, it is not a point of contention, as nobody has taught such a thing, that having the Spirit proceed from Him is proper to the Son (I do not recall this ever coming up at Florence, for example). The contention still remains over whether the Son can be said to be a cause of the Spirit, and whether the Spirit proceeds from both equally, the first of which we deny without hesitation

I don’t understand. Why else do EO criticize applying the term “cause” to the Son, if not for the (mis)understanding that the CC teaches that the Son is indeed a causative power? Please explain the theological problem EO have with applying the term “cause” to the Son. NOTE: saying “the term is used of the Father” is wholly insufficient, for that is only semantics. We need to get to the meat of the matter.

CONT’d

 

[mardukm]

CONT’d

the second of which we deny in the sense that proceeds means to originate from.

No problem on this point, magisterially speaking - though some individual, popular theologians need to correct their language to reflect the Church’s true teaching on the matter.

The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit have always been understood to be the principle and origin of creatures. The only thing that differs is that the persons have the power of creation in different ways, owing to the differing personal relations. However, it still does not mean that the Son is not held to be the origin of the Spirit, as the Latin theologians teach.

I’ll agree that certain Latin theologians teach this, but it is not the dogma of the CC.

The Catholics (by your own admission) teach that the Son is a cause of the Holy Spirit, and this is what we object to.

Understood. But I am not aware of any patristic source, even as late as Mark of Ephesus (and you have not presented any proof), that “Cause” should be interpreted as “cause in all its senses.”

Aquinas also writes that the Spirit takes his origin from the Son in a mediate manner, and that this distinction is made only insofar as the power of spiration is proper to the Father and given to the Son, such that both are one principle from which the Spirit proceeds.

Please give the quote? I know Aquinas states that the Son emanates from the Father immediately, and HS emanates from the Father mediately, but I can’t find where he states that the Spirit “takes his origin from the Son” in any manner. This relates to my earlier objection to the (mis)characterization that the CC teaches the Father and Son together are Origin of HS – the Catholic teaching is that the Father ALONE is the Origin of the Holy Spirit, while in the one principle of spiration, the Son is the agency of spiration. and not as though the Son was GIVEN THE POWER of spiration (which is the Father’s alone).

We do not quarrel over the idea that the Son is the causative power which causes the Spirit because nobody teaches that, so it is irrelevant…
You wrote: It goes back to our discussion in the other thread on the filioque - remember that the Son is never thought of by Aquinas, nor the Fathers of Florence to be the causative power of the Spirit. I think Anselm did not make this distinction, but Aquinas and Florence did.

In response, I wrote: Such an interpretation of through the Son is rejected by both sides. It is not where the disagreement lies, so I am unsure how this is relevant.

Should it not be clear that I was saying that both sides reject the interpretation of through as meaning that the Son is the causative power of the Spirit? What, does the Roman Catholic Church secretly teach this? I was under the impression that it did not, and so I dismissed it as irrelevant because it is not a point of contention.

On the wrong premise that Aquinas did not distinguish between the philosophical causes (i.e., source as distinct from agency) with respect to the spiration, you tried to claim in an earlier thread that the Son, along with the Father, is the Causative power of the Spirit. Or were you perhaps just trying to clear up your own puzzlement at what Aquinas was teaching in relation to official Catholic dogma without making an argument pro or con? In any case, if you were arguing it, there is no shame in admitting so, for it is reflected in Blacharnae’s own objections to Beccus. Of course, what Beccus was proposing (which seems to reflect Anselm more than Aquinas) was not the teaching of the CC (though it may have been the view of a singular Latin theologian here and there).

The topic actually was Anselm… Perhaps we should return to it.

Sorry, I got this thread confused with the economic procession thread. . I am not interested in discussing Anselm. His position is not the Catholic position. My only interest in him is that I now see a source of the misunderstandings. Anselm’s statements can too easily be interpreted to mean that the Essence is the Cause of the Hypostases (we do not believe that the Holy Spirit is such by reason of which the Father and the Son are two, but from that by which they are one), and other ideas that are simply not Catholic teaching (“For the Holy Spirit is from the Father and the Son being the same” and “Nor is his originating from the Father greater or lesser than is his originating from the Son”). Whoever said Saints were correct in absolutely everything they said or wrote about?

Blessings,
Marduk

P.S. I will take a break for a bit from this thread so I can address other threads.

 

[mardukm]

I must clarify that while it is wholly incorrect and a misrepresentation of Catholic teaching to say “the Father with the Son is the origin of the Holy Spirit,” I have read some theologians refer to Them together as the “principle of origin.” I think this is somewhat acceptable, though obviously also likely to be misunderstood – i.e., “principle of origin” as a philosophical concept CAN denote (1) a source/origin and an agency, (2) two separate sources/origins contributing separately and equally, or (3) two conjoined sources/origins dependent on each other of necessity. The Catholic teaching is (1), but NIEVER (2).or (3).

Blessings.
Marduk