Augustine's simple substance and filioque

  • Thread starter Thread starter Dave_in_Dallas
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
D

Dave_in_Dallas

Guest
So not trying to cause another big firestorm. Am wondering how Augustine’s view of God as simple substance and thus deriving the filioque changed to RC and EO agreeing that father generates both son and holy spirit.

Seems like definition of what filioque means has changed over time?
 
Dave_in_Dallas said:
So not trying to cause another big firestorm. Am wondering how Augustine’s view of God as simple substance and thus deriving the filioque changed to RC and EO agreeing that father generates both son and holy spirit.

Seems like definition of what filioque means has changed over time?
Click to expand...
“The Holy Spirit is neither generate nor ingenerate, but rather is He who proceeds from the Father and the Son, as a harmony, we may say of Both.”

St. Eucherius of Lyons, Spic. Rom., 5:93, written after 454 A.D.

On the Trinity, Book 6:6-7, by St. Augustine, he teaches that God is simple substance becaues He is unchangable, but still has attributes, which are one:

“The Son is in no respect equal with the Father, if He is found to be unequal in anything which has to do with signifying His substance, as we have already shown. But the apostle has said that He is equal. Therefore the Son is equal with the Father in all things, and is of one and the same substance”

[The Holy Spirit] “consists in the same unity of substance, and in the same equality”

“And in Him it is not one thing to be blessed, and another to be great, or wise, or true, or good, or in a word to be Himself”
 
And Augustine is a controversial figure in the East, being referred to only as “Blessed Augustine” for the most part.

St John Cassian disagreed with Bl. Augustine on a number of points which is why Cassian isn’t in the Roman calendar, but is only venerated locally in southern France.

Alex
 
Alexander_Roman said:
And Augustine is a controversial figure in the East, being referred to only as “Blessed Augustine” for the most part.

St John Cassian disagreed with Bl. Augustine on a number of points which is why Cassian isn’t in the Roman calendar, but is only venerated locally in southern France.

Alex
Click to expand...
He’s still a saint. We celebrate him and St. Monican on June 15. We also venerate St. John Cassian. 😉

In Christ,
Andrew
 
Far be it from me to “de-canonize” Augustine! 😉

Recently, I visited a friend who is a priest and he took me on a (two-hour) tour of his parish church and its iconography (Sts Cyril and Methodius in St Catharines, Ontario).

The icons were done by an Orthodox Christians and, lo and behold, there were two medallions with the icons of “Blessed Augustine” and “Blessed Jerome!”

Normally, in the EC Church, we refer to them as “Saint” - I pointed this out to him, and he coughed and we walked on . . .

Alex
 
It is my understanding that the Roman Church originally did not have the filioque. There is a silver plaque in St Peter’s which omits the filioque.
At one time, the people in Rome wanted to kill Pope Leo who fled over the alps to Charlemagne for protection. Charlemagne had adopted filioque. The Byzantine Emperor resented Charlemagne. He felt that as Emperor he was the Icon of God and there should be no other emperors.
The Orthodox condemn the filioque because their understanding of “proceeds” means that only the father is the prime cause so that the holy spirit should not also proceed from the Son. The Romans say their understanding of the word “proceeds” with the filioque, does not discount the Father as the primary cause.
In my opinion, the introduction of the filioque originally was political, does not discount the role of the Father, and is not as important as the Orthodox make it.
 
Dear brother Dave,
Dave_in_Dallas said:
So not trying to cause another big firestorm. Am wondering how Augustine’s view of God as simple substance and thus deriving the filioque changed to RC and EO agreeing that father generates both son and holy spirit.

Seems like definition of what filioque means has changed over time?
Click to expand...
Can you please explain what you mean?

The Latin Catholic Church has ALWAYS understood the phrase “proceeds from the Father and the Son” as a reference to the transmission of the divine SUBSTANCE or ESSENCE. So there has been no change.

Due to the peculiarities of language (i.e., ekporeusai vs. procedit), the Eastern/Oriental Church originally understood the phrase to mean BOTH the transmission of divine Substance/Essence, AND the origination of hypostasis.

In the time of St. Maximos the confessor, this was still apparently the case.

It is my personal theory that beyond this period, particularly exemplified by St. Photius, for whatever reason, the Eastern Church in particular began to focus more on the origination of hypostasis as the sole understanding of that phrase, making it more difficult for the Latins and Greeks to have rapprochement on the matter.

I also believe that St. Palamas made a solid contribution to the recovery of the original intention of the Fathers of the Second Ecum by making a distinction between the eternal Energetic Procession (in which the Son participates), and the eternal Hypostatic Procession (which is from the Father alone).

Blessings,
Marduk
 
As I understand it Augustine theorized that the Father couldn’t be the sole originator of both the Son and the Spirit because if so the Son and Spirit would be identical and not separate persons. Therefore the Spirit proceeds from the Son.
 
Dear brother Dave,
Dave_in_Dallas said:
As I understand it Augustine theorized that the Father couldn’t be the sole originator of both the Son and the Spirit because if so the Son and Spirit would be identical and not separate persons. Therefore the Spirit proceeds from the Son.
Click to expand...
From my studies of the issue, I’m not aware that this particular theory of St. Augustine ever influenced the Latin Catholic Church’s dogma on filioque. Apart from St. Augustine, I am not aware of any Latin Church authority (Ecumenical or otherwise) who demanded filioque for the express purpose of distinguishing between the divine act of Generation and the divine act of Procession. In other words, filioque was not included for the purpose of answering the question, “What is the difference between ‘Generation’ and ‘Procession’?”

Filioque was included for the sole purpose of establishing the equality of the divine Essence Substance in the three Persons of the Trinity (to combat a form of Arianism in the West).

Blessings,
Marduk
 
Dave_in_Dallas said:
As I understand it Augustine theorized that the Father couldn’t be the sole originator of both the Son and the Spirit because if so the Son and Spirit would be identical and not separate persons. Therefore the Spirit proceeds from the Son.
Click to expand...
Augustine’s model is that of the bond of love between the Father and the Son. The Holy Spirit: “is the one sent by both sending, a gift from both giving, a love from both loving.” And also that from the Father the Spirit proceeds “principally through him”.

St. Thomas Aquinas states: “whenever one is said to act through another, this preposition through points out … some cause of the principle of the act.” He also reasons that since the Holy Trinity is one in essence, all is in common except that the eternal relations: Father generates, the Son is begotton, and the Holy Spirit proceeds. That means “we must conclude that it is necessary to say that the Son is from the Holy Ghost, which no one says, or that the Holy Ghost is from the Son, as we confess.”
 
Thank you all.

I had heard the Augustine comments on an Orthodox podcast. So I wasn’t sure. Can you point me to some early church documents on this subject?
 
History of filioque in Catholic church: when and how it came into use and the fathers understanding of what it means.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top