Filioque. An Option Now For Eastern Catholics?

[CharlesdeFoucld]

There are also clear references to the role of the Holy Spirit in the Incarnation of the Son. If you insist that the Son’s sending of the Holy Spirit in salvation history must reveal something about the eternal relationship between the Son and the Spirit, then you should also insist that the conception of the Son as man “by the power of the Holy Spirit” (clearly based on Holy Scripture) must reveal something about the eternal relationship between the Spirit and the Son.

You raise a good point, which shows that the entire Trinity is present in every external work (opera Trinitatis ad extra sunt indivisa). But if we cannot learn about the transcendent God by his revelation to us, from what other source can we hope to glean knowledge? If God is not as he reveals himself to us, I’m afraid we can only remain silent.

But let’s assume that God reveals himself in history as he really is.

I think part of the difficutly is that Jesus Christ is not only the Son, the Second Person of the Trinity. He is also fully human. He is God fully united with us. The Spirit certainly acted in the Incarnation of Jesus, he drove him into the desert, he descended on him in his baptism in the River Jordan. The Spirit’s involvement in the birth and life of Christ seem, in part, due to Jesus’ humanity. I don’t think we’d say that the Spirit ‘sent’ the Son, the Second Person of the Trinity.

If I may frame the matter differently following the thrust of the New Testament: The unbegotten Father is revealed first (in the Law and the prophets), but is not sent (because he proceeds from no one). The Son is revealed in his Incarnation, ministry, death and Resurrection. He is fully given to the world, sent by the Father, and his mission is from the Father (‘For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak’ John 12:49). It’s absolutely correct that Jesus was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit, but the definitive revelation of the Holy Spirit was at Pentecost (see John 7:39: ‘But (Jesus) spoke of the Spirit, that those who believed in Him would receive, for the Holy Spirit still hadn’t been given (literally in Greek: ‘there still wasn’t any spirit’) Orthodox and Catholics are in agreement (correct me if you don’t agree) that the Spirit was definitively revealed and given to the Church at Pentecost, and thus can properly be called ‘the Spirit of the Father’, ‘the Spirit of Jesus’, ‘the Spirit of the Son’, etc. If the modes of God’s self-revelation and self-giving to the world says nothing about his Being-in-Himself, I don’t see how we can say anything about God.

I’m no theologian, so I may be out of my depths. For those interested more in this position, Karl Barth’s Church Dogmatics, volume I/I is an excellent primary source. I understand that Rahner has also written on the relationship between the economic and immanent trinity.

 

[CharlesdeFoucld]

Well, I would say they never had a power struggle amongst themselves in heaven.

This isn’t really directed at you, GaryTaylor, but your post got me to thinking:

I take very seriously admonitions not to argue about the Holy Spirit, which are found in St. Basil’s Ascetic Sermons, Thomas a Kempis’s De imitatione Christi, and surely in many other places.

I also try to be respectful, to listen to other posters, to not get angry, etc.

I also understand that there are many reasons not to engage these arguments. They’ve been had a thousand times before. These discussions probably alienate more than they unite. Someone’s wrong on the internet-- so what? There’s the danger of speaking flippantly about deep mysteries. There’s the danger of infecting one’s own life of prayer.

But despite all of that, I don’t understand Catholic passivity in the face of Orthodox polemics. Why is it, on a Catholic internet board, Orthodox posters can flatly deny an irreformable dogma held since the fourth century, and nothing is said?

Do we Catholics lack zeal? Do we not have a firm conviction in the doctrine we’ve received? Do we assume that the measured, diplomatic tone of official Vatican documents is an adequate response to being called heretics (I’m not saying anyone on this thread has labeled us heretics, but it’s not an uncommon charge from anti-ecumenist Orthodox)? Do we think that Trinitarian dogma is just not that important or relevant?

I’m trying to make sense of a phenomenon, at least on the English speaking internet, of Catholic passivity in the face or Orthodox anti-ecumenists/polemicists.

 

[dvdjs]

Bingo, my foot. That analogy totally doesn’t work, because one of the problems with the filioque, as it is affirmed at Trent, is that it supposes two eternal sources of the Holy Spirit ("…but as from one single spiration"). And you can’t be coming or going to a particular place from two sources of origin simultaneously, no matter what preposition you use…“I’m going from New Mexico and Nevada as from one place of origin to California” makes absolutely zero sense.

Interesting progression from “sources” to “sources of origin, simultaneoulsy”. What are the words used at (Trent) Florence?

 

[Schism_hater]

Why is it, on a Catholic internet board, Orthodox posters can flatly deny an irreformable dogma held since the fourth century, and nothing is said?

All the Orthodox deny is the dogmatic teaching that the Father and the Son acted together equally to spirate the Holy Spirit eternally, as defined by Lateran IV, Lyons II and Florence. That was certainly not taught "since the fourth century. It clearly creates two originating principles in the Trinity, divides the Trinity Father and Son vs. Holy Spirit, and confuses the persons (Aquinas even says that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son acting together “confusedly”). Yes, I deny that. It is wrong.

 

[dzheremi]

Interesting progression from “sources” to “sources of origin, simultaneoulsy”. What are the words used at (Trent) Florence?

I believe I’ve quoted them already in this thread (and I already corrected having mistakenly identified them as being from Trent earlier in the thread. According to the Council of Florence: "“The Holy Spirit is eternally from Father and Son; He has his nature and subsistence at once (simul) from the Father and the Son. He proceeds eternally from both as from one principle and through one spiration.”

This is wrong, whether you read it as meaning “simultaneously” or not (that was never in quotes, of course, but that is what I understand all this “one spiration” business to be saying…as a way of trying to insist that it does not insist upon dual procession). The “eternally” bit gives that way.

 

[GaryTaylor]

St Basel to his brother Gregory -Holy Spirit 369/370

Since therefore, the Holy Spirit, from whom the whole abundance of good things is poured out upon creation, is linked with the Son, with whom He inseparably joined, and has His existence from the Father as from a source, whence He also proceeds, He has this as the characteristic mark of the individuality of His Person that He was made known after the Son and with Him, and that He subsists from the Father.

But the Son, who of Himself and through Himself makes known the Spirit who proceeds from the Father, and who alone shines forth as the Only begotten from the Un-begotten Light, has in common with the Father or with the Holy Spirit none of the characteristic marks by which He is Himself known; rather, it is He alone who is recognized by the stated signs. The Supreme God alone has the special mark of His person by which He may be known, that is He is the Father and subsists from no other source; and again it is through this mark that He is recognized individually… But anyone who perceives the Father both perceives Him by Himself and likewise includes the Son in that perception. And anyone who perceives the Son does not separate Him from the Spirit but, Sequentially in order and conjointly in nature, expresses the Faith so commingled in Himself in the Three together. And anyone who makes mention of the Spirit alone, does also embrace in his confession Him of whom He is the Spirit.

Since the Spirit is of Christ and of God, as Paul says, just as a man who grasps on end of the chain at the same time draws the other end to himself, so too, anyone who draws the Spirit, as the Prophet says, thereby draws also the Son and Father. And if anyone truly receives the Son, he will hold Him of both sides, while the Son draws toward him on one side His own Father and on the other His own Spirit…

It is quite impossible to conceive any sort of separation or division by which the Son could be thought of apart from the Father, or the Spirit to be disjoined from the Son; rather the Communion and the distinction apprehended in Them, are, in a certain sense, inexpressible, un-imaginable. since the continuity of their Nature is never Broken by the distinction of Persons, nor are the notes of proper distinction ever confessed in Their community of Essence.

 

[GaryTaylor]

St Ambrose- The Holy Spirit 381-AD

Know, then, that just as the Father is the Font of the of Life, so too, there are many who have stated that the Son is designated as the Font of Life {Athanasius}. It is said, for example, that with You, Almighty God. Your Son is the Font of Life. that is the Font of the Holy Spirit. For the Spirit is Life, just as the Lord says…

“The words which I have spoken to you are Spirit and Life” because where the Spirit is, there is life. where there is life, there too the Holy Spirit.

 

[dvdjs]

dzheremi;10673525::

"“The Holy Spirit is eternally from Father and Son; He has his nature and subsistence at once (simul) from the Father and the Son. He proceeds eternally from both as from one principle and through one spiration.”

This is wrong, whether you read it as meaning “simultaneously” or not (that was never in quotes, of course, but that is what I understand all this “one spiration” business to be saying…as a way of trying to insist that it does not insist upon dual procession). The “eternally” bit gives that way.

Neither does it say “sources” to “sources of origin”. That also is interpretation.

 

[Lester_S]

Onto more important topics: HAPPY MID-FEAST WEEK, to those on the Gregorian! Blessed Lazarus Saturday, to those who are on the Julian (Old, or revised)!

 

[CharlesdeFoucld]

All the Orthodox deny is the dogmatic teaching that the Father and the Son acted together equally to spirate the Holy Spirit eternally, as defined by Lateran IV, Lyons II and Florence.

May we just look at Florence, as I think that’s the most developed teaching? If you feel like there are points from other councils you’d like to consider, we can do that later.

Where do you get the word ‘equally’? I’ve searched the Latin text for ‘aequaliter’, and I don’t find it. Perhaps you are referring to the clause ‘ex utroque eternaliter tanquam ab uno principio et unica spiratione procedit’-- ‘he proceeds from both eternally as though from one principle and breath.’ This does not say equally. Florence further calls the Father ‘fons ac principium totius deitatis’ (font and principle of the entire deity), and insists that the Son receives from the Father everything he passively spirates to the Holy Spirit.

If you have other concerns about the ‘filioque’ and the monarchy of the Father, the Vatican released a clarification on the filioque some 15 years ago that tries to meet Orthodox concerns within the framework provided by Florence (I can’t seem to find the link, sorry).

That was certainly not taught "since the fourth century.

St. Augustine: Pater et Filius sunt unum principium Spiritus Sancti (The Father and the Son are one principle of the Holy Spirit). ( De Trinitate, V, 14: PL 42, 921)

Father and Son vs. Holy Spirit, and confuses the persons (Aquinas even says that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son acting together “confusedly”). Yes, I deny that. It is wrong.

What Aquinas actually said was ‘There is no reason against saying that the Father and the Son are the same principle, because the word “principle” stands confusedly and indistinctly for the two Persons together.’ (question 36). He says the word ‘principle’ is confused, by which I think he means ‘mixed’ (I don’t have the Latin in front of me). I think he’s saying that the two Persons are not principles in the same way. I think this is the 'as though (tamquam) in the ‘as though from one principle.’ They are like one principle

The intention of the theology behind ‘filioque’ is precisely to avoid the confusion of persons that results from both the Second and Third person proceeding from the Father directly.

We were really trying to emphasize that it’s just one procession (hence the language you seem to interpret as ‘equally’) because we didn’t want you to accuse us of two separate processions! That language was included for you!

Finally, it’s worth noting that the Council claims to mean what the Greek fathers mean when they say ‘εκ του πατρος δια του υιου εκπορευεσθαι (‘originating’ from the Father through the Son’).

 

[CharlesdeFoucld]

St Basel to his brother Gregory -Holy Spirit 369/370

Since therefore, the Holy Spirit, from whom the whole abundance of good things is poured out upon creation, is linked with the Son, with whom He inseparably joined, and has His existence from the Father as from a source, whence He also proceeds, He has this as the characteristic mark of the individuality of His Person that He was made known after the Son and with Him, and that He subsists from the Father.

But the Son, who of Himself and through Himself makes known the Spirit who proceeds from the Father, and who alone shines forth as the Only begotten from the Un-begotten Light, has in common with the Father or with the Holy Spirit none of the characteristic marks by which He is Himself known; rather, it is He alone who is recognized by the stated signs. The Supreme God alone has the special mark of His person by which He may be known, that is He is the Father and subsists from no other source; and again it is through this mark that He is recognized individually… But anyone who perceives the Father both perceives Him by Himself and likewise includes the Son in that perception. And anyone who perceives the Son does not separate Him from the Spirit but, Sequentially in order and conjointly in nature, expresses the Faith so commingled in Himself in the Three together. And anyone who makes mention of the Spirit alone, does also embrace in his confession Him of whom He is the Spirit.

Since the Spirit is of Christ and of God, as Paul says, just as a man who grasps on end of the chain at the same time draws the other end to himself, so too, anyone who draws the Spirit, as the Prophet says, thereby draws also the Son and Father. And if anyone truly receives the Son, he will hold Him of both sides, while the Son draws toward him on one side His own Father and on the other His own Spirit…

It is quite impossible to conceive any sort of separation or division by which the Son could be thought of apart from the Father, or the Spirit to be disjoined from the Son; rather the Communion and the distinction apprehended in Them, are, in a certain sense, inexpressible, un-imaginable. since the continuity of their Nature is never Broken by the distinction of Persons, nor are the notes of proper distinction ever confessed in Their community of Essence.

This is a fascinating quotation from an unexpected source. It doesn’t say the exact same thing as, say, Florence, but I think it’s trying to navigate exactly the same distinction-- the Father is the ultimate origin of the Spirit (preserving his monarchy) but that the Spirit is from the beginning ‘the Spirit of Christ’.

 

[Schism_hater]

May we just look at Florence, as I think that’s the most developed teaching? If you feel like there are points from other councils you’d like to consider, we can do that later.

Where do you get the word ‘equally’? I’ve searched the Latin text for ‘aequaliter’, and I don’t find it. .

“Equally” is from Canon I of Lateran IV, which is why I referenced Lateran IV in my post.Although I will be happy to discuss Florence, no, I don’t want to pass over Lateran IV. It is the first western council to defend the filioque clause dogmatically. I understand you believe that Florence has the most developed teaching, but further development cannot annul the language of a previous dogmatic teaching, so I think the “equally” language must be dealt with.

This is the English translation of the pertinent part of the First Canon of Lateran IV:

We firmly believe and openly confess that there is only one true God, eternal and immense, omnipotent, unchangeable, incomprehensible, and ineffable, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; three Persons indeed but one essense, substance, or nature absolutely simple; the Father (proceeding) from no one, but the Son from the Father only, and the Holy Ghost equally from both, always without beginning and end. (My emphasis)

Feel free to examine the Latin original and see if you believe this translation does it justice; if you believe there is a nuance in the Latin that is pertinent to our discussion that is not captured above, feel free to bring it up.

I will have to respond to your other points later.

 

[Aramis]

Of course, we Catholics would say that we’ve gotten even closer (at least in the Latin version) by preserving the same faith in more precise language.

Actually, the Latin is LESS precise. That’s the entire problem. (The English is no more precise than the Latin, and the sooner the Orthodox accept that, and that the English doesn’t mean the same as the Greek, the better. In no small part, because it makes them appear to be hypocrites by use of the same translation, grounded in the latin Credo, as the Romans, but sans the filioque.)

 

[Peter_J]

Actually, the Latin is LESS precise. That’s the entire problem. (The English is no more precise than the Latin, and the sooner the Orthodox accept that, and that the English doesn’t mean the same as the Greek, the better. In no small part, because it makes them appear to be hypocrites by use of the same translation, grounded in the latin Credo, as the Romans, but sans the filioque.)

Excellent post.

 

[Peter_J]

“Equally” is from Canon I of Lateran IV, which is why I referenced Lateran IV in my post.Although I will be happy to discuss Florence, no, I don’t want to pass over Lateran IV. It is the first western council to defend the filioque clause dogmatically. I understand you believe that Florence has the most developed teaching, but further development cannot annul the language of a previous dogmatic teaching, so I think the “equally” language must be dealt with.

I won’t get into the specifics of what Lateran IV said (and least not at the moment), but I really doubt that it intended to make a dogmatic definition. Keep in mind that it wasn’t considered an Ecumenical Council until the mid-16th century.

 

[GaryTaylor]

It doesn’t say the exact same thing as, say, Florence, but I think it’s trying to navigate exactly the same distinction-- the Father is the ultimate origin of the Spirit (preserving his monarchy) but that the Spirit is from the beginning ‘the Spirit of Christ’.

Right I read the link you posted, the Bishops thinking caught my attention in the above area. I didn’t check his footnotes to collaborate his thinking. He reminded me of a few of the early church fathers though. St. Hilary of Poitiers on the Trinity came to mind for sure. I can’t find what I want, anyway…

Concerning the Holy Spirit, however, I ought not remain silent, nor yet is it necessary to speak. Still on the account of those who do not know Him, it is not possible for me to be silent. However it is not necessary to speak of Him who must be acknowledged, who is from the Father and the Son, His Sources. Indeed, it is my opinion that there ought be no discussion of if He exists. If He is given, if He is received, if He is retained, then obviously He exists. I think, however, that the reason some remain in ignorance or doubt about this, is that they see this third name, that by which the Holy Spirit is named, applied frequently also to the Father and the Son. But there need be no objection to this, for both Father and Son are Spirit and Holy.

 

[dzheremi]

I won’t get into the specifics of what Lateran IV said (and least not at the moment), but I really doubt that it intended to make a dogmatic definition. Keep in mind that it wasn’t considered an Ecumenical Council until the mid-16th century.

Wasn’t one of the criticisms of Orthodoxy earlier in this thread that a Catholic poster couldn’t be sure what was considered ecumenical because there’s no automatic, mechanical means of determining that in Orthodoxy? Hmm…does your answer here mean that this is sometimes the way with RCs, too?

 

[CharlesdeFoucld]

“Equally” is from Canon I of Lateran IV, which is why I referenced Lateran IV in my post.Although I will be happy to discuss Florence, no, I don’t want to pass over Lateran IV. It is the first western council to defend the filioque clause dogmatically. I understand you believe that Florence has the most developed teaching, but further development cannot annul the language of a previous dogmatic teaching, so I think the “equally” language must be dealt with.

This is the English translation of the pertinent part of the First Canon of Lateran IV:

We firmly believe and openly confess that there is only one true God, eternal and immense, omnipotent, unchangeable, incomprehensible, and ineffable, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; three Persons indeed but one essense, substance, or nature absolutely simple; the Father (proceeding) from no one, but the Son from the Father only, and the Holy Ghost equally from both, always without beginning and end. (My emphasis)

Feel free to examine the Latin original and see if you believe this translation does it justice; if you believe there is a nuance in the Latin that is pertinent to our discussion that is not captured above, feel free to bring it up.

I will have to respond to your other points later.

Thanks for the citation. It’s very helpful to deal with concrete texts.

Thomas Aquinas also used ‘equally’ language. Here’s a quotation from the Summa using ‘equally’:

‘Reply to Objection 2. If the Son received from the Father a numerically distinct power for the spiration of the Holy Ghost, it would follow that He would be a secondary and instrumental cause; and thus the Holy Ghost would proceed more from the Father than from the Son; whereas, on the contrary, the same spirative power belongs to the Father and to the Son; and therefore the Holy Ghost proceeds **equally **from both, although sometimes He is said to proceed principally or properly from the Father, because the Son has this power from the Father’ (newadvent.org/summa/1036.htm).

I think what Thomas (and Lateran IV) is trying to do is protect the Trinity from subordination. The Son is the perfect intellectual act of the Father, the only difference between them is that the Father begets and the Son is begotten. The Son receives everything the Father is, apart from being Father. Similarly, both the Father and the Son equally give everything they have in the procession of the Spirit, except that the Father spirates actively and the Son spirates passively.

Therefore, if I’ve read correctly, the Spirit proceeds equally both in this sense: he receives fully from the Father and the Son, because the Father and the Son are equal.

The means of spiration is not equal, it is active from the Father and passive from the Son. Thus one might say that the Spirit proceeds ‘principally’ or ‘properly’ from the Father.

To be clear, the above explanation has not been dogmatically defined, but I think it’s a good explanation of what Lateran IV means by ‘equally’.

I think it’s also important to recognize what the Conciliar definitions of these centuries are trying to do: preserve the monarchy of the Father, say that the Son is fully and eternally involved in the process, and that the three persons of the Trinity are equal.

 

[CharlesdeFoucld]

Actually, the Latin is LESS precise. That’s the entire problem. (The English is no more precise than the Latin, and the sooner the Orthodox accept that, and that the English doesn’t mean the same as the Greek, the better. In no small part, because it makes them appear to be hypocrites by use of the same translation, grounded in the latin Credo, as the Romans, but sans the filioque.)

Good post. I agree completely that προσδεχεται is more precise than procedit. I only meant to say that ex patre filioque procedit is more precise than ex patre procedit.

 

[CharlesdeFoucld]

It is wrong.

Dzheremi said something similar, too.

I could understand (but wouldn’t agree with) someone thinking that the filioque as explained at Florence was a development, an innovation, a theolegoumenon, shouldn’t have been defined, whatever. But I don’t understand how, based on scriptural or patristic evidence, you could say ‘it is wrong.’

On my reading of Florence, each of the following would be an acceptable statement:

1. The Holy Spirit proceeds (procedit) from the Father.
2. The Holy Spirit takes his ultimate origin (prosdexetai) from the Father alone.
3. The Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father through the Son.

None of the above statements contradict the Catholic Church’s teaching on the filioque. The problem only arises if you want to make the following statement:

4: The Holy Spirit proceeds (procedit) eternally from the Father alone without any participation from the Son

It’s only statement 4 that causes problems.

I have never read any scriptural reference or Church Father before the 9th Century claim number 4. I’m not saying it doesn’t exist. If anyone can provide me a citation from PL or PG that claims statement 4 before the 9th Century, I’ll be glad to consider it. But to date, I’ve never seen it.