Filioque. An Option Now For Eastern Catholics?

[CharlesdeFoucld]

1. The Holy Spirit takes his ultimate origin (prosdexetai) from the Father alone.

You’ll forgive my bad Greek; above I should’ve said ‘ekporeuomenon’ and not ‘prosdexetai’.

 

[Schism_hater]

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.

Sure, no problem.

However, before speculating what “equally” here might mean, in a vacuum, 800 years later, with all due respect I think it more important to look at the immediate context of the council, in particular Anselm of Canterbury’s De Processione Spiritu Sancti, (might have that title slightly wrong), written about 40 years before the council (which was obviously held before Aquinas wrote).

DPSS was wirtten by Anselm on instructions from the papacy to write a response to the Orthodox objections to the Filioque, so it already had quasi-magisterial status in the western church. It is certain, in my mind, that De Processione was the motivating force behind the “equally from both” language. In case you haven’t read it, St. Anslem in De Processione clearly says that the Spirit receives his Godhood from the Father and Son acting together.

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.

And here is the language that almost certainly motivated “equally from both”.

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. Nor is his originating from the Father greater or lesser than is his originating from the Son. Nor 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 not 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 Spirit 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. (My emphasis).

It is this very problematic analysis that seems to have found dogmatic expression by Laterna IV.

 

[Peter_J]

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?

I can’t recall whether it came up on this thread specifically; but it wouldn’t surprise me since I have found in general that the mechanical-method-of-determining-ecumenical-councils idea is pretty popular among internet Catholics.

 

[CharlesdeFoucld]

However, before speculating what “equally” here might mean, in a vacuum, 800 years later, with all due respect I think it more important to look at the immediate context of the council,

Given how little Lateran IV has to say about ‘equally’, I’m afraid speculation is unavoidable. But yes, on principle, I agree, let’s see what we can learn from context. If anyone is interested, the English text of the council may be found here. The statement in question: ’ 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.’

in particular Anselm of Canterbury’s De Processione Spiritu Sancti, (might have that title slightly wrong), written about 40 years before the council (which was obviously held before Aquinas wrote).

Thanks for the Anselm text. I must say, Anselm of Canterbury has always put me to sleep, and I’ve never read De processione in its entirety. A slight correction—if I’m not mistaken, Anselm died in 1109, at least a century before Lateran IV (1215). While Thomas Aquinas was later than the council (1225-1274), he was temporally closer. Also, St. Bernard of Clairvaux and Peter Lombard were active in the first part of the 12th century, so they were at least within a century of the council. We can see what they have to say later. Please correct me if you think I’ve confused the dates.

DPSS was wirtten by Anselm on instructions from the papacy to write a response to the Orthodox objections to the Filioque, so it already had quasi-magisterial status in the western church. It is certain, in my mind, that De Processione was the motivating force behind the “equally from both” language. In case you haven’t read it, St. Anslem in De Processione clearly says that the Spirit receives his Godhood from the Father and Son acting together.

Obviously, any text of the length and technical detail of any of Anselm’s texts can’t ever be dogmatized (if that’s what you mean by ‘quasi-magisterial status’). The Church isn’t in the business of making philosophical or theological approaches dogma. A minor quibble: in the text you cited, and in the little bit of Anselm that I’ve read, I don’t find the phrase ‘acting together.’ ‘Together’, yes, but ‘acting’ is an odd turn of phrase, given that what makes the Son distinctive is passive spiration.

(quoting Anselm) '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.

And here is the language that almost certainly motivated “equally from both”.

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. Nor is his originating from the Father greater or lesser than is his originating from the Son. Nor 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 not 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 Spirit 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. (My emphasis).

I don’t love everything about St. Anselm’s text here. Clearly, he follows (and is often criticized for) following a philosophical model of the Trinity rather than a personalist one. I’m more comfortable with St. Augustine’s language, which emphasizes the *principaliter *of the Father. On the other hand, I don’t see anything above that I would clearly label as wrong.

(continued)

 

[CharlesdeFoucld]

(continued from above)

It is this very problematic analysis that seems to have found dogmatic expression by Laterna IV.

I think you’re making a substantial leap here for the following reasons:

1. Lateran IV offers no substantial teaching on ‘equally’. It uses the word once, without explanation. I don’t see how that equates to ‘found dogmatic expression’.
2. ‘Equally’ in the Lateran text need not imply all of Anselm’s theological and philosophical underpinnings, even if Anselm were the inspiration for the Lateran document. It could simply reflect the common teaching that the Spirit receives fully from the Father and fully from the Son. It’s doubtful the council was making a judgment on minor points of difference between, say, between Anselm on the one hand and Augustine/Peter Lombard on the other.
3. It is not at all clear that Anselm lies behind the word ‘equally’ in Lateran IV. Here’s Doctor of the Church St. Bernard of Clairvaux (writing less than a century before Lateran IV) using ‘equally’ in his enormously influential ‘On the Song of Songs’:

St. Bernard"He breathed on them," according to St John, "and he said: `Receive the Holy Spirit.’ " That favor, given to the newly-chosen Church, was indeed a kiss. That? you say. That corporeal breathing? O no, but rather the invisible Spirit, who is so bestowed in that breath of the Lord that he is understood to proceed from him equally as from the Father, truly the kiss that is common both to him who kisses and to him who is kissed. Hence the bride is satisfied to receive the kiss of the Bridegroom, though she be not kissed with his mouth. For her it is no mean or contemptible thing to be kissed by the kiss, because it is nothing less than the gift of the Holy Spirit. If, as is properly understood, the Father is he who kisses, the Son he who is kissed, then it cannot be wrong to see in the kiss the Holy Spirit, for he is the imperturbable peace of the Father and the Son, their unshakable bond, their undivided love, their indivisible unity.

1. The intention of dogma is not to absolutize a philosophical/theological perspective. It is to mark out a space in which such perspectives can legitimately take place. Within that ample space, you can choose whatever model you like: Bernard of Clairvaux, Anselm, Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, Athanasius, Peter Lombard, the Cappadocians, whatever. The only thing you can’t say is ‘The Holy Spirit comes (proeinai) from the Father alone, without the Son playing any part.’

 

[kotim]

We are stuck because we have an inadequate ability to describe the trinity fully and completely, let alone know the "inner workings’ of the relationships.

Simply put, the Holy Spirit must always be coming from the Son and the Father eternally. The principal or Origin is the Father, but unless we are willing to say that there was a ‘time’ when the son did not exist, then for all intents and purposes the Spirit has been coming from the Father, via the son or through the son from eternity, well at least as far as we can understand eternity. So we can say that the Son has some sort of participation in the sending of the Spirit. However the issue is how do we ascribe the differences between the members of the trinity as regarding their individuality yet being of one mind etc.

If we are to give Christ the Son an active membership of the trinity then in theory he must be able to think or conceive of different thoughts or actions than that of the Father or the Spirit. If not then we are simply talking about the son and the spirit being actual non entities, but merely some sort of abstract thought of the Father, or as some people might (arians) say creatures.

Simply put, The son has to have some sort of active sending of the spirit if we are to allow him some sort of individuality within the trinity.

 

[RyanBlack]

Simply put, The son has to have some sort of active sending of the spirit if we are to allow him some sort of individuality within the trinity.

Then what sort of role to we give the Holy Spirit in the generation of the Son in order for the Holy Spirit to have “some sort of individuality within the Trinity?”

 

[Peter_J]

I don’t love everything about St. Anselm’s text here. Clearly, he follows (and is often criticized for) following a philosophical model of the Trinity rather than a personalist one. I’m more comfortable with St. Augustine’s language, which emphasizes the *principaliter *of the Father. On the other hand, I don’t see anything above that I would clearly label as wrong.

Thanks for the Anselm text. I must say, Anselm of Canterbury has always put me to sleep, and I’ve never read De processione in its entirety.

Same here, I had never read that before. I was aware that Aquinas was, shall we say, pretty highly opinionated regarding the filioque … I guess Anselm was even more unyielding.

 

[Peter_J]

We are stuck because we have an inadequate ability to describe the trinity fully and completely, let alone know the "inner workings’ of the relationships.

Simply put, the Holy Spirit must always be coming from the Son and the Father eternally. The principal or Origin is the Father, but unless we are willing to say that there was a ‘time’ when the son did not exist, then for all intents and purposes the Spirit has been coming from the Father, via the son or through the son from eternity, well at least as far as we can understand eternity. So we can say that the Son has some sort of participation in the sending of the Spirit.

But I think just saying that might be considered insufficient, as it could mean only a temporal procession/sending (albeit perpetual).

 

[dzheremi]

Simply put, the Holy Spirit must always be coming from the Son and the Father eternally.

Why?

The principal or Origin is the Father, but unless we are willing to say that there was a ‘time’ when the son did not exist, then for all intents and purposes the Spirit has been coming from the Father, via the son or through the son from eternity, well at least as far as we can understand eternity.

Again, why is this so? Christ told us that the Father will send (not ‘has always been sending’) the Holy Spirit in His name. This is how we can distinguish the temporal mission of the Holy Spirit from His eternal existence in the first place, just like we can say that there was never a time when the Son was not, but there was a time when He was not incarnate. I do not understand why it should need to be otherwise based on any sort of philosophical or logical principle, but I’m probably misunderstanding what you mean. Can you please clarify?

If we are to give Christ the Son an active membership of the trinity then in theory he must be able to think or conceive of different thoughts or actions than that of the Father or the Spirit. If not then we are simply talking about the son and the spirit being actual non entities, but merely some sort of abstract thought of the Father, or as some people might (arians) say creatures.

Nice try, but “I think, therefore I am” was said by Descartes, not Jesus Christ. As for Who is ‘abstract’, that’s your own difficulty to deal with, but I would note that especially as concerns Christ, who was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and of the Virgin Mary and became man (as in, a flesh and blood person), this objection makes very little sense. You can’t get less abstract or dematerialized than the physical body existing on the earth and taking up physical space. And in every liturgy we prostrate before it and proclaim “We worship Your holy body” (and people still try to class us together with Eutyches! Ugh! ), yet we do not believe in the filioque at all. So I am not seeing the connection.

Simply put, The son has to have some sort of active sending of the spirit if we are to allow him some sort of individuality within the trinity.

Simply put, no. Those two things do not follow at all. And I hope you have a good answer for RyanBlack’s question, too, because that’s something that I wondered as well when I was reading your post.

 

[CharlesdeFoucld]

Same here, I had never read that before. I was aware that Aquinas was, shall we say, pretty highly opinionated regarding the filioque … I guess Anselm was even more unyielding.

Happily, the Catholic Church is not irrevocably bound by all of St. Anselm’s opininions (or Aquinas’s, for that matter). I hope the Orthodox are not bound by all the opinions of Photios (or Mark of Ephesus).

I still think that Florence (and Maximus the Confessor) should be the touchstone for Catholic/Orthodox dialogue, as they were both attempts at seeing the patristic witness through the eyes of the interlocutor.

 

[CharlesdeFoucld]

But I think just saying that might be considered insufficient, as it could mean only a temporal procession/sending (albeit perpetual).

Could you or someone point me toward (preferably primary) sources on the Council of Blachernae? I’ve never found the eternal manifestation/procession distinction credible based on patristic witness, but I’d love to read the council documents themselves and see how they put it together.

 

[Peter_J]

I still think that Florence (and Maximus the Confessor) should be the touchstone for Catholic/Orthodox dialogue,

Well, I remain hopeful; but also keep in mind that there’s significant additional baggage since the Council of Florence. I’m thinking in particular of three things:

1. That we (Catholics) have since held 4 more ecumenical councils, beginning with Lateran V in 1512. (Btw, I was a little surprised last year that so little was made of its 500th anniversary.)
2. In the mid-16th century, the adding of 8 councils en masse to our lists of ecumenical councils (effectively back-dating the schism to 11th rather than the 15th century).
3. The 1596 Union of Brest, and other similar unions, which changed Catholic-Orthodox relations from mere estrangement/lack-of-communion, to direct conflict.

 

[CharlesdeFoucld]

Simply put, The son has to have some sort of active sending of the spirit if we are to allow him some sort of individuality within the trinity.

I might have put this in different words, but I do think you have a good point. Catholic models, while not dogma, do have some explanatory value of the Persons within the Trinity.

So, for St. Augustine, the Son is the intellectual act of the Father, and the Spirit is the act of the will (or love), which can only occur when there are already two.

For St. Thomas, it is the relations of origin between the Persons that distinguishes them in their consubstantiality. Thus, the Father begets and actively spirates, the Son is begotten and passively spirates, the Holy Spirit is actively and passively spirated. It is these relationships that distinguish them in their consubstantiality.

As St. Athanasius says, '“the same things are said of the Son as are said of the Father, except His being said to be 'Father.” (Contra Arianos, 3:3-4). It is their relationship to one another that distinguishes the Persons.

It isn’t binding on Catholics to accept any of the above models. But if one flatly denies any role to the Son in the eternal procession of the Spirit, it is very difficult to account for the difference between the Son and Spirit, given the acceptance of homoousion, one-in-being.

 

[Cavaradossi]

I might have put this in different words, but I do think you have a good point. Catholic models, while not dogma, do have some explanatory value of the Persons within the Trinity.

So, for St. Augustine, the Son is the intellectual act of the Father, and the Spirit is the act of the will (or love), which can only occur when there are already two.

For St. Thomas, it is the relations of origin between the Persons that distinguishes them in their consubstantiality. Thus, the Father begets and actively spirates, the Son is begotten and passively spirates, the Holy Spirit is actively and passively spirated. It is these relationships that distinguish them in their consubstantiality.

As St. Athanasius says, '“the same things are said of the Son as are said of the Father, except His being said to be 'Father.” (Contra Arianos, 3:3-4). It is their relationship to one another that distinguishes the Persons.

It isn’t binding on Catholics to accept any of the above models. But if one flatly denies any role to the Son in the eternal procession of the Spirit, it is very difficult to account for the difference between the Son and Spirit, given the acceptance of homoousion, one-in-being.

They differ because one proceeds and the other is begotten. There is no need for one to participate in the Father’s unique hypostatic characteristic of causality in order to distinguish the two.

 

[CharlesdeFoucld]

They differ because one proceeds and the other is begotten. There is no need for one to participate in the Father’s unique hypostatic characteristic of causality in order to distinguish the two.

St. John the Damascene (who, despite his reticence, does give indications of allowing the Son a role in the eternal procession of the Spirit) offers a similar explanation, but is forthright in admitting its inadequacy:

St. John says, ‘The Holy Spirit is from the Father, not by generation, but by procession; that there is a difference between the two we have been taught, but wherein they differ we know not.’

 

[Peter_J]

St. John the Damascene (who, despite his reticence, does give indications of allowing the Son a role in the eternal procession of the Spirit) offers a similar explanation, but is forthright in admitting its inadequacy:

St. John says, ‘The Holy Spirit is from the Father, not by generation, but by procession; that there is a difference between the two we have been taught, but wherein they differ we know not.’

What does he say about its inadequacy?

 

[Cavaradossi]

What does he say about its inadequacy?

I was wondering the very same thing. I think St. John must’ve thought it to be a rather adequate explanation, otherwise he would not have written it.

 

[CharlesdeFoucld]

What does he say about its inadequacy?

First, I have full respect for St. John, and he’s respecting the tradition of reticence he received from St. Basil (There are many Greek fathers who are not so reticent: Didymus the Blind, Epiphanius, Athanasius, and Cyril of Alexandria, to name a few). No, St. John did not say ‘inadequate’, but he offers a distinction between the Son and Spirit, and then declines to explain what that distinction might mean. It’s an explanation that doesn’t explain.

To put it another way: The Son is distinguished from the Father in that he receives his hypostasis only from the Father. The Spirit is distinguished from the Father in that he receives his hypostasis only (according to monopatrists) from the Father. So how is the Son distinguished from the Spirit? By his manner of procession? But we can’t explain what that is…

 

[Peter_J]

First, I have full respect for St. John, and he’s respecting the tradition of reticence he received from St. Basil (There are many Greek fathers who are not so reticent: Didymus the Blind, Epiphanius, Athanasius, and Cyril of Alexandria, to name a few). No, St. John did not say ‘inadequate’, but he offers a distinction between the Son and Spirit, and then declines to explain what that distinction might mean. It’s an explanation that doesn’t explain.

To put it another way: The Son is distinguished from the Father in that he receives his hypostasis only from the Father. The Spirit is distinguished from the Father in that he receives his hypostasis only (according to monopatrists) from the Father. So how is the Son distinguished from the Spirit? By his manner of procession? But we can’t explain what that is…

Yes, I believe I understand why you find it inadequate; but according to your earlier post, St. John the Damascene agrees with you that it’s inadequate. Can you back that up? (Needless to say, it doesn’t have to be something where he used that specific word, just something from him.)