www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West The Filioque: Dogma, Theologumenon or Error?

Apotheoun and Ghosty,

Apotheoun said: Yes, I did point that out. However, the only potentially mitigating factor is that this version of the decree of Lyons appears in a Greek document that ultimately ends up repudiating the council (although that certainly doesn't suggest the falsity of the translation; it's only one consideration). And even so, the Greek translation is found in a book by Fr. Joseph Gill, a Roman Catholic specialist on the councils of Lyons and Florence -- he actually wrote the book The Council of Florence in support of the Latin doctrine -- who knows both Greek and Latin, and he suggests nothing of a difference here, and in fact at this point reproduces the decree of Lyons right next to the Greek in its original Latin (rather than placing the simple English translation of the Greek, as he does throughout the rest of the document), almost as if underscoring that the two are identical. Furthermore, as I also documented copiously, Fr. Gill understands John Beccos through and through and enthusiastically promotes him as a true advocate of the Latin doctrine professed at Lyons. Ghosty continues to insist that at least some part of this is not the case, but I am at the point of letting the sources speak for themselves. (The source is Joseph Gill's, Church Union: Rome and Byzantium; one chapter is more or less on the greatness of Beccos and how well he truly understood the Fathers and the Latin church.)

As for this, by Ghosty: First, I too join Apotheoun in commending Ghosty for his efforts. At the same time, I too join him in questioning how accurate they are. The definition of Florence itself says that the Son is a cause or principle (whatever you may take that to mean) of the Holy Spirit's essence and subsistent being. "Subsistent being" in Latin theology just means "person" or "hypostasis." The identification is made explicitly in Thomas' Summa. In fact, it's common knowledge that you can find in many dictionaries (in fact, even look on dictionary.com, under "subsistence"). So, leaving aside our discussion on the "Divine Essence/Energies" thread, whatever is meant by "cause" or "principle," the Son does play some role in the origin of the Spirit's person (subsistent being). This is just Latin dogma.

Thanks, and God bless,
Jason

Not particularly. The Spirit's procession from the Father and Son as one principle is taken adverbially (Summa Theol. Q36 art.4), that is it describes the way of doing. What Aquinas is saying is simply what you said a page ago Jason: The Word and Spirit go out together. In generating the Word by procession of intellect the Spirit is simultaneously and instantaneously processed by Will. The filioque in St Thomas amounts to little more than that which should be clear by now given what I quoted from his letter to the Cantor of Antioch and the way I've expounded Q36 of the Summa. St Thomas' use of the term filioque amounts to nothing more than its application as an adverb. In plain speech what St Thomas means to say is simply:

In generating the Son, the Father also proceeses the Spirit. Or alternatively to look at it another way by the generation of the Son the Spirit proceeds for from the Father.

That is the whole sum of Thomas' teaching on the filioque. For him it is an adverb to describe how the Spirit simultaneously proceeds from the Father as the Father is generating the Son. All he wants to do is show that the procession of intellect that gives rise to the Word cannot happen without the procession of love that gives rise to the Spirit.

In generation God processes: thats what filioque means to Thomas. Its a simple adverb. Both Son and Spirit go out from the Father alone the Son does not play a part in the Spirit's procession expect as acting as an adverbial principle, that is, except in that by His generation the Spirit simultaneously proceeds from the Father because in the timeless God there is no instant between knowing and loving. Thus, as He does one He does the other. And I again I stress the word 'does' the 'doing word' the verb described by the adverb 'principle' which encapsulates what Thomas teaches by the usage 'filioque'.

Ironically Jason all Aquinas wants to say is what you want him to say! That the Father alone is the cause of the Son and the Spirit and that the Son and the Spirit go out from the Father simultaneously. Generation in the Godhead is impossible without procession, this is Thomas' point and the reason he uses the term filioque and goes to lengths to express what he means by it in Summa Theol. Q36 arts.2-4.

Jason,

"...the Son does play some role in the origin of the Spirit's person (subsistent being). This is just Latin dogma."


I think there are two issues here. One is whether the "Latin Church" ever said something like this, and the other is whether it currently does. It seems like the past history could go either way, at least from all the arguments being made. But the present case should be easier to figure out shouldn't it? I mean do you have any modern documents supporting your position? Are there any supporting Ghotsy's and others? I mean I don't see why it's so hard to figure out what the Church says at this moment.

Myles,

I have only a passing familiarity with Aquinas but I like Chesterton and he spoke very highly of the saint. He even liked him more than St. Francis as I recall, and THAT is high praise indeed. So it seems that your opinions are at least in good company

Matt

We've done the Council of Florence song and dance before :p

I'll answer exactly as I answered then, and as the Latin Church has continued to answer. The reason that the Council stresses that the Holy Spirit receives His whole hypostasis from the Father and the Son is in order to preserve the "single principle" of the Holy Spirit, not in order to make the Son a derivative Source. The Latins even explicitely put that forth as a given before the main body of the Decree, where it says:

The only part that the Son plays is that when the Holy Spirit moves through Him, the WHOLE Holy Spirit moves through Him, the whole hypostasis, the whole Person. To say otherwise would be to muddy the waters, making the Holy Spirit divided in how He manifests when "sent" by the Father versus being "sent" by the Son; in otherwords it would make two Holy Spirits instead of one. If Latins had intended it that way, they wouldn't have made the forerunning statement.

Since principle is a term that relates to two points in relation to eachother, both the Father and the Son are principle to the Holy Spirit, but they are not principle as a unit.

They are principle in the sense that if I walk from the living room, through the kitchen, to the garage, both the living room and the kitchen are principle to the garage in my movement, and while my origin is entirely in the living room, my whole person went through the kitchen to get to the garage; I didn't split in half and one part of me take another route. The living room is the only source of my journey, the only origin, but one could still say that I came from the kitchen. This is why Aquinas, when describing both the Father and the Son as principles of the Holy Spirit, says that the Father is the principle in a "principal and proper manner", as to say the ultimate and true principle is the Father.

Incidently, this idea is identical to that presented by St. John of Damascus, and the Tomus of Blacharmae, which state that the Holy Spirit is eternally manifested by the Son, not just temporally. The reason that Latins use "from" where John of Damascus ruled that term out is for the reasons I described above in a previous post, and Myles has indicated in his description of how it's used by Aquinas. Quite simply, "ek" (from) denotes something very different than the Latin "ex" (from), which is very broad, and doesn't necessarily denote origin as "ek" does.

As for statements that the Western Church used ekporeuethsai in translating proceed, of course it did, but that doesn't mean that they meant the same thing by it as the Greeks. The two terms were always translated using eachother, despite the fact that they'd always had slightly different meanings. This goes back to the very beginning of the Church, when Scripture and the Creed were translated into Latin. It made things easy when translating, but it was ultimately sloppy. Unfortunately the science of translation was not what it is today, and people were content with doing "word for word" translations for centuries, which would be rightly considered next to worthless today.

Furthermore, it doesn't matter what the Latin Church's documents said in Greek, as far as dogma goes, only what they say in Latin, and in Latin there is no heresy even implied. This same principle holds today, that English translations of official Latin documents are never considered the "final rule", only the Latin ones. Even Yves Congar, when speaking of the Council of Florence, notes how odd it was that ekporeuethsai was used to translate "proceed" with regards to the Son. The Latins clearly and always meant the procession by the Son as a "through", not an origin, and they've explicitely stated this time and time again, going back to Maximus the Confessor.

Talking about what they said when translated into Greek is purely academic. You might as well talk about what it implies in Swahili for it matters towards doctrine :p

The only relevence the Greek holds is in showing why the Greeks reacted so viciously to what they were hearing, and there's nothing wrong with their reactions because that would have been the exact same reaction the Latins would have had if they'd heard such things stated in Latin.

Peace and God's Love!

Yes, the documents are very clear about what the Latin Church teaches today.

Vatican statement on the filioque. [praiseofglory.com]

What's more, the teaching has always been clear in the Latin Church. The only folks who seem to be saying otherwise base it off of the Greek translations of the Latin made 800 years ago. All of the art, teaching, and theology expressed by the Latin Church since those days has expressed exactly what Myles, myself, and the Vatican are saying today.

Peace and love!

Let me clarify my earlier remarks about Beccus. It's the language he used that was heretical, not the ideas he was intending to express with it. My only contention is that he should have known better, being a native Greek speaker. Given the translating methods of the day, it's somewhat understandable since there were no methods of linguistic comparison that could navigate this problem, but my personal contention is that he shouldn't have made the moves and statements that he did without much more careful explaination. You can't just plop exporeuethsai into the process of the Holy Spirit by the Son without doing serious damage to both the Latin and Greek understanding of the Trinity. Even Fr. Joseph Gill recognized the differences in their meanings and implications, and wrote about them in his book on the Council of Florence.

Peace!

I give up. Forgive me.

I will say two things, and then I will only let the Latins who were at the Council of Florence speak for themselves to a few various points raised here. After that, I will say no more here about the filioque. (You may refer to my other posts for support and documentation regarding other issues; I have mentioned a number of books and sources, as well as providing numerous quotations.)

First, about Ghosty's claim that: Yes, and even understanding those meanings and implications, on reading Beccos, he still thought his doctrine was the doctrine of the Latins.

Second, regarding the Vatican's clarification on the filioque, see what it says about the Council of Florence (the answer is nothing). Also, I have addressed the clarification elsewhere, noting how it is ambiguous and how, whenever it refers to the Father as sole cause, it uses qualifiers such as "sole immediate cause," implying the possibility of a mediate cause and so on. It is compatible with both the interpretation that Ghosty and Myles are giving and the interpretation that Apotheoun and I are giving. For some reason, however, it is still insisted that the document is crystal clear.

Now, let the Latin representatives speak for themselves:

Point 1: I said that the Latin doctrine is that the Son plays some role in the origin of the Holy Spirit's person, to which Myles replied, "Not particularly." Here, however, is John Montenero, the Latin orator at Florence:

John Montenero: "The Holy Spirit receives being also from the Son and so must proceed also from him."

[Later:] "If one person is from another he is said to receive being and existence from another, which is what Basil and Epiphanius meant when they wrote that the Spirit has being from the Son."

[And later:] John: "When we say someone from someone, it is necessarily from the person."

So, you make the inference. The second quote says that Basil and Epiphanius meant that the person of the Holy Spirit receives being and existence from the Son (and Montenero cites this as support for the Latin doctrine -- we won't get into the different interpretations of Basil and Epiphanius). The third quote says that when they say "from," they mean from the Person. So, since they say that the Person of the Holy Spirit receives being and existence "from" the Son, they mean from the Person of the Son. The same thing goes for the first quote. Am I wrong, then, that the doctrine is that the person of the Son plays some role in the origin of the person of the Spirit?

-----

Point 2: Ghosty admits that "both the Father and the Son are principle to the Holy Spirit," but says that: But John Montenero says: "The Son, identical in nature with the Father, receives also to be producer of the Spirit, in respect of the common nature he has with the Father, and so is with him the principle, numerically one, of the Procession of the Holy Spirit."

The Son and the Father are numerically one producer of the Spirit. It is this which the Son "receives," i.e., to "also" be the producer of the Spirit. This is what makes him one principle with the Father, numerically one, of the procession of the Holy Spirit.

------

Just some further supporting statements:

Mark [of Ephesus, the Greek orator]: Never mind that. Let us see the consequences of your admission. St Basil says: [God] 'sends forth the Spirit through his mouth. . . for the Spirit is from him and not from elsewhere'. (P.G. 29, 736B)

John: Yes, but Basil says that in metaphor, and elsewhere affirms that the Spirit receives being from the Son.

I cannot remain with this issue any further because I have bent over backwards spending time writing and doing research on this and a number of related issues, citing text after text, from different author after different author, and it appears to be going nowhere. Please forgive me for my frustration, and also forgive me for leaving this discussion behind.

Thanks, and God bless,
Jason

As I look at my most recent post, I realize that I wrote much of it in haste and in frustration, as is probably clear. Forgive me if it comes across as aggressive.

God bless those of you who continue this filioque discussion, but I remain sure that I have had my fill, at least for now.

Thanks, and God bless,
Jason

Dear Jason

I'm sorry if you felt driven from this discussion I had no intention of causing offence. As I've insisted numerous times I am not trying to defend the interpretation of every Westerner on the filioque. Many of them misunderstand St Thomas and teach that the filioque should be taken in other than an adverbial sense. This is something, if I recall correctly, Dr Stylianopolous points out in the article linked via the first page.

It is true that the filioque clause can get people tied up and for this reason I think the East is justified in its criticism of liturgical recitation of the Creed avec filioque. Let me give you an example:

Not to long ago on EWTN Live a questioner asked Fr Mitch Pacwa SJ how the procession of the Father and Son works if the Holy Spirit precede's them? Obviously Fr Mitch had to explain that its not precede its proceed. Yet, can we think this individual is the only one? Unfortunately, not everyone reads the Catechism (or reads it accurately). Thus, I feel the Orthodox are justified in saying the filioque is unclear that it gives rise to heretical interpretation and that its liturgical recitation could unintentionally mislead some.

What I feel is unjustified is the filioque being branded as heretical, which in St Thomas its not. I'm not particularly concerned with how his teaching has been understood or not and how writers apart from St Thomas have taught the filioque. I'm on the tail end of the Ressourcement et la nouvelle theologie, for me everything is the source itself not the commentary and in the source I find no heresy as I've gone at lengths to show. Even Montenero's words can be reinterpreted according to an authentic reading of Aquinas's Triadology but its unneccessary because his words aren't particularly relevant:

The reason Ghosty keeps saying go back to the definition is because the Western way of looking at a Council (or ex cathedra statement alternatively) is to go back to the definition itself. As such the reasoning of Montenero, for instance, lacks pertinence for us since that's not what we're called to evaluate.

You're probably right Jason. Perhaps a lot of Latin theologians have renedered the filioque wrongly, which as you have pointed out, is dangerously errant. However a) St Thomas is not one of them and b) even if he were--and he's not--his voice would become irrelevant. For whilst the discussions at Florence are interesting reading, according to the way we've learnt to read Ecumenical Councils in the West what they said about the filioque is impertinent. The Council's definition is the sole object of importance and, in truth, only the Magisterium has arbitrary powers of interpretation over the objects of dogmatic definitions.

Hence, Ghosty was right to refer to the Vatican Clarification because thats the most authoratitive interpretation of the filioque (LG 25) extant in the Latin Church. Even what the doctors of the Church taught has no weight if their interpretation conflicts that explanation. The whole thrust of my participation in this thread has simply been to show that St Thomas' teaching on the filioque is adverbial and thus non-heretical and does not fall foul of the Holy See's pronouncement. If other Western writers have err'd *shrugs* thats not my concern. If they're wrong, they're wrong. Living in the 21st century Latin Church I've grown accustomed to theologians giving their own views of documents in direct conflict with Rome's. E.g. Just ask certain moral theologians what Vatican II's idea of conscience means?

When St Thomas uses the filioque he interprets 'one principle' to be an adverb a word to describe how as the Father generates the Son in the act of so doing He also instantaneously processes the Spirit. The Father and the Son are one principle because in generating the Son, the Father also processes the Spirit. This I believe does not contravene the Vatican clarification nor the traditions of the East.

Yes, and we continue to disagree on the meaning of the texts of the Council of Florence.

It is precisely the idea that the Father and the Son can be a "single principle" in the procession (or spiration) of the hypostasis of the Holy Spirit that I deny as an Eastern Christian, because this concept involves a confusion of the hypostasis of the Father with the hypostasis of the Son, i.e., it is a form of Sabellianism.

What is common to two of the hypostases of the Trinity, is common to all three hypostases because of their common essence (ousia); in other words, if the Father and the Son are a "single principle" in the spiration of the hypostasis of the Holy Spirit, it follows that the Spirit must also be a "single principle" with them in His own spiration, which is clearly nonsense.

The hypostases of the Trinity are distinguished only by their unique hypostatic properties (idiotes), and so anything that is common to the Father and the Son is common also to the Holy Spirit. As St. Basil said, "The Spirit shares titles held in common by the Father and the Son; He receives these titles due to His natural and intimate relationship with them." [St. Basil, "On the Holy Spirit," ch. 19, no. 48] Thus, the idea that the Father and the Son can be a "single principle" in the spiration of the hypostasis of the Holy Spirit involves a confusion of hypostasis and essence (ousia) within the Godhead, because anything common to the hypostases is founded upon the one divine essence (ousia) that they share, and that is why the Western notion that the Father and the Son can be a "single principle" in the procession of the Spirit's hypostasis is nonsensical.

Therefore, to hold that the Father and the Son can be a "single principle" of origin in relation to the hypostasis of the Holy Spirit involves either Sabellian modalism, or an essential subordination of the Spirit to the Father and the Son, because He does not possess a common quality shared by the Father and the Son, and consequently would be essentially distinct from them and subordinate to them.

Generation and procession are hypostatic properties of the Father alone, and as such they are not common essential qualities of two or more of the hypostases within the Trinity. Thus, the Father and the Son cannot act as a "single principle" in the procession of the Spirit's hypostasis, and to say that they can act in this way is contrary to the theological tradition of the Eastern Church.

The Father alone is the single principle who spirates the hypostasis of the Spirit, just as He is the single principle that generates the hypostasis of the Son.

Myles brings up an excellent point that I hadn't really considered, and that's the Western view of how to understand dogmatic documents and how it may conflict with other understandings.

We are very, very strict in applying the "What does it say" rule, and this comes into play in all aspects of the Infallibility of the Church. In the West we have a conception akin to "Truth survives inspite of us", and all of our "infallibility" rules must be understood in light of that. When we read 2 Peter 1:20-21 we understand it as a principle of Faith to be applied in a certain way:

We believe that the Holy Spirit can speak through people without regard to their human will or reason, and the question is when and where we can know that the Holy Spirit is speaking. Our understanding of infallibility is entirely rooted in that understanding, and is nothing short of a set of key identifiers for definate identification of the Holy Spirit's voice and words. "He who hears you, hears me" becomes not a general affirmation, but a law, a binding servitude and subjegation of the human will to God's in certain cases.

It's an interesting concept I've never really explored before, and might be worth further reflection. The application of this principle seems worthy of a lot of thought.

Apotheoun: I've only got one thing to say, brother in Christ:

I agree completely, 110%, that procession belongs only to the Father. I just disagree that procession belongs only to the Father, and so do the Church Fathers

I agree with the first part of your comment, but clearly I hold the second part to be Sabellian.

Procession is a hypostatic property unique to the Father, and as such it can be shared with no one else. Moreover, as I indicated before, anything common to two of the hypostases is common to all three. Therefore, if procession is common to the Father and the Son, it is common to the Spirit as well, and that means that the Spirit can be the cause of His own procession, which is clearly heretical.

While not wishing to address the filioque specifically right now (I stand by my wish to leave that alone for a while), I will say a few things:

First, Myles, I sent you a PM; don't worry, you don't need to apologize. So that everyone understands, I suppose what ultimately put me off was the certain implication that perhaps those like Apotheoun and I have just failed to "figure it out" and see the obvious fact that we are clearly wrong about what the Church teaches. I know that no one said as many words -- and, in charity, I believe that probably no one meant them that way either -- but when the possibility of that implication arose in the context of issues that had already been discussed repeatedly (to no avail) by myself, Ghosty, Apotheoun, and Ray, and that we all had put quite a bit of work into, I was a bit... disappointed. That's all. Again, sorry for the aggressive nature of my post.

Now, a few substantive concerns.

First, I understand that Montenero's words and the other discussion at Florence is anything but infallible or authoritative. However, it doesn't seem that I need them to be. The defintion of Florence is supposed to be infallible. The definition of Florence says that the Son is a cause and principle of the Holy Spirit's essence and subsistent being, and that he receives the Spirit's procession from the Father so that the Spirit proceeds from the Son. Apotheoun and I have already pointed out that this seems to remain the teaching of the Church -- Fr. David Coffey argues this point explicitly, Fr. Joseph Gill suggests this particularly in the way he treats John Beccos, and nothing in the Vatican's clarification on the filioque explicitly says otherwise; the document remains ambiguous so that it can be interpreted exactly in our way regarding Florence, and this is why I find it so odd that the document neglects to mention Florence even once. It says nothing about what Florence's definition might possibly mean, and that, by the way, is likely part of the reason why Metropolitan John of Pergamon -- one of the foremost ecumenical theologians in the Orthodox Church -- responded to the document by pointing out that the issue of what the Catholic document means by "cause" is still the main issue; it isn't clear. In other words, contemporary scholars seem -- forgive me if it is pompous to say so -- heavily on the side of the interpretation Apotheoun and I are giving, as do the very deliberations at Florence.

And this is precisely where the deliberations at Florence become relevant. Ghosty raised the point that perhaps the definition at Florence meant something else by "cause," or did not mean what we thought it meant when it said that the Spirit has his essence and subsistent being from the Father and the Son. The deliberations at Florence are not infallible, of course, but they do say something about what the definition that was agreed upon might have meant -- in fact, they are probably the strongest support of what was meant at the time that the definition was written up. What did the Latins who wrote up that definition mean when they said that the Son was a cause of the Spirit's subsistent being? I refer you to Montenero, quoted above.

Finally, Ghosty, you must have made a typo here: If not, this issue is perhaps more ambiguous than many of us think.

Thanks, and God bless,
Jason

Apotheoun and Ecce Jason: No typos on my part, I was being completely serious.

As I've said before, Latin has two meanings for procession, one that excludes the other. This is why saying that "procession" is a hypostatic property of the Father alone is misleading.

In one sense of procession, the sense of hypostatic origin, that is absolutely true, but in another it is entirely false, because it would mean that the Son doesn't eternally manifest the Holy Spirit. The Church Fathers were adamant that the Son eternally manifests the Holy Spirit, and in Latin that has been expressed as "procession" since the time of Augustine. When people say that "procession" belongs to the Father alone, they have to be very careful to indicate exactly how they mean it.

Procession is common to both, but not the same kinds of procession, and that is where the confusion sets in. It's kind of like how running is a trait common to both sprinters and watery icing on cakes; same word, completely different implication. :p

Peace!