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

Compare and contrast:

and

What St Thomas means by procession of intellect is equivalent to what he finds in The Damascene (whom he quotes more times than anyone in the Summa besides Augustine and Pseudo-Denys). As such the filioque as Thomas uses is not heretical since what is loved is first known and in God understanding takes hypostatic existence as Word. The procession of love must by the consubstanitality of the persons include the Word. But in both the Son's generation and the Spirit's procession the Father is the principle. The Son takes place in the procession only because it is impossible by God's own timelessness and hyper perfection that He could at no time fail to understand what He was willing. There are not two principals in Thomas' thought, Thomas is not a modalist, nor does Thomas come to any conclusion that the tradition of the Church which has always held that the Divine Logos is a Word proceeding from Mind. Indeed, his conclusions are what you'd expect from someone who's main theological influences are Augustine, Denys and Damascene. St John the golden throated even says:

If the emboldened words are not psychological analogy then there is not psychological anaology in Aquinas. I do not have a problem with the Trinitarian theology of Gregory of Cyprus or St Gregory Palamas. I am not out to prove the East is wrong. All I want is for people to stop saying St Thomas' use of the filioque is heretical. Indeed, some of the charges Jason cited about differing solely on relation of opposition can be found in other Western writers prior to Thomas. If you read the book 'Discovering Aquinas' by Fr Aidan Nichols OP he actually names a few of them. Whether or not they were actually rendering St Augustine's ideas acurately I cant know because I am not an Augustinian and know precious little about his work. But when it comes to St Thomas and what he means when he says the Holy Spirit proceeds from the father and the Son or in the next article of the same question from the Father through the Son I really cannot see how this can be errant. The Word is Logos, the Word must eternally and without question always have understanding in infinite clarity. The Word is the Father's knowing of what He wills and thus Thomas says:

Which I feel are no different from St John Damascene making statements like this:

Sincerely
Myles

PS) Zenovia thanks for reminding us whats most important.

Close, but no cigar.

Myles,

I recommend reading David Bradshaw's book "Aristotle: East and West," because in it he shows quite clearly that Aquinas frequently misunderstood and misread what St. John Damascene meant in his theological writings, especially in relation to the divine names and the hypostatic origin of the Son and Spirit.

Blessings to you,
Todd

The Eastern Fathers, including St. John Damascene, do not reduce the hypostases to mere relations within the divine essence, nor do they reduce them to psychological categories; rather, the hypostases are different in their manner of subsistence (tropos hyparxeos). The Son receives his subsistence from the Father by generation, and the Spirit receives His subsistence from the Father alone by procession. That being said, St. John's doctrine of perichoresis allows that the hypostases indwell each other, and that is why the Spirit, which is properly the Spirit of the Father, is also the Spirit of the Son, but as St. John goes on to say, ". . . we do not speak of the Spirit as from the Son." [St. John Damascene, "De Fide Orthodoxa," Book I, Ch. 8] There is no "filioque" in the theology of St. John Damascene, and in fact there is a direct refutation of it, which I just quoted above. Moreover, St. John Damascene does not reduce the hypostases to mere relations within the divine essence as Aquinas does, nor does he fail to distinguish between essence and hypostasis as Aquinas does (cf., Summa Theologica, Prima Pars, Q. 39, Art. 1 and 2; Q. 40, Art. 1). Now as far as the Spirit's origin is concerned, it comes from the Father alone, for as Andrew Louth pointed out in his book on Damascene, St. John ". . . speaks of the Holy Spirit as 'the Holy Spirit of God the Father, as proceeding from Him, who is also said to be of the Son, as through Him manifest and bestowed on the creation, but not as taking His existence from Him.' (St. John, Sabbat. 4:21-23)" [Andrew Louth, "St. John Damascene: Tradition and Originality in Byzantine Theology," page 110]

Dear Jason you said:

"With all due respect, I fear that your post may be motivated by a mistake that has become quite prevalent these days. I don't blame you for it, as it is all too common. But I think it is this: you seem to almost imply that "heart" and "mind" are inevitably opposed, as if there is some unbreakable dichotomy between strident intellectual endeavor and prayerful and heartfelt reverence. There are at least two reasons that I believe this is false."

I say:

I realize that discussions must always occur and certainly agree with you in everything you stated. I just get a little annoyed at times with some, (and I have come across quite a few), that will use a certain 'word' and it's correctness within a certain language (Greek), in order to 'impose' their beliefs on another. I can't help but feel that when one over specifies the 'correctness' of certain words that can only be understood within a certain language, it becomes an 'idolatry' of that language, and I have seen too much of that.

Certainly the heart and mind go together otherwise we'd be following our 'passions', and that wouldn't be very Christ-like.

Please forgive me if I had given the impression that I didn't believe in honest and open discussion.

Zenovia

Straw.

Apotheoun: Latins believe that the Holy Spirit's sole source of personhood is the Father. All you're doing is setting up straw men.

The way "from" (ek) is used in Greek is much different from Latin and English. You're simply obfuscating that in your remarks. These cross-culture and cross-linguistic discussions always end up as shell games with the Truth. :rolleyes:

Aquinas agrees with you as the quoted passage from the letter to the Cantor of Antioch and the Summa is testament to. In the breadth of Q36 Article 3 its quite clear actually.

Perhaps you are misunderstanding what St Thomas Aquinas means by filioque. When St John Damascene speaks of the procession of the Holy Spirit in De Fide Ortho. Book 1 chapter 7 he clearly includes the Son in the how . Interpreting chapters 7 and 8 in light of one another it is clear that John includes the Son in the procession not as a second principle but as a simultaneous action of the Father. As the Word is generated the Word is accompanied by the Spirit because of its nature as a Word:

Thomas agrees though his more extensive treatment of the Son makes it seem otherwise. His point is merely that in the Son's generation from the Father there cannot not simultaneously be procession by Spirit because God's timelessness prevents such a thing. There is no instant seperating God's all-self comprehension and God's all-self love. The two are simultaneous acts from the Father as my citations of St Thomas have illustrated. Louth is correct that the Spirit does not take His existence from the Son. St Thomas' words that the Father spirates through the Son do not have the meaning that you're giving them. This is clear from St Thomas' own words:

An adverb, as everyone knows, is a word which describes a verb 'a doing word' as teachers used to tell me as an infant. Calling the Father and the Son one principle adverbially of the Spirit acts only to describe the doing done by the Father. The Father generates the Son via procession of intellect and simultaneously does the procession of love take place. Thus, St Thomas maintains the procession of the Spirit from the Father and the Son as one principle (adverbially). This can be described through the words of The Damascene:

As with all scholastic writers St Thomas Aquinas arranges his material systematically so that what you read next you will read in light of what has come prior (as Q36 illustrates). Hence what you say here:

Must be read in light of what St Thomas says in Q 29 Art. 2: Whether "person" is the same as hypostasis, subsistence, and essence? [newadvent.org]

In light of what St Thomas tells us in Summa Theol. Q29 Art.2 its evident why he answers what he answers in the questions to which you have referenced the reader: the Divine substance is two fold. The simplicity of God is always two fold, St Thomas holds without doubt that ousia and hypostasis and irreducible further. Hence, for St Thomas it makes sense to answer what he answers in the Questions you have referenced.

Once again I highlight that I have no problem with the Trinitarian Theology of the East I'm not out to do anything more than vindicate the Triadology of my mentor. Without whom I have never had been able to make the act of intellect that God took and confirmed in His loving grace, and without whom I may have fallen into modernism and all sorts of novel 'approaches' to Catholic teaching.

It was St Thomas who dragged me out of emanationism, St Thomas who taught me to love God for bridging the infinite gap between ourselves and Himself uncoerced and unforced, St Thomas who taught me to love the sacraments especially the Eucharist. I owe him...lots. Therefore, I must contest passionately--a fault I admit Thomas but not all can be as composed and reasoned as you angel of schools--any misrepresentation of his teaching.

Thomas may have stressed the Son more than need be in Q36 but only because he was a Westerner living in part of the world where the fight against Arianism had decisively influenced the prominence given to the Son in the Latin Triadology he was taught. Yet, as I've shown, at the root of his teaching there cannot be found a shred of evidence for the errors of modalism or ditheism.

Sincerely
Myles

Actually it is St. Thomas who misunderstands St. John, because the Son does not participate in the "how" of the hypostatic procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father. St. Thomas, because he fails to distinguish essence, energy, and hypostasis in God, confuses the energetic manifestation of the Spirit through the Son, with the Spirit's hypostatic origin. This error is common among Western theologians.

I urge you to read David Bradshaw's book.

I'll grant that what the Damascene says of the Spirit in De Fide Ortho. Book 1 Chapter 8 is concerned with the economy primarily. But chapters 6 and 7 of De Fide Ortho. treat the eternal Trinity and it is in the content chapter 7 in particular that what I am saying about St Thomas takes its foundations. What is written in chapter 6 about the eternal generation of the Son is dovetailed by the Damascenes' treatment of the simultaneous eternal procession of the Spirit in chapter 7. You're correct that the West does not distinguish the economy from the eternal but in this case it is of little consequence because St Thomas' eternal Triadology echoes the contents of De Fide Ortho. Book 1:6-7.

The problem with St. Thomas is that he is more of a philosopher than a theologian. The Aristotelian distinction he makes in substance does not correspond to the teaching of the Cappadocians.

Moreover, as I pointed out before he fails to distinguish hypostasis from essence in Prima Pars Q. 39, Art. 1 and 2, and Q. 40, Art. 1, which is why Christopher Hughes in his book entitled "On a Complex Theory of a Simple God" asserts that Thomas' Trinitarian "theory" ultimately destroys the reality of the three hypostases.

It would have served Thomas well to have backed off from Aristotle, and embrace the Cappadocians, because Thomas' views on the divine simplicity make any real distinctions in God impossible.

Thomas has reduced the three hypostases to mere relations within the divine essence, and he insists that "person" and "essence" are the same, that Cappadocian Fathers condemned this position as Sabellian (cf. Basil, Letter 236] Thomas' Aristotelian theory of the Trinity has very little to do with the Cappadocian doctrine. As an Easterner I reject Thomas' nominalist theory of the Trinity. Sadly, for Thomas, the three divine hypostases only differ in ". . . our way of thinking." [Summa, Prima Pars, Q. 39, Art. 1]

In Q. 40, Art. 1, Thomas reduces the "persons" (hypostases) to the divine essence, in which they differ only in relation. The hypostases are true subsistent realities, and so they are not merely "a relation subsisting in the divine nature," as Thomas believes.
This idea is not acceptable in the Eastern theological tradition, because hypostasis and essence (ousia) are really distinct, and so you cannot identify any one hypostasis with the divine essence. In fact, if you identify essence and hypostasis in God you advocate a form of Sabellian modalism.

I posted the following note that I wrote to a friend on my website, but I thought I'd post it here as well:

The Trinitarian Problems Arising from the Thomistic Failure to Distinguish Essence and Hypostasis in God

I've been thinking about Aquinas' views on the Trinity, and I believe his philosophical theology ultimately leads to a denial of the reality of the three divine hypostases.

Let me put it this way, in the "Summa Theologica" (Prima Pars, Q. 39, A. 1 and A. 2; and Q. 40, A. 1) St. Thomas denies that there is a real distinction between essence (or nature) and hypostasis; thus, the hypostasis of the Father is identical with the divine essence (or nature), and the same holds with the hypostases of the Son and the Spirit. As a consequence, the essence of God is the Father, but since the Son and the Spirit possesses the same divine essence as the Father, it follows that they are both the Father as well, since the divine essence is identical with the hypostatic property of paternity. That being said, the subsistent reality of the Father is also undermined, because He possesses the divine essence too, and since the divine essence is held in Thomas' theory to be identical with the hypostases of the Son and the Spirit, it follows that the Father is also the Son, while He is simultaneously the Spirit, and so, the trinity of divine hypostases collapses into a single monistic whole.

As Christopher Hughes puts it in his critique of the Thomist theory of the Trinity:

"Surely if (a) the essence of x = the essence of y, and (b) the essence of x = x, and the essence of y = y, it follows as the night does the day that x = y. And Aquinas maintains both that the divine persons are not distinct from their essences, and that they all have the same essence." [Hughes, "On a Complex Theory of a Simple God," (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1989), page192]

In other words, the Father (x) is the Son (y), and the Son is the Father, and the same holds in relation to the Spirit. Now it should be noted that the first point (a) of Aquinas' theory conforms to the teaching of the Cappadocian Fathers, but that the second point (b) does not; in fact, the second point conforms to the teaching of Sabellius and not to the theological doctrine of the Cappadocians.

Moreover, Aquinas' error is confirmed by what St. Basil said in Letter 236, where he called those who fail to distinguish between essence (or nature) and hypostasis in God, "Sabellians"; for as St. Basil said, "On the other hand those who identify essence (ousian) or substance and hypostasis are compelled to confess only three persons (prosopa), and, in their hesitation to speak of three hypostases, are convicted of failure to avoid the error of Sabellius, for even Sabellius himself, who in many places confuses the conception, yet, by asserting that the same hypostasis changed its form to meet the needs of the moment, does endeavour to distinguish persons (prosopa)." [St. Basil, Letter 236] St. Thomas, in certain sense, is even more of a modalist than Sabellius, because Sabellius could at least admit that there are prosopic distinctions in God, while Thomas' theory of divine simplicity does not admit of any real distinctions.

No, I'm actually pointing out what Jason already pointed out in another thread. The Western Church at the Council of Lyons II used the word "ekporeuesthai" to describe the procession of the Spirit from the Son, which is clearly unacceptable.

Ghosty,

I know you are well intentioned, as we all should be, but I don't think your views on the historical teaching of the Western Church on the "filioque" match up with the actual documents issued by the Magisterium at the Councils of Lyons II and Florence.

I commend you for trying to reinterpret these conciliar definitions -- which I have seen in both Latin and Greek -- in a way that is less offensive to the theological tradition of the Eastern Church, but your reinterpretation requires the evisceration of the actual meaning of the texts in their original languages.

Myles,

Interestingly enough, the triadology expressed by St. John of Damascus in De Fide Orthodoxa, Book 1, Chapters 6-7 (which you cited), cuts directly against the triadology developed by Aquinas and instead stands in strong support of the Orthodox view. I will explain why briefly, but first I will second Apotheoun's recommendation of Aristotle East and West and also of Crisis in Byzantium by Aristeides Papadakis (which I believe Anastasios suggested), as both of these works explicitly address St. John's triadology and its relationship (or non-relationship) to the filioque. The former is better because it also includes a detailed examination of Augustine, Aquinas, and the Latin tradition.

Now, here are a few quotes I'd like to single out from the 7th chapter of St. John of Damascus:

"When we have learnt about the Spirit of God, we contemplate it as the companion of the Word and the revealer of His energy."

"We must contemplate it as an essential power, existing in its own proper and peculiar subsistence, proceeding from the Father and resting in the Word, and shewing forth the Word."

These two texts express the Orthodox position almost in a nutshell. The Spirit, as eternally subsistent hypostasis, proceeds from the Father (not from the Son -- as Apotheoun noted, St. John explicitly denies that) as the companion of the Word. If He proceeds from the Father with the Word, the Word cannot be any cause, principle, or origin of Him when it comes to hypostatic existence. However, there is an eternal relationship between the Son and the Spirit, and it is exactly what St. John suggests: the Spirit reveals the Son's energy and shows forth (or manifests) the Word. The Orthodox position is exactly this; the Father is the sole cause, principle, origin, etc., of the Spirit in His intra-Trinitarian hypostatic existence, but the Spirit proceeds (or shines forth) from the Father and the Son (or through the Son) in His extra-Trinitarian existence, in the eternal energies of the God and in the temporal creation. Read either of the books that have been suggested (or heck, even ask questions here) if that's not entirely clear.

In any case, suffice it to say that the Orthodox, as I mentioned earlier, make a clear distinction between God's essence and His energies, and there are thus at least three levels of "procession" (or something near it) concerning the Holy Spirit: (1) there is the intra-Trinitarian, hypostatic procession of the Spirit from the Father alone; (2) there is the eternal manifestation in the energies from the Father and (or through) the Son; (3) there is the temporal manifestation in the world from the Father and the Son. Latin theology does not typically make this distinction, which is why Aquinas cannot fully embrace St. John. In fact, Aquinas' theology is committed to a theory of absolute divine simplicity which seems to be contradictory to the Eastern position regarding the essence and energies of God -- on Aquinas' view, all things in God are really identical (His Goodness is His Being, His Will is His Being, etc., as He is pure act). As a result, Aquinas cannot make sense of the distinction between essence and energies, and this is why he cannot embrace the fullness of St. John's theology. When he sees St. John saying that the Spirit manifests the Son's energy or shows forth the Word and understands this as one of His eternal characteristics, he must immediately conclude that it has to do with the intra-Trinitarian hypostatic existence of the Spirit. In other words, he stands committed to the filioque here; with no concept of "eternal energies," he cannot distinguish any other way in which the Spirit eternally shines forth from the Son. St. John can, which is precisely why he can say all of this but also explicitly deny that he ever says "from the Son." Aquinas cannot embrace both theses, and so he ends up rejecting the latter (and saying "from the Son" as a matter of dogma).

Lest you think this idea of "eternal energies" is an anachronistic reading of St. John being forced back into him, I reiterate the suggestion of Bradshaw's book (he shows its existence in the early Church) -- and, along with that, if you can manage to find it, I recommend Joseph Farrell's, Free Choice in Saint Maximus the Confessor, which establishes clearly that the doctrine existed in St. Maximus' writings, and also quite probably (if not definitely) in St. Athanasius and the Cappadocians.

Thanks, and God bless,
Jason

P.S. I'd also second Apotheoun's recommendation of Hughes' book, too, although it's extremely technical and difficult. However, it's worth the work.

My comments are not concerned with the economic Trinity. The Son is not a cause, source, or principle, of the hypostatic origin of the Spirit. St. Thomas is confusing the Spirit's hypostatic procession of origin from the Father alone, with His eternal energetic manifestation through the Son.