www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Divine Essence/Energies

For a very different view of the Western understanding of the "filioque" than that presented by Ghosty, I recommend reading Fr. David Coffey's (Marquette University theology department) article entitled "The Roman Clarification on the Filioque" (International Journal of Systematic Theology, volume 5, no. 1, March 2003), where he explains in connection with the decree of the Council of Florence, that "The document [i.e., the decree] makes it clear that the 'principle' (principium) and 'cause' (causa, Greek: aitia) of the Spirit is the Father and the Son, not just the Father alone, and that it is the eternal production of the Spirit, not just His appearance in the economy, that is being addressed," for as he goes on to say, ". . . what the Spirit has from the Father and the Son is 'His essence and subsistence' (essentiam suam suumque esse subsistens). His essence is His divine nature, His consubstantiality with the other divine persons; and His subsistence is His personhood." [Fr. David Coffey, The Roman Clarification on the Filioque, IJST, vol. 5, no. 1, March 2003: pages 9-10] In other words, Fr. Coffey holds that Florence, following in the tradition of Augustine and Thomas, is teaching that the Spirit has His participation in the divine essence and His hypostatic origin from the Father and the Son as "principle" and "cause" (aitia). In the article he asserts quite clearly that the Eastern idea that the Father alone is the "cause" of the Spirit is wrong, and was condemned at Florence. The two positions, that of the East and that of the West, as presented respectively by the Cappadocians (and all who followed them in the East) and by St. Augustine, St. Thomas, and Council of Florence (in the West), are very different. The West is asserting precisely what the East will not affirm, i.e., that the Son is involved in the hypostatic origination of the Spirit, and that the Father and the Son are both true causes (aitia) within the Godhead.

Blessings to you,
Todd

Jason,

I agree with you that St. Thomas believes that he is relating the "custom of the Latins" in connection with the "filioque," and he clearly is faithful to the Augustinian view of the Trinity.

Blessings to you,
Todd

Matt,

See Apotheoun's above remarks for some important information regarding the Roman Filioque Clarification. Fr. Coffey at least interprets it how I interpret it.

Furthermore, the problem, as I mentioned, is that the clarification on the filioque is ambiguous. The current position expressed in the clarification is that the Father is "sole Trinitarian cause," or sole cause "in a principal, proper, and immediate manner;" the position expressed at Florence is that the Son is a cause too. How do you make these statements compatible? By noting that the "clarification" always uses modifiers to qualify what it means when it says the Father is sole cause; it says that the Father is the sole principal or immediate cause, but taking this in tandem with Florence's statement that the Son is also a cause seems to suggest that the current view, as expressed by Rome itself, is exactly what I'm saying: that the Son is a mediate cause of the orign of the Holy Spirit.

If they come out with another, less ambiguous clarification that says that they mean something else by this, sure, I'll listen to it. Until then, this is the only way I see of making their statements consistent... Unless they've repudiated Florence, which I am unaware of.

Thanks, and God bless,
Jason

I agree with you, the "Clarification on the Filioque," which I view as a good thing overall, is rather ambiguous, i.e., it is open to various interpretations, even some that are diametrically opposed to each other.

In my humble opinion it supports the Florentine view that the Son, at least in some way, can be a "cause" of the hypostasis of the Spirit, and that ultimately is problematic.

Blessings to you,
Todd

Actually, it directly contradicts that view, at least so far as cause is concerned in the Greek sense (which is what the Tomas speaks of):

Of particular note is that Trinitarian Principle is not the same as principle in general, but refers to a very specific kind of principle in the Trinity. Notice that the Council is saying that the Father is the sole aitia of the Holy Spirit. See also:

There doesn't seem to be any room for interpreting the Son as aitia, or "cause" in Greek. There is no possible reading of the document that allows for this. In light of that, and the fact that this comes from a Pontifical Council, Fr. David Coffey's exposition is completely out of line with the Vatican's understanding of the terms used. I'm afraid that when it comes to such matters, the Pontifical Council at the Vatican holds far greater sway than some lone theologian.

Incidently, and not to make this a personal attack on Coffey, but isn't this the same man who also denied that Christ rose from the dead [catholic.com] ? If so, he's been explicitly censured by the CDF (under then Cardinal Ratzinger) in the past. Quite frankly, the man isn't a good first option in discussing the views of the Catholic Church. He's also complained, IIRC, with the Vatican II Council using Scripture to back up its assertions, since he does not view Scripture as inerrant. Can you find a more reliable, and, well, orthodox source for this view? He's not a man that is known for believing what the Church teaches.

If you're basing your concerns on the writings of a theologian who has been investigated, and censured, by the Church's Inquisition, I think you've got little reason to be worried

Now to Ecce Jason's remarks:

Thank you for not intending offense in your statements. At this point in the discussion it is necessary to directly address eachother's readings and interpretations, and this could lead to the idea that we're making ad hominems. I also want to stress that I'm in no way intending to direct anything against you as a person. So if my following words seem harsh or overly direct, please remember that they are in the context of us directly addressing misconceptions we may personally hold.

Thomas Aquinas, while brilliant, also died 200 years before the Council of Florence, and was not privy to the discussion there. Furthermore, the fact that the Latins understood the Greeks to be calling the Son "aitia" indicates that they did not understand the full implication of the term, because such a view has been torn down since, most espescially in the above Pontifical Council. If they had understood the implications, and intended what you say they did, they would have used the term "principaliter", which is the term both Thomas Aquinas and Augustine used to describe the Father as sole author of the Trinity. You've never demonstrated that the Latins have ever called the Father together with the Son "principaliter", with the exception of Fr. Coffey who's comments directly contradict the Pontifical Council's statements on the matter.

If you grant that, then why insist that it does mean consubstantial origin in the Council of Florence, when there's absolutely no indication that this was their intention. Furthermore, Thomas is speaking here about terms that imply consubstantial origin, and based on what you concede, and the fact that Thomas doesn't list principle among the terms, seems to indicate that you are trying to work contradiction into a text (Council of Florence), where none is self-evident.

You admit that the meaning could be as I say, but still seem to be bending over backwards to put yourself in opposition with the Church. I don't say this in order to be harsh, but rather as a fellow Catholic who doesn't want to see my brother suffer spiritually over a contradiction of his own making.

Which leads me to another point: if the Church intended as you say, why hasn't it made an official effort over the six centuries since the Council to stamp out Eastern theology? In a time of rampant heresy (Protestantism), and an active Inquisition that was pulling scientists to trial for so much as suggesting that Scripture might have been in error (Galileo), not one effort was made to eliminate Eastern theology. Jesuit theology was suppressed more than Eastern theology, and this during a time when Rome exerted more power over Easterners than any time in its history. If there was a contradiction, why didn't anyone, East (c'mon, man, the Melkites!) or West, bring it up?

Again, the beliefs of Thomas Aquinas are not espescially important in this discussion. He's only significant insofar as the definition of terms is concerned. Thomas Aquinas held numerous views that were subsequently overruled by the Church. The question is not whether Thomas Aquinas believed a certain way (and given the Latin priority of unity of substance of the Trinity, it's not clear that he believed what you imply he did), but rather if the language of the Council of Florence implies a meaning contrary to Eastern theology. As we've both already stated, principle does not necessarily imply consubstantial origin. One can't use this particular excerpt of Thomas' to indicate that it does.

The only way that the Council of Florence stands against Eastern theology is if principle implies consubstantial origin (not in the sense of ousia, which is common to all the Persons, but rather of a unique consubstantial relationship between Father and Son), and nothing indicates that it does. What I will concede is that the Council of Florence allows too much leeway in believing, erroneously, that the Son participates in the aitia (in the Greek implication), or the principaliter of the Holy Spirit, but it absolutely does not enforce the view that it does. Like the original Creed of Nicea, it does not say enough, but what it says is not heresy, nor does it cause conflict between East and West.

Incidently, both the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Communion recognize that the Council of Florence can't be a basis for unity, and this is part of the reason: it's too ambiguous and prone to multiple contrary interpretations. Ambiguity is the exact opposite of clear and decisive declaration, however, which seems to be your concern about it contradicting Eastern theology.

No, it doesn't. If principle means what you say it means, he would not have illustrated non-consubstantial principles in the Summa. The fact that he thought that the Father and Son were a consubstantial element is irrelevant, because it is never stated in the Council of Florence that they are. If they had intended to say exactly what Thomas Aquinas says about them being consubstantial, they could have easily used the words to do so. The fact that they didn't doesn't seem to be an oversight given the use of the term "principaliter" in Augustine's writings (and Thomas by way of Augustine). If the Father and Son are consubstantial in the personal origin of the Holy Spirit, then the term "principaliter" could not be used to describe the Father alone, which Augustine absolutely does, and the Pontifical Council absolutely does.

A final thought on this subject regarding Thomas' personal views on the matter, it must be understood in the perspective of the Western understanding of the Trinity as starting with the essence and substance of God (ousia) and working out from there to understand the Persons. Since God is one being, one entity, it is erroneous to say that the Father and Son are of different substances. To do so would be to endorse the Mormon view that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three distinct people who cooperate in a "corporation" called God. When speaking purely on individual relations, however, and in the Greek perspective, they can be said to be different substances. Since that view did not predominate in the West, however, the Persons (all of them) are always spoken of as consubstantial, of one ousia. To illustrate:

Who is the Father? God is.
Who is the Son? God is.
Who is the Holy Spirit? God is.
Who begets the Son? God does.
Who processes the Holy Spirit? God does.

This does not lead to Modality in Latin thinking, because the Persons are presented as distinct relations between eachother, and these relationships can only be understood one on one, hence principle is the term used. The only way it could lead to Modality is if the Persons did not relate to one another, but rather only to the substance and essence of God. Incidently, the Orthodox admit that the filioque exists in this aspect of God! From the response to the Pontifical Council by Metropalitan John of Permamon:

In other words, the Greeks absolutely understand that the filioque exists eternally in the ousia God, and the Latins always speak on the level of ousia when they refer to the Father and Son being consubstantial in processing the Spirit.

Did you read the paragraph below or above that one? After quoting some Scripture and Greek thought, he actually points out that this is an error in thinking, and corrects it! He says:

He does not quote it approvingly at all, but rather to correct an error of presumption on the meaning of image on the part of the Latins. Not a single mention in his clarification that the Son takes His "image" from the Father because He also "actively spirates" the Spirit, but rather because the Son's "duty", as it were, is the be the "face" of the Father, but eternally (in being begotten) and temporally (in being conceived in Mary). Since the Holy Spirit is not put forth so as to be a face of God, as Jesus was on Earth, the Holy Spirit is not "the image of the Father". But, as the Holy Spirit shares the essential attributes, He is the image of God.

Thomas Aquinas, in quoting Richard of Victor, is doing nothing more than his typical "Objection 1: style of argumentation, and then proceeds to demolish the objection, which itself is usually based on the writings of a Father or major philosopher. In doing this he is actively trying to correct a Western error by bringing it in line with the Greek Fathers (such as St. Athanasius, whom he quotes in the paragraph above the one you cited). This is classic Thomas Aquinas, and it is actually in support of the Greek arguments and claims (which is also classical Thomas Aquinas).

Honestly, I've seen nothing to indicate that Thomas Aquinas held an erroneous view of the Trinity, applying a unique consubstantial relationship to the Father and Son that was not shared by the Holy Spirit. Furthermore, even if he did, I've seen nothing that indicates that this error was carried over to the Council of Florence. In fact, the man's brilliance in identifying potential Western misunderstandings, as in the case of Richard of St. Victor, still appears to be second to none.

In short, if you go into the readings with the intention, or even inclination, of turning ambiguity against yourself, you will do so. What must be remembered, however, is that definative statements are being pulled out of ambiguous ones, and that is an unhealthy thing to do, espescially in light of the Pontifical Council's clarification on the matter. The ambiguity of previous documents should not be viewed as a reason to object to the definativeness of later ones, anymore than the ambiguousness of the Council of Nicea on the matter of the Holy Spirit should be seen as grounds for rejecting the formula established by the Council of Constantinople.

Remember, there is no need to set the Magisterium against you when the Magisterium is taking your side

Peace be with you, and God bless!

Actually, it directly contradicts that view, at least so far as cause is concerned in the Greek sense (which is what the Tomas speaks of):

Of particular note is that Trinitarian Principle is not the same as principle in general, but refers to a very specific kind of principle in the Trinity. Notice that the Council is saying that the Father is the sole aitia of the Holy Spirit. See also:

There doesn't seem to be any room for interpreting the Son as aitia, or "cause" in Greek. There is no possible reading of the document that allows for this. In light of that, and the fact that this comes from a Pontifical Council, Fr. David Coffey's exposition is completely out of line with the Vatican's understanding of the terms used. I'm afraid that when it comes to such matters, the Pontifical Council at the Vatican holds far greater sway than some lone theologian.

Incidently, and not to make this a personal attack on Coffey, but isn't this the same man who also denied that Christ rose from the dead [catholic.com] ? If so, he's been explicitly censured by the CDF (under then Cardinal Ratzinger) in the past. Quite frankly, the man isn't a good first option in discussing the views of the Catholic Church. He's also complained, IIRC, with the Vatican II Council using Scripture to back up its assertions, since he does not view Scripture as inerrant. Can you find a more reliable, and, well, orthodox source for this view? He's not a man that is known for believing what the Church teaches.

If you're basing your concerns on the writings of a theologian who has been investigated, and censured, by the Church's Inquisition, I think you've got little reason to be worried

Now to Ecce Jason's remarks:

Thank you for not intending offense in your statements. At this point in the discussion it is necessary to directly address eachother's readings and interpretations, and this could lead to the idea that we're making ad hominems. I also want to stress that I'm in no way intending to direct anything against you as a person. So if my following words seem harsh or overly direct, please remember that they are in the context of us directly addressing misconceptions we may personally hold.

Thomas Aquinas, while brilliant, also died 200 years before the Council of Florence, and was not privy to the discussion there. Furthermore, the fact that the Latins understood the Greeks to be calling the Son "aitia" indicates that they did not understand the full implication of the term, because such a view has been torn down since, most espescially in the above Pontifical Council. If they had understood the implications, and intended what you say they did, they would have used the term "principaliter", which is the term both Thomas Aquinas and Augustine used to describe the Father as sole author of the Trinity. You've never demonstrated that the Latins have ever called the Father together with the Son "principaliter", with the exception of Fr. Coffey who's comments directly contradict the Pontifical Council's statements on the matter.

If you grant that, then why insist that it does mean consubstantial origin in the Council of Florence, when there's absolutely no indication that this was their intention. Furthermore, Thomas is speaking here about terms that imply consubstantial origin, and based on what you concede, and the fact that Thomas doesn't list principle among the terms, seems to indicate that you are trying to work contradiction into a text (Council of Florence), where none is self-evident.

You admit that the meaning could be as I say, but still seem to be bending over backwards to put yourself in opposition with the Church. I don't say this in order to be harsh, but rather as a fellow Catholic who doesn't want to see my brother suffer spiritually over a contradiction of his own making.

Which leads me to another point: if the Church intended as you say, why hasn't it made an official effort over the six centuries since the Council to stamp out Eastern theology? In a time of rampant heresy (Protestantism), and an active Inquisition that was pulling scientists to trial for so much as suggesting that Scripture might have been in error (Galileo), not one effort was made to eliminate Eastern theology. Jesuit theology was suppressed more than Eastern theology, and this during a time when Rome exerted more power over Easterners than any time in its history. If there was a contradiction, why didn't anyone, East (c'mon, man, the Melkites!) or West, bring it up?

Again, the beliefs of Thomas Aquinas are not espescially important in this discussion. He's only significant insofar as the definition of terms is concerned. Thomas Aquinas held numerous views that were subsequently overruled by the Church. The question is not whether Thomas Aquinas believed a certain way (and given the Latin priority of unity of substance of the Trinity, it's not clear that he believed what you imply he did), but rather if the language of the Council of Florence implies a meaning contrary to Eastern theology. As we've both already stated, principle does not necessarily imply consubstantial origin. One can't use this particular excerpt of Thomas' to indicate that it does.

The only way that the Council of Florence stands against Eastern theology is if principle implies consubstantial origin (not in the sense of ousia, which is common to all the Persons, but rather of a unique consubstantial relationship between Father and Son), and nothing indicates that it does. What I will concede is that the Council of Florence allows too much leeway in believing, erroneously, that the Son participates in the aitia (in the Greek implication), or the principaliter of the Holy Spirit, but it absolutely does not enforce the view that it does. Like the original Creed of Nicea, it does not say enough, but what it says is not heresy, nor does it cause conflict between East and West.

Incidently, both the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Communion recognize that the Council of Florence can't be a basis for unity, and this is part of the reason: it's too ambiguous and prone to multiple contrary interpretations. Ambiguity is the exact opposite of clear and decisive declaration, however, which seems to be your concern about it contradicting Eastern theology.

No, it doesn't. If principle means what you say it means, he would not have illustrated non-consubstantial principles in the Summa. The fact that he thought that the Father and Son were a consubstantial element is irrelevant, because it is never stated in the Council of Florence that they are. If they had intended to say exactly what Thomas Aquinas says about them being consubstantial, they could have easily used the words to do so. The fact that they didn't doesn't seem to be an oversight given the use of the term "principaliter" in Augustine's writings (and Thomas by way of Augustine). If the Father and Son are consubstantial in the personal origin of the Holy Spirit, then the term "principaliter" could not be used to describe the Father alone, which Augustine absolutely does, and the Pontifical Council absolutely does.

A final thought on this subject regarding Thomas' personal views on the matter, it must be understood in the perspective of the Western understanding of the Trinity as starting with the essence and substance of God (ousia) and working out from there to understand the Persons. Since God is one being, one entity, it is erroneous to say that the Father and Son are of different substances. To do so would be to endorse the Mormon view that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three distinct people who cooperate in a "corporation" called God. When speaking purely on individual relations, however, and in the Greek perspective, they can be said to be different substances. Since that view did not predominate in the West, however, the Persons (all of them) are always spoken of as consubstantial, of one ousia. To illustrate:

Who is the Father? God is.
Who is the Son? God is.
Who is the Holy Spirit? God is.
Who begets the Son? God does.
Who processes the Holy Spirit? God does.

This does not lead to Modality in Latin thinking, because the Persons are presented as distinct relations between eachother, and these relationships can only be understood one on one, hence principle is the term used. The only way it could lead to Modality is if the Persons did not relate to one another, but rather only to the substance and essence of God. Incidently, the Orthodox admit that the filioque exists in this aspect of God! From the response to the Pontifical Council by Metropalitan John of Permamon:

In other words, the Greeks absolutely understand that the filioque exists eternally in the ousia God, and the Latins always speak on the level of ousia when they refer to the Father and Son being consubstantial in processing the Spirit.

Did you read the paragraph below or above that one? After quoting some Scripture and Greek thought, he actually points out that this is an error in thinking, and corrects it! He says:

He does not quote it approvingly at all, but rather to correct an error of presumption on the meaning of image on the part of the Latins. Not a single mention in his clarification that the Son takes His "image" from the Father because He also "actively spirates" the Spirit, but rather because the Son's "duty", as it were, is the be the "face" of the Father, but eternally (in being begotten) and temporally (in being conceived in Mary). Since the Holy Spirit is not put forth so as to be a face of God, as Jesus was on Earth, the Holy Spirit is not "the image of the Father". But, as the Holy Spirit shares the essential attributes, He is the image of God.

Thomas Aquinas, in quoting Richard of Victor, is doing nothing more than his typical "Objection 1: style of argumentation, and then proceeds to demolish the objection, which itself is usually based on the writings of a Father or major philosopher. In doing this he is actively trying to correct a Western error by bringing it in line with the Greek Fathers (such as St. Athanasius, whom he quotes in the paragraph above the one you cited). This is classic Thomas Aquinas, and it is actually in support of the Greek arguments and claims (which is also classical Thomas Aquinas).

Honestly, I've seen nothing to indicate that Thomas Aquinas held an erroneous view of the Trinity, applying a unique consubstantial relationship to the Father and Son that was not shared by the Holy Spirit. Furthermore, even if he did, I've seen nothing that indicates that this error was carried over to the Council of Florence. In fact, the man's brilliance in identifying potential Western misunderstandings, as in the case of Richard of St. Victor, still appears to be second to none.

In short, if you go into the readings with the intention, or even inclination, of turning ambiguity against yourself, you will do so. What must be remembered, however, is that definative statements are being pulled out of ambiguous ones, and that is an unhealthy thing to do, espescially in light of the Pontifical Council's clarification on the matter. The ambiguity of previous documents should not be viewed as a reason to object to the definativeness of later ones, anymore than the ambiguousness of the Council of Nicea on the matter of the Holy Spirit should be seen as grounds for rejecting the formula established by the Council of Constantinople.

Remember, there is no need to set the Magisterium against you when the Magisterium is taking your side

Peace be with you, and God bless!

Apotheoun:

Actually, it directly contradicts that view, at least so far as cause is concerned in the Greek sense (which is what the Tomas speaks of):

Of particular note is that Trinitarian Principle is not the same as principle in general, but refers to a very specific kind of principle in the Trinity. Notice that the Council is saying that the Father is the sole aitia of the Holy Spirit. See also:

There doesn't seem to be any room for interpreting the Son as aitia, or "cause" in Greek. There is no possible reading of the document that allows for this. In light of that, and the fact that this comes from a Pontifical Council, Fr. David Coffey's exposition is completely out of line with the Vatican's understanding of the terms used. I'm afraid that when it comes to such matters, the Pontifical Council at the Vatican holds far greater sway than some lone theologian.

Incidently, and not to make this a personal attack on Coffey, but isn't this the same man who also denied that Christ rose from the dead [catholic.com] ? If so, he's been explicitly censured by the CDF (under then Cardinal Ratzinger) in the past. Quite frankly, the man isn't a good first option in discussing the views of the Catholic Church. He's also complained, IIRC, with the Vatican II Council using Scripture to back up its assertions, since he does not view Scripture as inerrant. Can you find a more reliable, and, well, orthodox source for this view? He's not a man that is known for believing what the Church teaches.

If you're basing your concerns on the writings of a theologian who has been investigated, and censured, by the Church's Inquisition, I think you've got little reason to be worried

Actually, it directly contradicts that view, at least so far as cause is concerned in the Greek sense (which is what the Tomas speaks of):

Of particular note is that Trinitarian Principle is not the same as principle in general, but refers to a very specific kind of principle in the Trinity. Notice that the Council is saying that the Father is the sole aitia of the Holy Spirit. See also:

There doesn't seem to be any room for interpreting the Son as aitia, or "cause" in Greek. There is no possible reading of the document that allows for this. In light of that, and the fact that this comes from a Pontifical Council, Fr. David Coffey's exposition is completely out of line with the Vatican's understanding of the terms used. I'm afraid that when it comes to such matters, the Pontifical Council at the Vatican holds far greater sway than some lone theologian.

Incidently, and not to make this a personal attack on Coffey, but isn't this the same man who also denied that Christ rose from the dead [catholic.com] ? If so, he's been explicitly censured by the CDF (under then Cardinal Ratzinger) in the past. Quite frankly, the man isn't a good first option in discussing the views of the Catholic Church. He's also complained, IIRC, with the Vatican II Council using Scripture to back up its assertions, since he does not view Scripture as inerrant. Can you find a more reliable, and, well, orthodox source for this view? He's not a man that is known for believing what the Church teaches.

If you're basing your concerns on the writings of a theologian who has been investigated, and censured, by the Church's Inquisition, I think you've got little reason to be worried

Now to Ecce Jason's remarks:

Thank you for not intending offense in your statements. At this point in the discussion it is necessary to directly address eachother's readings and interpretations, and this could lead to the idea that we're making ad hominems. I also want to stress that I'm in no way intending to direct anything against you as a person. So if my following words seem harsh or overly direct, please remember that they are in the context of us directly addressing misconceptions we may personally hold.

Thomas Aquinas, while brilliant, also died 200 years before the Council of Florence, and was not privy to the discussion there. Furthermore, the fact that the Latins understood the Greeks to be calling the Son "aitia" indicates that they did not understand the full implication of the term, because such a view has been torn down since, most espescially in the above Pontifical Council. If they had understood the implications, and intended what you say they did, they would have used the term "principaliter", which is the term both Thomas Aquinas and Augustine used to describe the Father as sole author of the Trinity. You've never demonstrated that the Latins have ever called the Father together with the Son "principaliter", with the exception of Fr. Coffey who's comments directly contradict the Pontifical Council's statements on the matter.

If you grant that, then why insist that it does mean consubstantial origin in the Council of Florence, when there's absolutely no indication that this was their intention. Furthermore, Thomas is speaking here about terms that imply consubstantial origin, and based on what you concede, and the fact that Thomas doesn't list principle among the terms, seems to indicate that you are trying to work contradiction into a text (Council of Florence), where none is self-evident.

You admit that the meaning could be as I say, but still seem to be bending over backwards to put yourself in opposition with the Church. I don't say this in order to be harsh, but rather as a fellow Catholic who doesn't want to see my brother suffer spiritually over a contradiction of his own making.

Which leads me to another point: if the Church intended as you say, why hasn't it made an official effort over the six centuries since the Council to stamp out Eastern theology? In a time of rampant heresy (Protestantism), and an active Inquisition that was pulling scientists to trial for so much as suggesting that Scripture might have been in error (Galileo), not one effort was made to eliminate Eastern theology. Jesuit theology was suppressed more than Eastern theology, and this during a time when Rome exerted more power over Easterners than any time in its history. If there was a contradiction, why didn't anyone, East (c'mon, man, the Melkites!) or West, bring it up?

Again, the beliefs of Thomas Aquinas are not espescially important in this discussion. He's only significant insofar as the definition of terms is concerned. Thomas Aquinas held numerous views that were subsequently overruled by the Church. The question is not whether Thomas Aquinas believed a certain way (and given the Latin priority of unity of substance of the Trinity, it's not clear that he believed what you imply he did), but rather if the language of the Council of Florence implies a meaning contrary to Eastern theology. As we've both already stated, principle does not necessarily imply consubstantial origin. One can't use this particular excerpt of Thomas' to indicate that it does.

The only way that the Council of Florence stands against Eastern theology is if principle implies consubstantial origin (not in the sense of ousia, which is common to all the Persons, but rather of a unique consubstantial relationship between Father and Son), and nothing indicates that it does. What I will concede is that the Council of Florence allows too much leeway in believing, erroneously, that the Son participates in the aitia (in the Greek implication), or the principaliter of the Holy Spirit, but it absolutely does not enforce the view that it does. Like the original Creed of Nicea, it does not say enough, but what it says is not heresy, nor does it cause conflict between East and West.

Incidently, both the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Communion recognize that the Council of Florence can't be a basis for unity, and this is part of the reason: it's too ambiguous and prone to multiple contrary interpretations. Ambiguity is the exact opposite of clear and decisive declaration, however, which seems to be your concern about it contradicting Eastern theology.

No, it doesn't. If principle means what you say it means, he would not have illustrated non-consubstantial principles in the Summa. The fact that he thought that the Father and Son were a consubstantial element is irrelevant, because it is never stated in the Council of Florence that they are. If they had intended to say exactly what Thomas Aquinas says about them being consubstantial, they could have easily used the words to do so. The fact that they didn't doesn't seem to be an oversight given the use of the term "principaliter" in Augustine's writings (and Thomas by way of Augustine). If the Father and Son are consubstantial in the personal origin of the Holy Spirit, then the term "principaliter" could not be used to describe the Father alone, which Augustine absolutely does, and the Pontifical Council absolutely does.

A final thought on this subject regarding Thomas' personal views on the matter, it must be understood in the perspective of the Western understanding of the Trinity as starting with the essence and substance of God (ousia) and working out from there to understand the Persons. Since God is one being, one entity, it is erroneous to say that the Father and Son are of different substances. To do so would be to endorse the Mormon view that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three distinct people who cooperate in a "corporation" called God. When speaking purely on individual relations, however, and in the Greek perspective, they can be said to be different substances. Since that view did not predominate in the West, however, the Persons (all of them) are always spoken of as consubstantial, of one ousia. To illustrate:

Who is the Father? God is.
Who is the Son? God is.
Who is the Holy Spirit? God is.
Who begets the Son? God does.
Who processes the Holy Spirit? God does.

This does not lead to Modality in Latin thinking, because the Persons are presented as distinct relations between eachother, and these relationships can only be understood one on one, hence principle is the term used. The only way it could lead to Modality is if the Persons did not relate to one another, but rather only to the substance and essence of God. Incidently, the Orthodox admit that the filioque exists in this aspect of God! From the response to the Pontifical Council by Metropalitan John of Permamon:

In other words, the Greeks absolutely understand that the filioque exists eternally in the ousia God, and the Latins always speak on the level of ousia when they refer to the Father and Son being consubstantial in processing the Spirit.

Did you read the paragraph below or above that one? After quoting some Scripture and Greek thought, he actually points out that this is an error in thinking, and corrects it! He says:

He does not quote it approvingly at all, but rather to correct an error of presumption on the meaning of image on the part of the Latins. Not a single mention in his clarification that the Son takes His "image" from the Father because He also "actively spirates" the Spirit, but rather because the Son's "duty", as it were, is the be the "face" of the Father, but eternally (in being begotten) and temporally (in being conceived in Mary). Since the Holy Spirit is not put forth so as to be a face of God, as Jesus was on Earth, the Holy Spirit is not "the image of the Father". But, as the Holy Spirit shares the essential attributes, He is the image of God.

Thomas Aquinas, in quoting Richard of Victor, is doing nothing more than his typical "Objection 1: style of argumentation, and then proceeds to demolish the objection, which itself is usually based on the writings of a Father or major philosopher. In doing this he is actively trying to correct a Western error by bringing it in line with the Greek Fathers (such as St. Athanasius, whom he quotes in the paragraph above the one you cited). This is classic Thomas Aquinas, and it is actually in support of the Greek arguments and claims (which is also classical Thomas Aquinas).

Honestly, I've seen nothing to indicate that Thomas Aquinas held an erroneous view of the Trinity, applying a unique consubstantial relationship to the Father and Son that was not shared by the Holy Spirit. Furthermore, even if he did, I've seen nothing that indicates that this error was carried over to the Council of Florence. In fact, the man's brilliance in identifying potential Western misunderstandings, as in the case of Richard of St. Victor, still appears to be second to none.

In short, if you go into the readings with the intention, or even inclination, of turning ambiguity against yourself, you will do so. What must be remembered, however, is that definative statements are being pulled out of ambiguous ones, and that is an unhealthy thing to do, espescially in light of the Pontifical Council's clarification on the matter. The ambiguity of previous documents should not be viewed as a reason to object to the definativeness of later ones, anymore than the ambiguousness of the Council of Nicea on the matter of the Holy Spirit should be seen as grounds for rejecting the formula established by the Council of Constantinople.

Remember, there is no need to set the Magisterium against you when the Magisterium is taking your side

Peace be with you, and God bless!

Well that was rather odd! For those reading this, those posts all say the same thing, so don't worry about trying to read all of them :p

Quoting the "Clarification on the Filioque" issued by the Vatican in 1995 as support for what the Tomus of 1285 and what the Council of Florence taught begs the question, because both Jason and I have said that the "Clarification" is ambiguous in its presentation of the issue, in that it invariably qualifies its statements about the Father as sole cause of the other two persons of the Trinity by saying things like, "The Holy Spirit, therefore, takes his origin from the Father alone (ek monou tou Patros) in a principal, proper, and immediate manner." Now for an Easterner the modifying phrase "in a principal, proper, and immediate manner," is problematic, because it can be interpreted to mean that the Son also causes the Holy Spirit, but in a secondary or mediate manner.

Therefore the quotations that you have provided above do not necessarily say what you are asserting that they say, and this is the case because other statements in the same "Clarification" modify the quotations you�ve supplied and make the "Clarification" itself ambiguous.

Moreover, as far as Fr. Coffey's article is concerned, you cannot really refute his argument until you read his argument. Certainly he is not the "Magisterium� and he never presents himself in that way, but as many authors have pointed out, the "Clarification on the Filioque" was anonymously written and was not approved by the Pope as other documents of the Magisterium are, and therefore it remains in some sense an unofficial text of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity.

Moreover, the Council of Florence has asserted that the Latin use of word "principle" and the Greek use of the word "cause" are synonymous, and that is why Fr. Coffey has argued that the Western teaching does make the Son a �cause� of the Spirit�s hypostasis, and that can be verified by simply reading Fr. Coffey's essay in its entirety.

Blessings to you,
Todd

This is irrelevant to the case at hand, because I'm certainly not endorsing everything that Fr. Coffey has written during his lifetime, but what I am saying is that in this particular article he has shown, quite clearly, that the Council of Florence taught that the Latin word "principle" was understood by the Latins themselves as synonymous with the Greek word "cause" (aitia).

Now of course I don't believe that the Greeks have ever taught that idea; rather, that is the teaching of the Latin bishops at the Council of Florence, and you can read many of the deliberations and debates that took place at the Council by reading the translations of the acts of the Council of Florence that can be found in Fr. Gill's book on the Florentine decree.

It is the West, not the East, that said that "principle" and "cause" (aitia) mean the same thing, and it is the West that asserted that the Son is a principle or cause of the hypostasis of the Holy Spirit, not the East. The East has denied that idea in the Tomus of 1285, and in other documents written both before and after that Council, for as the Byzantine bishops declared at the Council of Blachernae; ". . . we know and believe that the Son is from the Father, being enriched in having the Father as His cause and natural principle, and in being consubstantial and of one nature with the Spirit, which is from the Father. Even so, He is not [i.e., the Son], either separately or with the Father, the cause of the Spirit; for the all-Holy Spirit's existence is not through the Son and from the Son as they who hasten toward their destruction and separation from God understand and teach. [Psalm 73:27] We shun and cut off from our communion those who do not correctly uphold the sound faith but blaspheme blatantly, and think and speak perversely [Acts 20:30] and perpetuate what is most alarming and unbearable to hear."

Clearly the Byzantine Church rejected any notion of the Son as "cause" of the Holy Spirit at the Council of Blachernae, while the bishops at Florence taught precisely the opposite, i.e., they taught that the Son is a cause (in the Greek sense of that term) of the Spirit, for as they declared, "In the name of the Holy Trinity, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, we define, with the approval of this holy universal council of Florence, that the following truth of faith shall be believed and accepted by all Christians and thus shall all profess it: that the Holy Spirit is eternally from the Father and the Son, and has His essence and His subsistent being from the Father together with the Son, and proceeds from both eternally as from one principle and a single spiration. We declare that when holy doctors and fathers say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son, this bears the sense that thereby also the Son should be signified, according to the Greeks indeed as cause, and according to the Latins as principle of the subsistence of the Holy Spirit, just like the Father."

Thus, the two Councils, Blachernae and Florence, are teaching two very different things, the former is teaching that the Son is not a "cause" of the Holy Spirit, while the latter is teaching that the Son is a "cause" of the Spirit, and this was the main point of Fr. Coffey's article, in which he used both the Latin and Greek terminology of the Florentine decree to show that Florence is teaching that the Son is a "cause" (aitia) of the subsistent being of the Holy Spirit.

Blessings to you,
Todd

Apotheoun: Your insistance that the miscommunication at the Council of Florence is definitive strikes me as a bit strange. By the same argument, the Oriental Orthodox should still be called monophysites because that is what the rest of the Church thought they were saying, even though all subsequent history proves otherwise.

The fact that the Council states that the Greek word "aitia" and the Latin word "principium" are synonymous proves only that there was a major breakdown in communication, which is easily seen in all records of the discussions at the Council. Breakdowns in communication do not make for solid Dogmatic pronouncements. Take the passage in question, for example:

The Latins were relying on the Greek testimony to this, and saying that the Greeks had testified that the Son was aitia. This doesn't mean that the Latins knew what the implication of aitia was in Greek, and nothing indicates that this was properly communicated. Indeed, the use of the term "principaliter", and never in relation to the Son, indicates that Latins had in their own language made the distinction that Greeks had with the term aitia; they just weren't aware of the fact that aitia could only mean "principaliter". There's absolutely no reason to suspect otherwise.

As for my excerpts from the Pontifical Councils documents, what is ambiguous about "Sole Trinitarian Cause"? In light of that term, the statement "The Holy Spirit, therefore, takes his origin from the Father alone (ek monou tou Patros) in a principal, proper, and immediate manner," holds no ambiguity whatsoever, espescially with the term proper in there (which, incidently, is the term Thomas Aquinas used). In other words, the Father can properly be said to be the first and immediate cause (aitia) of the Holy Spirit. That is precisely what the Greeks profess.

Your statements that there is no room for mediation in the Trinity in the Tomus don't actually stand up to scrutiny, unless you can point out which part you are refering to. The only parts I find that specifically refer to a mediating role are these:

The Greek term here is aitia, again. Of course it doesn't follow that the Son is aitia of the Spirit just because the Spirit processes through Him from the Father. That's just plain logical fact. Nothing in this statement precludes a mediating role by the Son, however, but rather precludes the notion that, through mediation, He is in some way the aitia of the Holy Spirit. Again I say that is just plain logic.

Again, the fact that there was miscommunication between the Latins and the Greeks, which is obvious from the fact that the concept of Engergies was not even broached, is grounds enough to pressume that the Latins didn't actually know the implication of aitia. Furthermore, the fact that the Latins themselves explicitely demarcate the difference in their own language with the term principaliter indicates that, had they known the implication of the Greek, they never would have used the term "cause" as representing what the Greeks believed, and making it synonymous with principium, because the Latins themself did not view principaliter as synonymous with principium.

On a final note of interest, in re-reading the document for the umpteenth time, I came across a rather amusing terminology that I had previously missed (and remember I can only infer what the actual words in Greek are, since I don't have the original, only English):

Causative principle? As opposed to what kind of principle? If principle necessarily means aitia, as complaints about the Decree of Florence seem to insist, then why in Greek is this distinction made? Now it's quite possible that what is meant here is not principle in the sense of αρχή, which is normally translated into Latin as "principium", but if that's the case it clearly demonstrates the difficulties inherent in translation. If it is the same word normally translated as "principium" (which would make perfect sense, given that English derives the word principle solely from Latin's principium), then this whole debate just got a whole lot more ridiculous, because even the Greeks need to specify on the matter in their own documents. :p

At any rate, I see that this conversation is largely grinding to a halt. Ecce Jason is bowing out, and both Apotheoun and I are pretty much intransigent at this point, and I foresee little new information that could come up to cause either of us to re-evaluate our positions. If it does, or a much more definative argument comes along, then I most certainly will re-evaluate, but until then I'm going to pretty much have to stay where I'm at.

I will ask Apotheoun, however, that if it's possible would you send me a link to Fr. Coffey's article? While I quite frankly don't trust a single implication out of his mouth that isn't personally stamped by the Pope (and not because I demand that of every priest, but because this man literally denied the Resurrection of Christ, and still does for all I know), I'm more than happy to review the facts he presents.

Peace be with you and God bless!

The two quotations in your post, which are taken from the Tomus of 1285, are specifically aimed at refuting the teaching of the Council of Lyon on the procession of the Spirit from the Father and the Son as from a single principle. Thus, the rejection of this idea found within the decree of Lyons applies equally as a condemnation of the Florentine decree issued about two centuries later.

The first quotation given by you goes on to say:

"This being so, they introduce a plurality and a multitude of causes in the procession of the Spirit, even though this was prohibited on countless occasions. As such, we pronounce the above-recorded resolution and judgment, we cut them off from the membership of the Orthodox, and we banish them from the flock of the Church of God." [Tomus of 1285, no. 7]

That is why the East rejects the idea of calling the Son a "cause," "principle," "source," or "origin," of the Holy Spirit, either understood actively or passively, immediately or mediately; in other words, the only way that the East and the West will agree on the issue of the existential procession of the Holy Spirit is for the West to stop using these terms in connection with the Son. But that is precisely what the West has been unwilling to do.

The second quotation that you've provided from the Blachernae Council of 1285 is a condemnation of those Westerners who connect the Father and Son as cause of the Spirit within the immanent Trinity (theologia), with the unified energetic activity of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit in creating the world (oeconomia). That is what the Tomus goes on to say, in the portion of number nine that you did not quote, i.e., it condemn those who misuse the phrase "through the Son" in connection with creation by applying it to the inner life of the Trinity, for as the Tomus puts it:

"For the formula 'through the Son' here [i.e., in theologia] denotes the manifestation and illumination (of the Spirit by the Son), and not the emanation of the Spirit into being. If this was not so, it would be difficult, indeed, even to enumerate the theological absurdities that follow. To these, who irrationally express such views, and ascribe them to the writings of the saints, and from these stir up a multitude of blasphemies, we pronounce the above-recorded resolution and judgment, we cut them off from the membership of the Orthodox, and we banish them from the flock of the Church of God." [Tomus of 1285, no. 9]

In other words, the Son cannot be described as a "cause," "principle," "source," or "origin," of the hypostatic being of the Holy Spirit, because the Eastern phrase, "through the Son," refers to the energetic manifestation of the Spirit through the Son, and not to His existential procession of origin, which comes only from the Father.

Once again, unless the West can abandon any use of the terms, "cause," "principle," "source," or "origin," in connection with the Son, I don't see how the two viewpoints can be coordinated. The West, notwithstanding your protests to the contrary, really is asserting that the Son in some way produces the Holy Spirit as hypostasis, and this is clear from the teaching of the Council of Florence, for as the Latin bishops there said:

". . . the Holy Spirit is eternally from the Father and the Son, and has His essence and His subsistent being from the Father together with the Son, and proceeds from both eternally as from one principle and a single spiration."

That being said, nothing in the Vatican's "Clarification" indicates that the Holy See has rejected the teaching of the Council of Florence on this issue, and until it clarifies the status of Florence, I don't see how the two sides can be said to agree on the doctrine of the procession (ekporeusis) of the Holy Spirit from the Father alone.

Moreover, I don't believe that the Latin Church views the idea of the Son as a "principle" or "cause" of the Spirit as a "miscommunication"; rather, it views it as a doctrine. Now of course this matter can be easily clarified if the Western Church simply stops calling the Son a "principle," "cause," "source," or "origin," of the Holy Spirit, but as I have said before, so far the Western Church has not been willing to do that.

Finally, as far as Fr. Coffey's article is concerned, if you have access to a university library, you can access the article online through EBSCO, otherwise you'd have to find a copy of the article in the "International Journal of Systematic Theology" itself. I don't believe that the article is available for free on the internet, but can only be accessed through a university library or by registering through EBSCO itself (which involves paying a fee).

Blessings to you,
Todd

In your post you said the following:

But this is precisely what the East is rejecting, i.e., the vague and imprecise use of the notion of mediation.

The Son does not in any way mediate the Spirit's hypostatic origin, and because the Western Church does not differentiate between the hypostatic origin of the Spirit, and His eternal energetic manifestation through the Son, the Western teaching ultimately makes the Son a "principle" of the origin of the Spirit as hypostasis, which is unacceptable. That is why I still hold that you are misreading the Council of Florence, because the Council clearly asserts that the Father and the Son together give the Holy Spirit "His essence and His subsistent being." [Council of Florence, Session 6, 6 July 1439]

The West has collapsed the hypostatic origin of the Spirit, which comes only from the Father, down into His energetic manifestation through the Son. In fact the West doesn't distinguish these two things at all, and that is why it makes the Father and the Son into a single principle of the Holy Spirit's essence and hypostasis.

Blessings to you,
Todd

Ghosty,

We will have to agree to disagree about the doctrine of Thomas. It seems clear to me that he is not at all using Richard of St. Vincent and Augustine as part of an "Objection 1" style arguments as he does in the Summa; he is not objecting to their views on the matter at all, but is in fact endorsing them. I can say nothing more than that I think I've made my case here. It seems that you have misunderstood some of my points, but there is just too much to go back over again.

I will say that you continue to make an argument such as this: "If the Council of Florence meant what Thomas meant, why didn't they just say that?" First, this is an unsound argument from silence and ultimately proves nothing; again, read the debates that took place at Florence and you'll see what they meant, regardless of whether or not they put the identical words into the actual definition. Second, I made a similar argument regarding different terminology at Florence earlier, and you rejected my argument.

Finally, I would say that you are ultimately misunderstanding the Eastern objection to the filioque. Your use of the Tomus of 1285 and the Council of Blachernae suggests this, but Apotheoun is addressing that, so I will say nothing about it. However, the additional continued insistence that the clarification on the filioque has already addressed this issue and has declared that the Father is the "sole Trinitarian cause" and is the "monarch" of the Trinity also suggests that you misunderstand us. None of us denies what you have said about the Filioque Clarification with regard to those two points; indeed, it has been declared in the clarification that the Father is the sole Trinitarian cause and is the monarch of the Trinity. It also uses the term "principaliter" regarding the Father alone. We acknowledge that. None of this, however, addresses anything we're saying.

The Latin view is that the Father is the sole ultimate (principaliter*) source or cause of the Trinity, but that the Son is also a cause, in some way, of the Holy Spirit together with the Father. You ask Apotheoun how we can say the clarification is ambiguous when it says that the Father is the "sole Trinitarian cause" (emphasis yours). I can explain by merely shifting your emphasis and saying that it is ambiguous precisely because it says the Father is "sole Trinitarian cause" and not just "sole cause of the Spirit's procession;" to use your own argument, if that's what they meant, why didn't they just say it? At other points, as Apotheoun has noted, it says that the Father is the sole cause "in a proper, principal, and immediate manner." What the document is saying by calling the Father the sole "Trinitarian" cause and the sole cause "in a principal, proper, and immediate manner" is that the Father is the sole ultimate source of the Trinity, and all causation in the Trinity ultimately comes from Him; however, it is still allowing that the Son is a mediate or non-principal cause of the Spirit. The Father is the sole Trinitarian cause because He causes both the Son and the Spirit and is thus the only source of the Trinity; the Son is not a Trinitarian cause because He does not have this property. However, on the Latin view, as it is expressed at Florence, and as is entirely consistent with the ambiguity of the Filioque Clarification, and as it is expressed by Thomas (or at least, so I say), and as it is argued by Fr. Coffey, and as it is traditionally held by most all scholars, the Son is still some sort of cause of the Spirit's procession in a mitigated way. This is our problem; we can't allow that the Son is a cause of the Spirit's hypostatic procession at all.

Let me also just say that I am not trying to find contradictions. Ask Apotheoun; I used to argue with him about this and claim that he was wrong and that your position was right, Ghosty. It was only after detailed study, reading books and various articles and documents, that I realized exactly what it is going on here and why the Latin position remains, quite unfortunately (I wish there was no problem for me to find), problematic. I do not mean to be divisive by saying this; I mean only to point out the problems so that they can hopefully be worked out in the future, allowing a more full and open union to be achieved.

I agree, however, that the discussion seems to more or less be coming to a close here, for now.

Thanks, and God bless,
Jason

-----

* I know the two words are not equivalent, but I'm suggesting this is part of the term's import here.