The Filioque solution relies in the distinction between eternal and temporal procession. This has been the consistent objection from the East, but Rome's later teaching of dual procession remains a stumbling block. But was this always the Latin teaching?

A good article, well worth the read.

https://orthodoxchristiantheology.com/2024/08/10/latin-pneumatology-before-the-great-schism-explicit-evidence-of-single-procession-of-the-holy-spirit/

Great post.

Quote:

---

This, in my analysis, lays bare the fact that Maximus was honest in his evaluation that the Latin West's Pneumatology by and large was the same as the East's on the question of the Spirit's procession. Sure, one can find texts that can be inferred in either a single or double processionist sense depending upon the interpreter. While this in effects cancels out such texts as we already said, for the sake of argument perhaps the double processionist reading is the better one in some cases. However, when the father felt confident enough to communicate unequivocally on the question of the Spirit's eternal origin, it is telling that the single processionist reading is the default. More telling, whenever the polemical debate between single and double procession reared its head in Rome between the seventh to ninth centuries, the official stand was always the single-processionist view. In short, the original and official Pneumatology of Rome, and the Latin West at large, was single processionist.

---

I think you'd have a hard time reading Augustine and arguing that he didn't see the filioque.

Looking at the link, it's a pretty loose translation of Augustine in "On the Holy Trinity."

Schaff shows it as this:

Quote:

---

29. As, therefore, the Father begat, the Son is begotten; so the Father sent, the Son was sent. But in like manner as He who begat and He who was begotten, so both He who sent and He who was sent, are one, since the Father and the Son are one. So also the Holy Spirit is one with them, since these three are one. For as to be born, in respect to the Son, means to be from the Father; so to be sent, in respect to the Son, means to be known to be from the Father. And as to be the gift of God in respect to the Holy Spirit, means to proceed from the Father; so to be sent, is to be known to proceed from the Father. Neither can we say that the Holy Spirit does not also proceed from the Son, for the same Spirit is not without reason said to be the Spirit both of the Father and of the Son. Nor do I see what else He intended to signify, when He breathed on the face of the disciples, and said, "Receive ye the Holy Ghost." For that bodily breathing, proceeding from the body with the feeling of bodily touching, was not the substance of the Holy Spirit, but a declaration by a fitting sign, that the Holy Spirit proceeds not only from the Father, but also from the Son.

---

There's also this as an example:

Chapter 11

Quote:

---

For that which is written, "Hear, O Israel: the Lord our God is one Lord,"583 ought certainly not to be understood as if the Son were excepted, or the Holy Spirit were excepted; which one Lord our God we rightly call also our Father, as regenerating us by His grace. Neither can the Trinity in any wise be called the Son, but it can be called, in its entirety, the Holy Spirit, according to that which is written, "God is a Spirit;"584 because both the Father is a spirit and the Son is a spirit, and the Father is holy and the Son is holy. Therefore, since the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are one God, and certainly God is holy, and God is a spirit, the Trinity can be called also the Holy Spirit. But yet that Holy Spirit, who is not the Trinity, but is understood as in the Trinity, is spoken of in His proper name of the Holy Spirit relatively, since He is referred both to the Father and to the Son, because the Holy Spirit is the Spirit both of the Father and of the Son. But the relation is not itself apparent in that name, but it is apparent when He is called the gift of God;585 for He is the gift of the Father and of the Son, because "He proceeds from the Father,"586 as the Lord says; and because that which the apostle says, "Now, if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of His," he says certainly of the Holy Spirit Himself. When we say, therefore, the gift of the giver, and the giver of the gift, we speak in both cases relatively in reciprocal reference. Therefore the Holy Spirit is a certain unutterable communion of the Father and the Son; and on that account, perhaps, He is so called, because the same name is suitable to both the Father and the Son. For He Himself is called specially that which they are called in common; because both the Father is a spirit and the Son a spirit, both the Father is holy and the Son holy.5

---

I haven't looked at Ambrose in depth, so I'll hold off opinion on that.

This is dense. I'm going to have to read this a time or 10. I am open to the argument, but everything I read was with a very thick lens. I want to do it appropriate justice.

A question before I jump back into it later on: it seemed to me that there are multiple nods at the father being the principal, not the only, cause. Already noted I need to read it again, but if I did read it accurately, does that invalidate the Filioque in your opinion?

There is no quibble about the temporal mission being sent from the Son. That is just the whole ek vs dia discussion. And yes, Augustine speaks of the dual procession - that is not in question. The point of ambiguity is about eternal procession vs temporal procession/sending. And as shown here when he speaks of the origin or source he speaks exclusively from the Father; when he speaks temporally, he speaks of dual procession because of one energy / action.

Principle doesn't mean the same thing in this as modern vernacular, where we can say well in this failure there is a principle cause but there are multiple contributing causes. In that case it would be more like the sense of "primary" or "immediate" and could be attended by secondary.

Principle means origin or beginning. It is exactly the same sense as the Latin formula "as from one principle". The statement "The Father, the Originator, the coeternal principle" would be a direct contradiction to the "as from one principle" in this case.

Zobel said:

---

There is no quibble about the temporal mission being sent from the Son. That is just the whole ek vs dia discussion. And yes, Augustine speaks of the dual procession - that is not in question. The point of ambiguity is about eternal procession vs temporal procession/sending. And as shown here when he speaks of the origin or source he speaks exclusively from the Father; when he speaks temporally, he speaks of dual procession because of one energy / action.

---

Yes...you summarize the Eastern take well. However, just because the East says it, it does not follow that the entire Christian Church believed it.

In this case, arguing for the economic trinity, might be the case, but the presupposed Augustine argued that way otherwise your laying your own framework on to him.

I'd actually argue Augustine is being more ontological here than economical (if we want to use your frame work).

But I think given the Council of Toledo (589 AD) was the first council to affirm the filioque, it becomes harder to say that this view wasn't well established before the schism.

All that being said, we are really arguing philosophical terms. Between Augustine and Scripture, we do know that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. That procession may be different, but that doesn't change that it occurs.

I'll also add, that I think both the East and Rome were wrong in how they handled the issue. Rome for obvious reasons because they made the change unilaterally under a faulty premise that the Pope could make the change. I think the east/Photius got it wrong trying to make this addition a proof for Arianism and not against it.

That this has remained and point of contention for nearly 1,000 years is more a sign of human fallibility and unwillingness to talk than a true theological issue.

No… that is what St Augustine's writings show.

None of what you wrote has anything to do with the article and evidence presented.

The article references to quotes of Augustine. We all have free access to a scholarly translated primary source of the quotes, and in this case, the multiple books he wrote on the Trinity.

To avoid that and instead rely on a loose translation seems like an odd argument.

And to dismiss them out of hand is no argument at all. Womp womp.

And the article isn't about just St Augustine's writings but also St Ambrose, subsequent writings expanding on St Augustine by Eugippius, the writings of Paschasius Diaconus, St Maximus, St Tarasius, Pope Adrian I, and Anastasius the Librarian under John VIII, John Scotus Eriugena, and St Hilary.

No..I read the argument.

This (from the article)

Quote:

---

That then which the Lord says Whom I will send unto you from the Father, shows the Spirit to be both of the Father and of the Son; because, also, when He had said, Whom the Father will send, He added also, in my name. Yet He did not say, Whom the Father will send from me, as He said, Whom I will send unto you from the Father, showing, namely, that the Father is the beginning (principium) of the whole divinity, or if it is better so expressed, deity. He, therefore, who proceeds from the Father and from the Son, is referred back to Him from whom the Son was born (natus). (Augustine, On the Trinity, 4:29)

---

Is claimed to be the same as this:

Quote:

---

29. As, therefore, the Father begat, the Son is begotten; so the Father sent, the Son was sent. But in like manner as He who begat and He who was begotten, so both He who sent and He who was sent, are one, since the Father and the Son are one. So also the Holy Spirit is one with them, since these three are one. For as to be born, in respect to the Son, means to be from the Father; so to be sent, in respect to the Son, means to be known to be from the Father. And as to be the gift of God in respect to the Holy Spirit, means to proceed from the Father; so to be sent, is to be known to proceed from the Father. Neither can we say that the Holy Spirit does not also proceed from the Son, for the same Spirit is not without reason said to be the Spirit both of the Father and of the Son. Nor do I see what else He intended to signify, when He breathed on the face of the disciples, and said, "Receive ye the Holy Ghost." For that bodily breathing, proceeding from the body with the feeling of bodily touching, was not the substance of the Holy Spirit, but a declaration by a fitting sign, that the Holy Spirit proceeds not only from the Father, but also from the Son.

---

The aren't the same quote and then it ignores everything else written.

Frankly, it's just not a good representation of what Augustine wrote.

The quote from the article is in 4:29. You have to go further down.

TSJ said:

---

The quote from the article is in 4:29. You have to go further down.

---

I was quoting 4.29, but you're right.

The commentary does ignore the first half of what Augustine wrote and quotes sentences further down in 4.29.

However the response still stands. The author in the commentary is applying categories to Augustine that would have been foreign to Augustine.

The author applies no categories. It does not ignore anything.

It asks - can we identify in St Augustine (for example) places where he clearly and explicitly talks about procession as eternal / generation vs procession as temporal / economic? There is a matter of wording here, because Greek has different words with distinctions that Latin doesn't perfectly capture. Because this is the point of contention between East and West - are we talking about causality or not?

And it turns out you can.

Quote:

---

When the Son spoke of the Spirit, He said, "He proceeds from the Father," because the Father is the author [lit. 'auctor' or "originator"] of His procession. The Father begot a Son and, by begetting Him, gave it to Him that the Holy Spirit proceeds from Him as well.

---

Quote:

---

Yet He did not say, Whom the Father will send from me, as He said, Whom I will send unto you from the Father,-- showing, namely, that the Father is the beginning (principium) of the whole divinity, or if it is better so expressed, deity. He, therefore, who proceeds from the Father and from the Son, is referred back to Him from whom the Son was born.

---

Quote:

---

...it was said about the Father, 'He Himself does the works,' because from Him [the Father] is also the origin of the works, from whom is the existence of the cooperating persons; because the Son was born from Him, and the Holy Spirit primarily proceeds from Him, from whom the Son was born, and with whom the same Spirit is common to them.

---

In all of these cases it is explicit that St Augustine teaches the Monarchia of the Father - namely, that the Father is the author of the procession of the Spirit, the father is the beginning of the whole divinity, and that the whole existence of the Son and Spirit come from Him. In other words, the eternal procession as regard to causality is singular from the Father.

Can you square that with "The Holy Spirit is eternally from Father and Son; He has his nature and subsistence at once from the Father and the Son. He proceeds eternally from both as from one principle and through one 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"? I don't see how. The statements from St Augustine do not seem to match.

The Roman church today does not argue against the Monarchia of the Father. In fact on Catholic answers you see this:

Quote:

---

The key, I think, to understanding between East and West is to understand the Holy Spirit to proceed ek monou tou patrou, because the Father is the true arche of the entire life of the Trinity. The Greeks are right here. It is only when we speak of the procession (proienai) of the Person of the Holy Spirit "after" the initiation of the divine life that alone belongs to the Father that we can speak of the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father and the Son (filioque). The Latins are correct as well.

---

The definition of Florence is the problem. The sole cause vs two causes is the issue.