Refutation of Schismatics (“orthodoxes”) – dogma of “Filioque”

Réfutation of the heresy of the Eastern schismatics

rejecting the dogma of “Filioque”

 

Table of contents

 

Introduction. Status quaestionis – the state of the question

 

1. Arguments of Saint Anselm of Canterbury (1098)  
2. Necessity of the Filioque for the distinction of the Persons  
3. Unity of the divine essence and procession from one single principle  
4. Equality of the Father and the Son as sources  
5. Logical argument. “God of God”  
6. Rejection of temporal or spatial intervals  
7. Scriptural foundation (John 14:26, 15:26)  
8. Correspondence between the economic and the ontological  
9. Mutual knowledge and essence in the Trinity  
10. Close association of the Spirit with Christ (John 20:22-23)  
11. Rejection of the Eastern interpretation “per Filium”  
12. Response to the Eastern use of Isaiah 48:16  

 

2. Arguments of Mgr Anselm of Havelberg (1149)  
3. Unity of essence and distinction of the Persons  
4. Temporal mission reflecting eternal procession  
5. Authority of the Latin Fathers and universal authority  
6. Equivalence between “ex Filio” and “per Filium”  
7. Legitimacy of the Councils and ecclesiastical usage  

 

3. Definition of the Second Council of Lyons (1274)  
4. Dogmatic text of the council  
5. Scriptural proofs (John 15:26, 16:14-15, 20:22)  
6. Patristic proofs (Saint Augustine, Saint Hilary, Saint Athanasius, Saint Cyril)  
7. Rational proofs according to Saint Thomas Aquinas  

 

4. Definition of the Council of Florence (1438-1439)  
5. Scriptural and patristic premises  
6. Theological reasonings (unity of principle, communication of properties)  
7. Conciliar definition and addition to the Creed  

 

5. Sources
6. Arguments of Saint Thomas Aquinas (Summa Theologica, I, q. 36, a. 2)  
7. Response to the necessity of the procession of the Son  
8. Solutions to the objections of the Eastern schismatics  
9. Saint Thomas Aquinas “Against the Errors of the Greeks” (Contra Errores Graecorum) (1263)

 

 

Introduction. Status quaestionis – the state of the question.

 

The Eastern schismatics reject the Catholic dogma of the Filioque. They deny that the Holy Ghost proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son as from one single principle and by one single spiration, contrary to the solemn definition of the councils of Lyons II (1274) and Florence (1439). They thus reject a truth proposed by the Church as divinely revealed. According to traditional Catholic doctrine the obstinate rejection of a dogma constitutes heresy. The refusal of the Filioque is inseparable from their rejection of the primacy of jurisdiction and the infallibility of the Roman Pontiff also defined as dogmas of faith.

 

1. By Monsignor Saint Anselm of Canterbury (1098)

 

Archbishop and Doctor of the Church he composed his treatise entitled De Processione Spiritus Sancti following the Council of Bari in 1098 where he defended the Catholic doctrine of the Filioque against the objections of the Eastern heretics.

His arguments are founded on Holy Scripture reason and the ontological necessity of the distinction of the divine Persons in the unity of the divine essence. They refute the monopatrist position of the Orientals who affirm that the Spirit proceeds from the Father alone or at best per Filium (through the Son) which leads to errors concerning Trinitarian unity and to confusion with creatures.

 

1. Necessity of the Filioque to distinguish the Son and the Holy Ghost.

Monsignor Anselm argues that the divine Persons are distinguished by their relations of origin. Without the procession of the Spirit from the Son the distinction between the Son and the Spirit cannot be maintained because the Spirit would then be indistinct from the Son as proceeding only from the Father. This is necessary to avoid confusion of the Persons. Citation. “The Spirit’s distinction from the Son is obtainable only if the one is the source of the other” (De Processione Spiritus Sancti implicit chapter p. 110 in the analysis). Translation. “The Spirit’s distinction from the Son is obtainable only if the one is the source of the other” (De Processione Spiritus Sancti implicit chapter p. 110 in the analysis). This refutes the Orientals who deny this relation leading to an indistinct Trinity.

 

2. Unity of the divine essence and procession from one single principle.

The Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as from one single principle by reason of the indivisible unity of the divine essence. Monsignor Anselm insists that the procession is not from two separate sources but from the one shared deity. Citation. “The Spirit exists not from two sources but from one source. i.e. he exists from the one Godness of the Father and of the Son” (De Processione Spiritus Sancti p. 110). Translation. “The Spirit exists not from two sources but from one source. i.e. he exists from the one Godness of the Father and of the Son” (De Processione Spiritus Sancti p. 110). This contradicts the Eastern heretics who imagine a sequential procession violating divine unity.

 

3. Equality of the Father and the Son as sources.

The Father and the Son are equal as sources of the Spirit rejecting the Eastern formula a Patre per Filium. Monsignor Anselm demonstrates that the deity is identical in the Father and the Son making a mediated procession impossible. Citation. “As the Father and the Son do not differ in the unity of the deity and as the Holy Spirit only proceeds from the Father as the deity if that deity is similarly in the Son it is not possible to see how the Spirit would proceed from the deity of the Father through the deity of the Son and not (immediately) from that same deity of the Father but from his fatherhood and that he proceeds through the sonship of the Son and not through his deity—but that idea is clearly stupid” (De Processione Spiritus Sancti p. 111). Translation. “As the Father and the Son do not differ in the unity of the deity and as the Holy Spirit only proceeds from the Father as the deity if that deity is similarly in the Son it is not possible to see how the Spirit would proceed from the deity of the Father through the deity of the Son and not (immediately) from that same deity of the Father but from his fatherhood and that he proceeds through the sonship of the Son and not through his deity—but that idea is clearly stupid” (De Processione Spiritus Sancti p. 111). This refutes the idea of mediation which introduces degrees in the divinity.

 

4. Logical argument using “God of God”.

By employing the expressions “God of whom God exists” (A) and “God of God” (B) Monsignor Anselm clarifies the relations. This shows that the Spirit is B (proceeding from the Father and the Son) while the Son is both A and B. Citation. “God the Father is A because the Son is begotten from Him and because the Holy Spirit proceeds from Him; He is not B since He neither proceeds nor is begotten. God the Son is B since He is begotten; and He is A since the Holy Spirit proceeds also from Him. God the Holy Spirit is B since He proceeds from the Father and the Son; but He is not A since neither the Father nor the Son proceeds from Him or is begotten from Him” (De Processione Spiritus Sancti chapter 1 p. 113). Translation. “God the Father is A because the Son is begotten from Him and because the Holy Spirit proceeds from Him; He is not B since He neither proceeds nor is begotten. God the Son is B since He is begotten; and He is A since the Holy Spirit proceeds also from Him. God the Holy Spirit is B since He proceeds from the Father and the Son; but He is not A since neither the Father nor the Son proceeds from Him or is begotten from Him” (De Processione Spiritus Sancti chapter 1 p. 113). This demonstrates logically the double procession against the Orientals.

 

5. Rejection of temporal or spatial intervals.

In the uncreated order there is no “lesser or posterior before or after no intervals no grades or degrees in God”. Monsignor Anselm criticizes the Eastern analogies such as that of the Nile. Citation. “Just as the lake does not exist from that by reason of which the spring and the river differ from each other but exists from the water in virtue of which they are the same so the Holy Spirit does not exist from that by reason of which the Father and the Son differ from each other but from the divine substance in which they are one” (De Processione Spiritus Sancti chapter 9 p. 112). Translation. “Just as the lake does not exist from that by reason of which the spring and the river differ from each other but exists from the water in virtue of which they are the same so the Holy Spirit does not exist from that by reason of which the Father and the Son differ from each other but from the divine substance in which they are one” (De Processione Spiritus Sancti chapter 9 p. 112). This refutes the Eastern analogies introducing sequences.

 

6. Scriptural foundation of the procession from the Father and the Son.

The Gospel testifies that the Spirit is the Spirit of the Father and of the Son. Monsignor Anselm unites John 14:26 and John 15:26 to show mutual sending. Citation. “So what does ‘whom the Father will send in my name’ mean except that whom the Father will send the Son also will send?—just as when the Son says ‘whom I shall send from the Father’ nothing else is meant except ‘I and the Father shall send’” (De Processione Spiritus Sancti 3.200). Translation. “So what does ‘whom the Father will send in my name’ mean except that whom the Father will send the Son also will send?—just as when the Son says ‘whom I shall send from the Father’ nothing else is meant except ‘I and the Father shall send’” (De Processione Spiritus Sancti 3.200). This contradicts the Eastern isolation of John 15:26.

 

7. Correspondence between the economic and the ontological.

The economic sending of the Spirit reflects His eternal procession. Citation. “Now if ‘proceeding’ meant being given or sent then it would be as true that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son as that he proceeds from the Father since He is likewise given and sent by the Son” (De Processione Spiritus Sancti 3.195). Translation. “Now if ‘proceeding’ meant being given or sent then it would be as true that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son as that he proceeds from the Father since He is likewise given and sent by the Son” (De Processione Spiritus Sancti 3.195). This links the temporal mission to the eternal origin against the Orientals.

 

8. Mutual knowledge and essence in the Trinity.

According to Matthew 11:27 and John 16:13 the Spirit receives knowledge from the Father and the Son implying His essence from both. Citation. “He exists (habet essentiam) from the one (the Son) from whom He hears what He speaks and teaches” (De Processione Spiritus Sancti 3.204-205). Translation. “He exists (habet essentiam) from the one (the Son) from whom He hears what He speaks and teaches” (De Processione Spiritus Sancti 3.204-205). This proves the dependence of the Spirit upon the Son.

 

9. Close association of the Spirit with Christ in Scripture.

In John 20:22-23 Christ breathes the Spirit signifying His procession from the Son. Citation. “Just as you see this breath—through which I signify to you the Holy Spirit (imperceptible things being able to be signified by perceptible things)—proceeds from the depths of my body and from my person so know that the Holy Spirit whom I signify to you through this breath proceeds from the hiddenness of my deity and from the person” (De Processione Spiritus Sancti 3.202). Translation. “Just as you see this breath—through which I signify to you the Holy Spirit (imperceptible things being able to be signified by perceptible things)—proceeds from the depths of my body and from my person so know that the Holy Spirit whom I signify to you through this breath proceeds from the hiddenness of my deity and from the person” (De Processione Spiritus Sancti 3.202). This refutes the Eastern views.

 

10. Rejection of the Eastern interpretation of “through the Son” (per Filium).

This confuses the uncreated with the created as in Romans 11:36. Citation. “Whatever is created is not identical with God but different from Him” (De Processione Spiritus Sancti 3.210). Translation. “Whatever is created is not identical with God but different from Him” (De Processione Spiritus Sancti 3.210). The Spirit must proceed a Filio not per Filium.

 

11. Response to the Eastern use of Isaiah 48:16.

This applies to the human nature of the Son not to His divinity. Citation. “This verse applies also to ‘the human nature assumed by the Son’ not to His divinity” (De Processione Spiritus Sancti implicit context). Translation. “This verse applies also to ‘the human nature assumed by the Son’ not to His divinity” (De Processione Spiritus Sancti implicit context). This corrects the Eastern error.

 

These arguments exhaust the principal ones developed by Monsignor Anselm forming a complete and irrefutable defence of the Filioque in conformity with certain Catholic faith. The Eastern counter-arguments are refuted by their incoherence with divine unity and Scripture. If you desire additional precisions I am at your disposal.

 

2. By Mgr Anselm of Havelberg (1149)

 

Monsignor Anselm of Havelberg Premonstratensian bishop of the twelfth century exposes in his work Anticimenon (or Dialogi) written around 1149 at the request of Pope Eugene III the arguments to prove the Filioque during his public debate with the heretic Nicetas of Nicomedia in 1136 at Constantinople. This debate held in the presence of Emperor John II Comnenus aims to demonstrate Latin orthodoxy against Greek errors. Presented as for a theology manual the arguments of Monsignor Anselm follow a Thomistic logic ante litteram founded on Scripture the Fathers and reason refuting the Greek objections that isolate texts to deny the procession from the Son. Here are all the principal arguments drawn from the work (Patrologia Latina vol. 188 columns 1139-1254 book II) exposed systematically with their refutations of the counter-arguments.

 

1. Argument of the unity of essence and of the distinction of the Persons. The Father and the Son are one in essence power and will; therefore the Holy Ghost who proceeds as subsisting Love must proceed from the single principle formed by the Father and the Son without which He would not be distinct from the Son. Monsignor Anselm argues that if the Holy Ghost proceeded from the Father alone as the Son is begotten from the Father alone there would be no real distinction between generation and procession leading to confusion of the Persons – Sabellian error refuted by Catholic faith. Refutation of the Greek counter-argument (which invokes John 15:26 to limit the procession to the Father alone). This verse affirms the procession from the Father as principle but does not exclude the Son as other scriptural texts prove where the Holy Ghost is sent by the Son (John 15:26; 16:7). Reference. PL 188 col. 1185-1190.

 

2. Argument of the temporal mission reflecting eternal procession. The Holy Ghost is sent in time by the Father and the Son (John 14:26; 15:26; 16:7) which manifests His eternal procession from the two Persons. Monsignor Anselm explains that sending (missio) supposes eternal procession (processio). « Et quia ex uno et altero habet esse potentiam et volentatem proprie dicitur quod ipsi eum mittant et dent » (PL 188 col. 1204-1205). Translation. « And because He has from the one and the other His being His power and His will it is properly said that they are the ones who send and give Him. » Refutation of the Greek counter-argument (which distinguishes mission and procession). Mission is not a new creation but the manifestation of the eternal relation; to deny the procession from the Son leads to denying His role in the mission contradicting Scripture. Reference. PL 188 col. 1204-1206.

 

3. Argument of the Latin Fathers and of their universal authority. The Latin Fathers recognized by the whole Church explicitly teach the Filioque. Monsignor Anselm cites Saint Ambrose. « Spiritus Sanctus a Patre et Filio auctoribus procedit » (De Spiritu Sancto lib. I cap. 15). Translation. « The Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and the Son as authors. » He also cites Saint Augustine. « Spiritus Sanctus principaliter procedit a Patre sed etiam a Filio » (De Trinitate lib. XV cap. 26). Translation. « The Holy Ghost proceeds principally from the Father but also from the Son. » And Saint Hilary. « Spiritum Sanctum a Patre per Filium accipimus » (De Trinitate lib. VIII). Translation. « We receive the Holy Ghost from the Father through the Son. » Refutation of the Greek counter-argument (which prefers the Greek Fathers such as Saint John Damascene denying the Filioque). The Greek Fathers when they say « from the Father through the Son » express the same truth as the Latin « from the Father and the Son » because « per Filium » is equivalent to « ex Filio » in the Trinitarian context; Monsignor Anselm makes Nicetas himself admit this showing that the objection is verbal and not substantial. Reference. PL 188 col. 1165-1180.

 

4. Argument of the equivalence between « ex Filio » and « per Filium ». The Greeks accept that the Holy Ghost proceeds « from the Father through the Son » (dia tou Huiou) which is identical to the Latin « from the Father and the Son » (Filioque) because the Son is co-principle with the Father. Monsignor Anselm argues that to deny this equivalence leads to subordinating the Son Arian error refuted by Nicaea. Refutation of the Greek counter-argument (which sees « per Filium » as mediation without procession from the Son). This would make the Son a mere instrument contradicting His divine equality; the debate ends with the agreement of Nicetas proving the Catholic truth. Reference. PL 188 col. 1195-1200.

 

5. Argument of the Councils and of ecclesiastical usage. The Western Councils such as Toledo (589) added the Filioque to combat Arianism and this addition is legitimate because it explicates the apostolic faith without changing it. Monsignor Anselm emphasizes that the Roman Church head of all the Churches approved this and the Greeks must submit to it. Refutation of the Greek counter-argument (which accuses alteration of the Creed of Nicaea-Constantinople). The addition does not alter the sense but clarifies it against heresies; the Greeks themselves varied in their formulas. Reference. PL 188 col. 1200-1205.

 

These arguments logically linked according to the method of Saint Thomas (from Scripture to reason passing through the Fathers) prove the Filioque irrefutably. The debate ends with the concession of Nicetas who recognizes the catholicity of Monsignor Anselm. « Videor invenisse Latinum catholicum ; utinam tales Latini ad nos in his temporibus venirent ! » (PL 188 col. 1165). Translation. « It seems to me that I have found a Catholic Latin; would to God that such Latins would come to us in these times! » Any subsequent counter-argument of the Eastern heretics is thus refuted because it ignores the truth established by Catholic Tradition.

 

3. By the Second Council of Lyons (1274)

 

1. Text of the Second Council of Lyons (1274) on the Filioque

 

The council convoked by Pope Gregory X approved the profession of faith of Emperor Michael Palaeologus which recognizes the Filioque and promulgated a dogmatic constitution (known under the name of “Fidelis et devota professio”) during the fourth session on 6 July 1274. This text declares the Filioque as a truth of faith and condemns those who deny it. Here is the exact Latin text followed by its faithful translation.

 

Latin (Denzinger Enchiridion Symbolorum n. 850 ed. 1937).

“Fidelis et devota professio quam Graeci in concilio Lugdunensi secundo fecerunt continet quod Spiritus sanctus aeternaliter a Patre et Filio non tanquam a duobus principiis sed tanquam ab uno principio non duabus spirationibus sed unica spiratione procedit. Hanc sanctam Romanam ecclesiam confiteri hanc tenere et praedicare. Hoc est veritas aeterna et immutabilis ; hoc est doctrina certa et constantis Patrum orthodoxorum et doctorum Latinorum et Graecorum. Sed quia quidam ignorantia huius irrefragabilis veritatis alii contemptu eius in diversas errores lapsi sunt sancta Romana ecclesia vestigiis eorumdem Patrum inhaerens omnes qui praesumunt contrarium dicere anathematizavit et anathematizat.”

 

Translation.

“The faithful and devout profession which the Greeks made at the second council of Lyons contains that the Holy Ghost proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son not as from two principles but as from one single principle not by two spirations but by one single spiration. This the holy Roman Church confesses this she holds and preaches. This is the eternal and immutable truth; this is the certain and constant doctrine of the orthodox Fathers and of the Latin and Greek Doctors. But because some through ignorance of this irrefutable truth others through contempt of it have fallen into various errors the holy Roman Church adhering to the footsteps of the same Fathers anathematized and anathematizes all those who presume to say the contrary.”

 

This text of the council does not develop detailed arguments but it founds them on “the certain and constant doctrine of the orthodox Fathers and of the Latin and Greek Doctors”. The arguments to prove the Filioque are therefore those of the apostolic tradition which the council supposes known and irrefutable.

They are thus exposed following the method of Saint Thomas Aquinas. first the proofs from Holy Scripture then those of the Fathers finally the theological reasons refuting the objections.

 

2. Scriptural proofs for the Filioque

 

The council relies on Scripture which shows that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Son as from the Father. Saint Thomas Aquinas (Summa Theologica I q. 36 a. 2) explains that Scripture attributes to the Son what belongs to the procession of the Spirit. Here are the exact citations.

 

1. John 15:26. “Cum autem venerit Paraclitus quem ego mittam vobis a Patre Spiritum veritatis qui a Patre procedit ille testimonium perhibebit de me.” (Translation. “But when the Paraclete comes whom I will send to you from the Father the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father He will give testimony of Me.”)

Argument. The Spirit proceeds from the Father but the Son sends Him which implies a procession from the Son because sending supposes authority over the origin (according to Saint Thomas. temporal sending manifests eternal procession).

 

2. John 16:14-15. “Ille me clarificabit quia de meo accipiet et annuntiabit vobis. Omnia quaecumque habet Pater mea sunt ; propterea dixi quia de meo accipit et annuntiabit vobis.” (Translation. “He will glorify Me because He will receive from what is Mine and will announce it to you. All things whatsoever the Father has are Mine; therefore I said that He receives from what is Mine and will announce it to you.”)

Argument. The Spirit receives from the Son what the Son receives from the Father; now procession is a reception of divine essence therefore the Spirit proceeds from the Son (Saint Thomas. this shows unity of principle).

 

3. John 20:22. “Haec cum dixisset insufflavit et dicit eis. Accipite Spiritum Sanctum.” (Translation. “Having said this He breathed on them and said to them. Receive the Holy Ghost.”)

Argument. The breath of the Son gives the Spirit manifesting the eternal procession from the Son like the breath of the Father (Saint Thomas refutes the objection. this is not only temporal but a sign of the eternal).

 

Refutation of the counter-arguments. The Eastern schismatics claim that “who proceeds from the Father” (John 15:26) excludes the Son but this is refuted by the unity of the Trinity; the Father is principle without principle but the Son is principle with the Father as one single principle (according to the council).

 

3. Patristic proofs for the Filioque

 

The council invokes “the orthodox Fathers and Latin and Greek Doctors”. Here are exact citations from Fathers recognized by the pre-1963 Catholic Church which Saint Thomas cites.

 

1. Saint Augustine De Trinitate lib. XV cap. 26 n. 47 (P.L. 42 col. 1091). “Spiritus sanctus procedit a Patre principaliter et per donum temporis datum a Filio communiter ab utroque.” (Translation. “The Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father principally and by the temporal gift given by the Son commonly from both.”)

Argument. The procession is common to the Father and the Son.

 

2. Saint Hilary of Poitiers De Trinitate lib. II n. 29 (P.L. 10 col. 69). “A te per unigenitum tuum Spiritus sancti perceptionem rogo.” (Translation. “From You through Your only-begotten I ask for the perception of the Holy Ghost.”)

Argument. The Spirit is perceived through the Son implying procession.

 

3. Saint Athanasius (Greek) Epistola ad Serapionem I n. 20 (P.G. 26 col. 577). “Spiritus non est creatura sed procedens a Patre per Filium.” (Translation. “The Spirit is not a creature but proceeding from the Father through the Son.”)

Argument. Even in a Greek Father the procession is through the Son.

 

4. Saint Cyril of Alexandria (Greek) Thesaurus de sancta et consubstantiali Trinitate assertio 34 (P.G. 75 col. 585). “Spiritus est proprius Filii ab eo procedens.” (Translation. “The Spirit is proper to the Son proceeding from Him.”)

Argument. Refutes the schismatics who deny that the Greek Fathers teach the Filioque.

 

Refutation. The Oriental schismatics allege that the Greek Fathers say only “through the Son” for temporal manifestation but Saint Thomas shows that this designates eternal procession because the Fathers speak of the divine essence.

 

4. Rational proofs for the Filioque according to the logic of Saint Thomas Aquinas

 

Saint Thomas (Summa Theologica I q. 36 a. 2) reasons thus. In the Trinity the Persons are distinguished by relations of opposition. If the Spirit proceeded only from the Father He would not be distinguished from the Son (who also proceeds from the Father). But the Spirit is distinguished from the Son therefore He proceeds from the Son. Moreover.

 

– The Father gives everything to the Son including the power to spirate the Spirit (reason of fittingness).

– The Father and the Son are one single principle of the Spirit by mutual love (the Spirit is the proceeding Love).

– Refutation. The schismatics say that this makes two principles but no. it is one single principle because the Father and the Son have one single essence.

 

This doctrine is certain not a hypothesis and Catholics hold it as revealed truth.

 

4. By the Council of Florence held from 1438 to 1439 under the pontificate of Eugene IV

 

It defined in an ecumenical manner the truth of the Filioque namely that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and the Son as from one single principle. This council recognized as the seventeenth ecumenical council brought together representatives of the Latin and Greek Churches in an effort of union and its decrees constitute an integral part of the deposit of faith. The arguments advanced by the council to prove this doctrine rest on Holy Scripture the Fathers of the Church and solid theological reason in conformity with the logic of Saint Thomas Aquinas who teaches that the procession of the Holy Ghost follows from the eternal generation of the Son by the Father by virtue of the unity of the divine nature and the communication of the divine properties.

 

1. Scriptural and patristic premises

The council relies on the unanimous testimonies of the Scriptures and of the holy Fathers both Greek and Latin to establish that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and the Son. These texts were presented and debated during the sessions showing that the expressions “from the Father through the Son” (among the Greeks) and “from the Father and the Son” (among the Latins) express the same truth.

 

1. Testimonies of the Fathers. The Greek and Latin Fathers uniformly teach that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and the Son without introducing two distinct causes. For example the council cites the holy doctors affirming that the Spirit proceeds “from the Father through the Son” which implies the participation of the Son as cause or principle.

Exact citation (from the decree for the Greeks session 6). “The Greeks affirmed that when they say that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father they do not mean to exclude the Son; but fearing lest one come to think of two principles in the divinity they avoid saying that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. The Latins for their part affirmed that they do not say that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as if the Spirit proceeded from two principles and by two spirations but as from one single principle and one single spiration.” (Translation faithful to the original Latin drawn from the bull Laetentur Caeli).

This unanimity refutes the subsequent schismatic counter-arguments which claim an opposition between Eastern and Western Fathers. the council demonstrates logically that the formulas are equivalent because God is one in essence and the Trinitarian processions do not divide this unity.

 

2. Scriptural foundation. Although the council does not cite explicitly isolated verses its arguments imply passages such as John 15:26 (“the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father”) and John 16:14-15 (“He will glorify Me because He will take from what is Mine and will announce it to you. All that the Father has is Mine”) which show that the Spirit receives from the Son what He receives from the Father. Saint Thomas Aquinas in his Theological Summa (I q. 36 a. 2) reasons in the same way. since the Son has everything that the Father has (except paternity) the spiration of the Spirit belongs to Him also.

 

1. Theological reasonings

Following Thomistic logic which proceeds by distinctions and analogies the council argues from the unity of the Trinity and the communication of the divine perfections.

 

1. Unity of principle and unique spiration. The Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son not as from two separate sources but as from one single principle thus avoiding any ditheism.

Logical argument. If the Father eternally begets the Son and the Son is consubstantial with the Father then the power to spirate the Spirit is common to both. Refuted counter-argument. The schismatics fear two principles but the council responds that it is one single spiration analogous to the unity of the divine nature (as Saint Thomas explains. the processio is an operation ad intra one in God).

 

2. Communication of the properties of the Father to the Son. Everything that belongs to the Father is given to the Son in eternal generation except the relation of paternity. Therefore the procession of the Spirit which is a divine property is also of the Son.

Exact citation (from the bull Laetentur Caeli session 6). “And since everything that is of the Father the Father Himself has given to His only Son in begetting Him except the fact of being Father this very thing that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Son the Son Himself holds eternally from the Father by whom He was also eternally begotten.” (Exact translation faithful to the Latin).

Aquinian reasoning. By analogy with the efficient cause the Father is principle without principle the Son is principle of the principle; together they spirate the Spirit as one unique cause.

 

3. Equivalence of the Greek and Latin formulas. “Through the Son” means that the Son is cause (Greeks) or principle (Latins) of the subsistence of the Spirit.

Argument. This preserves Trinitarian unity refuting the accusations of Latin innovation. The council declares that the Fathers express the same doctrine under diverse words.

 

1. Conciliar definition and applications

The council infallibly defines the Filioque as dogma obliging all the faithful. This definition was reiterated in the unions with the Armenians (session 8 22 November 1439) the Syrians (session 13 30 November 1444) and the Chaldeans-Maronites (session 14 7 August 1445) confirming its universality.

 

Citation of the definition (bull Laetentur Caeli). “That the Holy Ghost is eternally of the Father and of the Son and that He holds His essence and His subsisting being from the Father and the Son together and that He proceeds eternally from the one and the other as from one single principle and one unique spiration.”

Addition to the Creed. “We moreover define the explanation contained in these words « and of the Son » has been added to the symbol in a licit and reasonable manner in order to enlighten the truth and by a then pressing necessity.”

 

In conclusion these arguments prove irrefutably the Filioque as revealed truth in conformity with reason and tradition. The schismatic counter-arguments founded on a false interpretation of the Fathers are refuted by conciliar unanimity.

 

5. Sources.

 

1. Saint Thomas Aquinas Summa Theologica I q. 36 a. 2

 

Article 2. Does the Holy Ghost proceed from the Father and the Son?

 

Objections.

1. According to Dionysius “one must not venture to speak of the substantial Deity in terms foreign to those that are divinely formulated for us by the sacred texts.” Now Holy Scripture does not say that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Son; it says only that He proceeds from the Father. “the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father” (Jn 15:26). Therefore the Holy Ghost does not proceed from the Son.
2. One reads in the Symbol of the Council of Constantinople. “We believe in the Holy Ghost who is Lord and who gives life; He proceeds from the Father; with the Father and the Son He receives the same adoration and the same glory.” One should therefore never have added to our Symbol that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Son. those who added it seem rather to fall under the anathema.
3. John Damascene writes. “We say that the Holy Ghost is of the Father and we call Him Spirit of the Father; but we do not say that He is of the Son; yet we call Him the Spirit of the Son.” The Holy Ghost therefore does not proceed from the Son.
4. One does not proceed from the one in whom one reposes. Now the Holy Ghost reposes in the Son for one reads in the “Legend of Saint Andrew”. “Peace be with you and with all those who believe in one single God the Father and in His only Son Our Lord Jesus Christ and in the one Holy Ghost who proceeds from the Father and remains in the Son.” The Holy Ghost therefore does not proceed from the Son.
5. The Son proceeds as Word. But in us our breath does not seem to proceed from our word. Therefore the Holy Ghost does not proceed from the Son.
6. The Holy Ghost proceeds perfectly from the Father. It is therefore superfluous to make Him proceed from the Son.
7. According to Aristotle “there is no difference between being and being able to be in eternal things” and even less so in God. Now the Holy Ghost can be distinguished from the Son even if He does not proceed from Him. Saint Anselm says indeed. “The Son and the Holy Ghost hold well their being from the Father but by different ways; the one by birth the other by procession and this distinguishes them from each other.” Further on he adds. “For if the Son and the Holy Ghost had nothing else to be two this alone would suffice to distinguish them.” The Holy Ghost is therefore distinct from the Son without proceeding from Him.

 

On the contrary.

Saint Athanasius says. “The Holy Ghost is of the Father and of the Son not as made or created or begotten but as proceeding.”

 

Response.

It is necessary to affirm that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Son; if He did not proceed from Him He could in no way be distinguished from Him. This results from what has been said up to now. Indeed one cannot say that the divine Persons are distinguished from one another by something absolute; it would follow that the Three would not have one unique essence since in God every absolute attribute belongs to the unity of essence. It remains therefore that the divine Persons are distinguished from one another solely by relations. But these relations cannot distinguish the persons except insofar as they are opposed. The proof of this is that the Father has two relations. by one He is related to the Son and by the other to the Holy Ghost; however as these relations are not opposed they do not constitute two persons; they belong only to one single person that of the Father. Therefore if in the Son and in the Holy Ghost one could find only the two relations that relate each of them to the Father these relations would not be opposed to each other any more than the two relations that relate the Father to each of them. Also just as the Father is only one person it would follow similarly that the Son and the Holy Ghost would be only one person possessing two relations opposed to the two relations of the Father. But this is a heresy for one thus destroys faith in the Trinity.

It is therefore necessary that the Son and the Holy Ghost refer to each other by opposed relations. Now in God there cannot be other opposed relations than relations of origin as has been shown above; and these relations of origin opposed to each other are those of principle on the one hand and of term emanated from this principle on the other. In the end one will have to say either that the Son proceeds from the Holy Ghost but no one says that; or that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Son; and that is what we confess.

And the explanation that we have given above of their respective procession accords with this doctrine. It has been said that the Son proceeds according to the mode proper to the intellect as Word; and that the Holy Ghost proceeds according to the mode proper to the will as Love. Now love necessarily proceeds from the Word. we love nothing outside of what we apprehend in a conception of the mind. On this head also it is therefore clear that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Son.

The very order of things teaches it to us. Nowhere indeed does one find a multitude that proceeds without order from one single principle unless it is a question of pure material distinction; thus one same workman fabricates a multitude of materially distinct knives from one another without there being order among them. But as soon as one goes beyond the case of purely material distinction one always finds an order in the multitude produced; so that the order that bursts forth even in the production of creatures manifests the beauty of divine wisdom. Therefore if there are two persons who proceed from the one single person of the Father. the Son and the Holy Ghost there must necessarily be an order between them. And one cannot assign another than an order of nature the one proceeding from the other; unless one supposes between them a material distinction which is impossible.

Also the Greeks recognize that the procession of the Holy Ghost has a certain relation with the Son. They concede that the Holy Ghost is the Spirit of the Son that He comes from the Father through the Son; some of them it is said concede even that He is of the Son or that He flows from the Son but not that He proceeds from Him. There is there it seems ignorance or malice; for if one reflects well on it one will see that among the words that have to do with any origin the word procession is the most general. We use it to designate any origin; for example one says that the line proceeds from the point that the ray proceeds from the sun the river from its source and likewise in all sorts of other cases. Also from the fact that one admits one or the other of the words evoking origin one can conclude that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Son.

 

Solutions of the objections.

1. One must not attribute to God what is not found in Holy Scripture neither in proper terms nor as to the sense. Now if it is true that one does not find formulated expressly in Holy Scripture that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Son the sense at least is found there and above all in this passage where the Son says of the Holy Ghost (Jn 16:14). “He will glorify Me for He will receive from what is Mine.” Moreover it is a rule of interpretation of Scripture. what it affirms of the Father must be understood also of the Son even if there is addition of an exclusive term. there is exception only on the points where the Father and the Son are distinguished by opposed relations. In fact when the Lord says (Mt 11:27). “No one knows the Son except the Father” this does not mean to exclude that the Son Himself knows Himself. Thus therefore even if the passages where it is said that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father bore the clause that He proceeds from the Father “alone” the Son would not be excluded for all that; for on this point of being principle of the Holy Ghost the Father and the Son are not opposed; they are opposed only in this that the one is Father and the other Son.
2. At each council one instituted a symbol directed against the error that it was a question of condemning. The following council therefore did not compose a different symbol from the preceding one; but to face new heresies it inserted an addition explaining what was contained only implicitly in the previous symbol. Thus one reads in a decision of the Council of Chalcedon that the Fathers assembled at the Council of Constantinople taught the doctrine of the Holy Ghost “not by adding what would have been lacking in their predecessors assembled at Nicaea but by explaining the thought of these against the heretics”. Therefore at the time of the first councils as one had not yet seen the birth of the error that refuses the Holy Ghost to proceed from the Son one then had no need to expose this point explicitly. But later when this error made its appearance among some a Council assembled in the West formulated expressly this doctrine with the authority of the Roman pontiff; for it was already by his authority that the ancient councils were assembled and received confirmation. However the doctrine in question was contained implicitly in the affirmation that “the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father”.
3. It is the Nestorians who first gave currency to this error that the Holy Ghost does not proceed from the Son. One has the proof of it in a Nestorian symbol condemned at the Council of Ephesus. The Nestorian Theodoret embraced this error and many others after him among whom is also John Damascene. on this point therefore one must not follow his doctrine. Some say however that if the Damascene does not confess that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Son he does not deny it either taking his words in their proper sense.
4. To say that the Holy Ghost reposes or remains in the Son does not exclude that He proceeds from Him; for one also says that the Son remains in the Father although He proceeds from the Father. If one says of the Holy Ghost that He remains in the Son it is in the manner in which the love of the one who loves reposes in the beloved; or else it is a question of the human nature of Christ and one has in view this text of Saint John (1:33). “He upon whom you will see the Spirit descend and remain He it is who baptizes.”
5. It is not by analogy with the vocal word from which indeed our breath does not proceed that one must conceive the Word in God. one would have there only a metaphorical Word. One must understand it by analogy with our mental Word from which proceeds love.
6. From the fact that the Holy Ghost proceeds perfectly from the Father not only is it not superfluous to add that He proceeds from the Son it is absolutely necessary. for the Father and the Son have one same and unique virtue; and everything that proceeds from the Father proceeds necessarily from the Son unless it contradicts His property of Son. It is clear that the Son does not proceed from Himself although He proceeds from the Father.
7. The Holy Ghost is distinguished personally from the Son by the fact that the origin of the one is distinguished from the origin of the other. But this difference of origin itself consists in this that the Son proceeds only from the Father while the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and the Son. Otherwise the two processions would not be distinguished as has just been shown.

 

2. Saint Thomas Aquinas in his work “Against the Errors of the Greeks” (Contra Errores Graecorum) (1263)

 

Here is a systematic presentation of all the arguments developed by Saint Thomas Aquinas in his work Contra Errores Graecorum.

This work written in 1263 at the request of Pope Urban IV aims to clarify the passages of the Greek Fathers that could seem ambiguous to the Latins and to demonstrate how these same Fathers support the truth of the Roman faith.

The first part (32 chapters) exposes the difficult passages to remove doubts from them while the second part (40 chapters) proves the conformity of the Greek teachings with the Latin dogmas notably on the procession of the Holy Ghost the primacy of the pope the use of unleavened bread and purgatory.

Each chapter is indicated with its title translated and a brief summary of the principal argument founded on Thomistic logic which harmonizes the apparent contraries with divine truth.

 

First part. Explanation of the ambiguous passages of the Greek Fathers.

 

Prologue. The holy Doctor explains that he has examined the booklet presented by the pope and has found useful authorities for the faith but certain expressions of the Fathers could raise doubts; he proposes to expose them to draw pure fruit from them attributing the ambiguities to historical errors and to linguistic differences between Greek and Latin.

 

Chapter 1. How the Son is understood as relating to the Father as a caused thing to its cause. Argument. The Greeks call the Father cause of the Son but the Latins prefer principle to avoid the idea of diversity of essence; this designates origin without implying creation.

 

Chapter 2. How the Son is understood as second of the Father and the Holy Ghost third. Argument. The Son is second and the Holy Ghost third by numerical order not by priority as in baptism without implying inequality.

 

Chapter 3. How the Holy Ghost is understood as third light. Argument. The Holy Ghost is third light in signifying origin but Father Son and Holy Ghost are one single light avoiding the idea of multiple lights.

 

Chapter 4. How the essence is understood as begotten in the Son and spirated in the Holy Ghost. Argument. The expression is improper; generation and procession concern the persons not the common essence according to Cyril and Athanasius.

 

Chapter 5. How Jesus is understood as Son of the paternal essence. Argument. This means that He receives the essence by generation not that He is begotten by it; likewise for essential procession.

 

Chapter 6. How the properties of the Father are understood as proper to the Son. Argument. The natural properties of the Father are proper to the Son as essential attributes like life and truth not personal in relation to creatures.

 

Chapter 7. How the Father is understood as not needing either the Son or the Holy Ghost for His perfection. Argument. The Father is perfect in Himself without need; the Son and the Spirit receive from Him but all are without lack.

 

Chapter 8. How the Holy Ghost is understood as unbegotten. Argument. Unbegotten means without principle for the Father alone but unbegotten in the sense of not born applies to the Spirit according to Jerome.

 

Chapter 9. How the Holy Ghost is understood as the mean between the Father and the Son. Argument. The Spirit is mean as common bond (love) not by numerical priority.

 

Chapter 10. How the Holy Ghost is understood as the image of the Son. Argument. The Latins reserve image to the Son but the Greeks extend it to the Spirit as derived and similar reconciled by divine simplicity.

 

Chapter 11. How the Holy Ghost is understood in the Father as in His image. Argument. Image is taken improperly for exemplar resolving the apparent inversion.

 

Chapter 12. How the Holy Ghost is understood as proceeding from the Father alone. Argument. This designates the Father as principle without principle without excluding the procession from the Son.

 

Chapter 13. How by the name of Christ is understood the Holy Ghost. Argument. Cyril does not predicate Christ of the Holy Ghost but understands it by concomitance without confusing the persons.

 

Chapter 14. How the affirmation that the Holy Ghost does not send the Son is understood. Argument. Only the one from whom another proceeds can send; the Father sends the Son the Son the Spirit not the inverse.

 

Chapter 15. How the affirmation that the Holy Ghost operates truly through the Son is understood. Argument. The Spirit operates through the Son according to His human nature not divine.

 

Chapter 16. How God is understood as not remaining in men before the incarnation of Christ. Argument. Before the incarnation the fullness of grace was not given as by Christ not that God was absent.

 

Chapter 17. How the divine essence is understood as conceived and born. Argument. Improper expression; the Son who is the divine essence is born of the Virgin not the essence itself.

 

Chapter 18. How the affirmation that the divinity was made is understood. Argument. The divinity assumed human nature in the person of the Word without change.

 

Chapter 19. How the Son of God is understood as having assumed a human nature in His essence. Argument. Imprecise expression; the union is in the person not the essence.

 

Chapter 20. How the affirmation that a man was assumed is understood. Argument. Man designates the human nature not a separate person avoiding Nestorianism.

 

Chapter 21. How the affirmation “God made man God” is understood. Argument. This means deification by union in the person of the Son.

 

Chapter 22. How is understood the affirmation that the image of the first parent was taken away from Christ. Argument. Christ assumed the similitude of Adam in nature punishment but not in sin; Athanasius refers to the punishment taken away at the resurrection.

 

Chapter 23. How is understood the affirmation that the creature cannot cooperate with the Creator. Argument. The creature cooperates in mediated effects not in immediate effects like creation.

 

Chapter 24. How is understood the affirmation that the creature is not proper to the Creator. Argument. The creature belongs to God by power but is foreign by nature.

 

Chapter 25. How is understood the affirmation that in the angels as to nature one does not say second and third. Argument. The angels share a generic nature but differ specifically permitting natural differences.

 

Chapter 26. How is understood the affirmation that Paul teaching even the Seraphim learn. Argument. The angels learn future circumstances by the events preached by Paul not directly from him.

 

Chapter 27. How is understood the affirmation that the breath that God inspired in the face of man is not the rational soul but the effusion of the Holy Ghost. Argument. Cyril speaks allegorically; the breath is the soul distinct from the Holy Ghost.

 

Chapter 28. How is understood the affirmation that the one who blasphemes once it is impossible that he not blaspheme. Argument. Impossible means difficult because of habit without contradicting free will.

 

Chapter 29. How is understood the affirmation that faith is not predicable. Argument. Faith cannot be fully explained by preaching.

 

Chapter 30. How is understood the affirmation that faith is not administered to us by the angels. Argument. The authority of faith comes from the Father through the Son and the Spirit not from the angels although these have revealed it to some.

 

Chapter 31. How is understood the affirmation that the mortal letter is also of the New Testament. Argument. Neither the Old nor the New kill except by error or bad use; the Old was by lack of grace.

 

Chapter 32. How is understood the affirmation that only the definition of the Council of Nicaea is the one and true possession of the faithful. Argument. The definition of Nicaea gives the true sense of Scripture for Catholics without more authority than Scripture itself.

 

Second part. Demonstration that the Greek Fathers support the Latin doctrine.

 

Prologue. The Doctor exposes how the authorities defend the true faith against errors listing historical and contemporary heresies like the denial of the procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son and the unity of the Church under Rome.

 

Chapter 1. That the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Son. Argument. The Holy Ghost proceeds from the Son according to Athanasius and Cyril as He proceeds from the Father.

 

Chapter 2. That the Son sends the Holy Ghost. Argument. The Son sends the Spirit implying His eternal existence from Him according to John 15:26 and Athanasius.

 

Chapter 3. That the Holy Ghost receives from what is the Son’s. Argument. The Spirit receives from the Son eternally sharing the divinity according to John 16:14 and Basil.

 

Chapter 4. That the Son operates through the Holy Ghost. Argument. The Son operates through the Spirit implying that the Spirit is of Him according to Romans 15:19 and Cyril.

 

Chapter 5. That the Holy Ghost is the image of the Son. Argument. The Spirit is natural image of the Son deriving from Him according to Romans 8:29 and Gregory.

 

Chapter 6. That He is the character of the Son. Argument. The Spirit is imprinted by the Son on the Church deriving from Him according to Athanasius.

 

Chapter 7. That He is also the seal of the Son. Argument. The Spirit seals the Church with the image of the Son confirming His origin from Him according to Chrysostom.

 

Chapter 8. That the Holy Ghost is of the Father through the Son. Argument. The Spirit is of the Father mediately through the Son according to Cyril and Basil.

 

Chapter 9. That the Holy Ghost is of the Son. Argument. The Spirit is directly of the Son according to Athanasius and Basil.

 

Chapter 10. That He is conjointly of the Father and of the Son. Argument. The Spirit proceeds from both as from one unique principle according to Epiphanius.

 

Chapter 11. That He is of both from all eternity. Argument. The procession is eternal from both according to Epiphanius.

 

Chapter 12. That the Holy Ghost is person of the persons. Argument. The Spirit is hypostasis of the hypostases of the Father and of the Son according to Athanasius.

 

Chapter 13. That He is also of the essence of the Father and of the Son. Argument. The Spirit proceeds from the common essence according to Athanasius.

 

Chapter 14. That He is naturally of the Son. Argument. The procession is natural from the Son according to Cyril.

 

Chapter 15. That the Son also spires the Holy Ghost. Argument. The Son spires the Spirit with the Father according to Athanasius.

 

Chapter 16. That the Son has this that He spires from a personal property. Argument. Spiration is personal property of the Son according to Basil.

 

Chapter 17. That He is spirated from the Father and the Son for the same reason. Argument. Spiration is co-essential of both according to Athanasius.

 

Chapter 18. That He is spirated from the Son eternally. Argument. Spiration of the Son is eternal according to Cyril.

 

Chapter 19. That the Holy Ghost is spirated from the essence of the Son. Argument. The Spirit is spirated from the essence as it exists in the Son according to Athanasius.

 

Chapter 20. That the Holy Ghost emanates from the Son. Argument. Emanation includes procession from the Son according to Gregory of Nyssa.

 

Chapter 21. That the Holy Ghost flows from the Son and this from all eternity. Argument. The flow is eternal from the Son according to Cyril.

 

Chapter 22. That the Holy Ghost springs from the Son. Argument. The Spirit springs from the Son as source according to Athanasius.

 

Chapter 23. That the Son gives the Spirit of His own. Argument. The Son gives the Spirit of His own according to Cyril.

 

Chapter 24. That the Son is also principle of the Holy Ghost. Argument. The Son is principle of the Spirit eternally according to Gregory of Nazianzus.

 

Chapter 25. That the Son is also source of the Holy Ghost. Argument. The Son is source as splendour of the Father according to Athanasius.

 

Chapter 26. General conclusion. that the Spirit proceeds from the Son. Argument. Procession is broad encompassing existence flow spiration of the Son.

 

Chapter 27. That in the divine persons to flow and to proceed is the same thing. Argument. To flow and to proceed are synonymous according to Cyril.

 

Chapter 28. That to demonstrate the procession of the Holy Ghost the Greek and Latin Doctors use the same reasons. Argument. Unity of essence implies common procession according to Anselm and Cyril.

 

Chapter 29. That the Holy Ghost is distinguished from the Son by this that He is of Him. Argument. Distinction is by procession from the Son according to Gregory of Nyssa.

 

Chapter 30. That the distinction of the persons must be according to an order of nature. Argument. The order is like a chain. Father Son Spirit according to Augustine and Athanasius.

 

Chapter 31. That to believe that the Holy Ghost is of the Son is necessary for salvation. Argument. Denial is heretical according to Athanasius and Cyril.

 

Chapter 32. That the Roman pontiff is the first and the greatest among all the bishops. Argument. Successor of Peter first by Scripture according to the canons and Chrysostom.

 

Chapter 33. That the same pontiff has prelature over the whole universal Church of Christ. Argument. Universal jurisdiction according to Chalcedon and Chrysostom.

 

Chapter 34. That the same has in the Church the fullness of power. Argument. Fullness as vicarius Christi according to Cyril and Chrysostom.

 

Chapter 35. That the same is in the same Church the head of all the heads. Argument. Head of spiritual kings according to Maximus and Chrysostom.

 

Chapter 36. That in difficult causes one must have recourse to the Roman pontiff. Argument. Appeal to the see of Peter for major causes according to Basil and Athanasius.

 

Chapter 37. That the decretals of the Roman pontiff have authority as the canons of the councils. Argument. Decretals have canonical force according to Maximus.

 

Chapter 38. That the Roman pontiff has the care of the whole Church. Argument. Universal care as Peter according to Chrysostom.

 

Chapter 39. That there is a purgatory after this life. Argument. Souls are purified after death according to Cyril and Dionysius.

 

Chapter 40. That the souls of the saints are received into heaven immediately after death. Argument. The saints enter heaven without delay according to Chrysostom and Cyril.

 

Epilogue. Conclusion on the licit use of unleavened bread for the sacrament of the Eucharist. Argument. Unleavened use is valid according to Epiphanius and Chrysostom harmonizing with the Greeks.