7 Objections (& Answers) to 'the Filioque' by St Thomas Aquinas

Today we will look at 7 objections (and answers) St. Thomas Aquinas poses to the belief that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son.

AQUINAS' 7 OBJECTIONS:

Objection 1. It would seem that the Holy Ghost does not proceed from the Son. For as Dionysius says (Div. Nom. i): "We must not dare to say anything concerning the substantial Divinity except what has been divinely expressed to us by the sacred oracles." But in the Sacred Scripture we are not told that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Son; but only that He proceeds from the Father, as appears from John 15:26: "The Spirit of truth, Who proceeds from the Father." Therefore the Holy Ghost does not proceed from the Son.

Objection 2. Further, in the creed of the council of Constantinople (Can. vii) we read: "We believe in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Life-giver, who proceeds from the Father; with the Father and the Son to be adored and glorified." Therefore it should not be added in our Creed that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Son; and those who added such a thing appear to be worthy of anathema.

Objection 3. Further, Damascene says (De Fide Orth. i): "We say that the Holy Ghost is from the Father, and we name Him the spirit of the Father; but we do not say that the Holy Ghost is from the Son, yet we name Him the Spirit of the Son." Therefore the Holy Ghost does not proceed from the Son.

Objection 4. Further, nothing proceeds from that wherein it rests. But the Holy Ghost rests in the Son; for it is said in the legend of St. Andrew: "Peace be to you and to all who believe in the one God the Father, and in His only Son our Lord Jesus Christ, and in the one Holy Ghost proceeding from the Father, and abiding in the Son." Therefore the Holy Ghost does not proceed from the Son.

Objection 5. Further, the Son proceeds as the Word. But our breath [spiritus] does not seem to proceed in ourselves from our word. Therefore the Holy Ghost does not proceed from the Son.

Objection 6. Further, the Holy Ghost proceeds perfectly from the Father. Therefore it is superfluous to say that He proceeds from the Son.

Objection 7. Further "the actual and the possible do not differ in things perpetual" (Phys. iii, text 32), and much less so in God. But it is possible for the Holy Ghost to be distinguished from the Son, even if He did not proceed from Him. For Anselm says (De Process. Spir. Sancti, ii): "The Son and the Holy Ghost have their Being from the Father; but each in a different way; one by Birth, the other by Procession, so that they are thus distinct from one another." And further on he says: "For even if for no other reason were the Son and the Holy Ghost distinct, this alone would suffice." Therefore the Holy Spirit is distinct from the Son, without proceeding from Him.

[ZZZELCH]

Orthodox here:
The mystery of the Trinity is so profound that I don’t know that either is exactly right or exactly wrong.
As I continue to study this, I find that I quite honestly care less about who’s right and who’s wrong.
Instead, I would be extremely grateful if each side would do a better job of trying to understand our unique differences and get on with our responsibilities together. We do not “need” full communion to do any of these. At the end of the day, I sincerely believe the better we understand and love each other in our differences, the faster and more likely our reunification.
Thank you for another thought-provoking video.

[ggarza]

I prefer Aidan Nichols’ treatment of this topic in his book, “Rome and the Eastern Churches.”

His argument centers around the Greek and Latin versions of the Creed and their complimentary meanings.

Greek word for “proceed, ” which is used in John 15:26 and many other times in the NT means to “come or go out” from an implied origin. The focal point of the word is the origin from which movement goes forth. This implied origin in the Greek meaning of the word is important and in context implies that the Father is the First Origin of the Holy Spirit.

The Christian Latin word for “proceed” means “to go forwards” without regard to an implied origin. The focal point of the word is the action of going forward. Used by itself in the Creed the word implies that the Holy Spirit goes forth without regard to the Son. As Aquinas says in the Summa, “we use the term to describe any kind of origin (STh., I q.36 a.2 resp. Paragraph 4).”

In order to fix this problem in the Christian Latin version of the Creed, the qualifier, “and the Son” was added to Western Versions.

However, when the qualifier, “And the Son” is added to the Greek versions of the Creed, the clear meaning to the Greek reader is that the Holy Spirit has a two first origins. This is a problem. Greeks are correct to protect such a misunderstanding in their version of the Creed.

Both versions of the Creed together give a fuller and more complimentary meaning of the ancient faith, the Western versions with the Filioque and the Greek versions without.

[Cellalu]

Acknowledging that the Trinity has always been, I find a positive indication for the 'filioque' in the fact that 40 days after His resurrection, Christ Jesus ascends to the Father, and that 10 days after that the Holy Spirit descends on the apostles and others. It seems logical to me that the Spirit bursts forth in joy into the hearts of the apostles and other followers because of the re-union of the Father and the Son. It seems a disgrace to view the Trinity as the first-, second- and third-place finishers in a horse race.

[daniellindstrom]

Catholic here: I think the best argument from Aquinas comes from his Respondeo, in which he says that if the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone then the Spirit cannot be distinct from the Son, since the only distinction that could be made is material and in God there are no material distinctions. Best argument against (that doesn't necessarily disprove) the Filioque is Anselm in objection 7.

[princeofthekylineskyline]

Am I the only one here that feels like this is highly complicated material that's very difficult for a laymen to handle? To be fair, I'm not the brightest guy out there but this seems like a mystery that will take me years to comprehend with any degree of confidence. I'm OK with that. Christus Vincit.

[sibergirl]

I converted from Evangelical Presbyterianism to Catholicism in 2003. I, like many, investigated the Orthodox Church. The 3 big problems were their take on the Papacy ( I came to believe there had to be a primacy of one of the Sees, or nothing could ever be settled), the Filioque, and the overwhelming monocultural feel of each parish. Whether it was Greek, Russian, Ukrainian, Coptic etc....as a person who’s ancestry is 100% British Isles, I didn’t feel at home in any of them. I even went to some Bible studies but didn’t get all the Greek “in jokes”. The people were lovely but I felt out of place. In the end, I saw the primacy of the Chair of Peter, the importance of the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father and the Son, and the sheerly obvious universality of the Catholic Church winning out.
P.S. I’m so happy to be a Patreon supporter of Pints with Aquinas. You have such terrific content, Matt.

[jennashlock]

Totally AWESOME! Thank you again for broadening our horizons when it comes to the St Angelic Dr.🙌

[faithwisdom]

Can we all agree to convert to Catholic or EO is better than being protestant. Either way you're getting the body of Christ.

[cyndichanou]

I lived in Thessaloniki, Greece for 30 years (I American, my husband Greek) and worked with the Catholic Church there. We did indeed have the filioque in the Greek creed. However, we once had a visiting English speaking priest who told us that no one except God himself understands how the Holy Spirit comes to us. It's a crazy thing to argue about.🤭

[denakelley]

I'm actively exploring Orthodoxy vs Catholicism but the Filioque issue actually kind of baffles me as to why it's such an issue. If the Orthodox believe that Jesus is consubstantial (of the same substance) as the Father - and based on my research this is included in their version of the Creed- then I fail to understand their objection to the Filioque. Regardless, it's the least of the stumbling blocks to Catholicism for me because if an Angel will tell Augustine that he has a better chance of emptying the ocean with a cup into a hole in the sand than of understanding the nature of the Trinity, I'm fairly certain God will forgive us not having a complete understanding.

[daglasan]

" I am the Spirit of Truth who issues from the Father and sent by the Son, Jesus Christ; We are one Substance and one Power and one Knowledge and since We are one God alone We converse and give knowledge in the same manner and in the same terms; this great knowledge is transmitted to you filled with love; " Problem solved.

[Chicken_of_Bristol]

I gotta be honest, given that both the East and the West have strong traditions affirming that we ought to be apophatic in our discussion of the divine nature (we call the Trinity a mystery a reason), I don't understand how anyone can read philosophical arguments on the topic of the filioque and come out convinced either way. Since Aquinas didn't think we could use reason to get to the Trinity itself, can we really be confident that we have a good philosophical argument that can determine such a detail as the relationship between the persons of the Trinity? This seems to be the kind of question we ought to trust as what has been revealed by God to His Church. Since I *do* think there are strong arguments for the primacy of Peter and believe the Catholic Church to be the Church that Christ founded, I'll assent to what the Catholic Church has declared.

[Maskedlapis]

Please get Dr. Hahn on to discuss Filioque, he alluded to it in the last video

[henrylansing]

Honestly as an ex Protestant I was never that compelled by Orthodoxy. The Papacy isn't that hard to accept once you see that the Faith is contingent upon such a Church established by Christ. So in fact the Papacy probably helped lead me away from Protestantism, not the other way around or towards Orthodoxy. I think you give it too much credit haha 😄

[ThePhilosorpheus]

I am convinced that the only obstacle to unity is animosity, not doctrine. I dont know a single Catholic that considers this the hill they're willing to die on. But many Orthodox talk about these things with a bitterness that, again, can only be understood as political/historical animosity - not doctrinal. They (Eastern Orthodox) put a magnifying glass on any potential differences between east and west to try to find a sense of self-assertion. It is an identitarian impulse. Its sad, and I don´t like to judge, but it reeks of pride. And all of this over "processions ad intra", when their own theology is entirely centered around apophaticism! It is so irrational that it clearly goes beyond doctrinal disagreement. Their hearts are hardened. This is my experience - as a Catholic convert FROM Orthodoxy.

[theomimesis]

Eastern Triadology, unlike the Scholastic theology of the West, is focused first and foremost upon the monarchy of the Father, Who is seen as the sole principle (arche), source (pege), and cause (aitia) of divinity. Now, it follows from the doctrine of the monarchy of the Father that both the Son and the Holy Spirit receive their subsistence solely from Him, i.e., that He is their sole source and origin; and so, they are — as a consequence — one in essence (homoousios) with Him. Moreover, it is important to remember that the word homoousios itself, which was used by the First Ecumenical Council of Nicaea in order to describe the eternal communion of nature that exists between the Father and the Son, is a term that indicates a relation of dependence. In other words, the use of the term homoousios by the Church Fathers involves recognition of the fact that the Son receives His existence as person (hypostasis) from God the Father alone by generation (gennatos), and that He is dependent upon the Father for His co-essential nature. That being said, it follows that the Son comes forth from the Father’s person (hypostasis), and not from the divine essence (ousia), which is always absolutely common to the three divine persons. The same also holds with the hypostatic procession (ekporeusis) of origin of the Holy Spirit, as opposed to His progression (proienai), because He also receives His existence from the Father alone, i.e., from the Father’s person (hypostasis), and not from the divine essence (ousia), which — as I already indicated — is absolutely common to the three divine persons [see St. Gregory Palamas, "Logos Apodeiktikos, " I, 6]. Thus, it is from the Father Himself personally that the other two persons of the Holy Trinity derive their eternal subsistence and their co-essential nature.

Now, with the foregoing information in mind, it is clear that the Eastern Churches (both Orthodox and Catholic) must reject any theological system or theory that tries to elevate the Son to a co-principle of origin in connection with the existential procession (ekporeusis) of the Holy Spirit as person (hypostasis), because within Byzantine Triadology a theological proposition of that kind entails either the sin of ditheism, which involves positing the false idea that there are two principles or causes of divinity (i.e., the Father and the Son); or the heresy of Sabellian Modalism, which involves proposing the false notion that the Holy Spirit as person (hypostasis) proceeds from the Father and the Son "as from one principle, " thus causing an unintentional blending of the persons of the Father and the Son by giving the Son a personal characteristic (i.e., the power to spirate the Holy Spirit as person) that is proper only to the Father.

It is only in connection with the Spirit's progression (proienai), i.e., His outpouring as grace, that one may speak of a "filioque" of sorts (or to be more precise a "per filium"), but it must be made absolutely clear that the manifestation (phanerosis) of the Spirit as energy has nothing to do with His hypostatic procession (ekporeusis) of origin, which comes only from the Father as the sole principle (arche), source (pege), and cause (aitia) of divinity.

[LeDoux]

One can almost never have a civil discussion with Orthodox online ; most of the ones online have nothing but bitterness & vitriol for us Catholics.

[bropeterdimond]

The main thing stopping me from converting to Catholicism instead of Orthodoxy is the state of the Church, especially considering Christ said the gates of hell wouldn't succeed against his Church. And the main thing stopping me from becoming Orthodox is because of their rejection of the Filioque and that I am hesitant to reject it given all the proofs for it.

[masterchief]

What St Thomas Aquinas says in his “Reply to Object 2” (“Summa Theologie”, Prima Pars, Quaestio 36) is perfectly in compass with the history of the Church and the motives vindicated in summoning the Council of Constantinople of 381AD.


So he was not only a phenomenal doctrinal mind but he knew exactly what he was talking about when referring to the historical context of the Council of Constantinople.


To be much more precise, the heresy to what the Council addressed was Macedonianism, that denied the divinity of the Holy Spirit. So the Council of Nicea (325) was to Arianism what the Council of Constantinople (381) was to Macedonianism. Arius thought the Son was a creature of God; Macedonius thought the Holy Spirit was a creature of God, so structurally the parallel was obvious.


Macedonius was the Patriarch of Constantinople (341-360) and the heresiarch that denied the divinity of the Holy Spirit.


_”The Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son is not mentioned in the Creed of Constantinople, because this Creed was directed against the Macedonian error against which it sufficed to declare the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father”_ (Catholic Encyclopedia, on the term “Filioque”).


Besides, it is very, very intriguing to see the Nestorians were the first to deny the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son according to Aquinas, specially Theodoric, the Nestorian. It says something to me too (Reply to Objection 3, “Summa Theologie”, Prima Pars, Quaestio 36).


Thanks on your help, Matt!

[KFox]

Thanks Matt for posting this, I appreciate it a lot!