Understanding the Filioque Debate

Thinking about becoming Eastern Orthodox? Already Eastern Orthodox? Believe in the Trinity? Take this into account. The year is 1264. Pope Urban IV, former Patriarch of Jerusalem, is anxious to reunite the Greek and Latin churches. However, there's an obstacle to the reunion of the churches. This comes in the form of the Philistines. In both the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches to this day, the Nicene Creed is the primary form of the profession of the Catholic faith. Yet there is actually a major difference between these two creeds. In the Greek version of the Creed, it says, we believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life. On the other hand, in the Latin version of the creed, used in the West, it says, we believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son. The difference is found in the last three words, and the Son. This, in Latin, is the filioque. This was the major doctrinal difference between the East and the West. These debates stretching centuries before the Great Schism in the 11th century, all the way back to the 8th century, even causing a schism in the 9th century. These were the issues discussed in the 13th and the 15th century in the Great Reunion Councils. Because of this, Pope Urban IV, as the Vicar of Christ, decided to consult the greatest theologian of his day, St. Thomas Aquinas. In response to this call from Pope Urban IV, St. Thomas Aquinas wrote the work Against the Error of the Greeks, although this title, as we will see, is a bit of a misnomer, although not entirely inaccurate. And this misnomer has actually caused a great deal of orthodox objections to this work by the great angelic doctor. This is especially absurd considering the skills of petrology that St. Thomas Aquinas was at that time, and even to this day, famous for. St. Thomas, unlike other scholastics, always made sure to go to original sources when he could in order to verify the veracity of certain quotes. And if he even suspected that they were forged, he would never use them. Thus St. Thomas Aquinas more than ever said, any other theologian, East or West, was able to use mostly genuine sources. But, like any other medieval theologian, both East and West, certain inauthentic works, of course, would creep in. Yet, when we look at this work against the error of the Greeks, it is impossible to impute any wrongdoing to St. Thomas. For when we look at the reason why Pope Urban IV asked St. Thomas Aquinas in the first place to write this work, it was meant to be in response to the work of a bishop named Nicholas of Croatoan. He was a Latin representative to Constantinople. He wrote a work called the Libelus. In the Libelus, Nicholas of Croatoan argued that many of the differences between Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic theology in his day were purely nominal. Obviously, Pope Urban IV was not convinced of this. So, he sent the work to St. Thomas Aquinas and asked for him to comment on it. What St. Thomas did is he showed the genuine sense of the sources of the verses. that Nicholas of Crotone quoted in that work. In the second book of the work, he actually largely argues against Nicholas of Crotone's thesis, arguing that the formulations that the Latins have given represent genuine apostolic doctrine and are contradictory to the doctrine of the Eastern Orthodox. So, it is completely dishonest to say that St. Thomas Aquinas used forgeries. Rather, he commented on the forged works of a different theologian. Now, what is quite interesting and quite ironic is that actually Since Nicholas of Croatoan was the papal legate to Constantinople, it was from Constantinople that he got these forgeries. So, all of these forgeries that were used by Nicholas of Croatoan were simply Greek forgeries that he had translated into Latin. Yet, it is my personal opinion that St. Thomas Aquinas knew that Nicholas of Croatoan's quotes were forgeries to begin with. We can know this by looking throughout all of the sections where St. Thomas Aquinas discussed these matters. St. Thomas Aquinas was known for being a very consistent thinker. He would often treat certain issues multiple times during his life, and in each of these times he would quote basically the same authors, and give more or less detailed arguments depending on the audience. Now he treated the filioque eight times in his life, and for those forged documents that Nicholas of Croatoan used, St. Thomas never quotes those again. But enough of that. This video is not meant to be some sort of argument from tradition or scripture. D. Wong and I have produced many videos, to that effect. Rather, this video, I wanted to bring forward what is the most famous of St. Thomas'theological arguments for the Filioque. Now that we've gotten that out of the way, what is St. Thomas'theological argument for the filioque? Well, he has a few. Some from the psychological analogy, some from the nature of the power of spiration, some from the nature of the order of the persons, but his most famous one is is called the argument from relative opposition. So what does relative opposition mean? Relative opposition is meant to designate a certain relation that excludes the identity of the subjects of the relation. For example, the relationship of fatherhood and the relationship of sonship have relative opposition. Because if you're a father, you can't also be in that same relation to the son. These must posit two different subjects. But on the other hand, we can have other relations that don't have this. So if you have the relationship of brotherhood and friendship, that may exist in the same subject without positing two really distinct subjects. So what St. Thomas argues is that if there is not relative opposition between between the Son and the Spirit, then, like our relation of brotherhood and friendship, one will simply posit two relations in the same subject, rather than a relation that necessarily designates two subjects that are really distinct. Further, he's going to argue that this relative opposition that we must posit between the Son and the Spirit must include a relation of procession, a relation of principle and thing-principle. But let's slow down for a second and work out this argument a bit more carefully. First, we have to realize that there are two ways of properly predicating something to God. First, you can predicate something relatively to God. Second, you can predicate something absolutely to God. For something to be absolute, it has to be essential to the Trinity. For example, if we said that God is loving, just, wise, these would be absolute predications of God. On the other hand, when it comes to relative predications, it means that there is some sort of order to another, and this comes from procession. For example, if we use terms like father, son, spirit, these would be relative predications. terms, because the Father is the Father of the Son. The Son is the Son of the Spirit. The Spirit is the Spirit of the Son, and so on. And despite what some Eastern Orthodox apologists say, this distinction of names into absolute and relative is a distinction that is agreed upon by all of the Fathers, both East and West. As representing the Eastern Fathers, Saint Cyril states, quote, the relative names, as they are applied, are signified by both, conveying the mutual knowledge of each. Therefore, it is easier, if one learns the right hand, to know the left throat, and certainly that the opposite is also true, as anyone would agree. So the name Father belongs to the relational names, and similarly the name Son. He who denies the Father denies the Son, and he who denies the Son does not have the Father either. And this is very fitting and true. For if there is no Father, since by nature he has begotten, what would not grant the existence of the Son? For a Son is because he has begotten, and if there is no Son as begotten, neither would they be a father, according to the fitting and consequent reasoning of concepts, a father because he is a God."This is more clearly affirmed by St. Augustine in De Trinitate. He states, In God nothing is said to be according to accident, because in him nothing is changeable. Yet everything that is said is not said according to substance. For it is said in relation to something, as the father in relation to the son, and the son in relation to the father, which is not accident. Because both the one is always father and the other is always son. End quote. Now you are forced to ask yourself a question. When it comes to the distinction between the son and the spirit, is this distinction something which is absolute? Or is it something which is relative? It can't be something which is absolute. Because if it was absolute, we would have some sort of distinction. distinction of the absolute attributes. That is, you would have a distinction of what is essential, what is substantial to the persons, which we obviously have to deny since the persons are consubstantial. And this is recognized by each one of the fathers who discussed this problem. Obviously, the persons are going to have to be distinguished by that which is relative. Now, it is easy to see how the Father and the Son are distinguished by that which is relative, since the Father is the Father of the Son, the Son is the Son of the Father. It's also to see how the Father and the Spirit are distinguished by that which is relative. The Spirit is the Spirit of the Father. But how are the Son and the Spirit distinguished by relation? Someone might say that the Son and the Spirit are distinguished by relation because they have different relations to the Father. Thank you. But this obviously doesn't work, as we mentioned above. Relation does not simply distinguish two persons, rather only relate to one another. relational opposition. To make this clear of why this is the case, we could simply ask the question again, what distinguishes those two relations from each other? Is it something absolute? Is it something relative? If it is something which is absolute, that would obviously distinguish the essence. If it was something which is relative, then you would simply ask the question again, and again, and again, and again, and you would have an infinite regress. And this infinite regress would result in no foundation. the distinction between the Son and the Spirit. This is why we have to go one step further and not simply state that there is a distinction of relation, but that there is a true relative opposition between the two persons. An instance of this is actually found when we look at the Father. The Father has two relations. The Father is related as the Father of the Son, and the Father is related as the active spirator of the Spirit. Yet, are there two Fathers, since there are two relations? No, there's one father. What is the reason for there only being one father? Well, the reason is between these two relations, there's no relative opposition. So in what foundation do you have a relation of the spirit to the father and a relation of the son to the father and have two persons, the spirit and the son? Clearly, without relative opposition, the persons would collapse. Merely being related to the same subject is not sufficient for distinguishing the persons. Rather, you need true relative opposition between them. At this point, the distinction between the two persons is clear. The Son is the Son because he is begotten of the Father. The Spirit is the Spirit because he proceeds from the Father and the Son. So, from this, there is true relative opposition between the Son and the Spirit, because the Spirit proceeds from the Son. Yet, somebody may have a different objection. They would state that the Fathers say that we cannot know the distinction between the Spirit and the Son. Yet this response is ineffective. First, when these fathers say that we cannot know the distinction, they're clearly not saying that we can't know anything about the distinction, as we obviously know that procession results in the Holy Spirit, forgetting results in the Son. That's some sort of distinction. Rather, what they're saying is that we cannot know the intimate character or the fullness of what distinguishes them, just like we can't know the infinite character exhaustively of anything about it. This is especially seen in the fact that these fathers actually do account for the distinction between the two. They account for it the way that the Latins account for the distinction between the two. That is, that the spirit proceeds from the father and the son, and the son is begotten of the father. There are two quotes from Saint Gregory of Nyssa to this effect. First, in On Not Three Gods, he writes, quote, While we confess the invariable character of the nature, we do not deny the difference in respect of cause, that which is caused, by which alone we apprehend that one person is distinguished from another. By our belief, that is, that one is the cause, that is the Father, and another is of the cause, the Son and the Spirit. And again in that which is of the cause, that is the Son and the Spirit, we require another distinction. For one is directly from the first cause, that is the Son, and another, that is the Spirit, by that which is directly from the first cause, that is the Son. So that the attribute of being only begotten abides without doubt in the Son, and the interposition of the Son. while it guards his attribute of being only begotten, does not shut out the spirit from his relation by way of nature to the Father. End quote. Further, in his homily on the Lord's Prayer, he states, quote, It is common to the Son and the Holy Spirit that they do not exist as unbegotten. Lest any confusion arise on this matter, again we can find an incommunicable difference in their properties, so that what is common may be preserved and what is proper may not be confused. For the only begotten Son is said by Scripture to be from the Father, and in this way the Word defines what is proper to Him. But the Holy Spirit is said to be from the Father, and is also testified to be from the Son. The Son who is of God is not, and is not said to be the Son of the Spirit. The terms of the relationship cannot be reversed."Second, because intrinsically, this response makes no sense. As we already went over above, there are two possibilities. Either it is absolute, or it is relative. If it is not absolute, then it is relative. One cannot appeal to mystery in this case, without falling into contradiction. In order to better understand the sequence of this argument, we can actually put this in a little bit more formal terms, by reverse engineering the way it works, and then putting it in a group of syllogisms. First, if the Son and Spirit are really distinct, then there is relative opposition, since in God everything is one, except there be relation of opposition, as is seen from the case of the person of the Father. The Son and the Spirit are really distinct, as all must concede. Therefore, there is relative opposition. Further, second, if there is relative opposition between the Son and the Spirit, then there is relation between the Son and the Spirit, since relative opposition implies relation. As the name indicates, there is relative opposition, as established above. Therefore, there is a relation between the Son and the Spirit. Further, third, if there is a relation between the Son and the Spirit, there must be procession, for relation in God follows upon procession. There is a relation between the Son and the Spirit, as established above. Therefore, there is procession. Further, fourth, if there is procession, then either the Son is the principle of the Spirit, or the Spirit is the principle of the Son. So, since there is a terminus ad quo and terminus ad quem of every procession. There is procession, as established above. Therefore, either the Son is the principle of the Spirit, or the Spirit is the principle of the Son. Further, fifth, either the Son is the principle of the Spirit, or the Spirit is the principle of the Son, as established above. The Spirit is not the principle of the Son, as admitted by all. Therefore, the Son is the principle of the Spirit, which is the doctrine of the filioque. This relies on the fact... that the sequence from procession to real distinction is that procession leads to relation, which leads to relative opposition, which leads to real distinction. Thus, if we posit real distinction, as everyone has to, then we posit procession. And if there is procession, the procession is the procession of the spirit from the sun, and not the other way around. This argument is found throughout the works of St. Thomas, to greater or lesser complexity, from the time that he was a bachelor student to the time that he almost died. as in apologetic works and also in catechetical works and also in simple theological works and is even found throughout his disputed questions so there are a lot of places where saint thomas discusses them there are actually eight places each of which i'm going to list so if you want to read on your own go ahead and read it you actually should read these are really good first first book of sentences distinction 11 question 1 article 1 in the question whether the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son or only from the Father. Second, Summa Concentrati Les, Book 4, Chapters 24-25, which are titled, That the Holy Spirit Proceeds from the Son, and Arguments of Those Who Would Prove that the Holy Spirit Proceeds Not from the Son and Their Solutions. Third, De Potentia, Question 10, Articles 4-5, which are titled, Whether the Holy Spirit Proceeds from the Son and Whether the Holy Spirit Would Still be Distinct from the Son if He Did Not Proceed from Him. Fourth, Compendium Theologiae, Book 1, Chapter 49, which is titled, That the Holy Spirit Proceeds from the Father and the Son. Fifth, Dei Ratione Bus Fidei, Chapter 4, which is titled, How the Holy Spirit Proceeds from the Father and the Son. Sixth, Commentary on the Gospel According to St. John, Chapter 15, Lecture 5, and Chapter 16, Lecture 4. Seventh, Summa Theologiae Prima Pars, Question 36, Article 2, which is titled, Whether the Holy Spirit Proceeds from the Son. Lastly, as we mentioned in the introduction, Against the Errors of the Greeks, Book 2, and there's a lot of different chapters where he discusses a lot of different issues. So definitely read the whole thing. In conclusion, it is easy to see how the foundational principles of Trinitarian theology necessarily lead to the Filioque. Without the Filioque, there is no Trinity, because it immediately follows from the principles of our theology. These principles are not merely Latin principles. These are principles admitted by the Holy Fathers of both the East and the West. This is not simply an argument that was made up in Latin scholasticism. This was not simply an argument that St. Thomas came up with. This is an argument that necessarily and immediately flows from the very terminology defined at the councils and held by the Fathers. These principles are foundational to our theology. They're foundational to the very Trinity itself. The Filioque immediately and necessarily follows, obviously, upon all of these principles. So, for the Orthodox out there, and for any of those questioning the Filioque, whether it makes sense theologically, you simply have to ask yourself, how do I distinguish the sun from the spirit? So I'm washing through my window Forget the conversation And the play that we made in bed The same kind of love, oh The eyes that tell me don't go

Thinking about becoming Eastern Orthodox? Already Eastern Orthodox? Believe in the Trinity? Take this into account.

The year is 1264. Pope Urban IV, former Patriarch of Jerusalem, is anxious to reunite the Greek and Latin churches. However, there's an obstacle to the reunion of the churches. This comes in the form of the Philistines. In both the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches to this day, the Nicene Creed is the primary form of the profession of the Catholic faith.

Yet there is actually a major difference between these two creeds. In the Greek version of the Creed, it says, we believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life. On the other hand, in the Latin version of the creed, used in the West, it says, we believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son. The difference is found in the last three words, and the Son. This, in Latin, is the filioque.

This was the major doctrinal difference between the East and the West. These debates stretching centuries before the Great Schism in the 11th century, all the way back to the 8th century, even causing a schism in the 9th century. These were the issues discussed in the 13th and the 15th century in the Great Reunion Councils. Because of this, Pope Urban IV, as the Vicar of Christ, decided to consult the greatest theologian of his day, St. Thomas Aquinas.

In response to this call from Pope Urban IV, St. Thomas Aquinas wrote the work Against the Error of the Greeks, although this title, as we will see, is a bit of a misnomer, although not entirely inaccurate. And this misnomer has actually caused a great deal of orthodox objections to this work by the great angelic doctor. This is especially absurd considering the skills of petrology that St. Thomas Aquinas was at that time, and even to this day, famous for.

St. Thomas, unlike other scholastics, always made sure to go to original sources when he could in order to verify the veracity of certain quotes. And if he even suspected that they were forged, he would never use them. Thus St. Thomas Aquinas more than ever said, any other theologian, East or West, was able to use mostly genuine sources.

But, like any other medieval theologian, both East and West, certain inauthentic works, of course, would creep in. Yet, when we look at this work against the error of the Greeks, it is impossible to impute any wrongdoing to St. Thomas. For when we look at the reason why Pope Urban IV asked St. Thomas Aquinas in the first place to write this work, it was meant to be in response to the work of a bishop named Nicholas of Croatoan. He was a Latin representative to Constantinople. He wrote a work called the Libelus.

In the Libelus, Nicholas of Croatoan argued that many of the differences between Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic theology in his day were purely nominal. Obviously, Pope Urban IV was not convinced of this. So, he sent the work to St. Thomas Aquinas and asked for him to comment on it.

What St. Thomas did is he showed the genuine sense of the sources of the verses. that Nicholas of Crotone quoted in that work. In the second book of the work, he actually largely argues against Nicholas of Crotone's thesis, arguing that the formulations that the Latins have given represent genuine apostolic doctrine and are contradictory to the doctrine of the Eastern Orthodox. So, it is completely dishonest to say that St. Thomas Aquinas used forgeries.

Rather, he commented on the forged works of a different theologian. Now, what is quite interesting and quite ironic is that actually Since Nicholas of Croatoan was the papal legate to Constantinople, it was from Constantinople that he got these forgeries. So, all of these forgeries that were used by Nicholas of Croatoan were simply Greek forgeries that he had translated into Latin.

Yet, it is my personal opinion that St. Thomas Aquinas knew that Nicholas of Croatoan's quotes were forgeries to begin with. We can know this by looking throughout all of the sections where St. Thomas Aquinas discussed these matters. St. Thomas Aquinas was known for being a very consistent thinker.

He would often treat certain issues multiple times during his life, and in each of these times he would quote basically the same authors, and give more or less detailed arguments depending on the audience. Now he treated the filioque eight times in his life, and for those forged documents that Nicholas of Croatoan used, St. Thomas never quotes those again. But enough of that.

This video is not meant to be some sort of argument from tradition or scripture. D. Wong and I have produced many videos, to that effect. Rather, this video, I wanted to bring forward what is the most famous of St. Thomas'theological arguments for the Filioque. Now that we've gotten that out of the way, what is St. Thomas'theological argument for the filioque?

Well, he has a few. Some from the psychological analogy, some from the nature of the power of spiration, some from the nature of the order of the persons, but his most famous one is is called the argument from relative opposition. So what does relative opposition mean? Relative opposition is meant to designate a certain relation that excludes the identity of the subjects of the relation.

For example, the relationship of fatherhood and the relationship of sonship have relative opposition. Because if you're a father, you can't also be in that same relation to the son. These must posit two different subjects.

But on the other hand, we can have other relations that don't have this. So if you have the relationship of brotherhood and friendship, that may exist in the same subject without positing two really distinct subjects. So what St. Thomas argues is that if there is not relative opposition between between the Son and the Spirit, then, like our relation of brotherhood and friendship, one will simply posit two relations in the same subject, rather than a relation that necessarily designates two subjects that are really distinct. Further, he's going to argue that this relative opposition that we must posit between the Son and the Spirit must include a relation of procession, a relation of principle and thing-principle.

But let's slow down for a second and work out this argument a bit more carefully. First, we have to realize that there are two ways of properly predicating something to God. First, you can predicate something relatively to God. Second, you can predicate something absolutely to God. For something to be absolute, it has to be essential to the Trinity.

For example, if we said that God is loving, just, wise, these would be absolute predications of God. On the other hand, when it comes to relative predications, it means that there is some sort of order to another, and this comes from procession. For example, if we use terms like father, son, spirit, these would be relative predications. terms, because the Father is the Father of the Son.

The Son is the Son of the Spirit. The Spirit is the Spirit of the Son, and so on. And despite what some Eastern Orthodox apologists say, this distinction of names into absolute and relative is a distinction that is agreed upon by all of the Fathers, both East and West. As representing the Eastern Fathers, Saint Cyril states, quote, the relative names, as they are applied, are signified by both, conveying the mutual knowledge of each.

Therefore, it is easier, if one learns the right hand, to know the left throat, and certainly that the opposite is also true, as anyone would agree. So the name Father belongs to the relational names, and similarly the name Son. He who denies the Father denies the Son, and he who denies the Son does not have the Father either.

And this is very fitting and true. For if there is no Father, since by nature he has begotten, what would not grant the existence of the Son? For a Son is because he has begotten, and if there is no Son as begotten, neither would they be a father, according to the fitting and consequent reasoning of concepts, a father because he is a God."This is more clearly affirmed by St. Augustine in De Trinitate. He states, In God nothing is said to be according to accident, because in him nothing is changeable. Yet everything that is said is not said according to substance. For it is said in relation to something, as the father in relation to the son, and the son in relation to the father, which is not accident. Because both the one is always father and the other is always son. End quote. Now you are forced to ask yourself a question. When it comes to the distinction between the son and the spirit, is this distinction something which is absolute? Or is it something which is relative? It can't be something which is absolute. Because if it was absolute, we would have some sort of distinction. distinction of the absolute attributes. That is, you would have a distinction of what is essential, what is substantial to the persons, which we obviously have to deny since the persons are consubstantial. And this is recognized by each one of the fathers who discussed this problem. Obviously, the persons are going to have to be distinguished by that which is relative. Now, it is easy to see how the Father and the Son are distinguished by that which is relative, since the Father is the Father of the Son, the Son is the Son of the Father. It's also to see how the Father and the Spirit are distinguished by that which is relative. The Spirit is the Spirit of the Father. But how are the Son and the Spirit distinguished by relation? Someone might say that the Son and the Spirit are distinguished by relation because they have different relations to the Father. Thank you. But this obviously doesn't work, as we mentioned above. Relation does not simply distinguish two persons, rather only relate to one another. relational opposition. To make this clear of why this is the case, we could simply ask the question again, what distinguishes those two relations from each other? Is it something absolute? Is it something relative? If it is something which is absolute, that would obviously distinguish the essence. If it was something which is relative, then you would simply ask the question again, and again, and again, and again, and you would have an infinite regress. And this infinite regress would result in no foundation. the distinction between the Son and the Spirit. This is why we have to go one step further and not simply state that there is a distinction of relation, but that there is a true relative opposition between the two persons. An instance of this is actually found when we look at the Father. The Father has two relations. The Father is related as the Father of the Son, and the Father is related as the active spirator of the Spirit. Yet, are there two Fathers, since there are two relations? No, there's one father. What is the reason for there only being one father? Well, the reason is between these two relations, there's no relative opposition. So in what foundation do you have a relation of the spirit to the father and a relation of the son to the father and have two persons, the spirit and the son? Clearly, without relative opposition, the persons would collapse. Merely being related to the same subject is not sufficient for distinguishing the persons. Rather, you need true relative opposition between them. At this point, the distinction between the two persons is clear. The Son is the Son because he is begotten of the Father. The Spirit is the Spirit because he proceeds from the Father and the Son. So, from this, there is true relative opposition between the Son and the Spirit, because the Spirit proceeds from the Son. Yet, somebody may have a different objection. They would state that the Fathers say that we cannot know the distinction between the Spirit and the Son. Yet this response is ineffective. First, when these fathers say that we cannot know the distinction, they're clearly not saying that we can't know anything about the distinction, as we obviously know that procession results in the Holy Spirit, forgetting results in the Son. That's some sort of distinction. Rather, what they're saying is that we cannot know the intimate character or the fullness of what distinguishes them, just like we can't know the infinite character exhaustively of anything about it. This is especially seen in the fact that these fathers actually do account for the distinction between the two. They account for it the way that the Latins account for the distinction between the two. That is, that the spirit proceeds from the father and the son, and the son is begotten of the father. There are two quotes from Saint Gregory of Nyssa to this effect. First, in On Not Three Gods, he writes, quote, While we confess the invariable character of the nature, we do not deny the difference in respect of cause, that which is caused, by which alone we apprehend that one person is distinguished from another. By our belief, that is, that one is the cause, that is the Father, and another is of the cause, the Son and the Spirit. And again in that which is of the cause, that is the Son and the Spirit, we require another distinction. For one is directly from the first cause, that is the Son, and another, that is the Spirit, by that which is directly from the first cause, that is the Son. So that the attribute of being only begotten abides without doubt in the Son, and the interposition of the Son. while it guards his attribute of being only begotten, does not shut out the spirit from his relation by way of nature to the Father. End quote. Further, in his homily on the Lord's Prayer, he states, quote, It is common to the Son and the Holy Spirit that they do not exist as unbegotten. Lest any confusion arise on this matter, again we can find an incommunicable difference in their properties, so that what is common may be preserved and what is proper may not be confused. For the only begotten Son is said by Scripture to be from the Father, and in this way the Word defines what is proper to Him. But the Holy Spirit is said to be from the Father, and is also testified to be from the Son. The Son who is of God is not, and is not said to be the Son of the Spirit. The terms of the relationship cannot be reversed."Second, because intrinsically, this response makes no sense.

As we already went over above, there are two possibilities. Either it is absolute, or it is relative. If it is not absolute, then it is relative.

One cannot appeal to mystery in this case, without falling into contradiction. In order to better understand the sequence of this argument, we can actually put this in a little bit more formal terms, by reverse engineering the way it works, and then putting it in a group of syllogisms. First, if the Son and Spirit are really distinct, then there is relative opposition, since in God everything is one, except there be relation of opposition, as is seen from the case of the person of the Father. The Son and the Spirit are really distinct, as all must concede. Therefore, there is relative opposition.

Further, second, if there is relative opposition between the Son and the Spirit, then there is relation between the Son and the Spirit, since relative opposition implies relation. As the name indicates, there is relative opposition, as established above. Therefore, there is a relation between the Son and the Spirit.

Further, third, if there is a relation between the Son and the Spirit, there must be procession, for relation in God follows upon procession. There is a relation between the Son and the Spirit, as established above. Therefore, there is procession.

Further, fourth, if there is procession, then either the Son is the principle of the Spirit, or the Spirit is the principle of the Son. So, since there is a terminus ad quo and terminus ad quem of every procession. There is procession, as established above. Therefore, either the Son is the principle of the Spirit, or the Spirit is the principle of the Son. Further, fifth, either the Son is the principle of the Spirit, or the Spirit is the principle of the Son, as established above.

The Spirit is not the principle of the Son, as admitted by all. Therefore, the Son is the principle of the Spirit, which is the doctrine of the filioque. This relies on the fact... that the sequence from procession to real distinction is that procession leads to relation, which leads to relative opposition, which leads to real distinction.

Thus, if we posit real distinction, as everyone has to, then we posit procession. And if there is procession, the procession is the procession of the spirit from the sun, and not the other way around. This argument is found throughout the works of St. Thomas, to greater or lesser complexity, from the time that he was a bachelor student to the time that he almost died.

as in apologetic works and also in catechetical works and also in simple theological works and is even found throughout his disputed questions so there are a lot of places where saint thomas discusses them there are actually eight places each of which i'm going to list so if you want to read on your own go ahead and read it you actually should read these are really good first first book of sentences distinction 11 question 1 article 1 in the question whether the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son or only from the Father. Second, Summa Concentrati Les, Book 4, Chapters 24-25, which are titled, That the Holy Spirit Proceeds from the Son, and Arguments of Those Who Would Prove that the Holy Spirit Proceeds Not from the Son and Their Solutions. Third, De Potentia, Question 10, Articles 4-5, which are titled, Whether the Holy Spirit Proceeds from the Son and Whether the Holy Spirit Would Still be Distinct from the Son if He Did Not Proceed from Him.

Fourth, Compendium Theologiae, Book 1, Chapter 49, which is titled, That the Holy Spirit Proceeds from the Father and the Son. Fifth, Dei Ratione Bus Fidei, Chapter 4, which is titled, How the Holy Spirit Proceeds from the Father and the Son. Sixth, Commentary on the Gospel According to St. John, Chapter 15, Lecture 5, and Chapter 16, Lecture 4. Seventh, Summa Theologiae Prima Pars, Question 36, Article 2, which is titled, Whether the Holy Spirit Proceeds from the Son. Lastly, as we mentioned in the introduction, Against the Errors of the Greeks, Book 2, and there's a lot of different chapters where he discusses a lot of different issues.

So definitely read the whole thing. In conclusion, it is easy to see how the foundational principles of Trinitarian theology necessarily lead to the Filioque. Without the Filioque, there is no Trinity, because it immediately follows from the principles of our theology. These principles are not merely Latin principles.

These are principles admitted by the Holy Fathers of both the East and the West. This is not simply an argument that was made up in Latin scholasticism. This was not simply an argument that St. Thomas came up with. This is an argument that necessarily and immediately flows from the very terminology defined at the councils and held by the Fathers. These principles are foundational to our theology.

They're foundational to the very Trinity itself. The Filioque immediately and necessarily follows, obviously, upon all of these principles. So, for the Orthodox out there, and for any of those questioning the Filioque, whether it makes sense theologically, you simply have to ask yourself, how do I distinguish the sun from the spirit?

So I'm washing through my window Forget the conversation And the play that we made in bed The same kind of love, oh The eyes that tell me don't go

Transcript for:Understanding the Filioque Debate

Transcript for:
Understanding the Filioque Debate