A Brief Commentary On Peter Lombard’s Discussion of the Filioque. Part I.

Distinction XI.[1]

Chapter 1 (37).

1.  THAT THE HOLY SPIRIT PROCEEDS FROM THE FATHER AND THE SON. Here, it must be stated that the Holy Spirit is from the Father and the Son, and proceeds from the Father and the Son; which many heretics have denied.

The filioque, the procession of the Spirit from the Father and the Son, has led to all kinds of debates between the East (the Greeks) and the West (the Latins). The teaching behind the theology of the filioque can be demonstrated from patristic sources, East and West, though Western authors have been more explicit and demonstrative of the teaching. It is an easily confused and mistaken teaching, and just as some heretics have denied the theological point that the teaching is proclaiming, many others, in mistaking the teaching for saying what it does not say, are not heretics despite the fact they do not proclaim the filioque during their recitation of the creed. Heresy requires a denial of the teaching involved, and not just the words, as can be seen with church history and the changeable nature of words over time. Linguistic confusion has caused considerable debate over the filioque, and bad will has led many to indicate the worst possible interpretation of the filioque from the Greek side of the debate or its non-use when looking at many Latin authors criticizing the Greeks.

Translations between languages have been a major source of difficulty between the Greeks and Latins, and the implications of a word in one language can, and often have, different implications when translated into a different tongue. Early on, this could be seen as a problem, as Henry Chadwick notes: “After the churches of the west became predominately Latin-speaking, there began to be difficulties about establishing equivalent terms.”[2]  While a Latin vocabulary was established, the Greeks had their own vocabulary with its own grammatical rules of attaining meaning from rules, and so the way the Greeks would read a translation of the filioque implied ideas which the Latin did not necessitate. This, combined with a lack of normative, charitable contact between the Greeks and Latins can be used to explain why the debate looked different to each of the parties involved. Charity is necessary in order to properly understand the other, but when politics instead of charity rules, politics interferes in properly interpreting the other and leads to a breakdown of communication.

2. And that he proceeds from both “is proved by many testimonies of divine utterances.” For the Apostle says: God sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts. See, here he is called the Spirit of the Son. And also: But he who does not have the Spirit of Christ cannot belong to him.  And the Son himself says of the Holy Spirit in the Gospel: Whom I send to you from the Father. – “And he is called Spirit of the Father when we read: If the Spirit of him who raised Christ from the dead dwells in you.” And Christ himself says: For it is not you who speak, but the Spirit of your Father who speaks in you.  And in the same place: Whom the Father will send in my name.  And elsewhere, the same Son says of the Holy Spirit: He proceeds from the Father. By these and many other authorities, it is shown that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son.

Peter Lombard begins with a presentation of scriptural authority (in order of use, we find: Gal 4:6; Rom 8:9; John 15:26; Rom 8:11; Matt 10:20; John 14:26; John 15:26) combined with a quote of St Augustine’s Contra Maximinum  (bk 2 ch14 n1). Here we see the intention behind the teaching of the filioque: to understand how the Spirit can be both the Spirit of the Son and the Spirit of the Father. The Spirit is predicated to each, and so is to be said from each. And, as Peter Lombard points out, Christ tells us that the Spirit would proceed from him and dwell in Christians, indicating the procession from the Son, all the while pointing out the undisputed procession of the Spirit from the Father. Peter Lombard is showing us the parallel between the two: the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of the Son, and is sent by the Son; the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of the Father, and is sent by the Father. The double spiration of the Spirit comes, therefore, from Scriptural witness, and it is this Scriptural teaching which the filioque intends to preserve.

One common response of the Greeks is that they are willing to say the Spirit comes through the Son (dia) but they do not want to suggest the Spirit comes out of (ek) the Son. This is because they want to preserve the monarchy of the Father, and by stating the Spirit comes out of (ek) the Son, they think this contradicts the monarchy of the Father, where the Father is the source and origin of both the Son and the Spirit. When we point out that God comes from God, the Greeks want us to remember this indicates that the Son and the Spirit comes from God the Father. Moreover, the Greek argument sees a kind of subordination of the Spirit with the filioque.  Thus, Bulgakov combines the two in his explanation of why Greeks find the filioque to be problematic (or, even, heretical):

Therefore, it is natural that one of the main arguments against subordinationism is the proof of the homoousianism of the entire Holy Trinity and of the Holy Spirit in particular; and this, in turn, naturally finds support in the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father. Such is the most general conception of the Fathers in connection with procession. This idea is further affirmed and formulated in connection with the fundamental concept of patristic theology, that is, the monarchy of the Father as binding and grounding the Holy Trinity in its triunity. As a result, the question of the procession of the Holy Spirit is, first of all, posed in the sense of His procession from the Father. [3]

While it is true that the filioque could lead to a subordination of the Spirit, the Latin teaching does not do this. And indeed, Latin authors also understand the fundamental role of the Father, of the monarchy of the Father, in the Trinity, when they describe and defend the filioque. The Father has generated the Son in such a way as to share in the procession of the Spirit, though the Father is the foundation of the Trinity. The Father begets the Son, indicating the fundamental, monarchial position of the Father. The Father generates the Son in his image, while the Spirit, because it is not generated, is relatively different from the Son and does not possess the personal similitude of the Father that the Son possesses. “Indeed, the Father produces from himself both the Son and the Holy Spirit, and both are consubstantial with him; yet both cannot be called his son, because the production of both persons are not uniform.”[4] The Spirit is not less than the Father or the Son, because the Spirit is God, and the personal distinctions of the Father, Son and Spirit are relational and logical, not ontological:

But we do not assert that these three hypostases or persons differ essentially, because, as said above, as the understanding and love of God are His very Being, so His Word and Love are the very essence of God. Whatever is predicated of God absolutely, however, is nothing other than the essence of God. For God is not great or powerful or good accidently, but by His essence. Hence, we do not say that the three persons are hypostases are differentiated by anything absolute, but only by virtue of the relations which arises from the procession of the Word and of Love. And because we term the procession of the Word a generation and relations of paternity and filiation originate from a generation, we say the person of the Son is distinguished from the person of the Father only by paternity and filiation, thus predicating all else of both in common and equally. For just as we say the Father is true God, omnipotent, eternal, and so with whatever else is similarly predicated, so also the Son and the same for the Holy Spirit. [5]

While many of the Greeks are willing to admit that the Spirit proceeds through (dia) the Son, because the Spirit is sent from the Son into the World, this should allow them to understand the doctrinal position of the Latins. For the economic Trinity is the immanent Trinity; how the Trinity reveals itself in creation portrays a truth of the Trinity, even if the truth of the Trinity is not exhausted by it. Moreover, as St. Basil was to explain, dia and ek are able to be used for each other:

The use of the above prepositions not only varies in discussions concerning the divine nature, but the meanings of the prepositions themselves are often interchangeable and are transferred from one subject to the other. For instance, Adam says ‘I have gained a man through God’ which means the same as from God. It says in another passage, ‘Moses charged … Israel through the commandments of the Lord,’ and again, ‘Is not the interpretation … through God?” Joseph, when he spoke to his fellow-prisoners concerning dreams, instead of saying from God, plainly says through God. [6]

This shows us that that the Greek position ek can be equivocal to the Latin position ex, when both are understood properly. Through (dia) and from (ek) can be used interchangeably, and when through is seen as justified, than ek is also justified, and so is the ex.

3. THAT THE GREEKS DO NOT GRANT THAT THE HOLY SPIRIT PROCEEDS FROM THE SON.  But the Greeks say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone, and not the Son. – FIRST REASON WHY THEY SAY THIS.  And they say this because Truth, in the Gospel which contain the whole of faith, speaking of the procession of the Holy Spirit, names the Father alone and says: The Spirit proceeds from the Father.  – SECOND REASON. And also because in the principal Councils which were held in their parts, Creeds were approved, to which were appended anathemas declaring it unlawful for anyone to teach or preach concerning faith in the Trinity other than what was there contained. And since in those Creeds the Spirit is remembered as proceeding from the Father, and not from the Son, they say that whoever adds procession from the Son incurs anathema; and so they argue that we have incurred anathema. – THIRD REASON. Ton confirm their opinion and provide evidence of our condemnation, they additionally speak of the Symbol of faith which, in accordance with the tradition of the said Councils, Leo III had transcribed at Rome on a silver tablet, that was placed behind the altar of the blessed Paul, and which he left to posterity, he says, for the sake of love and safeguarding of the orthodox faith. In that Creed, the Father alone is mentioned in regard to the procession of the Spirit, in these words: ‘And the Holy Spirit, lord and giver of life, proceeding from the Father, who with the Father and the Son is to be adored and glorified,’ etc. This is the Creed which is sung at Mass; it was proclaimed at the Council of Nicea, and at its conclusion it was added: ‘Whoever should teach or preach otherwise, let him be anathema.’ And so the Greeks say that we have incurred anathema because we say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son, which is not contained there. For in the phrase which is used there, ‘who proceeds from the Father and the Son,’ something else has been added by the Latins, namely ‘and the Son.’

Here, Peter Lombard is providing to us the three main objections he sees the Greeks have for the Latin inclusion of the filioque in the creed. It is because Scripture talks about procession of the Spirit from the Father, but does not use similar words for the Son, and because the Creeds of the Church, during the time before the schism, it was said that the Spirit proceeds from the Father, without any indication of procession from the Son. These councils, moreover, indicate that one should not alter the faith, one should not tamper with what was prescribed at the councils. Canon VII from Ephesus, for example, states:

When these things have been read, the holy Synod decreed that it is unlawful for any man to bring forward, or to write, or to compose a different Faith as a rival to that established by the holy Fathers assembled with the Holy Ghost in Nicea.

But those who shall dare to compose a different faith, or to introduce or offer it to persons desiring to turn to the acknowledgment of the truth, whether from Heathenism or from Judaism, or from any heresy whatsoever, shall be deposed, if they be bishops are clergymen; bishops from the episcopate and clergymen from the clergy; and if they be laymen, they shall be anathematized.[7]

It is important to realize what this properly means. The Council of Constantinople I famously added to the creed of Nicea, but the fathers at Ephesus are not condemnatory of such an addition, because they see the addition in light of the creed of Nicea as being in the spirit and the same faith as what was proclaimed at Nicea. That is, what is condemned is an alteration of the faith, of the meaning of the faith as proclaimed at Nicea, not, however, a better presentation of that faith which comes out of a result of theological conflict. Clearly this means there can be, and will be, debates when one tries to further explicate the teachings of Nicea, but such explication itself is not to be seen as condemned. It is rather a diverting of the faith away from the truth of Nicea, of trying to portray its teachings contrary to its meaning, which leads to deposition and excommunication. This is an important point which Peter Lombard, following many before him, is to make in his defense of the filioque.

4. RESPONSES IN WHICH THE ABOVE ARE DETERMINED.  But we determine the above words in the following manner: ‘Whoever should teach or preach otherwise,’ that is, whoever should teach the contrary or preach in a contrary manner, let him be anathema. ‘Otherwise,’ therefore, was used for ‘the opposite,’ as the Apostle did in the Epistle to the Galatians: If anyone should evangelize otherwise, that is, to the contrary, let him be anathema. He does not say: If anyone should add [anything else], “for,” as Augustine says, “if he had said so, he would have prejudged himself, since he desired to come among some of those to whom he was writing, such as the Thessalonians, in order to supply what was lacking in their faith. But one who supplies adds what was missing, and does not take away what was already there. He who transgresses the rule of faith does not progress in the way, but deviates from it.” – ANOTHER RESPONSE. As to the objection which they make from the Gospel, we respond as follows: Although in that text Truth says that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, he does not add alone, and so he does not deny that the Spirit proceeds also from himself. But he names the Father alone “because he usually refers to the Father even that which is his own,” because he has it from the Father.

Here, Peter Lombard points out that silence is not justification for denial of the filioque.  Both sides are seen to be adding something to the creed, one side adding and the Son, while the other side as alone. Therefore, addition is not even denied by those who deny the filioque. But the question then comes to be, which side properly follows with what tradition holds? The Latins point out that all the concerns of the Greeks are preserved: the Spirit does proceed from the Father. Moreover, with questions of the monarchy of the Father, the procession of the Spirit from the Son comes about because the Son receives that procession from the Father, thereby showing that the Father remains the unoriginate origin of the Son and the Spirit. This, we can see, is how Augustine understand the procession of the Spirit through the Son:

Wherefore let him who can understand the generation of the Son from the Father without time, understand also the procession of the Holy Spirit from both without time. And let him who can understand, in that which the Son says, As the Father has life in Himself, so has He given to the Son to have life in Himself, not that the Father gave life to the Son already existing without life, but that He so begot Him apart from time, that the life which the Father gave to the Son by begetting Him is co-eternal with the life of the Father who gave it: let him, I say, understand, that as the Father has in Himself that the Holy Spirit should proceed from Him, so has He given to the Son that the same Holy Spirit should proceed from Him, and be both apart from time: and that the Holy Spirit is so said to proceed from the Father as that it be understood that His proceeding also from the Son, is a property derived by the Son from the Father. For if the Son has of the Father whatever He has, then certainly He has of the Father, that the Holy Spirit proceeds also from Him.[8]

The question which must be asked is this: do the Greeks allow for the concerns of the Latins? Those who  allow for procession of the Spirit through the Son, following what we have said above, certainly do, for procession through and from the Son are equivocal. In this way, the Greeks cannot be said to be heretics; they are debating terminology rather than substance. However, those who would deny even this, do seem to ignore Scripture and the economic presentation of the Trinity in creation. Is this ignorance one of actual denial or of emphasis? This, again, leads to two different conclusions. But we cannot answer for individuals. Rather, we must look to official declarations.  Since the official position of the Greeks is not to deny procession through the Son, the official Greek position cannot be said to be in denial of the truth and so cannot be said to be heretical (formal or material). What we have is a confusion of terminology, but a position where both sides are pointing to the same conclusion.

This is not to say there is no danger involved with the Greek position. To deny further explication on matters of faith where the creed is silent would, of course, deny any theological investigation and further understanding of the Trinity. This is not what the fathers of Nicea wanted. They understood the transcendent mystery of the Trinity, and allowed for further elaboration when necessary.  Their defenses of Nicea demonstrated this – they did not just say what the creed said, but they explained it, and thus, they elaborated on it. In their elaborations, they did not indicate the procession of the Spirit came from the Father alone. They allowed for the procession of the Spirit from the Son, and, as Scripture itself indicates, if the Spirit is Spirit of Christ, then there has to be a way of understanding the Spirit coming from and through Christ.  It is, of course, proper to remember Christ is the Son who is generated from the Father, and so the Father is the origin of the Trinity, but that does not indicate or necessitate spiration from the Father alone. The argument is thus that the procession is not explicitly promoted by Nicea. Nonetheless, the implicit recognition of this procession can be found, and if one follows Scripture, it is clear that the Spirit does proceed from the Son into the world in the economic Trinity. If we want the Trinity to be revealed through the actions of the Trinity, we must recognize such actions as indicating something of the personal relations of the immanent Trinity, otherwise we would be left with a questionable revelation of the Trinity itself. “God relates to us in a threefold manner, and this threefold, free, and gratuitous relation to us is not merely a copy or an analogy of the inner Trinity, but this Trinity itself, albeit as freely and gratuitously communicated.”[9]