Despite the Latin West often being credited with developing the Catholic doctrine of the Filioque, I nonetheless believe that the best biblical argument in favor of this teaching was made by an Eastern Father, St.
I disagree with your read here, but regardless, no individual has authority over the Ecumenical Council, and the filoque remains an innovation imposed, not received, and is therefore a heresy denounced in unequivocal terms by many holy fathers including several popes.
St. Maximus the Confessor wrote directly about the Latin use of Filioque and explicitly defended it. In his Letter to Marinus (PG 91, 136A–C), he stated: “They [the Latins] do not make the Son the cause of the Spirit. They say that the Spirit proceeds through the Son to express the order of relationship and manifestation.”
Exactly, it’s also what Catholics believe as well. So why was/is there so much confusion and anger? I see orthodox calling it a heresy on a regular basis.
St. Cyril of Alexandria also taught: “The Spirit proceeds indeed from the Father, but through the Son He is manifested and given to creation” (Against Nestorius, Commentary on John, PG 74). He also wrote, “The Spirit exists in the Son in His own proper manner.” This is why Catholic theology states, “ex Patre Filioque procedit,” not as a double origin but as an eternal communion of the Spirit through the Son.
The Filioque arose as a defense of the full divinity of the Son against Arian heresies in the West. It shielded the teaching that the Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son, in full continuity with what the Fathers believed.
As much as I agree with what you're saying, the official statement of the filioque in the Council of Florence is that the “The Holy Spirit is eternally from Father and Son; He has his nature and subsistence at once (simul) from the Father and the Son. He proceeds eternally from both as from one principle and through one spiration”, which the Eastern Orthodox pronounce as heretical. When the Father and Son become a principal, whether singular or distinct, for the eternal procession/generation of the Holy Spirit, the boundary of heresy is crossed.
It must be noted that what Saint Athanasius speaks of here is not about the doctrine of the filioque as pronounced by the Council of Florence, which says, “The Holy Spirit is eternally from Father and Son; He has his nature and subsistence at once (simul) from the Father and the Son. He proceeds eternally from both as from one principle and through one spiration”. This is not the case because note how Saint Athanasius says “the Spirit bears the same relation to the Son” and not both the Father and the Son, thus the relation here is one of sending. If it were the Filioque, it would say the same relation to the Father and the Son.
Saint Athanasius also rebukes any spiritive relation of the Son to the Holy Spirit in his homily, as he affirms only one head and source of Divinity in his words; “Thus in the Holy Trinity, there is one divinity and one faith”:
“But this is not how things are for the divinity. For God is not like a human being [Numbers 23:19]. Nor does he have a nature that is divisible into parts. Hence, he does not beget the Son by being divided into parts, so that the Son may also become the father of another, for he is not from a father. Nor is the Son a part of the Father. Hence, he does not beget as he has himself been begotten, but is whole from whole, Image [Colossians 1:15; 2 Corinthians 4:4] and Radiance [Hebrews 1:3]. 1.16.6. In divinity, the Father is a father in the proper sense and the Son a son in the proper sense. In their case, the Father's name has always been "Father" and the Son's name "Son? And just as the Father could never have been a son, so too the Son could never become a father. And just as the Father will never cease to be only a father, so too the Son will never cease to be only a son. 1.16.7. Therefore, it would be sheer insanity to imagine a brother for the Son and to apply the name "grandfather" to the Father. In the Scriptures, the Spirit is never called a son, lest he be considered a brother. Nor is he called a son of the Son, lest the Father be thought of as a grandfather. Instead, the Son is called the Son of the Father, and the Spirit is called the Spirit of the Father, and thus in the Holy Trinity, there is one divinity and one faith.
Saint Athanasius' Epistle to Serapion 1 section 1.16.5-16.7”
Do you see how that cuts against your argument, though? Your claim is that, because Athanasius says the Spirit proceeds only from the Son, he must be talking about the temporal procession. However, as you acknowledge, the temporal procession is also caused by both the Father and the Son, and so your argument could equally be used to deny that Athanasius is talking about the temporal procession. At which point, Athanasius wouldn’t be talking about anything!
What I said doesn't contradict what is presented, for the Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son in the mission of salvation, but the Spirit only maintains its origin from the Father.
First, we need to recognise what he says here:
"Therefore, is there no difference between the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit? Certainly not in nature or will, but there is a difference in that they differ in begetting and being begotten, emitting and proceeding. What does it mean to beget and be begotten, to emit and proceed? THESE TERMS ARE USED BECAUSE THE FATHER INDEED BEGETS, THAT IS, HE HAS BEGOTTEN; THE SON, HOWEVER, IS BEGOTTEN, THAT IS, HE HAS BEEN BEGOTTEN; AND BECAUSE THE FATHER EMITS THE SPIRIT, THAT IS, HE HAS EMITTED. THE SPIRIT, ON THE OTHER HAND, PROCEEDS. HE HAS PROCEEDED. [...] IS THIS, THEN, THE DIFFERENCE? THIS IS THE DIFFERENCE.
St. Athanasius of Alexandria, Dialogue 1 on the Trinity, PG 28, 1122"
But Christ is not only called the character of the hypostasis, but also the Son, so that we understand that hypostatic nature. For he is called the "radiance," because he is eternally one with him; the "character," because of the likeness of the hypostasis; and finally the "Son," because he exists in a hypostasis. We also say that all things are from God. But some things come from his command through creation; the Son, however, comes from his hypostasis through generation; and the Spirit through procession. So you say the Spirit also comes from the hypostasis. OTHERWISE, FROM WHERE WOULD HE COME?
St. Athanasius of Alexandria, Dialogue 1 on the Trinity, PG 28, 1126
There is, then, a Triad, holy and complete, confessed to be God in Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, having nothing foreign or external mixed with it, not composed of one that creates and one that is originated, but all creative; and it is consistent and in nature indivisible, and its activity is one. The Father does all things through the Word in the Holy Spirit. Thus, the unity of the holy Triad is preserved. Thus one God is preached in the Church, 'who is over all, and through all, and in all' -- 'over all', as Father, as beginning, as fountain; 'through all', through the Word; 'in all', in the Holy Spirit.
St. Athanasius, Epistle 1 to Serapion, 28
You mention this in the article to prove how Athanasius proves the filioque
"As the Son is only-begotten offspring, so the Spirit, being given and sent from the Son, is himself one and not many, nor one from among many but only Spirit. As the Son, the living Word, is one, so must the vital activity and gift whereby he sanctifies and enlightens [the Spirit] be one perfect and complete; which is said to proceed from the Father because it is from the Word, who is confessed to be from the Father, and shines forth and is sent and is given."
At the same time, you have to understand what else he mentions based on the Son and His relation to the Holy Spirit:
" [1 Corinthians 12:4-6]. The gifts which the Spirit distributes to each are bestowed by the Father through the Word. For all that the Father has is the Son's.?? Thus, what is given by the Son in the Spirit is a gift of the Father. 1.30.5. And when the Spirit is in us, the Word who gives the Spirit is in us, and the Father is in the Word. And so it is just as has been said: I and the Father will come and make our home with him John 14:23]. For wherever there is Light, there is also Radiance; and wherever there is Radiance, there is also its activity and luminous grace.
Saint Athanasius' Epistle to Serapion 1 section 1.30.4-30.5"
You haven’t actually addressed my main criticism of your original argument. Your original argument (and correct me if I’m wrong) seemed to be that St. Athanasius couldn’t be speaking of the eternal relations when speaking of the Spirit’s procession from the Son. Your point was that, if he was, he would clearly state that the Spirit is from the Father and the Son together, and so since he just mentions the Son, Athanasius must be talking about the temporal procession.
However, my counter argument was that even in the temporal procession, it’s the Father and the Son who send the Spirit, and so your argument doesn’t work. Does that make sense? I think we should focus on that issue before invoking all of these other quotes without elaboration.
I disagree with your read here, but regardless, no individual has authority over the Ecumenical Council, and the filoque remains an innovation imposed, not received, and is therefore a heresy denounced in unequivocal terms by many holy fathers including several popes.
St. Maximus the Confessor wrote directly about the Latin use of Filioque and explicitly defended it. In his Letter to Marinus (PG 91, 136A–C), he stated: “They [the Latins] do not make the Son the cause of the Spirit. They say that the Spirit proceeds through the Son to express the order of relationship and manifestation.”
What you said is ultimately what the Orthodox church agrees with: that the Son is not the cause of the Spirit, but manifests Him
Exactly, it’s also what Catholics believe as well. So why was/is there so much confusion and anger? I see orthodox calling it a heresy on a regular basis.
St. Cyril of Alexandria also taught: “The Spirit proceeds indeed from the Father, but through the Son He is manifested and given to creation” (Against Nestorius, Commentary on John, PG 74). He also wrote, “The Spirit exists in the Son in His own proper manner.” This is why Catholic theology states, “ex Patre Filioque procedit,” not as a double origin but as an eternal communion of the Spirit through the Son.
The Filioque arose as a defense of the full divinity of the Son against Arian heresies in the West. It shielded the teaching that the Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son, in full continuity with what the Fathers believed.
As much as I agree with what you're saying, the official statement of the filioque in the Council of Florence is that the “The Holy Spirit is eternally from Father and Son; He has his nature and subsistence at once (simul) from the Father and the Son. He proceeds eternally from both as from one principle and through one spiration”, which the Eastern Orthodox pronounce as heretical. When the Father and Son become a principal, whether singular or distinct, for the eternal procession/generation of the Holy Spirit, the boundary of heresy is crossed.
It must be noted that what Saint Athanasius speaks of here is not about the doctrine of the filioque as pronounced by the Council of Florence, which says, “The Holy Spirit is eternally from Father and Son; He has his nature and subsistence at once (simul) from the Father and the Son. He proceeds eternally from both as from one principle and through one spiration”. This is not the case because note how Saint Athanasius says “the Spirit bears the same relation to the Son” and not both the Father and the Son, thus the relation here is one of sending. If it were the Filioque, it would say the same relation to the Father and the Son.
Saint Athanasius also rebukes any spiritive relation of the Son to the Holy Spirit in his homily, as he affirms only one head and source of Divinity in his words; “Thus in the Holy Trinity, there is one divinity and one faith”:
“But this is not how things are for the divinity. For God is not like a human being [Numbers 23:19]. Nor does he have a nature that is divisible into parts. Hence, he does not beget the Son by being divided into parts, so that the Son may also become the father of another, for he is not from a father. Nor is the Son a part of the Father. Hence, he does not beget as he has himself been begotten, but is whole from whole, Image [Colossians 1:15; 2 Corinthians 4:4] and Radiance [Hebrews 1:3]. 1.16.6. In divinity, the Father is a father in the proper sense and the Son a son in the proper sense. In their case, the Father's name has always been "Father" and the Son's name "Son? And just as the Father could never have been a son, so too the Son could never become a father. And just as the Father will never cease to be only a father, so too the Son will never cease to be only a son. 1.16.7. Therefore, it would be sheer insanity to imagine a brother for the Son and to apply the name "grandfather" to the Father. In the Scriptures, the Spirit is never called a son, lest he be considered a brother. Nor is he called a son of the Son, lest the Father be thought of as a grandfather. Instead, the Son is called the Son of the Father, and the Spirit is called the Spirit of the Father, and thus in the Holy Trinity, there is one divinity and one faith.
Saint Athanasius' Epistle to Serapion 1 section 1.16.5-16.7”
Do not both the Father and the Son send the Spirit temporally?
Yes the Spirit is sent in time by both, but the Spirit only has origin within the Father
Do you see how that cuts against your argument, though? Your claim is that, because Athanasius says the Spirit proceeds only from the Son, he must be talking about the temporal procession. However, as you acknowledge, the temporal procession is also caused by both the Father and the Son, and so your argument could equally be used to deny that Athanasius is talking about the temporal procession. At which point, Athanasius wouldn’t be talking about anything!
What I said doesn't contradict what is presented, for the Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son in the mission of salvation, but the Spirit only maintains its origin from the Father.
First, we need to recognise what he says here:
"Therefore, is there no difference between the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit? Certainly not in nature or will, but there is a difference in that they differ in begetting and being begotten, emitting and proceeding. What does it mean to beget and be begotten, to emit and proceed? THESE TERMS ARE USED BECAUSE THE FATHER INDEED BEGETS, THAT IS, HE HAS BEGOTTEN; THE SON, HOWEVER, IS BEGOTTEN, THAT IS, HE HAS BEEN BEGOTTEN; AND BECAUSE THE FATHER EMITS THE SPIRIT, THAT IS, HE HAS EMITTED. THE SPIRIT, ON THE OTHER HAND, PROCEEDS. HE HAS PROCEEDED. [...] IS THIS, THEN, THE DIFFERENCE? THIS IS THE DIFFERENCE.
St. Athanasius of Alexandria, Dialogue 1 on the Trinity, PG 28, 1122"
But Christ is not only called the character of the hypostasis, but also the Son, so that we understand that hypostatic nature. For he is called the "radiance," because he is eternally one with him; the "character," because of the likeness of the hypostasis; and finally the "Son," because he exists in a hypostasis. We also say that all things are from God. But some things come from his command through creation; the Son, however, comes from his hypostasis through generation; and the Spirit through procession. So you say the Spirit also comes from the hypostasis. OTHERWISE, FROM WHERE WOULD HE COME?
St. Athanasius of Alexandria, Dialogue 1 on the Trinity, PG 28, 1126
There is, then, a Triad, holy and complete, confessed to be God in Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, having nothing foreign or external mixed with it, not composed of one that creates and one that is originated, but all creative; and it is consistent and in nature indivisible, and its activity is one. The Father does all things through the Word in the Holy Spirit. Thus, the unity of the holy Triad is preserved. Thus one God is preached in the Church, 'who is over all, and through all, and in all' -- 'over all', as Father, as beginning, as fountain; 'through all', through the Word; 'in all', in the Holy Spirit.
St. Athanasius, Epistle 1 to Serapion, 28
You mention this in the article to prove how Athanasius proves the filioque
"As the Son is only-begotten offspring, so the Spirit, being given and sent from the Son, is himself one and not many, nor one from among many but only Spirit. As the Son, the living Word, is one, so must the vital activity and gift whereby he sanctifies and enlightens [the Spirit] be one perfect and complete; which is said to proceed from the Father because it is from the Word, who is confessed to be from the Father, and shines forth and is sent and is given."
At the same time, you have to understand what else he mentions based on the Son and His relation to the Holy Spirit:
" [1 Corinthians 12:4-6]. The gifts which the Spirit distributes to each are bestowed by the Father through the Word. For all that the Father has is the Son's.?? Thus, what is given by the Son in the Spirit is a gift of the Father. 1.30.5. And when the Spirit is in us, the Word who gives the Spirit is in us, and the Father is in the Word. And so it is just as has been said: I and the Father will come and make our home with him John 14:23]. For wherever there is Light, there is also Radiance; and wherever there is Radiance, there is also its activity and luminous grace.
Saint Athanasius' Epistle to Serapion 1 section 1.30.4-30.5"
You haven’t actually addressed my main criticism of your original argument. Your original argument (and correct me if I’m wrong) seemed to be that St. Athanasius couldn’t be speaking of the eternal relations when speaking of the Spirit’s procession from the Son. Your point was that, if he was, he would clearly state that the Spirit is from the Father and the Son together, and so since he just mentions the Son, Athanasius must be talking about the temporal procession.
However, my counter argument was that even in the temporal procession, it’s the Father and the Son who send the Spirit, and so your argument doesn’t work. Does that make sense? I think we should focus on that issue before invoking all of these other quotes without elaboration.
Yes, both/and vs either/or @matthewbecklo
The Spirit doesn't proceed from the Father And the Son, but from the Father THROUGH the Son