Filioque, Its Interpolation into the Creed, and John 15:26: Thomas Aquinas on Two Problems

Part 1

Those following along know that I am currently working on filioque. The first post of a set of three considers the linguistic and specifically confessional problem (see Filioque to Latin and Greek Ears, Part 1). A related but stand-alone piece is Thomas on the Greeks rejecting filioque, particularly them being “ignorant” and “stubborn.” As I slowly work out the full solution to the linguistic issues, I’ve *also* treated the twofold problem of interpolating filioque into the Creed, as well as its relation to John 15:26. If you’re still with me, the following post is the first of a two-parter on that twofold problem.

—and now, without further ado

---

Introduction

In several passages, Thomas handles the general problem of adding filioque to the Creed–especially, De pot q 10 a 3 obj/ad 13; ST I q 36 a 2 obj/ad 2; and then SCG IV c 25. Furthermore, immediately adjacent to each of these, Thomas treats the problem of still saying filioque despite the fact that John 15:26 says only that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father–the general problem of adding filioque to holy Scripture.

It is likely that both problems are united because they are related. Originally, the word “proceeds” in the (Greek) Creed is taken directly from holy Scripture, namely John 15:26. The same occurs when the Creed is translated into Latin, taking procedere from the Vulgate reading of the same Johannine authority. Accordingly, any addition to the Creed would also be an addition to this authority from holy Scripture. Thus, Thomas handles both problems together in his main treatments, citing first an objection from holy Scripture (e.g., ST I q 36 a 1 obj 1), and then second an objection from the Creed (e.g., obj 2)--the order insinuating the respective authority which each has.

Overall, Thomas’s treatment of these problems is shaped by Lombard and his I Sent d 11, where Lombard had reminded the bachelors that “the [current] Greek [theologians] do not concede [in so many words] that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son [a filio].” Instead, they resist this conclusion and suffer two doubts, which are simultaneously their arguments against the Latin position.

The first argument is from John 15:26, where Christ himself speaks of the procession of the Holy Spirit, “alerting to the Father alone and saying, ‘the Spirit who proceeds from the Father.’” Accordingly, saying that he proceeds from also the Son would be a certain addition to holy Scripture. Yet no addition is permitted e.g., according to Dionysius, who says (as Thomas fills out the objection) that “one must not dare to say something about the substantial divinity beyond those which divinely have been expressed to us from the holy sayings.”

The second argument is similar, but now involves the anathema leveled in certain Symbols of our faith: “In the main councils which are revered among [the Greeks],” Lombard reminds, “their Symbols were so ratified with adjoined anathemas that it is permitted for none to teach another or preach otherwise about the faith of the Trinity than what is contained there.” And of course, found there is only a patre (ἐκ τοῦ Πατρός), and not a filio (ἐκ τοῦ Υἱοῦ). Accordingly, saying filioque (καὶ τοῦ Υἱοῦ) would be teaching otherwise than what is found, which is anathema.

Lombard will briefly respond to both objections; and once again, seeing that his treatment shapes Thomas’s own, it is helpful to consider this as background. Proceeding in reverse order, Lombard first responds that when was said “teaching another or preaching otherwise,” the sense in this injunction was only “teaching something contrary or preaching in a contrary mode”--just like Paul uses the word “another” for “opposite” (Gal. 1:8). The anathema is leveled against someone who takes the proposition opposite to the catholic one and teaches it as the true part of the contradiction. Thomas, in his own exposition of Lombard’s text, nods approvingly: “the Master has exposited well, taking ‘another’ for ‘a contrary.’” However, as we will see, Thomas’s own solution follows a different path and understands “another” still otherwise.

Continuing, Lombard then responds second by alerting to what Christ actually said in John 15:26, and also the reason for him so speaking. Regarding the former, Christ did not restrict and add the word “alone,” whereupon “he does not negate that the Holy Spirit proceeds also from himself.” In other words, merely saying that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father does not in fact take the contradiction that he does and does not proceed from the Son and argue for the negative–as would perhaps saying that he proceeds from the Father alone. Notably, this last is a word which the Greeks often add as their exposition of this authority, and then argue through that exposition against the Latin position.

Regarding the reason for so speaking, Lombard then explains that the Father alone was named “because ‘it is customary to refer to him [=the Father] even what is of himself,’ because he has from him.” The authority Lombard uses here is from Augustine. We ought to underline that this same reason Lombard develops throughout I Sent d 12 c 2 passim for certain modes of speaking (also the mode of speaking in John 15:26)–as when e.g., Hilary “made a certain distinction in his speaking,” because “he wanted to signify” that “in the Father is authority”--whereupon he said not from the Father and the Son, but from the Father through the Son. Also importantly, this very same reason especially motivates the Greek position οὐκ ἐκ τοῦ Υἱοῦ, they likewise making a certain distinction in their speaking. As for Thomas, we will see later (inter alia) (1) that he notes more fully what John 15:26 does say about the Son’s order to the Holy Spirit’s procession; (2) that Thomas one-ups Lombard and considers what would happen if Christ had used the word “alone” (exclusive diction); but finally (3) that Thomas then deploys the same reason as Lombard as to why the Father alone is actually named and not also the Son: it is again to show that the Father is the author of the procession how the Holy Spirit proceeds from also the Son.

This introduction in mind, let us follow Thomas and his treatments of both problems, that of holy Scripture and that of the Creed, one by one.

Filioque an Addition to Holy Scripture?

Thomas’s first problem involves filioque vis-à-vis holy Scripture, particularly the traditional authority that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, John 15:26. Certain Greek theologians, Thomas notes, reflect on this authority and “say that the Lord [Christ], speaking about the procession of the Holy Spirit, said that he proceeds from the Father, having made no mention about the Son.” They then argue that “because nothing about God is to be firmly held [sentiendum] except that it is handed down in Scripture, the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Son is not to be said.” This last line alludes to another famous authority from Dionysius, which Thomas uses to give similar objections on this issue as well as others: “One must not dare to say something about the substantial divinity, beyond those which divinely have been expressed to us from the holy sayings.” The argument at hand is clear: Nothing is to be said or firmly held except what is said in holy Scripture; now Christ in John 15:26 did not say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from himself; therefore, such is not to be said or held.

At one point, Thomas identifies this argument as “utterly frivolous.” Yet notwithstanding, in several places he handles both its premises, viz., (1) that nothing is to be said…; and (2) that nothing was said about the Son. And despite the shallowness of the argument, the depth of Thomas’s solution to it is instructive for us. Accordingly, let us proceed through the following six points.

Nothing, either in sense or in words

First, Thomas takes the major premise and distinguishes it: “except what is said in holy Scripture” i.e., either through an explicit word or through the sense therein. Dionysius intended only “we ought not to say of God what in holy Scripture is found neither through words, nor through their sense.”

This response is common and straightforward. Thomas adopts it when handling the Dionysian authority elsewhere–e.g., involving whether we should say that God is a person, given that this name person (persona) is not found in holy Scripture. In this latter case, Thomas notes that we do not merely say whatever is found through very words (otherwise we would have to speak in Hebrew and Greek), but we can also say other words signifying the same as the scriptural words–and that, because we say of God fundamentally whatever is found in the sense of scriptural words. We are not slaves to the letter, but bound to the spirit.

So likewise for our objection: just because the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Son is not found through very words, does not entail that this cannot be said and held as true.

The Holy Spirit proceeding from the Son, elsewhere in holy Scripture…

Second, Thomas underlines that the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Son, although not found here in John 15:26 through very words, is nonetheless found elsewhere through the sense of other scriptural authorities: “Although that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son is not found in holy Scripture through words, nevertheless it is found with respect to the sense [of some words], and especially where the Son says (John 16:14), speaking of the Holy Spirit, ‘he will clarify me, because he receives from me.’” Indeed, Thomas uses various and many scriptural authorities in favor of filioque; but likely his favorite is John 16:14, as it proves “more expressly” i.e., more literally than others. Thus, he uses it frequently, arguing that the sense of “that he receives from me” includes that he proceeds from him, because procession in divinis is said according to receiving something from another.

…but also in John 15:26

Third, Thomas has thus (1) distinguished the major and now (2) given a different minor (from John 16:14) to conclude that the Holy Spirit in fact proceeds from the Son. However, he does not rest content with this, but continues and addresses the second premise in the original argument, showing that one can also conclude through this authority the same. Filioque, although it is not found in John 15:26 through very word, is also found there through the sense of it swords: “In the aforementioned authority,” Thomas alerts, “Christ has still not been entirely silent that he is the principle of the Holy Spirit–when he said that [the Holy Spirit] is the spirit of truth, whereas before he said that he himself is truth.”

As Thomas shows in many places, the Holy Spirit’s eternal procession from the Father does not lack some order to the Son. Moreover, this is signified through many sayings of the Greek theologians: e.g., when they “concede that the Holy Spirit is spirit of the Son; and that he is from the Father through the Son,” they are “understanding the procession of the Holy Spirit to have some order to the Son.” So likewise when John 15:26 says that the Holy Spirit who proceeds from the Father is the spirit of truth, its sense or intellectus is this very order.

Thomas further emphasizes this in his John commentary:

“Christ next posits the eternal procession [of the Holy Spirit], where he shows that the Holy Spirit pertains to the Son, when he says ‘spirit of truth,’ for he is truth (above John 14:6: ‘I am the way, the truth, and the life’); and to the Father, when he says ‘who proceeds from the Father.’ Therefore, that he says ‘spirit of truth,’ is the same as if he said ‘spirit of the Son’--Galatians 4:6: ‘God sent the spirit of his Son into your hearts.’”

Far from “having made no mention about the Son,” as certain theologians suppose, the Lord in this one authority signified both the order which the Father has to the Spirit’s procession, and the order which the Son has to the same.

An interpretive principle, and the issue of exclusive diction

Fourth, Thomas “doubles down” and then shows that the same authority even concludes this through merely its words “proceeds from the Father.” And then fifth, he intensifies this still further by explaining that filioque would even be concluded if exclusive diction had been used–if Christ’s words were e.g., “proceeds from the Father alone,” or “proceeds from none except the Father.” Both these points go together, and are Thomas’s main focus throughout his three texts, which we now must quote in full: