Response Atlas · Timelines
Two ways into the same map: conversation lineages that show who answered whom, and the Field — the full chronology of published works. Everything here is a labeled research draft, not a Library verdict.
Flagship · Full canvas
Pan and zoom across 885 sourced works, era bands, and named reply relationships on one horizontal chronology.
Open the FieldConversation stack
Walk each exchange as a reply rail — Filioque, the argument from logic, and other sourced conversations across time.
Open lineagesLineages
Each row is a conversation: published works answering published works across time.
The published exchange so far
A small, years-long published exchange, not a storm. Read each entry as an answer to the one before it — not as a free-standing maximum.
James N. Anderson & Greg Welty · Philosophia Christi 13.2, 321–338
The seed. Laws of logic are propositions; propositions are intrinsically intentional; so they are thoughts of a necessarily existent mind. The authors themselves concede the key step rests on parsimony, not entailment.
open text — read sourcerebuts Anderson & Welty 2011
Alexander Paul Bozzo · Evangelical Philosophical Society
First named critique. If propositions are divine thoughts, human thoughts risk becoming numerically identical to God's. Bozzo brackets his own nominalism and argues internally.
open text — read sourcerebuts Bozzo 2012
James N. Anderson & Greg Welty · Evangelical Philosophical Society
Replies to Shannon, Bozzo, and Lloyd: human thoughts are not identical to God's thoughts — the propositions they express are.
open text — read sourcerebuts Anderson & Welty 2011
Alex Malpass · UseOfReason (blog)
First full precursor of the published critique: necessity, intentionality, and a formal argument that a thought cannot be its own content.
open text — read sourcerebuts Anderson & Welty 2011
Alex Malpass · UseOfReason (blog)
Second precursor: identifying divine thoughts with propositions either collapses the view into Fregean Platonism or strands the divine act as an idle cog.
open text — read sourcerefines Malpass 2017
Alex Malpass · Sophia 60.2, 239–253
The peer-reviewed version: three lines of response plus the content/thought dilemma. Not free — Debby read it through Anderson's page-cited quotations and Malpass's own precursors.
not free — link only — read sourcerebuts Malpass 2021
James N. Anderson · Analogical Thoughts (blog)
Replies by identity: a divine thought doesn't have content distinct from itself — it just is propositional content. Debby's packet judges that this relocates rather than escapes the dilemma; no reply from Malpass has been published.
open text — read sourceThe published exchange so far
Written into a schism and reunion councils. Augustine is a Father of the undivided Church. The Orthodox glyph marks that reception, not later-party membership after 1054. He did not invent the Creed clause and is not Florence's cause language; he did write that the Spirit proceeds principally from the Father and in common from Father and Son as one Beginning. Arian pressure shaped how he argued the Son's equality; De Trinitate still states that as positive doctrine. The later contested hardening is Toledo's credal use, Carolingian interpolation, the 1014 papal Mass, Lyons, and Florence. Leo III in 810 and Constantinople 879–880 refused the insertion while Rome itself still sang the 381 text. Read each entry as an answer under pressure, not a free-standing maximum.
Augustine of Hippo · De Trinitate XV.17.29 / XV.26.47 / V.14.15
Father of the undivided Church, received as an Orthodox saint. The Orthodox glyph marks that reception, not later-party membership after 1054. Three senses of 'Filioque': he did not insert or teach the Creed clause (Toledo and later); he is not Florence's later language that the Son is cause of the Spirit 'just like the Father'; he did write that the Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father principally, and in common from Father and Son as one Beginning, the Son having that from the Father. That third sense is why later Catholics cite him, and why a blunt 'he teaches the Filioque' can sound true. Maximus could defend Latins of his day because they had not made the Son the cause. Lossky left a manifestation-compatible reading open. Our test: compatible with Maximus's condition, not identical wording. A common flattening (the charge against Jay Dyer here) treats Augustine as teaching the same Filioque Orthodoxy is fighting (Creed insertion and Florence cause language), rather than this pre-schism principaliter account.
public domain — read sourceCouncil of Toledo · Toledo, 589
First Filioque language in a credal setting: Reccared's profession and canon 3. A regional Visigothic synod, not an ecumenical change to the 381 text. Spain also begins reciting the Creed at the Eucharist. A. E. Burn (1908) argued the clause was later interpolated into the records; the joint 2003 Consultation still treats 589 as the earliest credal-context use. The open text here is that Consultation, not the Toledo acta.
open text — read sourceMaximus the Confessor · PG 91.134D–136C
The seed condition. Maximus defends the Latins of his day only because they do not make the Son the aitia (cause) of the Spirit — the Father alone is cause; “through the Son” manifests the Spirit’s coming-forth, not a second source.
open text — read sourcePope Leo III · Rome, 810
Leo allows Latin teaching that the Spirit is also from the Son, including for catechesis. That is not Florence's later dogma that the Son is cause of the Spirit just like the Father. He refuses to insert the clause into the Creed of 381. The bishops at Constantinople, he says, were no less inspired than Aachen. The silver shields in St. Peter's (uninterpolated Greek and Latin) are reported in the Liber Pontificalis; that detail is secondary to the refusal itself. A pope against insertion, two centuries before Rome sings the clause at Mass.
open text — read sourceinherits Leo III 810
Council of Constantinople · 879–880
Reaffirms the Creed of 381 without Filioque and anathematizes anyone who would compose another confession. No extensive Filioque doctrine debate; the clause was not yet in Rome's own Creed. Photius's restoration is a separate person-file. After the council, John VIII, like Leo III, kept the 381 text. This is a procedure ruling, not a verdict that procession from the Son is heresy.
open text — read sourceinherits Maximus c. 645
Photius of Constantinople
The Greek case systematized: a spirative property shared by Father and Son that individuates neither mixes the hypostatic idioms (§16). Same settlement Maximus defended (Father alone as cause; through the Son as manifestation), carried forward without naming Maximus in the opened English. That English of Mystagogy §§1–18 also does not name Augustine.
open text — read sourcerebuts Constantinople 879–880
Pope Benedict VIII · Rome, 1014
First time the interpolated Creed is sung at a papal Mass, after Henry II's imperial coronation. After two centuries of papal resistance (Leo III; John VIII), Rome's liturgy now appears to sanction the clause. The first reunion-council dogma is still Lyons II (1274), then Florence.
open text — read sourcecites Augustine c. 419
Thomas Aquinas · Ia q.36
The classical Western argument: without opposite relations, Son and Spirit collapse. Father and Son are one principle of the Spirit. Quotes Augustine; answers the Greek 'two causes' charge without naming Photius.
public domain — read sourceinherits Benedict VIII 1014
Second Council of Lyons · Lyons, 1274
First reunion-council dogma of the Filioque: the Spirit proceeds from Father and Son as from one principle, not two. A hard stop for later Latin dogma, not the first Latin 'from the Son' teaching. Augustine's principaliter, Toledo's credal use, Leo III's catechesis-without-insertion, and the 1014 papal Mass all come earlier. Florence later restates and hardens this.
open text — read sourceinherits Lyons II 1274
Council of Florence · 6 July 1439
The definition the exchange turns on: the Spirit has “essence and subsistent being from the Father together with the Son,” who is cause “just like the Father.” The Latins themselves introduced Maximus’s letter at the council — then defined past its condition.
open text — read sourcerebuts Florence 1439
Vladimir Lossky · In the Image and Likeness of God, ch. 4
Calls him St. Augustine. Names De Trinitate and leaves open a possible manifestation reading of Augustine's Filioquism, saying a full Orthodox analysis is still needed. The later error he names is Lyons and Florence, not Hippo. Names Aquinas on opposite relations. Continues Photius's monarchy line; this is a historical reply, not a modern rival worldview.
open text — read sourcerefines Florence 1439
Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity
Rome re-reads its own dogma: the Filioque must not contradict the Father as sole origin (aitia) of the Spirit’s ekporeusis — and quotes Maximus’s letter. A walk-back toward Maximus’s condition, not a retraction of Florence.
open text — read sourcecites Maximus c. 645
A. Edward Siecienski · Oxford University Press
The standard history. Debby’s packet met it through Dyer’s book-club excerpt (Toledo → Maximus → Lyons/Florence), not first-hand — the first-hand source for the verdict is the 2025 paper below. Not free; no verified link.
not free — link onlyrebuts Florence 1439
A. Edward Siecienski · Analogia 9
The Catholic specialist’s verdict, first-hand: Maximus’s formula is the reunion key — Father as sole cause of the ekporeusis, “through the Son” as manifestation — and “the Latins at Florence were not yet prepared” to take it, though it was they who introduced the letter.
open text — read sourceReader contribution
Propose a sourced connection between two works Debby already knows. A human reviews every suggestion before anything appears. Submitting is proposing, not publishing.
Sign in before proposing a link. Suggestions are tied to an account so the review queue stays accountable.