A Defense on the Filioque

The Filioque was a major division among the Latins and the Greeks, yet, such division does not come only on the use of the language but on the Greeks considering the Latins to be barbarians(1). Seeing the western church as lower, was already a custom among the Greeks, and yet the major errors on the view of the Filioque exist because of this. The first error among the Greeks is that they believed the filioque created a double procession, such is argued by Photius who calls it “the doctrine of the double procession(2).” Nonetheless, such a view cannot be further from the truth. Many Orthodox continue to use these types of phrases to refer to the double procession without knowing the Catholic faith professes a single procession(3). This is because one ought to hold that the divine nature of the three Persons subsists [Holy Trinity]. The Father is God, the Son is God, the Holy Spirit is God, not as in three different essences, but as one. Therefore, we do not make distinctions among the persons in their essence, for God (Holy Trinity) has One essence alone, and the Persons can only be differentiated in their relation of origin.

The second error among the Greeks, (this from my experience with talking to the Orthodox), is to claim that the formula which St Maximus the Confessor stated on the Filioque is different than that of the Catholic Church. St Maximus affirms:

“…they have not made the Son the Cause of the Spirit (no double procession) – they know in fact that the Father is the only Cause (single procession) of the Son and the Spirit, the one by the begetting and the other by procession – but rather they have manifested the procession through Him (the Son) and have thus, shown the unity and identity of the essence…”(4)

However, the same formula is the one accepted by Catholics, for the Holy Spirit is sent to us from the Son and from the Father(5); this means that whoever sends must have such authority because one cannot dictate without an authority. Hence, the Son must have authorship in regard to the Holy Spirit, not of being master or greater than the Holy Spirit, but as a matter of origin. For this reason, we say that the Holy Spirit is from Son(6). It is then, that all things which are of the Father are also from the Son, meaning that then the Father’s authority as the principle of the Holy Spirit must be also Son’s authority(7). Ergo, as the Holy Spirit is one, in the same essence as the Father, so must He be one with the Son, on which He receives what is the Father’s from the Father, and what is the Son’s from the Son. Consequently, we get “that the Holy Spirit is from the Father and the Son-not made, not created, nor begotten, but proceeding.”(8)

The third error among the Greeks is critiquing the existence of the filioque in the creed because it is heresy. Now, this error does not occur from the idea that the filioque should not exist in the creed, making the critique fair. However, when the extension of this critique goes forward to affirm that the Latins are heretics for including the filioque into the creed, then that is when the error occurs. An argument like this is inefficacious, and it ultimately comes from pure ignorance. For those who gathered in Chalcedon, proclaimed the truth of the procession, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father.(9) And such truth was given even in Nicaea by Patriarch Tarasius of Constantinople, who accepted that the Spirit proceeds through the Son.(10) It is then that our predecessors accepted the faith and the interpolation occurs not in order to subject the Greeks to Latin ecclesiology but to fight Arianism in Spain.

Is it then that such evil can occur and be professed by our Fathers in the faith? Or is there such evil that it submits heretics to the will of God? I think the filioque is not the crown of evils as Patriarch Peter of Antioch stated, but rather an interpolation that occurred because faith in the West needed it in order to slaughter Arian heresy. Since when does a heretic claim lead to God? Some might say it does not, but as stated before, the Filioque shows no argument, nor a violation of the economy of God. It is for the reason of the economy that we must reflect on the unity of the essence. That is to say that the procession differs in principle, “The Father produces the Son by the way of intellect as Word, and the Holy Spirit by the way of will as Love.”(11) It is then that the filioque is not a heresy, rather the single procession, which is eternal for the One Essence of God, that is in itself eternal forever.

The fourth error of the Greeks is to affirm that the Greek Fathers after Florence never accepted the Filioque. This an interesting point by which many contemporary Orthodox like to state that after the failure of Florence, no Orthodox accepted the filioque, and such theory is a well put one. After all, well known Orthodox theologians, such as Blessed Theophylact of Bulgaria, went as far as to state that the Filioque was the only issue separating the East from the West.(12) Then such truth must be examined. Ergo, when looking at the filioque in the post-schism era from the Byzantine Church, one truth stands out. That is St Gregory Palamas, one of the pillars of Orthodoxy himself accepted the doctrine of the Filioque. He states:

“the Spirit is the Spirit of Christ, and comes from Him, being breathed and sent and manifested by Him, but in His very being and His existence, He is the Spirit of Christ, but is not from Christ, but from the Father.”(13)

The take by Palamas is significantly different from what Lossky does centuries later. For Lossky, the Latin views diminish the persons and just transform them into a relationship with the essence of God.(14) Yet, this is not true, for as it was affirmed before, the difference is made in the origins, not in the Essence, and this is because the Son is not less than the Father, nor is the Spirit less than any of them, but the difference in origin gives the Father a difference in its origin, He alone is the Father.(15) As a result, the Latin view might differ in linguistics from that of the Greeks, but it does not differ in the economy of God. For there is indeed a single principle of the Godhead, therefore yes, the Trinity is a monarchy.(16) To further expand on this issue, the Filioque is not added by Rome overnight, nor was it added by the will of one bishop alone. The interpolation was introduced in 589 when a council in Toledo, Spain adapts to the creed following the Trinitarian Augustinian model so as to fight the Arianism practiced by the Visigoths.(17) Following the success of the Spanish converting the Arians, Britain adopts the filioque in 680 and Germania in 809.

To sum up, the Filioque ought not to be decisive, but it should be understood in the light of which it was meant to be. Geopolitical disagreements surely rose and clouded many on both sides, yet, the arguments made by Photious, and nowadays by modern anti-Catholics on this issue do not add up. We must continue to dialogue with others, however, not submitting them to Rome, but being able to sit as equals before the Banquet of God, and commune with each other. Finally, I will state that more can be said about this topic, more arguments in favor and against it will be stated as time passes, and better writers will respond to this issue. All I can hope is that what I have written is good and it gives an honest answer to anyone looking at this topic.

Sources

1. Emperor Michael III letter to Pope Nicholas I

2. Photius, Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit, Part I, 4

3. Council of Lyon II, Constitution II.1, 1274

4. St Maximus the Confessor, Epistle to Marinus, PG 91, 136.

5. John 15:26

6. St Thomas Aquinas, Summa Contra Gentiles, Book IV, Ch.24, 3.

7. John 16:14-15

8. Liturgical Athanasian Creed

9. Mansi, Amplssima Collectio, tom. VII, col. 566

10. Nicaea II, Profession of Faith, Mansi tom XXIII , col. 760

11. St Thomas Aquinas, Summa Contra Gentiles, Book IV, Ch.24, 11.

12. Kolbaba, Tia M. The Byzantine Lists: Errors of the Latins. Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 2000. p. 175-176

13. St Gregory Palamas, Apofictic Treatise, I, 9.

14. Vladimir Lossky, Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church,. New York: SVS Press, pg. 58.

15. St Thomas Aquinas, Summa Contra Gentiles, Book IV, Ch.25, 2.

16. St Dionysius of Alexandria, Against Arius, Oratio IV I.

17. Alister McGrath, Christian Theology, ed. 5, pg. 249