www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Reconciliation with the Orthodox is a two-way street

Dear Jason,

Very good points!

That the Council of Florence is truly a Council of the universal Roman Church - of this there can be no doubt by anyone.

Whether it is an Ecumenical Council on the same footing as the Seven Ecumenical Councils that were held when the universal Church was still one and undivided - I think we are moving in the direction of the negative on that one and I think that at least Pope Paul VI once hinted at this as well.

There can also be no doubt that the Council of Florence affirmed, with Scripture, that all that the Father has, the Son has too.

This is what compelled the Latin Church to say that the Spirit proceeds from Both.

However, the Council nowhere affirmed that the manner of procession from the Son is the same as that from the Father - indeed, it cannot be so, since the Son is eternally Begotten from the Father and the Father is Unoriginate.

Even there, there is a difference and a distinction.

Now IF the Roman Church ever taught that the Spirit proceeded from the Son in the same way that the Spirit proceeds from the Father - then, in that case, there would be no question but that unity between East and West could not be achieved.

For then Rome truly would be in heresy!

Alex

Dear Alex,

There, we are entirely in agreement.

God bless,
Jason

Bless you too, Jason,

May Sts. Jason and Sosipater protect you always!

Alex

Jason,

I commend you for your effort to resolve the apparent conflict between the two traditions, but I still think that making the Son a cause, even a mediate one, of the hypostasis of the Holy Spirit is something that cannot be reconciled with the Eastern understanding of the monarchy of the Father. The Father is the sole cause of the hypostasis of the Son, and He is the sole cause of the hypostasis of the Spirit. Both generation and procession (ekporeusis) are hypostatic properties of the Father alone.

Now, in saying this, I am not saying that there is no way to reconcile the filioque with the Byzantine theological tradition, because in fact it has already been reconciled with it at the Council of Blachernae (A.D. 1285), and which is reflected in the writings of Gregory of Cyprus and St. Gregory Palamas.

Thus, there is a way of understanding the filioque without destroying the monarchy of the Father, because properly understood the filioque has nothing to do with the hypostatic origin of the Holy Spirit; rather, the filioque concerns the eternal manifestation of the Spirit from the Father and the Son in the divine energy. In other words, the hypostatic procession (ekporeusis) of the Spirit is from the Father alone, since He takes His subsistent being only from the Father, and not from the Son; but there is also an energetic procession (proienai) or manifestation of the Spirit from the Father and the Son. This second mode of procession or manifestation does not concern the Spirit's existential origin, but rather His shining forth both eternally and in time from the Father and the Son, or from the Father through the Son.

It should be noted that the Tomus issued by the Council of Blachernae (A.D. 1285) rejected the plan for the restoration of communion between East and West as it was proposed by the Council of Lyons, and then went on to speak about the hypostatic origin of the Spirit, which it defined comes from the Father alone. Now, after defining that the Father alone is cause of the other hypostases in the Trinity, it then went on to say that there is an eternal energetic procession or manifestation of the Spirit from the Father and the Son, and in saying this the Council endorsed a true filioque, but without in any way making the Son a cause of the Spirit's hypostasis, and thus protecting the monarchy of the Father.

Gregory of Cyprus in his Confession illustrates the nature of the distinction that must be made between these two modes of procession (ekporeusis and proienai), for as he explains, ". . . the Spirit derives its personal hypostatic existence, its very being, from the Father Himself and not from the Son, nor through the Son. Were this not the case, the Son would also be indisputably the cause of the Paraclete, a fact which is impious and which was never said or written by any of the Fathers. . . . For on the one hand, it [the Spirit] proceeds and has its existence from the Father, of whom is born the Son Himself; while, on the other hand, it goes forth and shines through the Son, in the same manner as the sun's light is said to go forth through its rays, while the sun remains the light's source, the cause of its being, and the natural principle of its origin; and yet, the light passes forth, emanates, and shines through the rays from which it derives neither being nor existence. And, although the light passes through the rays, it in no wise derives the origin of its being through or from the rays, but immediately and exclusively from the sun -- whence the rays themselves, through which the light is made manifest." [Gregory of Cyprus, Confession, PG 142.250D-251B, taken from Aristeides Papadakis' book "Crisis in Byzantium", page 92]

The Eastern tradition is compelled to defend in every way possible the monarchy of the Father, for He is the sole cause and origin of the hypostasis of the Son and the hypostasis of the Spirit; but when speaking of the eternal and the temporal manifestation of the Spirit in the divine energy, it is truth to say that the Spirit is from the Father and the Son, or from the Father through the Son. Clearly this teaching safeguards perfectly the monarchy of the Father as it concerns the hypostases that derive their existence from Him, while simultaneously expressing the truth that Holy Spirit as energy, that is, as gift and not as person, shines forth from the Father and the Son. But anything that makes the Son a cause (even a mediate cause) of the hypostasis of the Spirit confounds the persons, reducing them to mere modes or relations within the divine essence.

I believe that the filioque, understood properly, is true, but in order to understand it correctly the West will need to make some theological distinctions (e.g., between essence, existence, and energy) that it has failed to make since the rise of the Scholastic theological system in the middle ages.

God bless,
Todd

Jason,

Although I would refrain from using the word existence in connection with the mediate causality of the Son, preferring in its place the word manifestation, I think that there is a way of reinterpreting the Latin tradition that protects fully the monarchy of the Father as sole existential cause of the other two hypostases, while also showing the true meaning of the filioque. That being said, what needs to be further clarified is what exactly it is that the Son is mediately causing. If this mediate causality is centered upon the hypostatic existence of the Holy Spirit, I cannot agree, as this would ultimately destroy the monarchy of the Father. But if it is in connection with the Spirit in His manifestation, both eternally and temporally, in the divine energy, that is, as gift and not as hypostasis (person), then I can agree that the Son is a mediate cause of the shining forth of the Spirit. But I am not sure if this idea will be acceptable to Western theologians, especially those who are of the Thomist and Augustinian tradition. Frankly speaking, I think that the Vatican itself was hinting at this idea in its 1995 clarification, but the article by Fr. Coffey shows that it may be hard for the Vatican itself to enforce this kind of interpretation.

God bless,
Todd

Dear Todd,

Yes, I think the Roman Catholic Church's theologians today have NO problem agreeing with the Orthodox on the Filioque issue.

Personally, I think it is something that can be solved tomorrow with a stroke of a Papal pen.

The only time the Nicene Creed is used in the West is during Sunday Mass anyway.

And a lot of people are still recovering from the good times of Saturday evening (if they haven't already attended Mass on Saturday evening . . .).

So the likelihood that the Creed without the Filioque would cause raised Latin eyebrows is actually quite minimal.

Rome has little to fear!

Alex

Dear Todd,

Forgive the length of this post.

Thanks for your reply. I am a bit disappointed, of course, to see that my reinterpretation won't work for you, but, then again, I shouldn't be so idealistic in the first place.

I have just a few comments, or really questions, in response to what you've said.

First, let me say that I understand the distinction you're making between eternal manifestation and hypostatic existence. The quote you provide from Gregory of Cyprus is quite instructive. I am also aware of the distinction between ekporeusis and proienai, and share your concern that they not be confused. That said, I'll move on to my questions for you.

The biggest question first: at one point in your response to me, you say, "the hypostatic procession (ekporeusis) of the Spirit is from the Father alone, since He takes His subsistent being only from the Father, and not from the Son." This latter (emphasized) portion is crucial, or so it seems to me, for the Council of Florence explicitly says exactly the opposite: namely, "the Holy Spirit . . . has . . . His subsistent being from the Father together with the Son, and proceeds from both eternally as from one principle and a single spiration." Whether we construe the word "proceeds" as ekporeusis or proienai here, it remains that the first clause of that sentence says exactly what you deny: that the Holy Spirit does have His subsistent being in some way from the Father and the Son, and not just the Father alone. I am not attempting to debate with you here, but I am still sincerely wondering how you can expect any form of reconciliation between these two viewpoints which appear to so be explicitly contradictory. If Roman Catholics want to fully accept what you say, they will simply have to repudiate the Council of Florence, and -- as I noted before -- doing so would basically amount to an admission that the Catholic theory of the Papacy is flawed and that Roman Catholicism has been in error. I don't see how this could ever possibly happen, at least any time soon. But even if it did happen, I don't see how that's a reconciliation, rather than a wholesale conversion, at all.

Let me just make explicit what I am saying here, albeit in the spirit of open dialogue rather than debate. If you are correct, Todd, then it appears that we have two completely irreconcilable traditions. Your way of reconciling the filioque is not really a reconciliation, because it reconciles a different filioque (i.e., one having to do with eternal manifestation rather than hypostatic being) than the one that Rome actually defined at Florence. It is as if one side says 1 + 1 = 1 and the other side says 1 + 1 = 2. It does not seem possible to have it both ways. In light of your comments, in fact, Fr. David Coffey's article seems not to be just one interpretation of the problem, but an honest assessment of exactly what is the case: there is no genuine agreement here because the two opposing traditions do not and cannot actually believe the same thing. And that is where it must stand.

That said, I would like to bring up my attempted reconciliation one last time and ask exactly how it is that it destroys the monarchy of the Father. I do not believe that it necessarily does so. You make all of the following statements regarding the Father's monarchy:

1) The Father is the sole cause of the hypostasis of the Son, and He is the sole cause of the hypostasis of the Spirit. Both generation and procession (ekporeusis) are hypostatic properties of the Father alone.

2) The hypostatic procession (ekporeusis) of the Spirit is from the Father alone, since He takes His subsistent being only from the Father.

3) Citing Gregory of Cyprus: " . . the Spirit derives its personal hypostatic existence, its very being, from the Father Himself and not from the Son, nor through the Son. Were this not the case, the Son would also be indisputably the cause of the Paraclete, a fact which is impious and which was never said or written by any of the Fathers."

4) Anything that makes the Son a cause (even a mediate cause) of the hypostasis of the Spirit confounds the persons.

I believe, however, that each one of these points can either be accepted or legitimately disputed from my viewpoint while still maintaining the monarchy of the Father and still keeping distinct the hypostatic properties of the Persons. Regarding (1), the Father is the sole originating cause of the hypostasis of the Son, and He is the sole originating cause of the hypostasis of the Spirit. We can interpret ekporeusis as referring exactly to this kind of procession: ekporeusis refers to the procession involved in being the originating cause of the Holy Spirit's subsistent being. Thus, the Father maintains His monarchy as the only originating cause, and He maintains both generation and ekporeusis as His hypostatic properties alone. That said, point (2) is dealt with as well: yes, ekporeusis is from the Father alone, since the Holy Spirit originally (that is, as from an originating cause) takes His subsistent being only from the Father. Now, point (3) is more difficult, for Gregory of Cyprus says that the hypostatic existence cannot even come through the Son, which is something my viewpoint implies. However, note why he says this: "were this not the case, the Son would also be indisputably cause of the Paraclete, a fact which is impious." This suggests that perhaps, through no fault of his own, Gregory did not have a distinction between originating and mediate causes in mind. His assertion that the Son would also be a cause (the word "also" implying that he means this in the same way as the Father is a cause), and the assertion that this is "impious," implies that he did not have this distinction in mind, but rather thought that the filioque necessarily applied the same property to the Father and the Son. But that isn't the case, on my view, and can be disputed. The Son would not, contra Gregory, also be an originating cause, so there is no property being shared by the Father and the Son, and -- given what I have said above about how this still leaves it possible to guard the monarchy of the Father -- I do not quite see what is impious about this. Finally, regarding point (4), as I have already pointed out, there is no confounding of the Persons here, because only the Father has the property of ekporeusis as the unoriginating cause; the Son does not have such hypostatic properties.

So, again, I do not necessarily see how my attempted reconciliation necessarily destroys the monarchy of the Father. Even Fr. Coffey expresses something very much like my viewpoint when he says that the filioque means that the Holy Spirit comes from -- Fr. Coffey uses the word "originates," here, but I think that is simply unfortunate word choice -- the Son "no less than He does from the Father (as Aquinas taught), but without the ultimacy that belongs to the Father alone as the 'monarch' of the Trinity." Further, as I have noted, I do not see how any viewpoint which allows absolutely no form of causality to the Son whatsoever can be reconciled with the Council of Florence. Florence seems to explicitly say that the Son is a cause in some form of the subsistent being of the Spirit; if we cannot allow this in any possible way, how can we have union?

Thanks, and God bless,
Jason

Dear Jason,

A learned commentary, to be sure!

But, in the end, the Latin Catholic Church does NOT teach that the Holy Spirit is from the Son as He is from the Father.

Nor can He be. All Three Persons are, of course, Unoriginate in the sense they are equally Eternal.

The best expression, in this respect, is "From the Father through the Son."

It is Patristic and one that both sides could have easily agreed on at Florence and before, according to Fr. John Meyendorff (+memory eternal!), with Rome dropping the Filioque from the Nicene Creed.

All other reflections and views by later Latin teachers and saints can remain within the corpus of the Latin Catholic theological patrimony.

What we want, I believe, is where we have to be at to have full unity on Triadology or Trinitarian theology.

If you can subscribe to this, we can let Rome know, and then the Forum can move on to the even more difficult question of Papal authority and the Petrine Office.

So if you are O.K. with this and don't want to hold up the progress of ecumenism any more, we can proceed . . .

Alex

Dear Alex and Todd,

I want to add a brief "Addendum" to my recent post by elaborating a bit upon my view and the view that Gregory of Cyprus seems to express in the quote Todd provides us with. I address this to Alex as well particularly because it draws upon his earlier distinction between actively and passively causing.

The further point that I think should be made is that the quote from Gregory of Cyprus actually seems to possibly support my view, in addition to being simply compatible with it. How so? Well, let�s examine the quote with which Todd provides us again:

". . . the Spirit derives its personal hypostatic existence, its very being, from the Father Himself and not from the Son, nor through the Son. Were this not the case, the Son would also be indisputably the cause of the Paraclete, a fact which is impious and which was never said or written by any of the Fathers. . . . For on the one hand, it [the Spirit] proceeds and has its existence from the Father, of whom is born the Son Himself; while, on the other hand, it goes forth and shines through the Son, in the same manner as the sun's light is said to go forth through its rays, while the sun remains the light's source, the cause of its being, and the natural principle of its origin; and yet, the light passes forth, emanates, and shines through the rays from which it derives neither being nor existence. And, although the light passes through the rays, it in no wise derives the origin of its being through or from the rays, but immediately and exclusively from the sun -- whence the rays themselves, through which the light is made manifest." [Gregory of Cyprus, Confession, PG 142.250D-251B, taken from Aristeides Papadakis' book "Crisis in Byzantium", page 92]

We have already examined the first clause and found that it can be interpreted in a manner consistent with my viewpoint (see above): the Son is not also the originating cause of the Holy Spirit as the Father is, so no properties are blurred between the hypostasis of the Father and the hypostasis of the Son, and �impiety� is avoided. But what of the �sun� analogy that Gregory makes? In this analogy, Gregory compares the Father to the sun, the Son to the sun�s rays, and the Holy Spirit to the sun�s light, which goes forth through its rays while the sun remains its source. Clearly Gregory intends this analogy to explain his view of the filioque. Now, he does say explicitly that the light (the Holy Spirit) derives neither being nor existence from the rays (the Son), nor does it derive its origin from them, but only from the sun itself (the Father). This may seem, at first glance, to actually contradict my viewpoint, especially because Gregory says that the light comes in some immediate way from the sun. However, appearances might be deceiving, and I think that this is all in fact compatible with my interpretation.

To see this, it will first be necessary to further elaborate on what exactly it means to be a mediate cause. Here, it will be helpful to draw on a distinction that was mentioned (though not elaborated upon) by Alex earlier in the discussion: namely, the distinction between being an active and a passive cause. I would maintain that there is an equivalence in meaning between terms here, so that an active cause is an originating cause and a passive cause is a mediate cause, at least in this case. Thus, an elaboration upon what it may mean to be a passive cause will also shed light upon what is being said here. Coincidentally, this is exactly where the compatibility between Gregory of Cyprus� view and my own view comes out, for his analogy of the sun expresses implicitly what it means to be a passive cause. Here is how: while it may be true that the light derives its origin and being from the sun, in the sense that the sun actively sends the light out, albeit (as Gregory says) through the rays (though the rays are not an active cause because they do not actively send the light out), it is also true that the light depends on the rays for its existence. Clearly, there could be no light if the there were no rays, for the rays are the very thing which the light shines through. But this means that the light implicitly depends in some way upon the rays for its very existence. This, I think, is what is meant by one entity�s being a passive � i.e., mediate � cause of another entity�s existence; there is no active causing, but the thing caused passes through and depends upon the first entity. This is why we hold that the rays are a passive, mediate cause of the light�s existence. Analogously, this is what is meant by the Son�s being a passive -� i.e., mediate �- cause of the Holy Spirit�s subsistent being; there is no active causing of the procession (i.e., no ekporeusis), but the procession passes through and depends upon the Son. This is why we hold that the Son is a passive, mediate cause of the Holy Spirit�s hypostatic existence. This is also, perhaps, a way of understanding what is meant when the East says that the Holy Spirit proceeds �from the Father through the Son� and when the West says, in words intended to express the same thought, ex patre filioque.

Jason,

Although I haven't had time to formulate a full response to your posts, I can say this, after reviewing the Tomus of 1285 it is not possible to describe the Son in any sense, immediate, mediate, proximate or remote, as a cause of the subsistent being of the Holy Spirit. In fact the Tomus of 1285 declares the definition of Lyons to be heretical. Thus, neither the definitions of Lyons nor that of Florence can be used as a basis for restoring communion between the Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Churches, and I say this as a Byzantine Catholic. Moreover, the fact that the Catholic Church has entered into dialogue with the Orthodox Churches seems to imply that the Holy See itself does not view either Lyons or Florence as the basis for any future restoration of communion between the Catholic Church and the Churches of the East, for if that were the case, the dialogue presently being carried out would be merely a pretentious exercise lacking in any substance. Dialogue that merely requires the Eastern Orthodox to subscribe to definitions that they have already explicitly rejected isn't a real dialogue. Moreover, the fact that the Vatican itself completely ignored the teaching of the Council of Florence in its clarification on the filioque (issued back in 1995) is quite telling, because the Vatican knows that the Orthodox Churches will not accept anything that makes the Son a cause (aitia) of the hypostatic being of the Holy Spirit.

It is also my hope that the Eastern Orthodox Churches will be willing to set aside their condemnations of the Western teaching as both sides attempt to understand each other better, and as both sides attempt to resolve the present disagreement. Clearly I favor the Eastern solution to the present theological dispute, but as is clear from my previous post, I am willing to say that the Son is a mediate cause of the shining forth of the Spirit in the divine energy, which to be honest, I doubt many Eastern Orthodox theologians will admit at the present time. The reason that the East rejects the use of the word cause in relation to the Son is centered on the fact that historically the word cause (aitia) has only been applied to the Father, and this is a part of the Cappadocian tradition. To use the term cause (aitia) in connection with the Son would involve, at least in part, a rejection of the teaching of the Cappadocians. As St. Gregory of Nazianzus wrote: ". . . all that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality." [St. Gregory Nazianzus, Oration 34]

Now, speaking as a Byzantine Catholic, who was a Latin Catholic for more than 17 years, I will say this, in my experience the Eastern Orthodox are at least familiar with the Western position on the filioque, while sadly Westerners are often completely ignorant of the Eastern position on this issue. Westerners often approach the East with the mistaken idea that it has theologically stagnated for more than a thousand years, when nothing could be further from the truth.

That being said, I will give a further reply to your posts as soon as I can, addressing the issues you've raised and giving the dogmatic response of the Council of Blachernae.

God bless,
Todd

Jason,

I forgot to address something in my previous post. The use of the terms active and passive in connection with the hypostasis of the Spirit is not traditional in the East. Those terms are applicable in Roman theology.

God bless,
Todd