www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Council of Florence and the Filioque

Well, no. I would contend that this is largely a misinterpretation of Lossky and the neo-patristic synthesis. Lossky's original criticism was that the Latin Scholastics departed from the East when they adopted a largely Aristotelian ontology and departed from the traditional interpretation of the Dionysian corpus. It is not philosophy that is bad, and anybody who has read late Byzantine authors would realize this (St. Gregory Palamas compares philosophy to a serpent, from which one must cut away the poisonous parts in order to produce a medicinal antidote from the beneficial portions of the serpent, meaning in other words that it is not philosophy itself that is bad but rather the adoption of improper ideas from philosophy which is problematic).

I frankly have good reason to be skeptical of the idea that the Greeks were not familiar with the distinction between different kinds of causes, because as Father John Meyendorff points out in his book on St. Gregory Palamas, Aristotle formed a major part of the education that Greek intellectuals (both philosophers and clergymen) received in the waning days of the empire.

Anyway, if you could point me to some scholarly works which defend this idea, I would be grateful.

Dear Cavaradossi,

As you know from our past discussions, I only tend to read source material, so your request for authors expressing ideas similar to my own, I can't really oblige. I tend to form my own ideas, and people can judge them on their own merit without comparison to anyone else's.

However, I do recall reading once a response to the Official Clarification on Filioque from an EO bishop (I think his name was John something). IIRC, he actually noted that the term "cause" in the Latin Tradition is vague, while the Eastern understanding is more definite, and that future clarification on that word would help futher the cause of understanding-- well, that's what I got from it.

In any case, I would ask that you analyze and comment on my own rhetoric. Accordingly, please comment on the following:

(1) It is obvious that the Decree of Florence did not equate "source" with "cause" or "principle."
(2) Easterns understood/understand "cause," "source," and "principle" to basically mean the same thing, theologically speaking (the terms refer ONLY to the primordial Cause of all - the Father).
(3) At the time of St. Maximos, "scholasticism" was not current in the Latin Church.
(4) By the time of Florence, scholasticism was a major influence on the theology of the Latin Church.
(5) Scholastic philosophy understands that the term "cause" can be primary, secondary, tertiary, etc. The term "principle" has a similar range of notions.
(6) This is the philosophical background that informed the Latins when they used the terms "cause" and "principle" to formulate the Decrees of Florence.
(7) It is immaterial if the Easterns understood these distinctions, because when the Easterns used/use the terms "cause" and "principle" in the realm of theology, it meant only ONE thing - Him who is (what the Latins would call) "First Cause" or "Principle without Principle." Easterns did/do not need these additional terms to qualify their theological understanding of "cause" and "principle." But the fact that the Latins did/do use those extra terms to qualify their understanding of the Father means that when Latins used the terms "cause" and "principle" on their own (i.e., without the extra qualifiers), Latins are using those terms in a very general sense, not in the restrictive sense by which Easterns understood those terms.

Aside from all this, the theology of filioque is not problematic for me as an Oriental in the least. At Florence, filioque was never an issue with the Orientals. The Syrian delegation had some questions on it, but they were satisfied with the response of the Latins. I believe a proper understanding that procedit is more analogous to proienai rather than ekporeusai is key to understanding the orthodoxy of filioque.

Btw, do you know of a response to the Official Clarification by an EO Bishop John something? I remember having an impression that it was very good. Perhaps we can have a discussion around that?

Blessings,
Marduk

Met. John Zizioulas, perhaps? See AN ORTHODOX RESPONSE TO THE CLARIFICATION ON THE FILIOQUE [orthodoxresearchinstitute.org]

He is responding to: THE GREEK AND LATIN TRADITIONS REGARDING THE PROCESSION OF THE HOLY SPIRIT [ewtn.com]

I hope that it is all right for me to bump this thread, which is a few months old. Forgive me if this is unacceptable.

I bumped this specific thread because I wanted to ask a question concerning something that mardukm said therein (particularly the portion that I have bolded, below):


I am not sure that the bolded claims can be maintained in the light of what the Decree of Florence actually says. In fact, it seems to contradict some of what you have said. Here is the relevant portion (note the bolded and italicized portions):


The decree says here that the Son is a cause (aitia) of the Holy Spirit according to the Greeks, i.e., according to the Greek (not the Latin!) understanding of that term. So, when you (mardukm) say that the Greeks understood aitia to mean "First Cause," but the Latins did not, that does not seem to resolve the issue, because the Creed says that aitia here is aitia according to the Greeks (not the Latins). Indeed, the decree seems to emphasize in the very next clauses that the Son is a cause or principle of the Holy Spirit just like the Father. The decree also emphasizes that the Father and the Son are one principle (not two different principles, one primary and one secondary) of the Holy Spirit's subsistence. So, it very strongly seems that the decree really is saying, "We mean aitia in the Greek sense, so that the Son really is, just like the Father, a source of the Holy Spirit," contrary to what you have suggested.

What is more, the decree never actually says anywhere that the Father is the source of the Holy Spirit while the Son is not, as you suggest when you say, "the Decree distinguishes the Father as 'source and principle,' while the Son is 'cause and principle.'" It is true that, before the decree (thus not in the infallible declaration itself), the Pope says that the Father is the "source and principle of all deity" -- but that's it, and there is nothing in the actual decree about this. Furthermore, the Pope immediately adds that calling the Father the "source and principle of all deity" is not meant to exclude the Son from being a principle of the Holy Spirit. Instead, all that it seems to excluded is that the Son is the source of all deity, i.e., the source of the Godhead itself; only the Father is the source of all deity. This still allows the view that the Father causes the Son, who then, together with the Father (as one and the same principle), causes (as an aitia or source of the Holy Spirit together with the Father) the Holy Spirit. For, as the Pope says there himself, the phrase should not be understood to "imply that the Son does not receive [the procession of the Holy Spirit] from the Father, because the holy Spirit proceeds from the Son . . . [so that] there is only one principle . . . of the holy Spirit."

In other words, both the Pope and the decree seem to be saying, "Yes, the Father is the source of all deity, because He is the source of the Son, and the Son is the source of the Holy Spirit together with Him, so that everything ultimately traces back to the Father. But nevertheless, the Father and the Son are one single principle of the Holy Spirit, where this is indeed to be understood according to the Greeks as cause (aitia). That is, the Son is indeed the causal source of the Holy Spirit together with the Father, as one principle or cause (aitia). But only the Father is the source of all deity, since He is the source of the Son and, together with the Son, of the Holy Spirit."

I am unsure how we can get around this reading, but hope to find a way. The Orthodox, ostensibly following St. Maximos and St. John of Damascus, would not likely accept it.

Dear Ecce Jason,

Of course the Greeks did not accept it.

What needs to be understood, first of all, is that the Latin theology does not naturally accommodate the idea of origination, because it was/is intended only to teach about the sharing of the essence between Father-Son-Holy Spirit. It was the concerns of the Greeks that FORCED the Latins to try to express their theology - which did not naturally refer to origination - in terms of origination.

So what do you get when you try to force or mix one distinct theological perspective onto another? A big mess, a lot of misunderstanding, and eventually schism.

In any case, to repeat, to the Greeks, "CAUSE" in the realm of theology refers to one and only one thing - the Father, the arche, the Source, the FIRST Cause. But "CAUSE" to the Latins naturally and inherently accommodates the idea of different causes (the philosophical sense, which the Latins adopted into their theology). That is why the twain could not meet because the words being used by the Latins meant something different to the Greeks.

Even then, you may ask, how can the Latins say that the Son is cause "equally" with the Father? Because, as stated, the focus of the Latins was not the concept of origination, but the concept of sharing the Essence. It would be heresy to state - from the perspective of sharing the Essence - that the Essence shared by the Holy Spirit with the Son was in any way different than the Essence shared by the Holy Spirit with the Father. Thus, the Latins reasoned, this sharing of Essence MUST be equal in all respects.

Again, do not think in terms of origination, but in terms of sharing of Essence. In terms of origination, there is a natural order - with the Father the one and only Source - but in terms of the sharing of Essence, it is indeed equal.

Blessings