We shall summarize the Orthodox position in theology, as regards the Filioque, by making the following, basic observations:
Firstly, with regard to
Providence. Providence implies the actions and the acts of God,
within History and Creation. We too accept that the Holy Spirit is given, is sent forth by the Son. So far, at this level, the Filioque is acceptable. However,
we cannot accept it from the aspect of the eternal, the never-ending status of the Holy Trinity, where the relations between the Personae are not relations that pertain to any energies.
As far as the eternal and never-ending Trinity is concerned, we cannot accept that the Spirit
also proceeds from the Son, because inside the Trinity, we have ontological relations only, and inevitably, the
Cause can only be one: the Father. Because, by introducing two Causes, we will inevitably have two Gods.
In Providence, one could say it is acceptable to admit that the Spirit is also dependent on the Son; that it is a gift, given to us by the Son. In this context, one can speak in the same way that the Apostle Paul spoke, with regard to the Spirit of Christ, i.e., that the Spirit does indeed
proceed from the Father, but, It is
sent forth, into Providence,
via the Son. The term proceeding from (
εκπορεύεται
strictly pertains to the Spirits
ontological dependence on the Father, within the eternal Trinity, therefore, the term proceeding from pertains
only to the eternal status of the Trinity. The association here is strictly
ontological, and the Causer is only one: the Father.
When dealing with Providence however, we do not touch on ontological associations, but only those associations that pertain to
energies/actions, hence the Sons
action of
sending forth the Spirit. In this way, we have a sort of Filioque, but
only in regard to Providence.
In light of the above, significant confusion arose in the West, with regard to these two terms.
The (Greek) words εκπορεύεται ( proceeding from/out of ) and πέμπεται ( sent forth by ) were translated in Latin, as both meaning procedure, right from the very start, in the 4th century.This is what gave rise to the confusion. They could not discern between these two notions, whereas in the (Greek-speaking) East they
were discernable, hence the term proceeding from (
εκπορεύεται was duly confined to the eternal, ontological aspect of the Trinity, and was
not used in reference to Providence. From the very beginning, the Filioque was applied by the West, to
both aspects (ontological and Providential). This is how the confusion began, and the Filioque appeared as the offspring of precisely this confusion. For the East, this distinction is imperative; if one
does make this distinction, then he can accept the Filioque, but
only in regard to Providence. But the Filioque, in its true dimensions as defined by the West, is not only linked to Providence, but also to the eternal Trinity. And that is where we have a problem. Can one apply the Filioque to the eternal Trinity? Lets observe the problems that Patristic Theology encountered here.
In the 7th century, Saint Maximus was asked (because word was getting around that the Filioque was being used in the West), what his opinion was on this matter. He replied that he had examined the matter, and that the situation was as follows:
The Latin-speaking Romans did not have respective words for expressing these two notions (εκπορεύεται and πέμπεται). They used only one word. This consequently gave rise to a confusion. We Greeks, who speak the language, must therefore show some understanding in this regard and not automatically declare the Filioque a heresy of the Westerners, because, as analytically explained in the epistle to Marinus, the Filioque was the product of this confusion.
In the same epistle, Saint Maximus says that during his talks with the Romans themselves about this issue, he had noticed that they also referred to Saint Cyril of Alexandria in order to support the Filioque. Saint Cyril had indeed written certain things that could have provided a basis for the Filioque. We also have one testimony that something which was written by Saint Cyril on the subject had generated an intense reaction. It was the reaction of Theodoretus of Cyrus who was quite strident in his manner, and who commented that if Cyril was referring to the Filioque in regard to Providence, then all is well; but if he was relating it to the eternal Trinity, then he was mistaken, and this could not be accepted.
It was obvious that Cyril did
not mean it, simply and strictly within the confines of Providence, as he had also allowed inferences to the eternal Trinity.
He did not say proceeds from (εκπορεύεται); he did not use this word. He used the expression that the Spirit is manifested; that it essentially originates (i.e., with regard to the Essence) from the Son also. Given that the Essence is common to all three Personae, then the Son must necessarily precede the Spirit, from the aspect of the Essence. But, as for the
Persona of the Spirit in connection to the other two Personae, we cannot have the Filioque, because only the Father as a Persona- can be the Cause. At first glance, this appears somewhat vague.
A passage by Saint Gregory of Nyssa clarifies this vague point somewhat satisfactorily. In his work
That there are not three Gods (
ότι ουκ εισί τρεις Θεοί, he says:
«We do not disregard the difference between that which exists as the Cause, and that which is OF the Cause». We therefore have the Cause as one thing, and secondarily, that which is OF the Cause. In other words, the existence of God is not a simple thing; one cannot say that God simply exists. Gods existence includes activity, movement. Even within Gods Being within His ontological associations activity exists. God is not devoid of cause; He does not exist without cause. The cause is naturally inside His very Self, but, there is a distinction inside God: it is the distinction between the Cause and whatever originates from the cause.
«We support the difference between the One Who exists as the Cause and the One who is OF the Cause». It is in this way -and only in this way- that we can perceive how the one Persona is discerned from the other; i.e., in the belief that the Cause is one, and the other is OF the Cause. He further says that
«the distinction between the Personae inside the Holy Trinity cannot be made in any other way, except only in regard to this causality.» With regard to the nature, with regard to the energy, we cannot make such a distinction; however we can make it, on the basis of this principle of causality. This is a principle that was introduced by the Cappadocians. Before them, we do not find it clearly specified.
We therefore have the ability to discern the Personae, precisely because we make the distinction between the Causer and that which is OF the Causer. And he continues: «
With regard to that which is OF the Cause, we have in there another distinction, whereas with regard to the Cause, it is clear that it is only the Father. When referring to OF the cause, we can acknowledge a further difference: That only the one of the two originates immediately from the First». He uses the word immediately, which implies directly, or, without any intermediation
. «The one originates immediately from the Cause, while the other originates through (=with the intermediation of) the one who originates directly from the First». The difference between the Son and the Spirit in regard to the appearance, the existence and the origin of the two- is that the Son comes forth
directly from the Father (the Cause), while the Spirit comes forth
through the intermediation of the one who originates directly from the Cause, i.e.,
via the Son.
Continued in next post...
Amen.
