Besides Papal authority, the main original dividing factor between the Orthodox and the Roman Catholics was differing conceptions of the Holy Trinity, reflected by the Filioque (there is a lot more separating us today, but these were the two issues that started the division).
The crux of these conceptions has to do with understanding of the term "essence" (or "substance" in Latin). The Nicene Creed, at Saint Athanasius's urging, says the Son is "homoousion" (Greek for the "same in essence") as the Father. For the East, the Cappadocian Fathers, "essence" was a rather simple term, it just meant qualities common to a class (and that class in this case is God). Unlimited, eternal and all-powerful are a few of these qualities. What makes God one is that he has only one will and activity, the Father's, which is by extension the Son's the Spirit's, both of whom eternally originate from the Father: the Son is eternally begotten from the Father, the Spirit eternally proceeds from the Father. These, rather than "qualities common to a class", are "existential properties"--that is, characteristics unique to a person; the Son is begotten, but the Father is not; so that is an existential property, not an essential quality; essential qualities are those that define all three persons of the Trinity as God, and not all three persons are begotten, only one. Similarly, the Father begets the Son, and is the only member of the Trinity who does so, therefore it is his existential property, his personal property, not his essential quality, because all three persons have the same essential qualities.
Therefore, for the East, "essence" was never intended as some new philosophical, speculative statement on God, but simply a technical term showing the Son and the Holy Spirit are divine in the exact same way the Father is: they are eternal, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, and so on. They also have the same activity as the Father, which means they created the universe.
However, some theologians in the West were heavily influenced by Plato, and took "essence" as something more concrete, similar to Plato's theory of forms. The idea was the essence was something existing on its own in an eternal way, and something's existence is predicated upon its essence, which is the exact opposite of the East (there is no "humanity" without humans). God's essence was taken to be something that exists distinctly and manifests itself in three relations with itself; in the East, on the other hand, God's "essence" is rather and simply a description of the qualities shared by the Holy Trinity, who are three subjects united in will and activity, the Father's (John 5:19).
The Western conception lead them to state that because the Holy Spirit comes from God's essence, it must proceed from the Father and the Son as one principle/origin (since the Father and the Son are the same in essence). In the East, this was simply not acceptable, because the Holy Spirit does not proceed from an essence--an essence is not something that exists independently, it is a description of the common qualities of the persons. Furthermore, even if the Western, Platonic conception of the Trinity were correct, the Spirit's essence is the same as the Father's, so if he proceeded from the Father's essence, he would proceed equally from his own. To say the Spirit proceeds from the Father's essence, but not his own, would be to say the Spirit has a different essence than the Father does.
The crux of these conceptions has to do with understanding of the term "essence" (or "substance" in Latin). The Nicene Creed, at Saint Athanasius's urging, says the Son is "homoousion" (Greek for the "same in essence") as the Father. For the East, the Cappadocian Fathers, "essence" was a rather simple term, it just meant qualities common to a class (and that class in this case is God). Unlimited, eternal and all-powerful are a few of these qualities. What makes God one is that he has only one will and activity, the Father's, which is by extension the Son's the Spirit's, both of whom eternally originate from the Father: the Son is eternally begotten from the Father, the Spirit eternally proceeds from the Father. These, rather than "qualities common to a class", are "existential properties"--that is, characteristics unique to a person; the Son is begotten, but the Father is not; so that is an existential property, not an essential quality; essential qualities are those that define all three persons of the Trinity as God, and not all three persons are begotten, only one. Similarly, the Father begets the Son, and is the only member of the Trinity who does so, therefore it is his existential property, his personal property, not his essential quality, because all three persons have the same essential qualities.
Therefore, for the East, "essence" was never intended as some new philosophical, speculative statement on God, but simply a technical term showing the Son and the Holy Spirit are divine in the exact same way the Father is: they are eternal, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, and so on. They also have the same activity as the Father, which means they created the universe.
However, some theologians in the West were heavily influenced by Plato, and took "essence" as something more concrete, similar to Plato's theory of forms. The idea was the essence was something existing on its own in an eternal way, and something's existence is predicated upon its essence, which is the exact opposite of the East (there is no "humanity" without humans). God's essence was taken to be something that exists distinctly and manifests itself in three relations with itself; in the East, on the other hand, God's "essence" is rather and simply a description of the qualities shared by the Holy Trinity, who are three subjects united in will and activity, the Father's (John 5:19).
The Western conception lead them to state that because the Holy Spirit comes from God's essence, it must proceed from the Father and the Son as one principle/origin (since the Father and the Son are the same in essence). In the East, this was simply not acceptable, because the Holy Spirit does not proceed from an essence--an essence is not something that exists independently, it is a description of the common qualities of the persons. Furthermore, even if the Western, Platonic conception of the Trinity were correct, the Spirit's essence is the same as the Father's, so if he proceeded from the Father's essence, he would proceed equally from his own. To say the Spirit proceeds from the Father's essence, but not his own, would be to say the Spirit has a different essence than the Father does.
Last edited:
