Spirit of God,
Spirit of God, Spirit of Christ
Ecumenical Reflections on the Filioque Controversy
SPCK
London
WORLD COUNCIL OF CHURCHES Geneva
Faith and Order Paper No. 103
Cover: The Holy Trinity, wall painting in the Church of the Panagia Koubelidiki, Greece.
Several of the texts included in this volume were translated into English from the original French or German. We would like to express our thanks to the Language Service of the World Council of Churches, and to Donald Allchin and Alasdair Heron for these translations.
Cover design: Paul May ISBN: 2-8254-0662-7 (WCC)
ISBN: 0-281-03820-1 (SPCK)
© 1981 World Council of Churches, 150 rte de Ferney, 1211 Geneva 20, Switzerland
Printed in Great Britain by Ebenezer Baylis and Son Ltd., The Trinity Press, Worcester, and London.
Contents
Preface v
PART I: MEMORANDUM
The filioque clause in ecumenical perspective 3
PART II: ESSAYS
A. Historical aspects
The procession of the Holy Spirit according to certain later Greek
Fathers 21
Markos A. Orphanos
Historical development and implications of the filioque controversy . 46
Dietrich Ritschl
B. Developments in the various traditions
Towards an ecumenical agreement on the procession of the Holy Spirit
and the addition of the filioque to the Creed 69
Andre de Halleux
The filioque clause: an Anglican approach 85
Donald Allchin
The filioque in the Old Catholic churches: the chief phases of theo- logical reflection and church pronouncements 97
Kurt Stalder
The filioque in recent Reformed theology 110
Alasdair Heron
C. Opening a new debate on the procession of the Spirit
The question of the procession of the Holy Spirit and its connection
with the life of the Church 121
Herwig Aldenhoven
The filioque yesterday and today 133
Boris Bobrinskoy
A Roman Catholic view of the position now reached in the question
of the filioque 149
Jean-Miguel Garrigues
Theological proposals towards the resolution of the filioque
controversy 164
Jurgen Moltmann
The procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and his relation to
the Son, as the basis of our deification and adoption 174
Dumitru Staniloae
PREFACE
In the last two years two consultations were organized by the Faith and Order Commission of the World Council of Churches to study the famous controversy over the filioque formula in the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed. Ways and means of bringing this difficult question nearer to solution were examined by a small group of theologians from the Eastern Orthodox and various western traditions. The first consultation (26-29 October 1978) produced a report which was then submitted to a wider circle of specialists for their comments. The text of this report was thoroughly revised at the second consultation (23-27 May 1979) and then presented to the Faith and Order Standing Commission in the summer of 1979. The Commission set the seal of its approval on it to the extent of recommending that it be shared with the churches. The present volume contains the report in its final form as well as the papers presented at the two consultations.
Why did the Faith and Order Commission undertake this study? The answer is simple: the addition of the words “and from the Son” to the text of the Nicene Creed is one of the issues which divided East and West for many centuries past and still divides them today. The restoration of unity is inconceivable if agreement is not reached on the formal and substantial justification for this formula. The fact that individual western churches have already broached the question in discussions with the Orthodox Church lends added urgency to the ecumenical debate. After a careful consideration of all aspects of the matter, the Old Catholic Church has come to the conclusion that the filioque is not to be recited in the liturgy. The Anglican Communion is seriously considering taking the same step. If separate deci- sions are to be avoided, it is essential that the churches should consider the question of the filioque together. The way to communion among the churches can be opened up only by an agreement for which they take joint responsibility.
The only meaningful context in which to raise and deal with the special question of the eternal procession of the Spirit from the Father and of the
vi Spirit of God, Spirit of Christ
role played by the Son in this procession is that of the trinitarian understand- ing of God. The question of the filioque thus becomes an opportunity to develop together the meaning of the Trinity. And could any undertaking be more important than this for the development of common theological, spiri- tual and liturgical perspectives?
The report establishes that the words “and from the Son” are an addition and it concludes, therefore, that all churches should revert to the original text of the Nicene Creed as the normative formulation. This does not mean simply “dropping” the addition. Rather we must investigate further the problem which the West sought to solve by this formula. The report attaches the greatest importance to the readiness of the churches to engage in a new discussion about God. That the understanding of God is not a matter of controversy and can therefore be omitted from the dialogue is an assumption which has often been made in the ecumenical movement. In view of the enormous and novel challenges of our time, theology is faced anew with the question of how we are to speak of God on the basis of the revelation in Christ.
Cordial thanks are due to those who took part in the consultations for making their papers available for publication. But I would like especially to express our gratitude to the Johann Wolfgang van Goethe Foundation for welcoming both meetings in the beautiful premises of Schloss Klingenthal near Strasbourg; the warm hospitality of Dr Marie-Paule Stintzi contributed
much to the success of the conversations.
* * *
Sixteen centuries have passed since the Council of Constantinople (381) in which the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed originated. Received by the Church as the expression of the common apostolic faith it has tragically also become a source of disagreement and disunity. The findings of this ecu- menical debate are offered for discussion in a year in which the Council is commemorated by the churches in response to the call of Ecumenical Patri- arch Dimitrios I. May the common reflection on the meaning of the Creed inaugurate a century in which the common calling and the unity of the churches will become more visible!
Lukas Vischer
PART I
MEMORANDUM
THE FILIOQUE CLAUSE IN ECUMENICAL PERSPECTIVE
Preliminary note
The following memorandum has been drawn up by a group of theologians from eastern and different western traditions who met at Schloss Klingenthal near Strasbourg, France, 26-29 October 1978 and 23-27 May 1979. An initial draft was composed after the first meeting and circulated for comment to a number of other specialists. At the second meeting, the document was revised and expanded in the light of their reactions. A large number of specially prepared papers was presented at these meetings.
I. Introduction
The Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed, often called simply “the Nicene Creed”, which dates from the fourth century, has for over 1500 years been regarded as a primary formulation of the common faith of the Christian people. It has been used in many ways in the worship and teaching of different churches throughout the world, and holds a unique place as the Creed which is most widely received and recognized throughout the various Christian traditions.
There have, however, been significant differences between churches in the use that they have made of this Creed and in the authority they have ascribed to it. In the Eastern Orthodox churches it displaced all other credal formulations and came to be seen as the authoritative expression of the faith. In the western Church it only more gradually came into regular use alongside other, distinctively western formulae: the so-called Apostles’ and Athanasian Creeds. It became and has remained the Creed regularly used in the Roman Catholic mass. At the Reformation, many of the Protestant churches (in- cluding the Anglican) continued to use it, or made reference to it in their own confessions of faith, though some have in effect ceased to make any use of it at all.
4 Spirit of God, Spirit of Christ
Alongside these variations in attitude and practice, there is a further contrast between the broad eastern and western traditions. In the West the wording of the third article was expanded by the addition of the “ filioque clause”. This supplemented the description of the Holy Spirit as “proceeding from the Father” with the Latin filioque , “and (from) the Son”. In the background to this lay certain differences between the eastern and western approaches to understanding and expressing the mystery of the Trinity. The clause itself was one of several principal factors in the schism between East and West in the Middle Ages, and has continued to the present day to be a matter of controversy and a cause of offence to the Orthodox churches. So the Nicene Creed itself has come to be a focus of division rather than of unity in common faith.
Three distinct issues may be recognized in this situation. First, there is the divergence of approach to the Trinity. Second, we are presented with the particular problem of the wording of the Creed and the filioque. Third, the question needs to be faced of the standing and potential ecumenical significance of the Nicene Creed itself. All of these matters have taken on a new urgency and relevance in our present time. There is a widespread feeling that, especially in the West, the trinitarian nature of God needs again to be brought into the centre of Christian theological concern. The new ecumenical climate of recent years poses afresh the question of a reconcili- ation between East and West - a question which inevitably involves that of the filioque. This in turn gives a new sharpness to the question whether the Nicene Creed itself can again be received and appropriated afresh as a shared statement of the Christian faith. These questions are a challenge to all the churches; they are placed on the agenda by our present theological and ecumenical setting; and they deserve to be widely and seriously considered.
II. The Nicene Creed and the filioque clause
A. The history and reception of the Nicene Creed
In spite of its name, this Creed is not in fact that of the Council of Nicea (A.D. 325). In the form in which it has been handed down, it dates from the Council of Constantinople in A.D. 381, though it does include the main emphases of the original formulation of Nicea, if not always in exactly the same words. The full text of the Creed was reproduced by the Council of Chalcedon in A.D. 451, and since then it has been seen as the classical and definitive expression of the orthodox Christian faith as developed and ar- ticulated in the controversies of the fourth and fifth centuries.
In the Eastern Orthodox churches, this same Creed was also seen as the
The filioque clause in ecumenical perspective 5
heir and beneficiary of the instruction made by the Council of Ephesus (A.D. 431) that no other Creed than that of Nicea should be used. The force of this regulation was primarily directed against any attempt to return behind the affirmations of the Council of Nicea concerning the full divinity of Jesus Christ; but it came in the East to have a further significance as ratifying the sanctity of the Creed framed at Constantinople, which was seen as possessing the same authority, and with it, the same exclusive status.
In the West, by contrast, the process of “reception” of this Creed was a slower one in the sense that while its canonical authority was not questioned, its actual use in the life and teaching of the Church was for many centuries distinctly limited. The western Church already possessed and continued to use the various local forms of the Old Roman Creed, from which in the eighth century the “Apostles’ Creed” finally evolved; and also the “Athan- asian Creed”, which is not in any way connected with Athanasius, but dates from sixth century Gaul. The use of the Nicene Creed spread gradually through the western Church, and it was only as late as ca. 1014 that its singing was introduced into the liturgy of the mass in Rome itself. It was at the same time that the addition of the filioque was sanctioned by the Pope.
B. The addition of the filioque
Although the filioque was officially added to the Creed throughout the western Church only in the eleventh century, its history runs back very much further. As early as the fourth century, some Latin writers spoke of the Holy Spirit as “proceeding from the Father and the Son”, or “from both”, or in other similar ways directly linked the person of the Son with the procession of the Spirit. This understanding was developed further by Au- gustine in the early fifth century, and between his day and the eighth century it spread throughout the West. What may be called ‘ filioque theology” thus came to be deeply anchored in the minds and hearts of western Christians. This represents the first stage of the development and the necessary back- ground to what followed.
The next stage was the appearance of the filioque in official statements - e.g. the Canons of the Council of Toledo in A.D. 589 - and in the Athanasian Creed. At that time there was no apparent intention thereby to oppose the teaching of the Church in the East. (Many scholars have thought that the main concern was to counter western forms of Arianism by using the filioque as an affirmation of the divine status of the Son.)
By the end of the eighth century the filioque had come in many places in the West to be added to the Nicene Creed itself - one of these places being the court of the Emperor Charlemagne at Aachen. Charlemagne and his
6 Spirit of God, Spirit of Christ
theologians attempted to persuade Pope Leo III (795-816) to ratify the alteration; but Leo, though seeming to agree with the theology of the filioque, refused to sanction an addition to the wording of the Creed which had been drawn up by an Ecumenical Council and reaffirmed by others. The expanded form of the Creed continued, however, to be widely used in the West; and two centuries later Pope Benedict VIII (1012-1024) finally au- thorized and approved it. Since then the western form of the Creed has included the filioque.
Attempts were made at the Councils of Lyons (1274) and Florence (1439) to impose the filioque on the East. These attempts were unsuccessful, how- ever, and their effect in the long run was to intensify the bitterness felt in the eastern Church at the unilateral action of the West - not least because of the anathema which Lyons laid on those who rejected the clause. Eastern and western theologies of the Trinity and of the procession of the Holy Spirit came very much to stand over against each other, and the differences in approach which the filioque problem highlighted hardened into what were felt to be mutually exclusive positions.
While the Reformers were very critical of many of the developments in medieval theology, the question of the filioque was not seriously raised in the sixteenth century. Most Protestant churches accepted the clause and its underlying theology and continued to subscribe to both. It has only been much more recently that a new perspective has opened up. The last hundred years have brought many fresh contacts between East and West and enabled a new dialogue between them - a dialogue that is still growing today. The question of the filioque is now being discussed in a climate very different from that of the medieval Councils.
In this new climate, the possibility of returning to the original wording of the Creed has suggested itself to more than one western Church. The Old Catholic churches already began to make this change in the nineteenth century; the Lambeth Conference of 1978 has asked the churches of the Anglican Communion to consider doing the same; other churches too are exploring the question. It is our hope that yet more will give it serious consideration. Even those which make relatively little (or even no) use of the Nicene Creed have an interest in the matter in so far as they too are heirs of the western theological tradition and concerned both with the issues involved in the filioque and the progress of the ecumenical movement.
III. The Trinity and the procession of the Holy Spirit
The filioque question demands some consideration of the relation between the doctrines of the Trinity, of the “eternal procession” and of the “temporal
The filioque clause in ecumenical perspective 7
mission” of the Holy Spirit. This is offered in the following four sub-sections which deal in turn with the Church’s faith in and experience of the triune God (A), with biblical reflections upon the Spirit and the mystery of Christ (B), with the implications of the Spirit’s temporal mission for relations between the persons of the Trinity (C), and with the way in which the Church always has to do with the Father, Son and Holy Spirit (D).
A. From its beginnings in the second and third centuries, the doctrine of the Trinity was intended to be a help for Christian believers, not an obstacle or an abstract intellectual superimposition upon the “simple faith”. For it was in simple faith that the early Christians experienced the presence of the triune God; and it was in that presence that were gathered and held together the remembrance of the God of Israel, the presence within the congregation of the crucified and risen Christ and, from Pentecost, the power to hope in God’s coming Kingdom which is the future of humankind.
This perception, celebrated in worship, strengthened and renewed by word and sacrament, and expressed in the individual and corporate lives and actions of believers, was not “dogmatic” or “conceptual” in the sense of enabling them to distinguish between “the advent of the risen Christ”, “the presence of the Spirit” and “the presence of the Father”. Their experience was - as it still is today - of the unity of the triune God. Both their prayerful acceptance and their rational understanding of this gift of God’s presence, however, were articulated in terms of his triune life and being. This enabled the early Church - as it enables the Church today - to see itself as belonging within the story which God began with Abraham and Sara, which culminated in the coming, teaching, suffering, death, resurrection and ascension of Jesus Christ, and which marks out the way of the Church ever since Pentecost.
It was for this reason that the early Fathers gave witness to God’s activity in Israel, his speaking through the prophets, in Jesus of Nazareth, and in the apostolic Church, as the activity of the triune God. They did not deduce their theological conclusions from a preconceived trinitarian concept. So, too, today in any reconsideration of trinitarian concepts as they have come to be developed, it is desirable that we should retrace and follow through the cognitive process of the early Church. The communion of the Church as articulated in ecclesiology seems to be the appropriate theological starting point for re-examining the function of trinitarian thought in the Church’s faith, life and work. God is received, thought of and praised in the Church as God in his triune life: as Creator and God of Israel, as God the Logos and Son, as God the Spirit. It is this insight which preserves the biblical and historical roots of Christian faith in the living God.
B. The most personal Christian experience grafts us into the very heart
8 Spirit of God, Spirit of Christ
of the mystery of Christ: sharing in the work of salvation, we are introduced into the divine life, into the heart of the deepest trinitarian intimacy. It is thus that, through the whole experience of the Church, the mystery of Christ is realized in a trinitarian perspective of salvation. New life in Christ is inseparable from the work of the Spirit. In its depths, the Church is nothing other than the manifestation of the risen Lord, whom the Holy Spirit renders present in the eucharistic community of the Church. There is a profound correspondence between the mystery of the Church and of Christian life on the one side, and the earthly life and work of Jesus himself on the other. It is thus not possible to speak of the mystery of Christ, of his person and work, without at once speaking not only of his relation to the Father, but also of the Holy Spirit.
In the earthly life of Jesus, the Spirit seems to be focused in him. The Spirit brings about his conception and birth (Matt. 1:18, Luke 1:35), mani- fests him at his baptism in the Jordan (Mark 1:9-11 and par.), drives him into the desert to be tested (Mark 1:12-13 and par.), empowers him in his return to Galilee (Luke 4:14) and rests in fullness upon him (Luke 4:18). It is thus in the permanent presence of the Spirit that Jesus himself lives, prays, acts, speaks and heals. It is in the Spirit and through the Spirit that Jesus is turned totally towards the Father, and also totally towards humankind, giving his life for the life of the world. Through his passion, his sacrifice on the cross “through the eternal Spirit” (Heb. 9:14), and his resurrection by the power of the Spirit (Rom. 8:11, etc.), it is in the Spirit that henceforth Jesus comes to us in his risen body, penetrated and suffused by the energies of the Spirit, and communicating to us in our turn power from on high. The humanity of Christ, full of the Holy Spirit, is real and authentic humanity; and it is by the Holy Spirit that we, too, become a new creation (John 3:5), sharing in the humanity of Christ (Eph. 2:15). We are “christified”, “made christs”, in the Church by the indwelling in us of the Holy Spirit who communicates the very life of Christ to us, who in Christ makes us the brothers and sisters of Christ, and strengthens us in our new condition as the adopted children of the heavenly Father.
The Spirit thus appears in the New Testament at once as he who rests upon Jesus and fills him in his humanity, and as he whom Jesus promises to send us from the Father, the Spirit of Truth who proceeds from the Father (John 15:26). The Spirit therefore does not have an action separate from that of Christ himself. He acts in us so that Christ may be our iife (Col. 3:4), so that Christ may dwell in our hearts by faith (Eph. 3:12). The Spirit, who proceeds from the Father, is also therefore the Spirit of Jesus Christ himself (Rom. 8:9. Phil. 1:19) who rests in him (Luke 3:22, John 1:32-33),
The filioque clause in ecumenical perspective 9
in whom alone we can confess Jesus as Lord (I Cor. 12:3), the Spirit of the Son (Gal. 4:6). These and many other New Testament passages reflect the Church’s deep experience of the Spirit-filled and Spirit-giving being of Jesus himself. Here can be seen a full and constant reciprocity of the incarnate Word and the Holy Spirit, a reciprocity whose depths are further revealed in the fact that the sending of the Spirit had as its result the formation of the mystical body of Christ, the Church. This reciprocity must be emphasized as a fundamental principle of Christian theology. It is from this interaction, at once christological and trinitarian, that the divine plan for the salvation of the world is to be viewed in its continuity and coherence from the beginning of creation and the call of Israel to the coming of Christ. Further, all the life of the Church, indeed all Christian life, carries the imprint of this reciprocity from the time of Pentecost till the final coming of Christ. If it loses that vision, it can only suffer grievously from its lack.
C. The points of the Holy Spirit’s contact with God’s people are manifold. While one might be inclined to connect the coming of the Spirit exclusively with Pentecost, it must be remembered that any such limitation tends to- wards Marcionism in its patent neglect of the Old Testament witness to the presence and activity of the Spirit in Israel. Moreover, the Spirit is confessed to have been instrumental in the coming of Christ (“conceived by the Holy Spirit”), and to have been the life-giving power of God in his resurrection. Jesus during his ministry promised the sending of the Spirit, and the earliest Christians understood the pouring out of the Spirit at Pentecost to be the fulfilment of that promise. Thus the Spirit precedes the coming of Jesus, is active throughout his life, death and resurrection, and is also sent as the Paraclete by Jesus to the believers, who by this sending and receiving are constituted the Church. This chain of observations suggests that it would be insufficient and indeed illegitimate to “read back” into the Trinity only those New Testament passages which refer to the sending of the Spirit by Jesus Christ.
In the New Testament, the relation between the Spirit and Jesus Christ is not described solely in a linear or one-directional fashion. On the contrary, it is clear that there is a mutuality and reciprocity which must be taken into account in theological reflection upon the Trinity itself. The “eternal pro- cession” of the Spirit of which trinitarian theology speaks as the ground which underlies and is opened up to us in his “temporal mission” cannot be properly characterized if only one aspect of the latter is taken into account. This raises certain questions about the filioque. Does it involve an unbiblical subordination of the Spirit to the Son? Does it do justice to the necessary reciprocity between the Son and the Spirit? If its intention is to safeguard
10 Spirit of God, Spirit of Christ
the insight that the Holy Spirit is truly the Spirit of the Father in Jesus Christ , could other arguments and formulations defend that insight as well or even better? Is it possible that the filioque , or certain understandings of it, may have been understandable and indeed helpful in their essential intention in the context of particular theological debates, but yet inadequate as articulations of a full or balanced doctrine of the Trinity?
In approaching these questions it is imperative to remember that any reference to the Trinity is originally doxological in nature. This is all the more important in our own time, when talk of God is so severely challenged and trinitarian thinking so obviously neglected. Doxology is not merely the language of direct prayer and praise, but all forms of thought, feeling, action and hope directed and offered by believers to the living God. Doxological affirmations are therefore not primarily definitions or descriptions. They are performative and ascriptive, lines of thought, speech and action which, as they are offered, open up into the living reality of God himself. Trinitarian thought in the early Church originated within that doxological context, and only within it are we able to speak of the “inner life” of the triune God. Further, as fathers like Athanasius and Basil made clear, all such doxological references to that inner life must be checked by reference back to the biblical message concerning God’s activity and presence with his people.
D. Conceptual distinctions between the “economic” and “immanent” Trinity, or between “temporal mission” and “eternal procession” should not be taken as separating off from each other two quite different realities which must then be somehow re-connected. Rather, they serve the witness to the triune God as the living God. In calling upon God, we turn and open ourselves to the God who is none other than he has revealed himself in his Word. This calling upon his name is the essential expression of doxology, that is, of trust, praise and thanks that the living God from eternity to eternity was, is and will be none other (“immanent Trinity”) than he has shown himself to be in history (“economic Trinity”).
In our calling upon him, the mystery of the Trinity itself is actualized. So we pray with Christ and in the power of the Spirit when we call on God his Father as our Father. So too we have a share in the joy of God when we allow ourselves to be told again that “for us a child is born”. So too we pray in the Holy Spirit and he intercedes in us when we call on the Father in the name of the Son. In the calling upon the Father, the Spirit who proceeds from the Father, and we who worship in the Spirit, witness to Jesus Christ (John 15:26-7). The Spirit who proceeds from the Father of the Son is he whom the risen and ascended Christ sends, and by whose reception we are made the children of God.
The filioque clause in ecumenical perspective 11
IV. Theological aspects of the filioque
A. The approaches of eastern and western trinitarian theology
In its origins the Latin tradition of the filioque served as an affirmation of the consubstantiality of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and also gave expression to the deeply-rooted concern in western piety to declare that the Spirit is the Spirit of the Son. The theology of Augustine marked a definite stage in the development of this tradition by articulating with particular clarity its fundamental concern for the oneness of the divine being, and by setting out on that basis to conceive of the Trinity in terms of a dialectic of oneness-in-threeness and threeness-in-oneness. In subsequent interpretation and application, this approach crystallized into a formal system which be- came the standard western teaching, and to which all the authority of the name of Augustine himself was attached. The introduction in the West of the logical procedures of medieval scholastic theology brought this form of trinitarian thinking to a new level of definition. One result of this develop- ment was to make dialogue with the East increasingly more difficult: hence arose the polemical frustrations of medieval controversy.
The eastern tradition of teaching about the Holy Trinity had from the beginnings somewhat different emphases. A central concern from the time of the Cappadocians in the late fourth century has been to affirm the irreducible distinctiveness of each of the divine hypostases (or, in the term more familiar in the West, “persons”) of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit and at the same time, the uniqueness of the Father as the sole principle (apxfi), “source” (tithti) and “cause” (ama) of divinity. Thus, while Greek theologians could and did use such expressions as “from the Father through the Son”, they could not accept the western “from the Father and the Son” as a suitable formulation for describing the procession of the Holy Spirit. This difference in emphasis, combined with the virtual absence in the East of the scholastic methods developed in the medieval West, made it difficult for the eastern Church to appreciate the western attitude. The controversies of the ninth century between Constantinople and the West - controversies, it must be said, which were as much political as theological - were the occasion of a further definition of the eastern position in the teaching of Patriarch Photius and his famous formula, “the Spirit proceeds from the Father alone”. This tradition was continued and further developed by the work of Gregory the Cypriot and Gregory Palamas. Both these writers sought to respond to the controversy with the West by distinguishing between the procession of the Spirit from the Father and an “eternal manifestation of the Spirit through the Son”.
What is striking is that, despite the evident differences between East and
12 Spirit of God, Spirit of Christ
West before the eleventh century, communion was maintained between them. The two traditions of trinitarian theological teaching, though divergent and at times in friction with each other, were not considered to be mutually exclusive. In the seventh century indeed, a notable attempt to explain and reconcile them was made in the work of Maximus the Confessor, a Greek Father who spent a large part of his life in the West. Only after the eleventh century did the two traditions come to be felt to be altogether irreconcilable.
B. Two CENTRAL ISSUES
In the debate between East and West about the fdioque , two sets of questions can be seen as central. The first has to do with the traditional eastern insistence that the Spirit proceeds from the Father “alone”; the second with the western concern to discern a connexion between the Son and the procession of the Spirit.
L Procession from the Father “alone”
According to the eastern tradition, the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone for the following reasons:
a) The Father is the principle and cause of the Son and the Holy Spirit because it is an “hypostatic” (or “personal”) property of the Father (and not of the shared divine nature) to “bring forth” the other two persons. The Son and the Holy Spirit do not derive their existence from the common essence, but from the hypostasis of the Father, from which the divine essence is conferred.
b) On the ground of the distinction between ousia (“being” or “essence”) and hypostasis - which corresponds to the difference between what is “com- mon” or “shared” and what is “particular” - the common properties of the divine nature do not apply to the hypostasis, and the distinctive properties of each of the three hypostases do not belong either to the common nature or to the other two hypostases. On account of his own hypostatic property, the Father derives his being from himself, and brings forth the Son and the Holy Spirit. The Son comes forth by yevvTicris (“generation” or “beget- ting”), and his hypostatic property is to be begotten. The Holy Spirit comes forth by eKTropewis (“procession”), and that is his own distinctive hypostatic property. Because these hypostatic properties are not interchangeable or confused, the Father is the only cause of the being of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and they are themselves caused by him.
c) In no way does the Father communicate or convey his own particular hypostatic property to either of the other two persons. Any idea that the Son together with the Father is the cause of the Holy Spirit’s “mode of
The filioque clause in ecumenical perspective 13
existence” (tpottos rfis vrrdp^eojs) was felt in the East to introduce two causes, two sources, two principles into the Holy Trinity. It is of course impossible to reconcile any such teaching with the divine ixovapxta (“mon- archy”) of the Father, that is, with his being the sole “principle” (dpxfi).
d) In asserting in its theology, though not in the wording of the Creed, that the Spirit proceeds from the Father alone, the eastern Church does not believe that it is adding to the meaning of the original statement of the Creed. It holds, rather, that it is merely clarifying what was implicit in that original wording but had come to be denied by the West.
From a western point of view, which at the same time appreciates the concerns of the eastern tradition, it may be said that neither the early Latin Fathers, such as Ambrose and Augustine, nor the subsequent medieval tradition ever believed that they were damaging the principle of the Father’s “monarchy” by affirming the filioque. The West declared itself to be as much attached to this principle as were the eastern Fathers. But by describing the Son as the “secondary cause” of the procession of the Holy Spirit, the doctrine of the filioque gave the impression of introducing “two principles” into the Holy Trinity; and by treating the Son in his consubstantiality and unity with the Father as the origin of the person of the Holy Spirit, it seemed to obscure the difference between the persons of the Father and the Son.
Nonetheless, an important fact remains. Quite apart from the - more or less happy or unhappy - formulations of the filioque advanced in western theology (which one must be careful not to treat as dogmas), and even if western Christians are prepared simply to confess in the original terms of the Creed that the Holy Spirit “proceeds from the Father” (without men- tioning any secondary causality on the part of the Son), many would still maintain that the Holy Spirit only proceeds from the Father as the Father is also Father of the Son. Without necessarily wishing to insist on their own traditional understanding of a logical priority of the generation of the Son over the procession of the Spirit, they believe nonetheless that the trinitarian order (or, in Greek, tcx^ls) of Father-Son-Holy Spirit is a datum of revelation confessed by the Creed itself when it declares that the Spirit is to be “wor- shipped and glorified together with the Father and the Son”. Thus they might indeed be ready to confess that the Holy Spirit proceeds “from the Father alone”; but by this they would not mean, “from the Father in isolation from the Son” (as if the Son were a stranger to the procession of the Holy Spirit), but rather, “from the Father alone, who is the only Father of his Only-begotten Son”. The Spirit, who is not a “second Son”, proceeds in his own unique and absolutely originated way from the Father who, as Father, is in relation to the Son.
14 Spirit of God, Spirit of Christ
2. The place of the Son in relation to the procession of the Holy Spirit
The Creed in its original form does not mention any participation of the Son in the procession of the Spirit from the Father, nor does it indicate the relationship between the Son and the Spirit. This may be because of the conflict with various current heresies which subordinated the Spirit to the Son, and reduced him to the level of a mere creature. However this may be, the absence of any clear statement on the relation between the Son and the Holy Spirit faces dogmatic theology with a problem which the West in the past attempted to solve by means of the filioque. In the Creed’s lack of clarity on the point lies at least one of the roots of the divergence between later eastern and western theology of the Trinity. This means that even if agreement were reached on returning to the original wording of the Creed, that by itself would not be enough. In the longer term an answer must be given to the question of the relation between the Son and the Holy Spirit.
The observations which follow are advanced as a suggestion on the way in which western theology might move forward towards a closer understand- ing with the East, while still maintaining its concern to link the persons of the Son and the Spirit:
a) The Son’s participation in the procession of the Spirit from the Father cannot be understood merely in terms of the temporal mission of the Spirit, as has sometimes been suggested. In other words, it cannot be restricted to the “economy” of the history of salvation as if it had no reference to, no bearing upon and no connexion with the “immanent” Trinity and the relation within the divine life itself between the three consubstantial persons. The freedom of God in his own being and as he acts in history must always be respected; but it is impossible to accept that what is valid for his revelation of his own being in history is not in some sense also valid for his eternal being and essence.
b) There is a sense in which it is correct to say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone (ck jxovou tou IlaTpos). This “alone” refers to the unique procession of the Spirit from the Father, and to his particular personal being (uTToaTao-is or hyparxis) which he receives from the Father. But it does not exclude a relationship with the Son as well as with the Father. On the one hand, the procession (eKiropewis) of the Spirit must be distinguished from the begetting (yevvT)o-i<?) of the Son; but on the other hand this procession must be related to the begetting of the Son by the Father alone. While the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone, his procession is nevertheless connected with the relationship within the Trinity between the Father and the Son, in virtue of which the Father acts as Father.
The filioque clause in ecumenical perspective 15
The begetting of the Son from the Father thus qualifies the procession of the Spirit as a procession from the Father of the Son.
c) From this fundamental thesis, two things follow. First, it should not be said that the Spirit proceeds “from the Father and the Son”, for this would efface the difference in his relationship to the Father and to the Son. Second, it should be said that the procession of the Spirit from the Father presupposes the relationship existing within the Trinity between the Father and the Son, for the Son is eternally in and with the Father, and the Father is never without the Son. Eastern theology has traditionally emphasized the first of these two conclusions. The Latin Fathers were already exploring the impli- cations of the second long before the filioque had finally been clarified and introduced into the Creed.
d) Along these lines, western trinitarian theology could come to under- stand the procession of the Holy Spirit in the way suggested by such patristic formulations as “the Spirit proceeds from the Father and receives from the Son”. This underlines the fact that the Son is indeed not alien to the procession of the Spirit, nor the Spirit to the begetting of the Son - something which has also been indicated in eastern theology when it has spoken of the Spirit as “resting upon” or “shining out through” the Son, and insisted that the generation of the Son and procession of the Spirit must be distinguished but not separated. Differences certainly remain still in this area, for eastern theology is not easily able to agree that there is any priority of the generation of the Son over the procession of the Spirit, and desires rather to emphasize the “simultaneity” of the two, and to see the one as “accompanying” the other. Nonetheless, there does open up here a field for further exploration. So far as western theology is concerned, the Spirit could then be seen as receiving his complete existence (hypostasis) from the Father, but as existing in relation to both the Father and the Son. This would follow the principle that because the Father is the source of divinity, the Spirit does proceed from him “alone”. At the same time, however, it would express what that principle alone and by itself cannot: the relation of the Spirit as a person within the Trinity to the Son as well as to the Father. The filioque, on this suggestion, would have valid meaning with reference to the relationship of the three hypostases within the divine triunity, but not with regard to the procession of the complete and perfect hypostasis of the Spirit from the Father.
e) These suggestions raise the further question of whether new or at least alternative formulations might be found which could express what the fil- ioque validly sought to convey. Several old-established expressions have been mentioned in this section of the memorandum, viz:
16 Spirit of God, Spirit of Christ
- the Spirit proceeds from the Father of the Son;
- the Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son;
- the Spirit proceeds from the Father and receives from the Son;
- the Spirit proceeds from the Father and rests on the Son;
- the Spirit proceeds from the Father and shines out through the Son.
These and possibly other formulations as well deserve to be given attention and consideration in future discussion.
V. The relevance of the question
These ancient controversies about what at first sight seems to be a strictly limited point of doctrine have, we believe, an unexpectedly urgent relevance. The study of the filioque question can be the point of entry into a wider exploration of the person and work of the Holy Spirit, of the relation of the Spirit to Jesus Christ, and indeed of the whole of trinitarian theology. The feeling that in all the western traditions something has been lacking in our experience and understanding of the Holy Spirit has grown rapidly in recent years. This tendency has carried with it a sense that the doctrine of the Trinity as such has come to appear remote and abstract to many, indeed very many Christian people. As Lesslie Newbigin writes: “It has been said that the question of the Trinity is the one theological question that has been really settled. It would, I think, be nearer the truth to say that the Nicene formula has been so devoutly hallowed that it is effectively put out of circulation.” 1 In the western Christian world, while the churches continue to repeat the trinitarian formula, the trinitarian experience seems distant from many ordinary Christians. To them the word “God” is more likely to evoke thoughts of a supreme Monad than of the triune being of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.
In the course of our discussions, we have realized that the question of the Trinity is one which is very far from being “settled”. We have found in this fact not only a source of difficulties which have still to be tackled and overcome, but also at the same time a source of hope. In many different quarters it seems as if these basic articles of the Christian faith were coming to be the centre of new enquiry and fresh reflection. While we have not been able to agree as to how far the addition of the filioque clause was the cause of the differences between East and West on this whole subject, we have come to see that at least it has become a sign or indication of an underlying difference in theological approach. For the first ten centuries of the Christian era this difference was contained within a unity of faith and
1 The Open Secret, Grand Rapids, Mich., Eerdmans, 1978, p. 30.
The filioque clause in ecumenical perspective 17
sacramental communion; since then it has been one of the primary causes of the continuing division between Orthodoxy on the one side and the Roman Catholic, Anglican and Protestant churches on the other. Within the last century, however, this situation has begun to change. First among the Old Catholics, then amongst Anglicans and others, the position of the filioque clause in the Creed has come under question. The whole matter of trinitarian theology has begun to be approached afresh. It has seemed to many that the balance and fullness of trinitarian doctrine, the reciprocity of the action of the Son and the Spirit, have been to some extent obscured in the West. It is not at all easy to trace the links of cause and effect in such areas. We do not say that the doctrine of the filioque was the cause of these developments. It may be that they have other origins. But certainly there is an interaction between one point of doctrine and others, between teaching and faith, between doctrinal formulations and the growth of Christian life.
In our discussion two points in particular have been suggested as opening up the wider bearing of the filioque debate. Both have figured especially in modern discussion of the issue. As they arise out of the concern to see the doctrine of the Trinity in connexion with the experience and practice of the Church, we must take them seriously into account.
A. On the one hand, it can be argued that the filioque underlines the fact that the Holy Spirit is none other than the Spirit of Jesus Christ; that this understanding of the Spirit is fundamental to the New Testament witness; and that the filioque is a necessary bulwark against the dangers of christ- ologically uncontrolled “charismatic enthusiasm”, dangers against which the churches today need to be on guard.
In no way would we wish to underplay the significance of this concern. At the same time, the Spirit too must not be “quenched” (I Thess. 5:19). Justice can be done to both sides of the matter only if in our speaking of the relation between the Spirit and the Son we do not give the impression of a one-sided dependence of the Spirit upon Christ, but express the reciprocity between them mentioned above in Section III B.
B. On the other hand, it can be maintained that the filioque subordinates the Holy Spirit to Christ; that it tends to “depersonalize” him as if he were a mere “instrument” or “power”; and that this tendency can also encourage a subordination of the Spirit to the Church in which the Church itself becomes hardened in authoritarian institutionalism.
This warning, too, must be taken seriously. It is admittedly an open question whether and how far connexions of this kind can be historically demonstrated in the development of the western Church. Nevertheless, this danger too can only be met and countered on solid theological ground by
18 Spirit of God, Spirit of Christ
the recognition of the reciprocity and mutual interaction of the Son and Holy Spirit.
VI. Recommendations
We therefore recommend:
A. That the new possibilities of discussion about the meaning of our faith in God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, which are now opening up, and which we have begun to explore in this memorandum, should be pursued by all the churches; and that there should be a deeper effort to see how this faith is to be expressed in the forms of Christian worship, in the structures of the Church, and in the patterns of Christian life, so that the Holy Trinity may be seen as the foundation of Christian life and experience. This will require in particular a new sensitivity to the person and work of the Holy Spirit as the one who in his fullness both rests upon Jesus Christ and is the gift of Christ to the Church, the Lord and Giver of life to humankind and all creation.
B. That the original form of the third article of the Creed, without the filioque, should everywhere be recognized as the normative one and re- stored, so that the whole Christian people may be able, in this formula, to confess their common faith in the Holy Spirit:
And we believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of life, who proceeds from the Father, who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified, who spoke by the prophets.
C. That the different churches should respond to these suggestions in ways appropriate to their own historical and theological situations. For some, this will involve a more living appreciation of formulae whose authority has never been questioned. For others, it will mean a wholly new appreciation of the value and significance of this ancient ecumenical confession of faith. For some in which the Creed is constantly used in public worship, it will imply liturgical changes which will need to be introduced step by step. In all these various ways a renewed reception of the Nicene Creed can play a vital role in the growing together of the separated Christian traditions into the unity of faith.
PART II ESSAYS
A.
HISTORICAL ASPECTS
.
THE PROCESSION OF THE HOLY SPIRIT ACCORDING TO CERTAIN LATER GREEK FATHERS* *
MARKOS A. ORPHANOS
Photius
Until the time of Photius, the issue of the procession of the Holy Spirit had been a matter of theological speculation. With Photius, it became a highly controversial point. Photius, in his discussion of the subject, almost singles out the idea of the Holy Spirit’s procession through the Son and deals mainly with the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father alone.
Photius treats the subject under the following presuppositions: (a) a dis- tinction must be made between the properties belonging to the divine nature and those belonging to the hypostases; ( b ) what is common in the Holy Trinity is common to all three hypostases what is hypostatic is individual and belongs only to the corresponding hypostasis; (c) the hypostatic proper- ties are uncommunicable and unconfused; ( d ) the Father is related to the Son and to the Holy Spirit as their unique cause of being and it is by him that they are caused.
The faculty of proceeding the Holy Spirit, argues Photius, is a hypostatic property of the Father and not of the common divine nature.1 Therefore, it by no means belongs to another TrpoacoTrov of the Holy Trinity. Any par- ticipation of another Person is contrary to the uncommunicability and the unconfusedness of the hypostatic properties. Because the Father, as Father,
* This is the second part of a paper entitled “The Procession of the Holy Spirit According to Certain Greek Fathers”. The first part, dealing with the ideas on the procession of the Holy Spirit of some ancient Greek Fathers such as Origen, Athan- asius, the Cappadocians, Epiphanius, Cyril of Alexandria, Theodoret of Cyprus, Maximus the Confessor, Ps. Dionysius the Areopagite and John of Damascus, has been omitted because to some extent they are discussed in other papers in this volume.
• Markos A. Orphanos (Greek Orthodox) is lecturer at the Theological Faculty of the University of Athens, Greece.
1 De S. Spiritus Mystagogia 15, PG 15, PG 102, 293AB.
22 Spirit of God, Spirit of Christ
begets the Son and proceeds the Holy Spirit, any share of the Son in the procession of the Holy Spirit would imply that the Son shares the hypostasis of the Father or stands for it, or that he is a part of the Fathers hypostasis. Such a notion, however, changes the Holy Triad to diad and introduces the misbelief of Son-Fatherhood (uiWaTpCa).2
Photius goes on to say that if the Father proceeds the Holy Spirit, not on the grounds of his hypostasis but on the grounds of his nature, then not only will the Son participate in the procession of the Holy Spirit but also the Holy Spirit himself will take part in his own mode of existence.3 The double procession, continues Photius, makes the Father a simple name, deprived of meaning and sense; the property characterized by that word no longer belongs exclusively to him and the two divine hypostases are confused in one sole person. That is, however, the view of a Sabellius, or rather of some other half-Sabellian monster.4
The procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son, says Photius, results also in the opposite conclusion, namely, the plurality of the hypostases. If the Son is begotten from the Father, and the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, then the Holy Spirit must produce something else, on account of the equality of the divine Persons. This, of course, implies that instead of three we must have four hypostases and even more. Then the triune God is blemished and Christianity is diverted to the Greek polytheism.5
The Father, emphasizes Photius, is the unique cause (amov) of the mode of being of the Son and the Holy Spirit who are cutuxt& and he by no means communicates his own particular property to the other two Persons. Any idea that the Son together with the Father is the cause of the Holy Spirit’s mode of existence introduces to the Holy Trinity two causes and two prin- ciples. Of course, this is not possible and cannot be reconciled with the divine monarchia of the Father.6
Photius argues that the causal participation of the Son in the procession of the Holy Spirit introduces two principles and diverts the Orthodox faith to the gnosticism of Marcion and Manes,7 because, he says, the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son must be the same or a different one from
2 Ibid. 16, PG 102, 293 AB.
3 Ibid. 17, PG 102, 325A.
4 Ibid. 9, PG 102, 289A.
5 Ibid. 37, PG 102, 317A.
6 Ibid. 11, PG 102, 292AB .
7 Ibid. 7, PG 102, 316A; Encyclica ad Archiepiscopales Thronos ... 17, PG 102, 729 A.
Procession of the Holy Spirit according to later Greek Fathers 23
that of the Father. If it is the same, then the Son communicates the hypostatic property of the Father. If it is different, then it must be am opposition between the Father and the Son.8 In this line of thought, Photius maintains that the filioque introduces two principles of which the one is unoriginated (avapxos) and the other originated (dpxo|xevr|). This introduces two causes. With two causes, however, the Trinity becomes formed of four hypostases, because the hypostasis of the Holy Spirit is subject to a kind of division. This is so because the Holy Spirit derives his existence from two causes, namely, the Father as a first cause and the Son which is a cause which has been caused.9
Photius goes on to say that if we are going to accept the notion that the Son as a cause produces the Holy Spirit, then we must acknowledge that the Father’s procession of the Holy Spirit is imperfect. This, however, contra- dicts the perfection of the Father. On the other hand, if to the perfect cause, the Father, we add another one, the Son, this cause must be imperfect and inferior in comparison to the first. The insertion of such a rj|xtTop.ov cause into the internal relations of the Holy Trinity, however, introduces to the Holy Trinity the Greek mythologies of hippocentaurs and makes the Holy Trinity a monster.10
According to Photius, the Son cannot be considered as a common cause of the Holy Spirit’s procession with the Father, because this would imply that the procession is a common property of the Father and of the Son. Since all things common to the Father and to the Son are in any case common to the Spirit, the Holy Spirit must thus proceed from himself. Even he will be principle of himself and at the same time both cause and caused. Nevertheless, Photius says, not without irony, even the myths of the Greeks never fabricated such an idea.* 11
The procession of the Holy Spirit also from the Son, states Photius, leads to another absurdity, namely, it makes the Father both a direct and an indirect cause of the Holy Spirit’s procession. The Father is a direct cause because he begets the Son directly and proceeds the Holy Spirit. He is an indirect cause because he proceeds the Holy Spirit through the Son. But this does not happen even in the creation of the compound and changeable nature.12
8 Ibid. 17, PG 102, 729 A.
9 De S. Spiritus Mystagogia 14, PG 102, 293A; Ibid. 43, PG 102, 321BC.
10 Ibid. 7, PG 102, 288BC; 31, PG 102, 317C-318A; 44, PG 102, 321BC.
11 Ibid. 44, PG 102, 321C.
12 Ibid. 42, PG 102, 341A.
24 Spirit of God, Spirit of Christ
The participation of the Son in the procession of the Holy Spirit, continues Photius, not without some exaggeration, introduces the impious notion that the Holy Spirit is the Grandson of the Father, an erroneous conception which the Fathers from Athanasius onwards have vigorously refuted. Photius says that it leads also to the heresy of Macedonius putting the Holy Spirit in a state of inferiority. While the Father and the Son possess the faculty of the procession of the Holy Spirit, the Holy Spirit, despite his equality with the Father and the Son, is deprived of the possibility to beget the Son and to come out of himself. 13
The procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son is not supported by biblical evidence. The words of our Lord “for He (i.e. the Holy Spirit) shall receive of mine and shall show it unto you”, according to Photius, do not mean that the Holy Spirit receives from the Son, but from the Father. The meaning of “receiving” is not the same as that of “proceeding”.14 In this particular verse “receiving” does not mean the causal derivation of the Holy Spirit’s being from the Son, but simply the proclamation of things to come.15 Even Christs declaration “he shall receive of mine” implies that the Holy Spirit receives the accomplishments from the Father, as his cause, and he himself bestows them on the disciples in order to encourage them for the sufferings to come.16 St Paul’s statement “God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying Abba, Father” does not suggest that the Son is the cause of the Holy Spirit’s existence, but simply that the Holy Spirit is consubstantial and invariably of the same nature as the Son. The Holy Spirit is called the “Spirit of the Son” because of his homoousion with the Son. He is also called “Spirit of the Christ” because he anoints Christ in his human nature.17
Nevertheless, Photius admits that there is only one cause, according to which the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son, not, of course, in the mode of his being but in his temporal mission to the world. It is the result of the perichoresis of the divine hypostases and their common energies.18
The innovation of th efilioque, Photius goes on to argue, is not supported by the Tradition of the Church, because neither in the divine words of the scriptures nor in the human words of the Fathers was it verbally enunciated that the Spirit proceeds from the Son.19 Photius, of course, was aware that
13 Ep. ad Archiepiscopum et Metropolitam Aquileiensem 9, PG 102, 801D.
14 De S. Spiritus Mystagogia 21-23, PG 102, 300A-301C.
15 Ibid. 29, PG 102, 309C.
16 Ibid. 30, PG 102, 312B.
17 Ibid. 51, PG 102, 329B.
18 Ibid. 23, PG 102, 388AB.
19 Ibid. 5, PG 102, 285A.
Procession of the Holy Spirit according to later Greek Fathers 25
according to the partisans of filioque certain Latin Fathers such as Ambrose, Augustine and Jerome taught that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son. But he maintains that they were falsified or that they did not speak in dogmatic terms, or that as human beings they were fallible. In the last case it would be better to gloss over their error and not to glory in it.20
Even if Ambrose or Augustine in the West taught the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son, Photius continues, a great number of Roman Pontiffs such as Celestine, Leo the Great, Vigilius, Agatho, Gregory the Great, Hadrian I, Leo III, Benedict III, John VIII and Hadrian III held the opposite view, namely, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father.21 The same teaching was also pronounced by six of the seven Ecumenical Councils, clearly implying that the filioque clause has no foundation either in scriptures or in the Tradition of the Church.22
Photius’ doctrine on the procession of the Holy Spirit being only from the Father is rigorous, comprehensive and convincing. It is a pity, however, that because of his strong polemical manner in discussing this issue, he was prevented from treating the subject thoroughly. Thus he does not fully discuss the procession of the Holy Spirit through the Son, even though it was a traditional teaching of the previous Greek Fathers. On the other hand, Photius’ interpretation of the relevant biblical passages seems sometimes to be far-fetched. The same can be argued with regard to Photius’ criticism and refutation of the arguments of his opponents and partisans of the doctrine of filioque. Nevertheless, Photius’ doctrine on the procession of the Holy Spirit has had a tremendous influence upon the Byzantine theology of the filioque. The authors who oppose the doctrine of filioque turn again and again to Photius’ treatises and derive arguments and ideas from them.
Gregory the Cypriot
Among the numerous Byzantine theologians who have been involved in the question of the procession of the Holy Spirit, Gregory (or George) the Cypriot, Patriarch of Constantinople, deserves a noteworthy place. Gregory, in his dispute with John Veccos, first an opponent and then a defender of filioque , was able to clear up some points in regard to the procession of the Holy Spirit which had been vague.
Gregory follows the Greek patristic tradition, arguing that the Father, on account of the divine monarchia and the unconfusedness of the hypostatic
20 Ibid. 71-72, PG 102, 352BC - 353A.
21 Ibid. 87-89, PG 102, 376A-380A.
22 Ibid. 5, PG 102, 285AB.
26 Spirit of God , Spirit of Christ
properties, is the sole source and principle of the Son and the Holy Spirit.23 The Father causally sends forth the Holy Spirit on the grounds of the common essence, because the Father alone is the begetting deity and the divine source and the only source of the whole deity (eeoyovos Gottis kcxi irvyyaCa beorqs Kai |xovt] irTiyT] tt|s beoTqTos).24 The Father, Gregory goes on to say, is the principle and cause of the Son and the Holy Spirit, not because they derive their existence from the essence of the Father, but because they owe their mode of being to the hypostasis of the Father, through which the divine essence is conferred.25
Indeed, because of the identity of essence, the Holy Spirit is also from the essence of the Son and not from his hypostasis.26 Any derivation of the Holy Spirit’s mode of existence from the hypostasis of the Son is contrary to the teaching of the Fathers, who plainly teach that the Father is the begetting deity (fteoyovos Deo-nris) from whom come forth the Son by way of generation and the Holy Spirit by way of procession.27
Gregory also repeats the well-known patristic argument that the Father is the unique cause of being of the Son and the Holy Spirit who are caused (amotTa). Thus, none of that produced by a cause (amorra) can be a cause in itself or with the Father produce himself or another amaTov. Gregory the Cypriot argues with Photius in saying that the procession of the Holy Spirit from both introduces two principles and two causes in the Holy Trinity. This even makes the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father imperfect, an idea which is contrary to the perfection of the Father.28
Gregory was aware that John Veccos rejected that there are two principles or two causes in the Holy Trinity and that he argued that, although the Son participates in the causal derivation of the Holy Spirit, there is only one principle and cause, namely, the Father. Veccos continues that it is due to the fact that the Sonly cause (uukti ama) leads up to the Fatherly cause (TrotTpiKT] ama).29 This notion was also common to the Latins who main- tained that, despite the Sons participation in the causal procession of the Holy Spirit, the Holy Spirit comes out only from one cause, because the Father is the primordial source and the Son a joint cause.
23 De processione Spiritus Sancti PG 142, 283A; 299A; Scripta Apologetica PG 142, 235C, 271C.
24 De Processione Spiritus Sancti PG 142, 271 AB.
25 Ibid. PG 142, 270D - 271A.
26 Ibid. 271ABC.
27 Ibid. 272D.
28 Ibid. 281B, 271CD; Scripta Apologetica PG 142, 255C.
29 Scripta Apologetica, PG 142, 235C.
Procession of the Holy Spirit according to later Greek Fathers 27
However, Gregory does not accept this argument and insists that the notion that the Holy Spirit derives his being from the two causes or from one, because the second is referred to the first, is blasphemous. It is not founded biblically and is not consistent with the teaching of the Fathers. Therefore, says Gregory, as far as the Holy Spirit’s causal procession is concerned, it is neither from nor through the Son, but from the Father alone.30
Speaking against the assertion of Veccos that the expression “through the Son’’ implies the filioque (because the preposition “through” bears the same meaning as the preposition “from”), Gregory maintains that this is a mis- conception. Indeed, the Holy Spirit proceeds “through” the Son, but this procession refers to his eternal manifestation (aiSiov ei«J)avaiv) and not to his essential derivation. When Veccos identifies the expression 81’ Yiou with the expression €k tou Yiou he commits himself to a great blasphemy against the Spirit.31
Thus, while from Photius onwards the formula Si’ Yiou was confined to the mission of the Holy Spirit in time, it is to Gregory’s merit that he applies it also to the eternal manifestation of the Spirit through the Son. Gregory explains that many Fathers have taught that the Holy Spirit proceeds through the Son, but they apply this procession not to the Holy Spirit’s causal mode of being but to his manifestation. The cause of the hypostatic existence of the Holy Spirit remains the Father alone.32
This manifestation, which Gregory describes in terms such as €Kc}>avo-i<;, <t>avepa)CTis, TTpoeiCTis, refers not to the Holy Spirit’s causal mode of being but to the manner according to which his being exists. The eK(}>avo-i<; is different from the eKTropewis. The first applies to the manifestation of the Holy Spirit, the second to his very mode of being.33
In order to distinguish the procession as mode of existence of the Holy Spirit from his manifestation, Gregory the Cypriot makes an important distinction between the verbs urrap^iv exeiv and uTrdpxeiv. Thus, the Holy Spirit owes his cause of existence to the Father alone, but he exists in the Son and rests in him, shining forth and revealing himself through or from the Son.34 According to Gregory, this distinction between trcrap^iv exeiv and vndpxeiv makes plain that the Holy Spirit proceeds in his hypostatic being
30 Ibid. PG 142, 256AB.
31 Ibid. PG 142, 250B.
32 Ibid. PG 142, 250 A.
33 Ibid. PG 263 AB; 265D-266A.
34 De Processione Spiritus Sancti, PG 142, 275C-276A.
28 Spirit of God, Spirit of Christ
from the Father alone. Yet, in his manifestation in this “economy” the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and also from the Son. The Holy Spirit, having from the Father his very being, rests and abides in the Son, from whom he is shining forth and bestowed.35
The Holy Spirit, explains Gregory, exists eternally in the Son and is manifested through him, but this existence and manifestation must not be confused with the Holy Spirit’s eternal causal mode of existence which is due to the Father alone. In order to illustrate this distinction, Gregory uses the well-known analogies of the sun, its radiance, and its light, as well as of the spring, its river and its water.36 Gregory argues that it is recognized that the very Paraclete shines and manifests itself eternally by the intermediary of the Son, as light shines from the sun by the intermediary of rays. But that does not mean that it comes into being through the Son or from the Son.37
This manifestation of the Holy Spirit through the Son, explains Gregory, refers to the eternal life of the Holy Trinity, but also to the temporal mission of the Holy Spirit. Yet, a clear distinction must be made between the Holy Spirit’s emission and his mode of existence. The temporal mission is a common act of the three divine Persons resulting from their common will and energy. The mode of the Holy Spirit’s existence, however, depends on the Father’s hypostasis. Therefore, Veccos and his followers are wrong in transferring the idea of the Son’s participation in the divine energies to the internal relations of the Holy Trinity and particularly to the mode of being of the divine Persons.38
Gregory distinguishes between the principle and cause of the Holy Trinity which is the Father alone, and the principle cause of the creation which is the whole Holy Trinity. These two principles must not be confused, because it would result in a confusion between the Holy Trinity and the creation. Therefore, continues Gregory, as far as the creation of the world is con- cerned, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, on the ground of their common nature, will, power, and energy, create in common as one principle and one cause the created order. This common energy is a property of the divine nature and does not confound the hypostatic properties. However, with regard to the mode of being of the Holy Spirit, the unique principle and cause is the Father in his hypostatic property. Any participation of the Son in the mode of being of the Holy Spirit implies that either this procession
35 Scripta Apologetica PG 142, 266CD.
36 Ibid. PG 142, 251 AB; De Processione Spiritus Sancti PG 142, 285C; 287BC.
37 Ibid. 240BC; 285 AB.
38 Ibid. 282D - 283 A.
Procession of the Holy Spirit according to later Greek Fathers 29
is imperfect or that the two Persons are confounded into one because the property of proceeding the Holy Spirit is a hypostatic property of the Father.39
It is obvious that Gregory considers the question of the Holy Spirit’s procession from the Father and his manifestation from the Father through the Son from the point of view of distinction between the divine essence and the eternal uncreated energies of God. Of course, Photius, following suit to other Fathers, had accepted this distinction between the essence and the energies of God, but he had restricted these energies to the gifts of the Holy Spirit. By opposing the eternal procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father to the Spirit’s temporal mission from the Son, he had accepted the procession of the Holy Spirit through the Son as a consequence of the Incarnation. Gregory the Cypriot, however, accepts this manifestation (4'k- <j>avais) of the Holy Spirit through the Son as an eternal act. Gregory continues that it is his eternal manifestation as an energy, coming out from the Father and through the Son, that the previous Fathers had in mind when they said that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father 8ia tou Yiou 8l& tou 7Tpo(rex<A)S €k tou irpcoTou or that the Holy Spirit is e£ d|ji(f>oiv or he is iBiov tctO Yiou.40
Gregory’s contribution to the doctrine of the Holy Spirit’s procession is remarkable. In underlining this, John Meyendorff is correct when he writes: “Instead of simply repeating Photius’ formulas about the ‘eternal procession’ of the Holy Spirit from the Father alone and the ‘emission in time’ by the Son, Gregory recognized the need to express the permanent relationship existing between the Son and the Holy Spirit as divine hypostases and he spoke of an ‘eternal manifestation of the Spirit by the Son’.” 41 Gregory’s doctrine was taken and developed by his namesake, Gregory of Palamas, to whom we now turn our attention.
Gregory Palamas
Gregory Palamas discusses the issue of the procession of the Holy Spirit mainly from two points of view: (a) his causal procession from the Father alone, and ( b ) his energetic procession (kcit’ evepyeuxv) from the Father through or from the Son.
As far as the Spirit’s causal procession is concerned, Gregory follows the
39 Ibid. 281BD-282AD; 294D-295A; Scripta apologetica PG 142, 242BC.
40 Gregory obviously had in mind Fathers such as Gregory of Nyssa, Epiphanius, Cyril of Alexandria, John of Damascus, Maximus the Confessor, etc.
41 A Study of Gregory Palamas , London, Faith Press, 1964, p. 13.
30 Spirit of God, Spirit of Christ
Greek patristic tradition, arguing that the hypostasis of the Father is the unique cause, origin and source of the Son’s and the Holy Spirit’s divinity and existence. The Father is the cause of the divine unity not only because his nature is one, but also because the Son and the Holy Spirit coming out from the Father go back to this one and unique Person.42
According to Gregory Palamas, the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father alone is based on John 15:25 and the Tradition of the Church. Of course, the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed, Palamas admits, does not say plainly that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone, as it does not state that the Son is begotten from the Father alone. Nevertheless, it is self-evident because the Father is the only cause of being of the two other Persons of the Trinity who are caused (amaTtx).43 The procession (ckito- pewis), explains Palamas, is a property of the hypostasis of the Father and not of the divine essence. If it is accepted as a common property of the nature, the Holy Spirit should then also proceed from himself. In this case, however, the Holy Trinity becomes four Persons. On the other hand, if this procession (eKiropewis) is a common property of the Father and the Son, and the Holy Spirit is deprived of it, then the Holy Spirit is alienated from the divine nature.44
Gregory goes on to say that because the procession of the Holy Spirit is a hypostatic act of the Father, the double procession introduces two causes and origins in the Holy Trinity, since the Father and the Son are two distinctive hypostases.45 The threat of introducing to the Holy Trinity two origins is in no way ruled out by the assertion that the Father and the Son constitute a sole origin of the Holy Spirit. This is absolutely contrary to the fteoyovov which is an incommunicable hypostatic property of the Father.46 On the other hand, if the Deoyovov were to be attributed to the Son, it would lead to another misconception, namely that the Son is of the same hypostasis as the Father.47 Therefore, Gregory points out, the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father alone safeguards the monarchia and rules out the danger of introducing into the Holy Trinity two principles and two causes.48 He says that it is necessary to distinguish between the origin of the
42 Aoyos dnroSeiKTiKOS 1.8, Bobrinskoy, SiryypdfAjAaTa rptiyopiav IIa\ap,d 1, p. 133; Ibid. 1-23, p. 52, 49; 1.2, p. 31, 4-17.
43 Ibid. 1.6, p. 33, 28-34, 5; 1.15, p. 43, 23-26.
44 £moToX.T| Trpds ’AkCvSvvov 4.7, Meyendorff, 1, p. 209, 15, 19.
45 Ibid. 1.7, p. 34, 15-19.
46 Aoyoq diroSeiKTiKos 1.15, Bobrinskoy, 1, pp. 43, 16-44, 24.
47 Ibid. 1.22, p. 81, 28-30.
48 Ibid. 1.49, p. 70, 16-19.
Procession of the Holy Spirit according to later Greek Fathers 31
Holy Trinity, which is the Father alone, and the origin of the creation, which is the Triune God.49 According to this distinction, the Father alone is the origin and the root of the Holy Trinity. The Father sends out the Son by way of generation and the Holy Spirit by way of procession. The Father as the unique principle (apxT)) is the cause of the unity of the Holy Trinity and its hypostatic differentiation.50 The three divine Prosopa as a trihypostatic principle, argues Palamas, create together because they possess one sole energy and will.51 Their activity from the Father through the Son is realized in the Holy Spirit.52 On the basis of the distinction between the Fatherly principle (TraTpiKT) apxT)) and the triadic principle (tpicx8ikt] apxT]), the statement of Gregory of Nazianzus that the Son is iq €k Tfjs dpxiis apxfi does not mean that the Son is the origin of the Holy Spirit but the origin of the creation, which comes into being by the common act of the three divine hypostases.53 Any confusion of these two principles results in the confusion between the divinity and the creation, for either the creatures have the same mode of being as the Prosopa of the Holy Trinity, or the divine hypostases - and particularly the Holy Spirit - come into being like the created order, namely, by the will and energy of God.54
The idea of the double procession of the Holy Spirit, Gregory maintains, leads to the same misconception, because the statement tanquam ab uno principio refers not to “theology” but the the divine “economy”, namely, the participation of the Son in the creation of the world.55 On the contrary, the clear distinction between the Fatherly principle (ttchtpikt] apxTi) and the triadic principle (tpux8ikt} apXTi) presupposes the participation of the Son in the act of the creation and excludes any notion of the Son’s participation in the causal mode of being of the Holy Spirit.56
Over and over again Gregory refers to the hypostatic procession of the Holy Spirit and his manifestation. The mode of being and the manifestation of the Holy Spirit, Gregory argues, are two aspects of the mystery of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit derives his existence from the Father, yet he exists eternally in the Son and rests in him.57 The Son participates in the
49 ’EttuttoXt) Trpos ’AkCvSvvov 1.5, Meyendorff, p. 207, 24-25.
50 Ao'yos aTToSeiKTLKoq 1.15, Bobrinskoy, pp. 43, 16-44, 24.
51 riepl evdxreojs Ken 8iaKpuT€(o<; 21, Mantzarides , 2, p. 84, 13-15.
52 ’EmcrroX-n Trpoq \Aklv8vvov 1.5, p. 207, 24—25.
53 Ibid.
54 Ibid. 1.14, pp. 24-25.
55 Ao^os d-TToSeiKTiKOS 1.15, p. 44, 1-2.
56 ’EttuttoXti Trpds BapXaap, 1.21, Meyendorff, 1, p. 236, 15-237, 3.
57 A6‘yo«; dnroSeiKTiKOs 2.73, p. 144, 14-21.
32 Spirit of God, Spirit of Christ
manifestation (eK^avais) of the Holy Spirit. Therefore, Gregory continues, the Spirit pours itself out from the Father through the Son and, if you like, from the Son.58 Comparing the causal procession of the Holy Spirit with his energetic (Kerr’ evepyeiav) procession, he maintains that the Holy Spirit belongs to Christ by essence and by energy, because Christ is God; never- theless, according to essence and hypostasis it belongs but not proceeds,59 whereas, according to energy, it belongs and proceeds. Because of the perichoresis and the consubstantiality of the hypostases, the Son and the Holy Spirit are of the other (tou aWov) but not from the other (e£ aUou).
On account of the difference between the causal and the manifesting (€Kcj)avTopLKT]) procession of the Holy Spirit, Palamas explains, when certain Fathers assert that the Holy Spirit comes forth “from both” or “through the Son” or “from the Son”, they are referring to the common energy of these divine hypostases and not to the mode of existence of the Holy Spirit. Therefore, Palamas suggests, when you understand that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the two, because it comes essentially from the Father through the Son, you should understand this teaching in the following sense: it is the powers and essential energies of God which pour out and not the divine hypostasis of the Spirit.60
The hypostasis of the Holy Spirit, Gregory continues, does not come out from the Son, nor is it shared (pe^eKTT]), i.e. it is not communicated to any creature. Only the divine grace and energy are participated in (puefteKTcu).61 On the other hand, when the Fathers speak about the procession of the Holy Spirit through or from the Son, they connect this procession with the divine essence and not with the hypostasis of the Son. Everything, however, which comes out commonly from the divine essence is energy and not hypostasis.62
Gregory Palamas goes on to say that because the divine essence as well as the hypostases are not shared (apifleKToi) and only the divine energies can be communicated (pt'OeKTcu), on Pentecost and in other cases where the Holy Spirit was bestowed by Christ, it was not the hypostasis of the Holy Spirit but his charismata that were transmitted. The granting of the divine energies is a common act of the Holy Trinity which starts from the Father, comes through the Son and is realized in the Holy Spirit.63
58 Ibid. 1.29, p. 54, 23-24.
59 Ibid. 2.29, p. 105, 17-21.
60 Ibid. 2.20, p. 96, 23-28.
61 Ibid. 2.48, p. 122, 14-17.
62 Ibid. 2.69, pp. 140, 19-141, 3.
63 flepl evwCTews kcxi SuxKpCcreoos 21, Mantzarides, p. 84, 10-15.
Procession of the Holy Spirit according to later Greek Fathers 33
On account of this distinction between the divine essence and the divine uncreated energies, the Holy Scriptures referring to the Holy Spirit speak on the one hand of “the Spirit” with the definite article and on the other hand of “Spirit” without the article. In the first case the essential derivation is implied while in the second the gifts of the Holy Spirit, i.e. his energies. Therefore, when our Lord infused the disciples with the Holy Spirit he did not say “receive ye the Holy Spirit” (as is commonly translated in English) but simply “receive Holy Spirit”, that is to say 6paxt> ti tou 7TV€U|i.crro<;, his energy, and not his essence or hypostasis.64
Thus the participation of the Son can be accepted only in the sense of the energetic (kcit’ evepyeiav) procession of the Holy Spirit and by no means can it be transferred by induction to his mode of existence. The energies of the Holy Spirit are a result of the common free will and activity of the Holy Trinity. However, the hyparxis of the Holy Spirit is an act of the hypostasis of the Father. Therefore, the Son participates in the mission and the energies of the Holy Spirit, but the Holy Spirit owes his existence to the Father alone.65
According to Palamas, the energetic (Korr’ evepyeiav) procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father through the Son is eternal and it becomes temporal when the Father and the Son will it. The energy as uncreated pre-exists its realization and manifestation, therefore, his being a Spirit is precontemplated on the Son emanating from him only according to time (em Tcru Yiou 'TrpofteajpeiTGa to eivai aurou IIv€i3p.a too aurou eivai, ei KaL p.T| Kcrra xpb^ov).66
In order to illustrate the eternal existence of the common energies in the Holy Trinity and their temporal manifestation, Palamas uses for the first time in the Greek patristic tradition the analogy of “love” (epax;) which was introduced in the West by Augustine67 and used by others. Thus, according to Palamas, the Spirit of the Word from on high is like a mysterious love of the Father towards the Word mysteriously begotten; it is the same love as that possessed by the Word and the well beloved Son of the Father towards him who begat him; this he does in so far as he comes from the Father conjointly with this love and this love rests, naturally, on him.68 Gregory, referring to the Incarnate Logos, argues that the Holy Spirit is indeed the
64 A670S aTToSeucTiKos 2.6, p. 83, 3-6.
65 Ibid. 2.26, p. 102, 10-15.
“Ibid. 2.14, p. 92, 1-3.
67 De Trinitate IX.X.15, PL 42, 968-969.
68 Capita Physica Theologica 36, PG 150, 1145A.
34 Spirit of God, Spirit of Christ
Spirit of the Son as well, but He receives this from the Father, because of his attribute as the Spirit of Truth, Wisdom and the Word; since Truth and Wisdom are words appropriate to the Genitor.69
Gregory Palamas is obviously referring, on the one hand, to the eternal relations within the Holy Trinity and particularly to the mutual use (xpf|ai<;) of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son, and on the other hand, to the Holy Spirit’s temporal mission. However, this “love” which “comes from the Father conjointly with this love” is by no means the hypostasis of the Holy Spirit coming into existence from the Father and the Son, because in his use (xpfjcriv) the Son already possesses the Holy Spirit and this “love” abides in him. But the Son possesses the Holy Spirit because he comes out from the Father in his existence.70
If we take into account that, according to Palamas, every name applied to God refers to his energy and not to his essence or hypostasis, this characterization of the Holy Spirit as “love”, used by the Father and the Son, applies not to the hypostasis of the Holy Spirit but to the common energy which is the love of the Triune God. It exists eternally in God and is manifested in time coming out from the Father through the Son and the Holy Spirit.71
That Gregory Palamas by this image of love, strange to the eastern tradition, is referring to the energetic procession (koit’ evepyeiav) of the Holy Spirit and not to his causal existence is clear from his explanation that the Holy Spirit is pre-eternal joy of both the Father and the Son. As common to both as concerns its use (xpfjo-is), hence it is sent by both only to those who are worthy, but being only of the Father, as far as its existence is concerned. Therefore, the Holy Spirit proceeds alone from the Father as concerns its existence.72 By this clear distinction between the kccO’ inrap^Lv procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father alone and his kgit’ evepyeiav from the Father through the Son or from the Father and the Son, Palamas excludes the idea of filioque. The double procession of the Holy Spirit, to Palamas’ judgment, introduces confusion or relativism of the hypostases and their hypostatic properties. In the case in which the Father and the Son, as one principle, proceed the Holy Spirit, then they are confused into a cjnxjLKTi
69 Ibid.
70 A6"yo<; dt-TToSeiKTiKos 2.26, p. 102, 12-15.
71 Ilepl €va>crea>s Kal SiaKptcreax; 21, p. 84, 10-15.
72 Capita Physica Theologica 36, PG 150, 1145A.
Procession of the Holy Spirit according to later Greek Fathers 35
dSuxKpima and the Holy Spirit himself as the unity of the two hypostases is not clearly distinguished as a hypostasis.73
On the other hand, the distinction between the kc^O’ \rcrap£iv and the Korr’ evepyeiav procession of the Holy Spirit safeguards man’s participation in the uncreated grace, i.e. the common energies of the Triune God, and at the same time excludes the danger of polytheism.74
Mark of Ephesus
Mark Eugenicus, Metropolitan of Ephesus, arguing against the Latins and the pro-unionists at the Council of Florence and later against those who had subscribed to its Decree or accepted its pronouncement that the Holy Spirit has his essence and his subsistent being from the Father and the Son sim- ultaneously and proceeds from both eternally as from one principle and one spiration,75 insists that the Holy Spirit derives his hypostatic hyparxis from the Father alone.76
I am not going to discuss Mark’s arguments in defence of the Holy Spirit’s procession from the Father alone or the implications of the twofold proces- sion of the Holy Spirit, but I should like to underline briefly his criticism of the presupposition and theological foundations of filioque as they were presented by his contemporaries.
The first point which draws Mark’s criticism is the Latin theory that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, but as from one principle and cause and by one spiration.77 Mark argues that this is unacceptable, because the twofold procession of the Holy Spirit as from one principle makes the Father and the Son two principles or confuses their Persons.78
Since the Father is the unique “cause” and the Son “caused”, the Son can never be cause (amov) not only because this contradicts the uniqueness of the Father’s causality79 but also because it makes the Son cause and at the same time caused (amo-amcn-ov) which is absurd.80 On the other hand, the “cause” and the “caused” cannot be put together and make one principle
73 A Radovic: The Mystery of the Holy Trinity According to St. Gregory Palamas (in Greek), Thessaloniki, 1973, p. 150.
74 Theophanes 20-21, Mantzarides, 2, pp. 245-248.
75 Conciliorum Oecumenicorum Decreta (Jedin), Freiburg im Bresgau, 1962, p. 502, 39-45.
76 Capita Syllogistica 31 (Petit) PO 15, p. 401; Confessio Fidei (Petit), PO 15, p. 435.
77 Conciliorum Oecumenicorum Decreta , p. 502, 39-45.
78 Capita Syllogistica 24, p. 393.
79 Ibid. 18, p. 388.
80 Ibid. 34, pp. 402-3.
36 Spirit of God, Spirit of Christ
and cause, just as the Father cannot be Father and Son or the Son Son and Father.81 The notions of “cause” and “caused” imply logical opposition, but according to the Latin tradition the opposition of relations produces distinc- tion and differentiation of the Persons and not unity of them.82
Mark also objects to the Latins’ argument that just as Father, Son and Holy Spirit in creating the world are not three principles but one, without losing their hypostatic individualities, in the same way Father and Son proceeding in common the Holy Spirit are not two principles but one without confusion or mixture.83 Following Gregory the Cypriot84 and Gregory Pala- mas,85 Mark explains that there is a difference between the triadic principle (TpiaSiKT) apxTi) which is the principle and cause of the creation and the Fatherly one (TraTpiKT) apxTi) which is the principle of the divinity.86 As far as the creation of the world is concerned, the three divine Persons, on the ground of their common energy, power and will, create jointly as one principle.87 But it is not so with the existential procession of the Holy Spirit, which is a hypostatic faculty of the Father alone.88 The induction of the mode of being of the Holy Spirit from the mode of being of the created order would cast the Holy Spirit down to the rank of the creation.89
On the ground of the distinction between these two principles the state- ment of Gregory of Nazianzus that the Son is rj €k tt)s apx'rjs “PX'H90 does not mean that the Son is principle of the Holy Spirit but principle of the creation, because, conjointly with the Father and the Holy Spirit, he created it.91 It is noteworthy, Mark says, that Gregory, referring to the existential relation of the divine Prosopa, calls them “”Avapxov Kai apxT] *cd to |JL€t& rps apxTis”.92 Thus he makes clear that the Holy Spirit comes forth not from the dpxT], i.e. the Son, but with the apxfj from the Unoriginated apxfj i.e. the Father.93 The procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son
81 Ibid. 18, p. 388.
82 Ibid.
83 Ibid. 41, p. 408; 46, p. 411.
84 De Processione Spiritus Sancti, PG 142, 281BD-282AD; Scripta Apologetica PG 142, 242BC.
85 ’EmcrToX/T) irpos ’Akiv8vvov 1.5, Meyendorff, p. 207, 14-30.
86 Capita Syllogistica, 32, p. 401.
87 Ibid. 41, p. 408.
88 Ibid.
89 Ibid. 1, p. 370.
90 Oratio 45, 9, PG 36, 633C.
91 Capita Syllogistica 1, p. 371.
92 Oratio 42, 15, PG 36, 476A.
93 Capita Syllogistica 1, p. 372.
Procession of the Holy Spirit according to later Greek Fathers 37
as from one joint principle and cause, Mark maintains, is impossible, because the faculty of being principle and cause is a hypostatic or personal property.94 As such, however, it distinguishes the Persons and does not unite them.95 As long as the Son is considered as a principle of the Holy Spirit’s procession, therefore, diarchy can in no way be excluded from the Holy Trinity, since everything which naturally owes its being to the two cannot be considered as coming from one.96 On the other hand, the diarchy and the danger of introducing two causes cannot be avoided by considering the Son as the ajxeaov or TToppu) cause and the Father as the ep.p-eo'ov or TroppcoTepco or 8ia rov TTpoo-exous.97 These notions indicate opposed relations which result in the distinction of those principles and not in their identity. Therefore, Mark concludes, ovk apa ev amov 6 ncmjp eorai Kai 6 Yios avTiK€L|xeva aiTia ovra.98
Also the twofold procession of the Holy Spirit as from one principle is not possible even if he proceeds “from” the Father “through” the Son. Everything which derives its existence from someone through some other owes its existence to two causes. Every human being coming into existence “from a man” “through a woman” has two causes and two principles99 just as Jacob born from Abraham through Isaac has two causes of his being in spite of the fact that the one is eyyvov and the other eyyuTepov.100 Thus, concludes Mark, as long as the Son is a principle of the Holy Spirit’s procession in no way can diarchy in the Holy Trinity be avoided.101
The second point of Mark’s criticism concerns the meaning of the prep- ositions “from” (ck) and “through” (8ia) in respect to the procession of the Holy Spirit. At the Council of Florence they were accepted as synonymous102 and on this ground the notion that the Holy Spirit proceeds “from the Father through the Son” was considered to be identical to the notion that he proceeds “from the Father and from the Son”. Thus the Latins have argued that the Latinizers have accepted that the procession of the Holy Spirit “through” the Son implies that the Son as well as the Father is the cause or
94 Ibid. 11, p. 388.
95 Confessio Fidei , 2, p. 439.
96 Capita Syllogistica 1, p. 370.
97 Ibid. p. 370; Ibid. 10, p. 382; Ibid. 42, p. 408.
98 Ibid. 19, p. 389.
99 Ibid. 42, p. 408.
100 Ibid. 39, p. 407.
101 Ibid. 40, pp. 407-8.
102 Relatio de rebus a se gestis 5, (Petit) PO 15, p. 447.
38 Spirit of God, Spirit of Christ
principle of the Holy Spirit.103 Therefore, the filioque clause was not an innovation but the common faith of East and West, expressed only in two slightly different formulas, lawfully added to the Creed for good and suf- ficient reasons.104
In refuting this idea, Mark argues with the previous Greek Fathers that the prepositions “from” and “through” bear the same meaning and imply causality only when they refer to the creation or to the energetic manifes- tation of the Holy Spirit and never to his mode of being.105 Indeed, Mark admits, certain Greek Fathers, in referring to the procession of the Holy Spirit, have said that he “proceeds from the Father through the Son”. However, they meant not the mode of being of the Holy Spirit but his consubstantiality with the Father and the Son. Maximus the Confessor underlines this by stating that the Holy Spirit proceeds substantially from the Father through the ineffably generated Son.106
On the other hand, by the formula “through the Son” certain Fathers have suggested not the Holy Spirit’s origin but his procession which is simultaneous with the begetting of the Son from the Father. Therefore, “through” here means not “from” but “with” or “together” as Gregory of Nyssa makes clear.107
That these prepositions bear a quite different meaning, Mark goes on, is proved by the fact that the Greek Fathers, referring to the procession of the Holy Spirit, never say that he proceeds “from” the Son or “through” the Father but “from” the Father “through” the Son. This “through the Son” procession of the Holy Spirit is applied by the Fathers to the Holy Spirit’s energetic manifestation.108 Therefore, they do not use it alone but always in connection with the Father’s participation in it and in the formula “from the Father through the Son”.109 Thus, Mark concludes, the phrase “from the Son” - with reference to the procession of the Holy Spirit - implies not principle or cause but channel through or with which something is mani- fested, conveyed, known or given.110
The third point to which Mark comes over and over again is the Latins’ view that the existing “order” in the enumeration of the divine Prosopa of
103 Conciliorum Oecumenicorum Decreta, pp. 501, 35-502, 5.
104 Ibid.
105 Confessio Fidei 7, pp. 436-437.
106 Capita Syllogistica 10, p. 381; Confessio Fidei 1, p. 436.
107 Capita Syllogistica, 38, pp. 406-7.
108 Ibid. 20-21, pp. 389-391.
109 Confessio Fidei 1, p. 438.
110 Ibid. 437.
Procession of the Holy Spirit according to later Greek Fathers 39
the Holy Trinity corresponds to their order of origin and nature. Thus the Holy Spirit being third in order after the Father and the Son derives his being from both.111 In Mark’s opinion such an ontological order does not exist in the Holy Trinity. Not because the Holy Trinity is otTotKTos but because it is above any kind of order.112 Therefore the divine Prosopa, as Gregory of Nazianzus has already said, are pronumerated and connumerated and subnumerated.113 When the Latins recall Basil’s statement: “Even if the Holy Spirit is third in dignity and order, why need he be third also in nature?” 114 to prove their case, they misinterpret it. Basil does not say that there is an order of nature in the Holy Trinity, but arguing in supposition he allows for the sake of argument that if the Holy Spirit is third in order and dignity, even so he is not third in nature.115
If in the formula of baptism,116 Mark goes on, the Father comes first, the Son second and the Holy Spirit third, it is because things which are to be enumerated have to be mentioned one after another. The Father, possessing as cause a logical priority towards the Son, comes first; the Son as caused second and the Holy Spirit perforce comes third. He comes third not only because he is cru|X7r\T|pamK6v of the Holy Trinity, but because if he were to come second it would imply that he was also a Son of the Father.117
In Mark’s judgment, even if w-e accept that there is a certain “order” in the Trinity on account of the triune deity, it by no means leads to filioque. This is made clear by Basil118 who states that the Spirit proceeds from the Father alone and depends on the Son, that is to say he is placed in order after him, not because he proceeds from him but because he is apprehended with him.119 “Dependent on” and “be caused of” are two quite different things. The first implies not more than “ordered with” while the second points to the cause and principle of being.120 Thus, Mark concludes, while the “order” of confessing or pronouncing the names of the divine Prosopa and their enumeration does not point to the double procession of the Holy Spirit, the Latin notion of ontological and natural order introduces to the
111 Capita Syllogistica 6, pp. 376-8.
112 Ibid. p. 377.
113 Oratio 34, 15, PG 36, 253D-256A.
n* Adversus Eunomium 3.1, Gamier 1, 272BC. 115 Mansi 31A, 869CD.
1.6 Math. 28, 19.
1.7 Capita Syllogistica 6, pp. 376-7.
1.8 Ps Basil , Ep. 38,4, Courtonne, 1, pp. 84-5.
119 Capita Syllogistica 6, p. 377.
120 Ibid.
40 Spirit of God, Spirit of Christ
Trinity subnumerations (vmxpi/ftp/ricreis) and degradations (u7ro(3a$p,icr€is) which could easily lead to the subordination of the hypostases.121
The fourth point of Mark’s criticism refers to the theory of Thomas Aquinas according to which only opposed relations of origin distinguished the divine Prosopa. These opposite relations exist between Father and Son as well as between Father and Holy Spirit because paternity and procession produce opposite relations and consequently distinctions. But as the Holy Spirit cannot be really distinct of the Father unless he proceeds from the Father, in the same way he cannot be really distinct from the Son unless he proceeds from the Son. On this ground the idea of the Son as an origin for the procession of the Holy Spirit - indeed connected to the first origin, the Father - is necessary and the filioque clause well founded.122
Opposing this theory, Mark remarks, with the Fathers previous to him, that the distinction of the hypostases is grounded not in their opposite relations and not in their different origins, but only in their different modes of being from the one principle and origin, i.e. the Father.123 The mode of being of the Son by way of generation and that of the Holy Spirit by way of procession, as perfect acts of the Father’s hypostatic faculty, clearly distin- guish them from their own origin and cause, i.e. the Father, as well as from among themselves. For this reason, Mark continues, although the Holy Spirit does not proceed from the Son, the two are really distinct both by their constitution and by their mode of being.124
In opposition to the Thomistic theory of different origin and opposite relations, Mark underlines the distinction of hypostases kcxt& tt|v avTicpao-iv, which is the result of their different mode of being and their individual properties. Thus between “unbegotten”, “begotten” and “proceeding” or the “cause” and those “caused” there is a distinction according to the avTLcpaais but not according to their opposite relations and their different origins. This distinction kcxt& rqv avTicpaatv on the one hand safeguards the hypostatic differentiation of the divine Prosopa, and on the other is in accordance with the teaching of the eastern Fathers, who consider the Father as the unique principle of the Holy Spirit and reject any participation of the Son in the Spirit’s mode of being.125
Mark does not leave unnoticed the existing difference between the hy-
121 Ibid. 43, p. 409.
122 Ibid. 13, p. 384. For Thomas Aquinas’ arguments cf. Summa Theologica la, 28, 1-4.
123 Capita Syllogistica 13, p. 384.
124 Ibid. 25-26, pp. 396-7.
125 Ibid. 13, pp. 384-5.
Procession of the Holy Spirit according to later Greek Fathers 41
postatic procession of the Holy Spirit and his mission or energetic manifes- tation and criticizes the partisans of filioque that their failure to pay the required attention to it leads them to confusion of the existential (KaH’ tbrap^iv) and the energetic (kc^t’ evepyeiav) procession of the Holy Spirit.126
Following the other Greek Fathers, Mark says that the mission of the Holy Spirit is a common act of the three divine Prosopa and takes place in time and for a particular purpose.127 This mission does not belong to the eternal hypostatic properties, but to the ad extra activities of the Holy Trinity. Thus John 16:7 is applied not to the hypostatic procession of the Holy Spirit but to his grace, power and manifestation, i.e. his energetic procession.128
Christ, Mark goes on to say, by his infusion of the Holy Spirit on his disciples after the resurrection, gave to them neither the essence nor the hypostasis of the Holy Spirit, but his energy.129 Also on the day of Pentecost neither the essence nor the hypostasis of the Holy Spirit was manifested and bestowed but his energy, which coming from the Father through the Son in the Holy Spirit is common or rather identical to the three divine Prosopa.130 Therefore, the distinction between ousia and energies in God is of cardinal importance for the proper answer to the question of the procession of the Holy Spirit.
Mark Eugenicus summarizes successfully the Greek patristic tradition on the issue of the procession of the Holy Spirit, not simply by repeating the arguments of previous Fathers but by advancing their reasoning and putting the problem in the perspective of his own time. Indeed, his explanation bears a polemical nuance. This is because he has advanced his arguments in a difficult situation, fighting against the Latins and the Greek pro-unionists, acting as the main defender and representative of the Greek patristic trad- itional line. For this reason he sometimes goes to extremes and discredits his opponents’ arguments. He reacts to the Decree of Florence by his insistence upon the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father alone, basing his arguments upon the teaching of ancient Fathers. Tracing the implications of filioque he follows to a large extent the line of Photius and in refuting the foundations of filioque and the arguments of his opponents
126 Ibid. 4, p. 373.
127 Ibid.
128 Ibid. p. 375.
129 Ibid. 8, pp. 375-6.
130 Ibid. 4, pp. 375-6.
42 Spirit of God, Spirit of Christ
in favour of it, he mainly follows the line of reasoning used by Gregory Palamas.131
Mark’s discussion on the distinction between ousia and energies and its implications for the question of the procession of the Holy Spirit is rather limited, because he was prevented by the Emperor from discussing this topic at the Council of Florence. Nevertheless, it is quite clear that he does treat the subject of the procession of the Holy Spirit from this angle and the existing difference between the divine essence and the divine uncreated energies determines his whole discussion on the subject of the Holy Spirit’s procession.
Mark himself was considered by theologians belonging to the traditional patristic school as the “criterion” of the sound doctrine132 and the “bright and great and godly wise herald of truth”.133 It is not surprising, therefore, that his teaching on the procession of the Holy Spirit has had a tremendous influence among his contemporaries as well as upon later Orthodox theo- logians until the present day.
Conclusion
If we are to draw some conclusions, we may summarize the account given by saying that the idea according to which the Holy Spirit derives his being equally and coordinally from the Father and the Son is foreign to Greek patristic theology. This is neither accidental nor a mere obstinate attitude of the Greek Fathers towards the Latin tradition, but the natural outcome of their theological insight and their approach to the mystery of the triune God-head.
The earlier Greek Fathers - particularly after the Cappadocians clearly distinguished between ousia and hypostasis , common or natural, and indi- vidual or hypostatic properties, which are not interchangeable or confounded - steadfastly argued that the Father is the principle, cause and fountain-head of deity. Thus, the Father, deriving his being from himself, brings forth from his essence, but on the capacity of his hypostatic property, the Son by way of generation, and the Holy Spirit by way of procession. He confers to them his whole essence but he does not communicate to them his hypostatic
131 See on this topic A. Schmemann: ‘O tryios MapKCK 6 Ev7€viko<;, 34 (1951), pp. 34- 43; 230-241.
132 Marci Ephesii, Morientis Oratio ad Amicos, Petit, PO 15, p. 489.
133 Cf. C. Tsirpanlis, Mark Eugenicus and the Council of Florence, Thessaloniki 1974, p. 107.
Procession of the Holy Spirit according to later Greek Fathers 43
property of begetting and proceeding. Therefore, the Father remains the unique “cause” of being of the Son and of the Holy Spirit who are “caused”.
On this basis the later Greek Fathers discussed and developed further the issue of the procession of the Holy Spirit and on this ground they came up against the different approach on the subject by their Latin counterparts. The Latin doctrine of a twofold procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son was rejected by the Greeks who felt that such a notion introduces two principles and two causes to the Holy Trinity. This, of course, could not be reconciled with the idea of the divine monarchia of the Father, which was a keystone of faith.
The Latins’ explanation that the Holy Spirit proceeds in a primordial sense from the Father who endowed the Son with the capacity to produce the Holy Spirit is such a way that the Son is not the “cause” but a “joint- cause”, did not satisfy the Greek Fathers. In disagreement with the pro- unionists, they thought that this idea leads to diarchy or to confusion of the hypostases. If the Father and the Son, they objected, proceed the Holy Spirit in their distinct hypostatic faculties then two causes and two principles are introduced into the Holy Trinity. If this occurs as from one Person then the confusion of the hypostases is inevitable. If from their common essence then the Holy Spirit on account of his common essence must participate in his own mode of being.
The double procession of the Holy Spirit as from one cause, the Greek Fathers maintained, is impossible not only because the Father proceeds the Holy Spirit as a perfect “cause” and producer, but also because the capacity of being “cause” is a hypostatic and individual property, and as such un- communicable. The hypostatic properties distinguish and by no means unite the Prosopa. On the other hand, the “cause” and that which is “caused” cannot be a joint cause, because their difference implies distinction and not unity.
The Greek Fathers were in agreement with the Latins who maintained that the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit made jointly the created order acting as one cause and principle - and not three - without confusion of their own hypostases. They were in disagreement, however, with the Latins’ inference that this can also be applied to the mode of being of the Holy Spirit. The conviction of the Greek Fathers was that the TpiaSiKT] apX'H as the common cause of the creation must not be confused with the TraTpiKT) apxT) which remains the unique cause of being of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.
Any induction of the mode of being of the Holy Spirit from the mode of
44 Spirit of God, Spirit of Christ
being of the creation was felt by the Greek Fathers to confuse creation and divinity.
The later Greek Fathers were not prepared to accept the idea of the double procession of the Holy Spirit as a necessary consequence of his opposed relations of origin towards the Father and the Son. To their un- derstanding it is not the opposite relations of origin that are the foundation and cause of the hypostatic existence and differentiation of the divine hy- postases, but the different mode of being of the Son by way of generation and of the Holy Spirit by way of procession from their unoriginated unique principle and cause, i.e. the Father.
The Greek Fathers were also cautious and rejected the Latins’ conclusion that the “order” of manifestation and names of the divine Prosopa implies their existential and natural order as well. For the Greeks there is no ontological order whatsoever in the Holy Trinity. If in the formula of baptism in the doxology and the confession of the Holy Trinity the Father comes first, the Son second and the Holy Spirit third it is so because the Father, as “cause”, possesses a logical priority over the Son and the Holy Spirit who are “caused”. The Son naturally comes second and the Holy Spirit perforce third, because if he came after the Father then he must be Son.
The filioque controversy gave to the later Greek Fathers the opportunity to thoroughly study and develop the idea of difference between ousia and energies in the Triune God - a topic which rests in the insight of the earlier Greek Fathers - and, in the light of this distinction, to consider the question of the procession of the Holy Spirit. This outlook enabled them to make a clear distinction between the Holy Spirit’s essential derivation and his en- ergetic manifestation. On this ground they argued that the KafF \map£iv procession of the Holy Spirit is quite different from his kcxt’ evepyeiav procession. In his KafF umxp^iv procession the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone, yet in his KaT’ evepyeiav or kcxt’ eKcpavcxiv he comes out from the Father through the Son and even from the Father and from the Son, because all divine energies are realized from the Father through the Son in the Holy Spirit. Thus the prepositions “from” and “through”, ac- cording to the Greek Fathers, bear the same meaning and they can be interchanged only when referring to the Holy Spirit’s energetic manifesta- tion. In respect to his essential derivation the Holy Spirit proceeds “from” the Father and by no means “from” or “through” the Son.
By this distinction between essence and energies the Greek Fathers were able not only to avoid any confusion between the mode of being of the Holy Spirit and his energetic manifestation or his activities, but also to point out that this kcxt’ evepyeiav procession of the Holy Spirit “through” the Son is
Procession of the Holy Spirit according to later Greek Fathers 45
eternal and as such must not be restricted or confused with his temporal mission.
It is true that, in dealing with the procession of the Holy Spirit, the Greek Fathers, particularly the ancient ones, are not always explicit or clear-cut in their account. We have to remember, though, that the issue became a theological problem for the Greek Fathers only in the ninth century. There- fore, early authorities such as Gregory of Nyssa, Epiphanius, Didymus of Alexandria, Cyril of Alexandria, etc., in a time when the issue of the procession of the Holy Spirit was undefined, unclarified and unsettled, made statements which, if they are to be evaluated in themselves and with later standards, can be interpreted in the sense of filioque. This conclusion, though, cannot be maintained when these statements are considered within the whole trinitarian thought of those Fathers.
In spite of certain ambiguities, one point, I think, is beyond question, namely, that the “consensus” of the Greek Fathers never tolerated a hy- postatic procession of the Holy Spirit a patre filioque even in the sense of ex utroque tamquam ab uno principio et unica spiritione.
HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLICATIONS OF THE FILIOQUE CONTROVERSY
DIETRICH RITSCHL
The Church in the West, in a long theological development, has added the word filioque to the phrase “the Holy Spirit . . . who proceeds from the Father” in the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed, the only truly ecumenical creed in Christianity. The thesis is that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and from tHe Son. This reference to the procession of the Holy Spirit would be completely misunderstood if it were taken to be something other than a reference to an inner-trinitarian process. “Within” the triune God, within the “immanent Trinity”, the Holy Spirit is to be understood as experiencing an eternal processio from both the Father and the Son. To understand the controversy over this issue,* 1 one must let one’s thoughts sink into the classical trinitarian modes of argumentation. The theologian will then discover - perhaps much to his surprise - that the issue is of considerable relevance to our contemporary understanding of the Church, of ethics, of authoritative teaching and - last but not least - of the various forms of the charismatic movement in our time. It could be argued, of course, that it is daring to move such subtle issues of inner-trinitarian speculations to the centre of attention, especially at a time when many of us find it difficult to speak about God at all. However, it could well be the case that the very study of this subtle issue will show that western theology has suffered for a long time from a tendency to speak of God “in general”, i.e. not of God as the triune God. Such modalistic tendency (the reduction of Father, Son and Spirit to three aspects of the Godhead, as it were) would indeed create difficulties for “God-talk”.
• Dietrich Ritschl (Swiss Reformed) is professor of systematic theology at the Uni- versity of Mainz, Federal Republic of Germany.
1 Cf. my briefer account of this controversy, “Geschichte der Kontroverse um das Filioque”, in Concilium, Vol. 10, October 1979, pp. 499-504.
Historical development and implications 47
Behind the controversy lies a conception of the Trinity which is different in the eastern and the western parts of the early Church. The controversy itself, however, had at its centre at all times the unilateral decision of the West to add an important trinitarian clause to the ecumenical creed. It is difficult throughout the history of the controversy to draw dividing lines between theological and political thoughts and sentiments. The early western theologians’ incomplete understanding of the intricacies of eastern theology, and the eastern theologians’ difficulties in appreciating western church his- torical developments, as well as their criticism of Roman papal authority, added much to the complexity of the controversy. The situation is further burdened by the fact that western theology did not display any convincing consistency in defending the filioque theologically. Medieval theologians, notably Anselm and Thomas Aquinas, advanced justifications which were quite different from the traditional “double procession” as taught by Au- gustine or in the “Athanasianum”.
The western Church’s addition of the filioque to the Nicene Creed2 has been refuted by theologians of the Orthodox churches at different stages of the history of the controversy3 for at least three reasons. The addition is said to be: (a) non-canonical, i.e. not based upon ecumenical council decisions, (b) not grounded in the New Testament and in early tradition, and (c) dogmatically untrue and of dangerous consequences. Orthodoxy today can look back on an impressive array of defenders of the original text of the Nicene Creed, reaching from John of Damascus to Patriarch Anthimos’ reply to Pope Leo XIII in 1894.
The problem of dealing with this controversy today presents itself on two levels:
1. Is the filioque merely an addition to the text of the Nicene Creed - an addition which contemporary Orthodox theologians could perhaps tolerate or explain historically as a typical expression of Ambrosian-Augustinian trinitarian thoughts? Or is the filioque the symptom of a deep difference in the eastern and western understandings of the Trinity and, in consequence,
2 Western theology had the filioque long before the whole western Church had it. The council decisions of Toledo in 446-7 and in 589 (the filioque- phrase in the council of 400 is most likely a later addition) are only part of the story. Not until the early eleventh century was the filioque officially sung in the western mass.
3 Cf. the classic history by H. B. Swete, On the History of the Doctrine of the Procession of the Holy Spirit from the Apostolic Age to the Death of Charlemagne, 1876; also M. Jugie, “Origine de la controverse sur l’addition du Filioque au symbole,” Revue des Sciences philosophiques et theologiques , 28, 1939, pp. 369ff. ; also Francois Dvomik, Le schisme de Photius, histoire et legende , Paris, Editions du Cerf, 1950.
48 Spirit of God, Spirit of Christ
of piety and worship, of the dogmatic understanding of the meaning of the presence of Christ as well as of the Holy Spirit’s contact with the Church and with humankind?
2. The filioque is considered in the East and in the West in quite different ways and an entirely different degree of importance is assigned to it in the two parts of the Church. This is so not because of different historical analyses, but primarily because of the fact that the West assigns at least as much dignity to the Apostles’ Creed as it does to the Nicene Creed. More- over, the importance of fixed credal formulations is seen differently in East and West. (There are, of course, among the various western traditions, further differences of evaluation which need to be taken into account, i.e. between the Roman Catholic Church, the Anglican community and the different Protestant denominations. Example: the writer of this paper is free to favour the Orthodox critique of the filioque without getting into difficulties with the church which ordained him.)
These two levels of the problem will have to be kept in mind by those who search for a possible consensus on the filioque question. A promising analysis of the issue depends upon a proper distinction between the historical and the systematic aspects of the question. In the following account of the history of the controversy and of its implications, we will proceed from a brief summary of the external historical developments to a discussion of the theological issues from the point of view of history of doctrine and conclude by briefly describing the more recent stages of the dispute. Parts II and III will pay special attention to the systematic-theological aspects.
I. A brief account of the external evidence of the controversy
The bare facts and years of the history of the controversy provide an exceptionally incomplete picture of the issue in question. This is surprising only if one considers the controversy a matter of conciliar decisions. It is, however, much more than that. The councils of Toledo4 and the synods of Gentilly, Frankfurt, Friuli and Aachen promulgated decisions which by no means represented the official teaching of the pope in Rome, although the concept of the filioque unquestionably did represent a theological tendency in Latin theology if not a necessary corollary of the generally accepted trinitarian concepts of Tertullian,5 Novatian,6 Ambrose7 and Augustine.8
4 The many councils of Toledo (from 400 until the sixteenth century, cf. Migne PL
84, 327-562) reflect the special problems of the Church in Spain: Arianism (Priscilli-
anism), the Muslim occupation, the reconquest, the replacing of the Mozarabic rite,
etc.
Historical development and implications 49
Moreover, the official decisions of the Church in the East, especially at Constantinople, must be seen in the context of problems connected with the Latin Church’s missionary strategy and activity among the Slavs (Bulgaria in particular) and other tensions with Rome,9 not to speak of the fact that the Latin West had at best understood half of what the Cappadocian Fathers had been teaching about the Trinity. The classical Eastern Orthodox con- cepts concerning the Trinity and the Holy Spirit were known to the West (and to Augustine in particular) only in the form of summarized end-results. The background of these results was not understood.10 Nor did the eastern theologians, at the crucial time of the controversy, understand the difficult situation of the Church in Spain in relation to new forms of Arianism, or the peculiar interests of the Frankish Church at the time of Charlemagne. In other words: the problem of the addition of the filioque has its context in peculiar developments of history and in gradually evolving theological positions; the possibilities for a consensus faded away with the increasing lack of understanding of the other Church’s tradition and current problems.
The following list of events and dates, representing a selection of relevant stages in the history of the controversy, is, therefore, no more than a schematic presentation of a problem which is, in fact, much broader.
EVENTS AND TEXTS
WEST EAST
Early fifth century: filioque in
liturgical use in Spain (against Priscillianism?) Toledo (446/
47)
Athanasianum (“Spiritus s. a Patre et Filio . . . procedens”,
22)
589 3rd Council of Toledo12 633 4th Council of Toledo13
5 Adv. Praxean (after 213).
6 De trinitate (before 250).
7 The three books De Spiritu sancto.
8 De trinitate (399-419) and ep. 11 and 120.
9 Cf. Francois Dvornik, Byzance et la primaute romaine , Paris, Editions du Cerf, 1964.
10 Cf. B. Altaner’s summary of his investigation into the question of the western reception of eastern theology in Revue benedictine, 62, 1952, pp. 201ff.-215.
11 Cf. J. N. D. Kelly, The Athanasian Creed , New York, 1964, esp. pp. 86-90.
12 Texts in A. Hahn, Bibliothek d. Symbole u. Glaubensregeln, Breslau, 1897, 3rd edition, pp. 232ff.
13 Ibid., pp. 235f.
50 Spirit of God, Spirit of Christ
After 742: John of Damascus, Expos, fid. orth. I, 8, 12, advances the first eastern refutation of the filioque
767 Synod of Gentiily 794 Synod of Frankfurt 796 Synod of Friuli: Paulinus of Aquileia (d. 802) defended the filioque ( Migne PL 99, 9-683)
Struggle between Frankish and eastern monks at St Sabas monastery in Jerusalem over the formers’ use of the filioque
808 Leo III writes Charlemagne that he believes the filioque to be correct but does not want it included in the Creed
809 Charlemagne asks Theodulf of Orleans (d. 821) to write his De Spiritu Sancto14
Synod of Aachen, filioque included in the Creed
810 Synod in Rome: Leo III declares the filioque orthodox but does not want it included in the Creed; two silver plaques with the text of the unaltered Nicene Creed exposed at St Peter’s in Rome
810 Alcuin’s Deprocessione Spiritus S.
858 Photius replaces Ignatius as Patriarch
863 Pope Nicholas I confirms Ignatius as Patriarch
The Latin Church claims Bulgaria
867 Photius (patriarch) condemns missionary activity of Rome in Bulgaria and rejects the filioque Council of Constantinople excommunicates Pope Nicholas Also 867: Ignatius reinstated
869 Rome anathematizes Photius
869 Council of Constantinople
confirms Rome’s condemnation of Photius
870 Rome condemns Ignatius’ claim on Bulgaria
Papal legates to Constantinople sign the Creed without filioque
877 Ignatius dies; Photius again patriarch
14 Migne PL 105, 187ff.
Historical development and implications 51
and confirm Photius’ reinstallation (so F. Dvornik against older research)
892 Rome excommunicates Photius? (Dvornik thinks this a later forgery)
1009 Pope Sergius IV includes the filioque in his statement of faith addressed to Constantinople 1014 Pope Benedict VIII16 officially adds the filioque to the Nicene Creed (pressured by Emperor Heinrich II) as part of the Roman mass
1274 Council of Lyons,17 reunion attempted
Eastern delegates accept the filioque (and papal supremacy)
1 438/39 Council of Florence, the patriarch and all Orthodox delegates (except Mark of Ephesus) signed the filioque as well as other points of Roman doctrine
879-80 Council of Constantinople recalls decision of 869 886 Emperor Leo VI deposes Photius
Cf. Photius’ Liber de Spiritus S. mystagogia15
Pope Sergius’ namesake, Patriarch Sergius, omits the pope’s name from the official diptychs (such has happened before by mistake)
Emperor Michael VIII (1259-82)
reapproaches Rome in need of help against the Turks
Eastern churches recall the agreement of the delegates to Lyons
No official proclamation of the
decision in Byzantium until 1452
29 May 1453: destruction of Constantinople (after combined Orthodox and Roman service at Hagia Sophia early on same day)
The actual “ filioque controversy”, as it is treated in history books, is connected with the name of Patriarch Photius, a learned theologian and a problematic personality. His doctrine - procession “from the Father alone” - was theologically grounded and politically defended. But since Photius had no western counterpart to match his theological and philosophical learn- ing, the West resorted to almost exclusively political manoeuvring in com- batting his position. This attitude remained typical of the western Church until and including Pope Benedict’s official addition of the filioque to the text of the creed. Benedict VIII himself was certainly more interested in the wars against Saracens and Greeks than in theology. A potentially serious theological controversy was reduced to political power struggles. The lucidity
15 Migne PC 102; cf. in addition to Dvornik the older article “Photius” by F. Katten- busch, in RE (3rd ed., 1904), pp. 374-393.
16 Migne PL 142, 1060f.
17 Denz. 460-63.
52 Spirit of God, Spirit of Christ
of Augustine’s trinitarian thoughts and the helpful attempts of explaining the differences between East and West by Maximus the Confessor in the seventh century seemed to have disappeared from the memory of the par- ticipants of the struggle. The Councils of Lyons and of Florence, with their attempts to impose the filioque upon the eastern Church, brought no solution and created much bitterness on the part of eastern Christians. The final mass, sung by Greeks and Latins together on the morning of 29 May 1453, the day of the destruction of Constantinople - fourteen years after the Council of Florence - is like a funeral song to a constructive theological exchange between East and West.
The thin contacts between the churches of the Reformation and eastern Orthodoxy did not lead to a re-examination of the filioque question. The confession books of the Reformation maintained the filioque , partly because of the relatively high esteem for the Athanasianum. One of the few experts on western theology in the East, Cyril Lukaris (murdered in 1638), did not reopen the discussion either. But Peter Mogila, also very familiar with western thought, attacked th e filioque in his Orthodox Confession together with papal primacy.
The development since the seventeenth century can again be listed ac- cording to significant events, whereby the theological positions of the An- glican and the Old Catholic churches become increasingly relevant to the filioque question.
EVENTS AND TEXTS
WEST
Seventeenth century: various theological writers in England reconsider the filioque in the interest of contact with Eastern Orthodoxy
1742 Pope Benedict XIV considers the filioque not as conditio sine qua non for union with the Orthodox Church18
Nineteenth century: several English theologians advocate the deletion of the filioque from the Nicene Creed
EAST
In Peter Mogila’s Orthodox Confession (1642-3) the filioque (and papal primacy) are called separating issues
18 Cf. however, the professio fidei Orientalibus (Maronitis) praescripta, Denz. 1459- 1473.
Historical development and implications 53
1874/5 Consultations between Old
Catholic and Orthodox Churches in Bonn, with Anglican representation. Old Catholics begin with process of deletion of the filioque
1894 Pope Leo XIII appeals to
Orthodox churches to unite with Rome
1912 Anglican-Orthodox consultations in St Petersburg, continued by 1931 Joint Doctrinal Commission19
which was reconstituted later and 1973 met in Oxford and 1976 in Moscow
1978 Lambeth Conference recommends the deletion of the filioque clause20
Patriarch Anthimos of Constantinople replies that union is acceptable if Rome can demonstrate full consensus in doctrine until ninth century, including the proof that the filioque has been taught by the early eastern Fathers
This very brief summary requires some preliminary comments. It is ob- vious from the outset that the actual development of the controversy was interwoven with political interests and conflicts. But to observe this does not permit the conclusion that the issue as such was a political one. It was not. The issue is a trinitarian question, viz. an entirely different development of concepts and expectations concerning trinitarian theology in East and West. More helpful than the reference to political and church-political interests would be the observation that East and West operated with “irreducibly diverse forms of thought”, as Avery Dulles puts it in quoting W. Kasper.21 But even after having insisted on this way of approaching the famous con- troversy one must proceed to an investigation at a deeper level. Nor will it suffice to list the passages in the few Greek Fathers who openly teach a
19 See Anglo-Russian Theological Conference, ed. H. M. Waddams, London, Faith Press, 1958; also H. A. Hodges, Anglicanism and Orthodoxy, London, SCM Press, 1955, and the essays by N. Zernov and G. Florovsky in A History of the Ecumenical Movement, ed. R. Rouse and S. C. Neill, London, 1954.
20 See Report of the Lambeth Conference 1978, pp. 51f.; also Anglican-Orthodox Dialogue, The Moscow Statement . . . Joint Doctrinal Commission 1976, London, SPCK, 1977, ed. K. Ware and C. Davey, pp. 97ff., with a history of the dialogue, pp. 4-37.
21 Avery Dulles, SJ, The Survival of Dogma, Garden City, NY, Doubleday, 1973, p. 167.
54 Spirit of God, Spirit of Christ
filioque- concept,22 or the statements of some more recent Orthodox theo- logians who seem to tolerate the filioque.23
The tension which erupted in the filioque controversy has its roots in the different trinitarian concepts in the Latin and Greek churches. These dif- ferences, in turn, are part of different forms of piety and of expectations regarding the accessibility of God or of the Holy Spirit. Without being able to go into a full investigation of these important areas, it will be necessary to list at least some of the basic trinitarian concepts which lie behind these other differences between the two parts of the Church.
II. The theological issues behind the controversy
The decision is arbitrary where to begin in describing the development of patristic trinitarian thought. If one is interested in the philosophical and systematic conditions available to the early Fathers for articulating trinitarian concepts, one might best look at the details of Aristotelian influence upon Greek theology in the fourth century, especially the second half and - with regard to Latin theology - one would have to look at Ambrose’s and Augustine’s peculiar ways of appropriating Plotinus’ philosophy (merged with Aristotelian and Stoic cosmology). If, however, one focuses on the history of theology in the narrower sense, the proper starting point in the East would be Athanasius24 and the fuller development of his thoughts in the Cappadocians25 and in Didymus the Blind and Evagrius; in the West it would undoubtedly be Tertullian.26 With regard to the roots of the filioque- problem one would have to look also at early conciliar decisions, i.e. the synod of Alexandria in 362 which was expressly confirmed in Con- stantinople in 381. Moreover, one would have to bear in mind that the whole conceptuality - in the East and in the West - would not have been possible without Plotinus’ philosophical categories. These analyses cannot, of course, be carried out here. The purpose of the following observations is
22 One passage in Cyril of Alexandria ( Thesaurus de . . . trinitate 34), one in Epi- phanius, also Ephraem Syrus, and others.
23 Moderate: the Russian theologian V. Bolotov; radical: Pavel Svetlov.
24 Cf. D. Ritschl, Athanasius, Zurich, EVZ, Theologische Studien 76, 1964; T. F. Torrance, “Athanasius: A Study in the Foundations of Classical Theology’’, Theology in Reconciliation, London, 1975, pp. 215-266, and Theodore C. Campbell, “The Doctrine of the Holy Spirit in the Theology of Athanasius”, Scottish Journal of Theology, November 1974, pp. 408-440.
25 Still important Karl Holl, Amphilochius v. Ikonium in seinem Verbaltnis zu den grossen Kappadoziern, Tubingen, 1904.
26 Cf. John Burleigh, “The Doctrine of the Holy Spirit in the Latin Fathers”, Scottish Journal of Theology, June 1954, pp. 113-132.
Historical development and implications 55
merely to provide some material for the understanding of the fact that the theology of the Church in the East could not possibly have produced the filioque concept whereas the Church in the West could perhaps not have done without it.
A. Athanasius and the Cappadocians
Theology in the East only gradually learnt to distinguish between owia and evepyeia and between ouaCa and tmocxTaais, or viroaTaai*; and Trpo- crtoTTov. It is clear, however, that, after the work of the Cappadocians the distinction between otxna and the evepyetai had become absolutely essential for Greek theology. Although the “energies” in God cannot be separated from his oixiCa it is impossible for the believers to reach God in his very own ovcrCa which transcends all beings, names and concepts. Any being has its being only in the evepyeiai of (or within) God and it is in participating in God’s energies that the believers can enter into communion with God. This view, the heart of Orthodox theology, fully developed by Gregory Palamas, is basically present in Athanasius. The terms were not clear in Athanasius and it is not surprising that the western Church was able to claim Athanasius as well. But the substance of later theology in the East was already present in Athanasius and the claim by the Cappadocians that they legitimately continued Athanasius’ approach is mostly justified. (However, modern research has shown that there were other theologians who influenced the Cappadocians, but their importance was suppressed because of lack of orthodoxy in certain points; one such example is Apollinaris of Laodicea27 whom Harnack calls the “great teacher of the Cappadocians” 28.)
Athanasius teaches in Contra Arianos, and later in Ad Serapionem, that Father, Son and Holy Spirit dwell in one another, that the Spirit is not to be thought of on a lower level than the Son, and that the believers’ partici- pation in God is a participation of the Spirit.29 The word is the bridge in this participation. Since the word is in the Father, and since the word and the Spirit participate fully in the Father, and since the word is with the believers (and in them), so the believers are in God in the Spirit. In this construction
27 Cf. E. Muhlenberg, Apollinaris von Laodicea, Gottingen, 1969 and T. F. Torrance, “The Mind of Christ in Worship: The Problem of Apollinarianism in Worship”, in Theology in Reconciliation , pp. 139-214.
28 A. v. Harnack, DG (4th ed.), II, p. 295.
29 D. Ritschl, “Die Einheit mit Christus im Denken der griechischen Vater”, Kon- zepte, Ges. Aufsatze Bd. I, Bern 1976, pp. 78-101, and ch. II in Memory and Hope, An Inquiry Concerning the Presence of Christ, New York, London, Collier Macmillan, 1967.
56 Spirit of God, Spirit of Christ
of both the Trinity and the believers’ participation in God, the phrase “through the Son” is quite appropriate. In fact, the 8ia tou Yiou was (and is) a proper theological formula in Eastern Orthodoxy, although its similarity with the western “from the Son” resulted over the centuries in a distrust of eastern theologians for the originally proper concept. Athanasius still teaches clearly that God is “over all” and also “through all and in all”, that the Son is “through all” and the Spirit “in all”. This is the basis for speaking of the vicarious work of the Spirit on behalf of those who are “in the Spirit”. There is a communion of the Spirit with the believers which is grounded in the communion of the Son who is in the Spirit and the Spirit who is in the Son. The incarnation of the word is, in turn, the ground for the believers’ recep- tion of the Spirit. However, the Spirit so fully participates in both, the Father and the Xoyos and this for reasons of a total unity of God’s being and activity (evepyeux), that there are some reasons for questioning the later Eastern Orthodox theologians’ claim that Athanasius too is a crown witness of the distinction between the owia and ’evepyetai in the triune God. It could be argued that Athanasius’ concept of God making himself present through the Word and in the Spirit tends to identify God’s “being in himself’ with the way the believers recognize him. The ultimate abolition of the distinction between the immanent and the economic Trinity is, of course, dear to western theology. (It is, e.g., the basic theological-epistemological thesis in Karl Barth’s dogmatics.) It could be argued further that in this point the West has understood Athanasius better than has later Byzantine theology. Since our interest here is not in Athanasius’ theology as such but in the eastern trinitarian concepts which necessitated a denial of the filioque, we can leave undecided the problem just mentioned.
The Cappadocians’ interest is characterized by their emphasis on the oneness of the three persons in the Trinity (against Neo-Arians) as well as on the differentiation of the three uTroordaeis within the unity of the three (against the charge that they taught “two sons”). Whereas Basil is the first to rethink the term uTrooracris although without clearly defining the Spirit’s eternal procession, Gregory Nazianzen introduced the notion of eK-rropewis, while Gregory of Nyssa reflected upon the continuation of this thought by speaking of the “through the son”-concept. All three of them, of course, accepted the op^omkriov of the Spirit. The reasons they give for this are connected always with the insight that the believers’ knowledge of God would be incomplete or impossible if the Spirit were a ktutjiql Thus from the outset the soteriological argument and the direct reference to the liturgy in worship are part of the whole theological reflection.
Basil faces honestly the problem of the Spirit’s neither being cryevvTiTov
Historical development and implications 57
nor 7evv7iTov nor being a ktictis30, and in De spiritu sancti he appears to teach the procession of the Spirit from the Son, although Holl,31 denying that he means to do that, says rather that Basil, referring here to the inner Ta£is within the Trinity, actually distinguishes between an inner order and the outer appearances of the TrpoacoTra. With regard to the recognizable TTpoo-ama the order is - as it was in Athanasius - from the Father through the Son in the Spirit. With regard to the inner-trinitarian relations, however, Basil does not have available a concept for the Holy Spirit equivalent to the ytwqaCa of the Son.
The situation is somewhat different in Gregory Nazianzen in that he - despite fundamental agreement with his teacher Basil - places much em- phasis on the origination of the Spirit. A basic text for him is John 15:26. The notion of €Kir6p€\xji«; permits him to define the iSiottis of the Spirit, a notion parallel to the yevvTicria of the Son. Gregory’s trinitarian interest is, as it was for Basil, intimately connected with the spiritual condition of the believers whose iJ/uxti he distinguishes from the vous. It is the vous that is to reach similarity with God (TcXeuoo-is). This construction operates with the notion of ayevv-qaCa, yevv^ats and eKiropewis. This Gregory considers sufficient proof against the charge that he teaches 8uo mot in God. It is important to note that Gregory Nazianzen does not use the phrase eKiro- p€\xris 8ia tou Yiou or something like it. Thus Gregory goes beyond Basil in providing a clear and helpful terminology, but it cannot really be said that his five theological Orations provide complete clarity on the question of the origination of the Spirit.
Gregory of Nyssa, of course, also bases his thinking on the trinitarian thinking of Basil but he adds a complex of thoughts concerning absolute goodness, evil and the original state of man. The influence of Origen and in general of Neo-Platonism is more noticeable than in Basil and Gregory Nazianzen. An interest in a kind of history of salvation, i.e. of the soul’s gradual approach towards God, is closely connected with his concept of the Trinity. Gregory’s teaching presupposes an immanent concept; God is rj ^ooottoios 8uvap,is. This 8uvap.i<; operates immanently in a threefold way: ttt|7ti |xev 8uvdp,€<x)s ecniv 6 IlaTqp, Swapis 8e tou IlaTpos 6 Yids, Suvd|xea)s &€ 7rveu|xa to nveujxa ‘'Ayiov.32 This immanent Trinity works towards the outside, but in such a fashion that it is always clear that the Father is the TTTiyfi, the source, that the evepyeia is with the Son and the TeXeioDois with
30 Contra Eunom. Ill, Migne PG 29, 668B.
31 Op. cit., p. 141.
32 Migne PG 45, 1317 ( adv . Maced.).
58 Spirit of God, Spirit of Christ
the Spirit. The Father is cryevv'qTos, the Son is |jiovoy€vf|<;. Again: there is only one Son in the Trinity. It could be argued that Gregory of Nyssa places all emphasis on the economic concept of the Trinity. It is more plausible, however, to say that this is not so. The Father is amov, the Son and the Spirit are ek too glitlou. It follows clearly: no filioque concept is being taught. The aiTia of the Spirit is in the Father, but the Son mediates in the works of the Trinity ad extra. The Holy Spirit is 8ia tou Yto\> and not from the Son. This distinction between eternal origination and economic mediation is of great importance. The Cappadocians, like all Orthodox theologians of the East, leave no doubt that the inner or immanent Trinity is a mystery into which human thought cannot penetrate.33 All the more important is the work of the Spirit, the theological understanding of which Gregory of Nyssa translated into mystical-ascetic thoughts which, in turn, influenced Ps. Dion- ysios Areopagita and, through him, most of eastern tradition. This combi- nation of practical piety and worship with the complicated trinitarian thoughts is the most characteristic feature of Eastern Orthodoxy. From the point of view of our interest in the filioque, the most important dogmatic assertion of classical eastern theology is the insight that God the Father is the iTTjyTi, the source, and pC£a, the root, of the Godhead with its dynamic energies which reach and transform (or transfigurate) the believers in the Spirit who, in turn, is in the Son as the Son is in him. It is correct to say, therefore, that the Spirit reaches the believers 8ia tov Ylov, but it is mean- ingless to say that the Holy Spirit eternally originates from the Father and from the Son, as though there were two sources or two roots.
The difference between East and West on the addition of the filioque to the Nicene Creed is an expression of the differences concerning the episte- mological relation between the economic and an immanent concept of the Trinity.
B. Early western concepts of the Trinity
Although a synod in Rome in 382 accepted the trinitarian dogma of Constantinople of 381, it cannot be said that the West had fully understood the eastern trinitarian theology. Nor has Augustine - whose conception of the Trinity became the western concept - fully apprehended the decision of the second ecumenical council in 381 and of the Cappadocians’ teaching on
33 Cf. Vladimir Lossky, The Vision of God, London, Faith Press, 1963, also his The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church , London, Clarke, 1957, with his emphasis on the difference of eastern and western spirituality in relation to the single procession of the Holy Spirit, a concept which alone permits the transfiguration or deification of the believer in Christ.
Historical development and implications 59
the Trinity. There were language barriers - and more than that. Augustine stood deeply in the tradition of Tertullian and of Ambrose and, as Harnack judges34 - perhaps overdoing the point - Augustine would never have thought of the Trinity had he not felt himself bound to the tradition in which he stood.
Ambrose, with his interest in the Cappadocians and his admiration for Athanasius, emphasized the unity and oneness of God along with the un- searchable mystery of the Trinity, and was tending towards a practical identification of the Holy Spirit with the Father. This is historically quite understandable, but it certainly is not a valid representation of Athanasius and his followers in the East. Athanasius may have been truly presented, however, in Ambrose and Augustine’s unwillingness to make much of a differentiation between the immanent and the economic Trinity. Ambrose’s doctrine of the Trinity shows the same aporetic difficulties which we find in Augustine, the difficulty of harmonizing the two concepts: one in three and three in one. If this conceptual paradox is the mystery of the Trinity, surely the western Church celebrates another mystery than does the Church in the East.
The work of Marcellus of Ancyra35 should be mentioned here, partly because it influenced Rufinus whose concepts of the Trinity (indebted to Cyril of Jerusalem) and of the procession of the Spirit influenced later western theology. Marcellus had taught an economic modalism, i.e. the Son and the Spirit appeared only in order to perform certain functions. It is noteworthy that Marcellus’ orthodoxy was accepted at Rome in 340 and at Sardica in 343.
Pelikan36 maintains (against Schindler) that Augustine in his trinitarian thinking was deeply influenced by Hilary of Poitiers’ caution not to allow a differentiation between the economic and the immanent concept of the Trinity. Hilary implicitly taught th e filioque. If this is the case, and also the influence of Marcellus and Rufinus on later western concepts, one would have reasons to suspect that the filioque of later western theology grew out of the western theological unwillingness to distinguish between the economic and the immanent Trinity. If this conclusion is correct, it would also follow that Tertullian is not really a witness for later filioquism. This can briefly be demonstrated.
34 A. v. Harnack, Grundriss der Dogmengeschichte , 7th ed., Tubingen, 1931, p. 237.
35 Cf. T. Evan Pollard, “Marcellus of Ancyra, A Neglected Father”, in Epektasis (for Jean Danielou), Paris, 1972, pp. 187-196.
36 J. Pelikan, “Hilary on Filioque”, in his Development of Christian Doctrine , New Haven, Yale University Press, 1969, pp. 120-141.
60 Spirit of God, Spirit of Christ
Tertullian’s Adversus Praxean was occasioned by the ideas of the Mon- archian Praxeas whose concern was not the Spirit but the relation between the monarchy of God and the life of Jesus. Nor was Tertullian’s concept of the Trinity shaped by a special interest in the Spirit, an interest one might suspect because of Tertullian’s relation to Montanism. His concern was rather the understanding of the economic distributio and distinctio of the three personae with the one substantia, potestas, virtus of God, a differentia per distinctionem which on the one hand guarantees the unity of the divine substance, on the other the fact that God is not unicus et singularis. This he could have only at the price of declaring the Son and the Spirit portiones of the divine substance, but fully part of that substance nevertheless. In choos- ing between a three-partition of God and inferiority of the Son and the Spirit in relation to the Father, Tertullian chose the latter. This subordi- nationism, however, is not our concern here. What is interesting is the concept of procession from the Father alone. Tertullian teaches in Adversus Praxean (4) that Son and Spirit proceed merely for the purpose of creation and revelation and that both proceed ex unitate patri (19). In this basic assertion Tertullian does not differ from later Greek concepts, although, of course, his understanding of the reasons for the procession are entirely different from, for example, the concept of the Cappadocians. The Spirit, who proceeds a patre perfilium , occupies a “third grade” within the majesty of God: the Son “ interim acceptum a Patre munus effudit Spiritum Sanctum, tertium nomen divinitatis et tertium gradum majestatis . . .” (30,5). However, this still amounts to the assertion that the Spirit proceeds from the Father. t Tertullian teaches the mediatorship of the Son in the procession of the Spirit from the Father, which is to say that he distinguishes between origination and procession. “ Tertius enim est Spiritus a Deo et Filio sicut tertius a radice fructus ex fructice et tertius a fonte rivus ex flumine et tertius a sole apex ex radio ” (8,7). The Spirit, like the Son, is (only) a portio of the divine substance, although he receives it directly, whereas the Spirit receives it indirectly from the Father. Such reception occurred before creation, for it was in creation that the Spirit cooperated as the third person of the Trinity (cf. 12,3). For these reasons it does not amount to much to claim Tertullian as a crown witness for the classical western understanding of the filioque, as has often been done. A crown witness he is, to be sure, for western tend- encies towards modalism.
The important innovation in Augustine is the (philosophical) decision to think the Trinity not by beginning, as it were, with the Father, but with the Trinity itself. The relationes of the three persons condition each of them in dependence to the others, so much so, that Augustine teaches the Son’s
Historical development and implications 61
active participation in his own sending (i.e. his incarnation). The combina- tion of the neoplatonic idea of simplicity with the biblical concept of the personhood of God is the main thesis. All three persons of the Trinity share in these qualities which together amount to one principium. Augustine must , therefore, teach the filioque. The reasons he gives for this in De Trinitate and in the Homilies on John are elaborate and convincing - provided one shares his quasi modalistic understanding of the inner-trinitarian relationes. Still unsolved, however, is the problem why the Son should not be thought of as having proceeded from the Spirit, unless one interprets “conceived by the Holy Spirit” in just this way. In other words: as soon as historical references are made to Israel, to the coming of Jesus, to the Church (i.e. to “economic” dimensions), Augustine’s inner-trinitarian concept does not seem to be relevant.37 The Trinity almost becomes a perfect triangle which “in its work” ad extra , as it were, seems reducible to a single point. In Augustine’s teaching it is merely the impact of the content of the Bible which prevents the logically possible conclusion that the Father and Son proceed from the Spirit. It is this impact, too, which persuades Augustine to teach that, although the Spirit is the symmetrical bond of love ( vinculum caritatis ) between Father and Son and proceeds from both, the Spirit pro- ceeds principaliter from the Father (De trin. 15, 17, 29). Thus Augustine’s doctrine of the “double procession”, which became typical of later theology including the Athanasianum, was somewhat balanced by this assertion. This led at a later stage of theology (e.g. the Council of Lyons) to the idea of a single spiration, spiratio , by which the Spirit is said to proceed from the two sources as from one single source.
III. Implications of more recent stages of the controversy
After this survey of the development of those aspects of patristic trinitarian thought which have a bearing on the later filioque controversy, it is safe to conclude that the important trinitarian decisions on the filioque issue were made long before the controversy began. This is why the controversy itself is more of church-historical than of theological significance.
With reference to eastern theology, it must be said of course that Photius’ insistence on the procession from the “Father alone” (“Photism”), further developed by Gregory the Cypriot38 and Gregory Palamas, did present some
37 Cf. my discussion of this critical interpretation of Augustine’s implicit modalism in Konzepte / (see footnote 29), pp. 102ff. and 123-140.
38 Cf. O. Clement, “Gregoire de Chypre, De 1’ekporese du Saint Esprit”, Istina, 1972, No. 3-4, pp. 443-456.
62 Spirit of God, Spirit of Christ
new theological concepts.39 Several eastern authors drew attention to the shortcomings of the traditional western identification between the economic and the immanent Trinity, e.g. the Bulgarian Archbishop Theophylact of Ochrid in the eleventh century. Here lie indeed the roots of the whole controversy. But decisively new theological thoughts on the Trinity and on the procession of the Spirit have not been produced by later Eastern Ortho- doxy. Besides, such innovating ideas would not be in harmony with Eastern Orthodoxy’s self-understanding. The emphasis on the philosophical concepts introduced by the Cappadocian Fathers in order to point to the mystery of the Trinity has remained typical of all later eastern theology. The question of the relation between the Son and the Spirit has remained basically unsolved.
With reference to western theology, on the other hand, it must be admitted that Anselm and Thomas Aquinas’ justifications of the filioque do seem to have introduced new elements to the discussion. Alasdair Heron40 makes much of the difference between Augustine and Anselm’s position on the matter. He draws attention to the fact that Augustine’s allowance for a procession of the Spirit principaliter from the Father is in Anselm41 and Thomas Aquinas42 given up in favour of a completely triangular concept of the Trinity. Anselm is vulnerable to Lossky’s criticisms, Heron maintains, whereas Augustine - who seems to Heron to be closer to a “through-the- son-concept” - is not. Here is not the place to argue this interpretative problem. It seems that good reasons could be advanced to show that Au- gustine too is vulnerable to Lossky’s harsh critique of implicit western mod- alism. Be this as it may, the Councils of Lyons and Florence show the clear influence of both Augustinian and of Anselm and Thomas’ trinitarian thought. Later stages in the history of theology, for example at the time of the Reformation, do not give evidence of any new thoughts on the matter. It amounts to little to ask the question whether Luther in his opposition to A. Karlstadt and Thomas Miintzer consciously made use of filioquism in combatting the enthusiasts’ claim that the Holy Spirit may also blow “out- side” the realm of the written word (or if word stands for the second person
39 Cf. V. Lossky, “The Procession of the Holy Spirit in Orthodox Triadology”, Eastern Church Quarterly, 7, 1948, pp. 31ff. See also U. Kiiry, “Die Bedeutung des Filioque-Streites fur den Gottesdienst der abendlandischen und der morgenlandischen Kirche”, IKZ, 33, 1943, pp. Iff.
40 A. I. C. Heron, “Who Proceedeth from the Father and the Son”, Scottish Journal of Theology, 4, 1971, pp. 149ff.
41 De processione Spiritus S., e.g. 9.
42 Summa theologiae, I, q. 36, Art. 2-4.
Historical development and implications 63
of the Trinity, it could also be said “outside” the mission of the Son). De facto this is what he did teach and the position taken was well in line with classical western anti-Montanist thought. The emphasis in the Roman Church on papal primacy and on the institution of the Church has its perfect parallel in the Reformation churches’ insistence on the primacy of the written word in its function of a criterion with which to judge the movements of the Spirit - a parallel at least with regard to the ecclesiological utilization of trinitarian thought. Moreover, the protestant authors in England who con- cerned themselves with the filioque, e.g. William Sherlock (1690), John Pearson and E. Stillingfleet (1664), either did not understand the gravity of the issue (as in the case of Sherlock), or ultimately reached a position close to filioquism. The learned nineteenth century author and hymn-writer J. M. Neale came closest to refuting the filioque. But new thoughts were not added. At best there was a recollection of the importance of distinguishing between the “eternal procession” and the “temporal mission” of the Holy Spirit, a distinction without which much unnecessary misunderstanding occurs.
If eastern theology has failed to provide a satisfactory explanation of the relation between the Son and the Spirit, and if western theology is right in suspecting in Eastern Orthodoxy an undue emphasis on the Father’s ijlov- apxta as well as an over-emphasis on (Aristotelian) philosophical concepts with which to approach the mystery of the Trinity, western theology surely has shown its shortcomings in its undue tendency to blend together Father, Son and Spirit into a monotheistically conceived “godhead” and by pre- maturely identifying economic with immanent trinitarian structures. Nikos Nissiotis43 would then be right in saying that neither East nor West has produced an adequate theology of the Holy Spirit and that western “chris- tomonism” and filioquism cannot be an economic substitute for an inner- trintarian structure.
Karl Barth44 has provided one of the most extensive defences of the filioque in twentieth century theology. It is Heron’s judgment that Barth follows entirely the lines of Anselm’s trinitarian thought. This may indeed be the case. More important almost is the obvious tendency in Barth to see
43 Die Theologie der Ostkirche im okumenischen Dialog, Stuttgart, Evangelisches Verlagswerk, 1968, p. 26. Cf. also J. N. Karmiris, “Abriss der dogmatischen Lehre der orth. kath. Kirche”, in P. Bratsiotis, ed., Die Orthodoxe Kirche in griechischer Sicht, I, Stuttgart, Evangelisches Verlagswerk, 1959, pp. 15-120, esp. 30-34.
44 K. Barth, Church Dogmatics, 1/1, paragraph 12 (German, pp. 496-514), Edinburgh, T. & T. Clark.
64 Spirit of God, Spirit of Christ
the safeguard against a free-floating spiritualism, which he rightly desires to see anchored in the immanent Trinity. While with regard to the relationes in the Trinity Barth argues deductively, he proceeds inductively with respect to the ultimate defence of the filioque: the economic desirability of making clear at all times that the Spirit of God is Christ’s Spirit is seen to be rooted in the immanent Trinity. The expression of this desirability is quite under- standable; the question remains, however, whether perhaps the price paid is too high, viz. the tendency to modalism, and hence, the lack of a dynamic doctrine of the Spirit. George Hendry45 criticizes Barth’s and ultimately Augustine’s defence of the filioque. He does not provide, however, an alternative which could be acceptable to western and also to eastern the- ology. The decisions of the Old Catholics to delete the filioque from the Nicene Creed and the more recent Anglican recommendations have been accompanied and supported by many learned historical studies, but new theological thoughts have not really grown out of these endeavours, unless one would call the partially improved contacts with Eastern Orthodoxy a new theological result. The deeper issue, however, the solution of which alone would be ecumenically promising, is a new way of approaching the much belaboured relation between the economic and the immanent Trinity, i.e. a new way of trinitarian articulation. The old ways can altogether be intellectually analysed, all intricacies can be understood,46 provided one invests sufficient time and patience, but these analyses as such do not pro- duce what is needed today.
In approaching the question of the Trinity, it is important to remember that any reference to the Trinity is originally doxological in nature. This is important in our time when God-talk is so severely challenged and trinitarian thinking so obviously neglected. Doxological affirmations are not primarily definitions or descriptions, rather ascriptive lines of thought, speech and action which are offered to God himself. Trinitarian thought in the early Church originated within doxological contexts and it is only within such contexts that we can speak of the “inner life” of the triune God. But, as the early Eastern Fathers made clear, all such doxological references to that inner life must be checked by reference back to the biblical message con- cerning God’s activity and presence with his people. Such reference will
45 The Holy Spirit in Christian Theology, Philadelphia, 1956 (London, 1965), pp. 30- 52. See also Donald L. Berry, “Filioque and the Church”, Journal of Ecumenical Studies, summer 1968, pp. 535-554.
46 See e.g. the issue of Istina, No. 3-4, 1972, devoted to this task (pp. 257-467). Cf. also Paul Henry, S.J., “Contre le ‘Filioque’ ”, Irenikon, Vol. XL VIII, pp. 170-177.
Historical development and implications 65
show that the Spirit is confessed to have been instrumental in the coming of | Christ (“conceived by the Holy Spirit”), and to have been the life-giving power of God in his resurrection. Jesus during his ministry promised the sending of the Spirit, and the earliest Christians understood Pentecost as the fulfilment of that promise. Thus the Spirit precedes the coming of Christ, is active throughout his life, and is also sent by him to the believers. This chain of observations suggests that it would be insufficient and perhaps illegitimate to “read back” into the Trinity only those New Testament passages which :! refer to the sending of the Spirit by Jesus.
A restructuring of trinitarian articulation will have to pay equal attention to the actual experience of the early Christians and of Christian existence today, to the “synthetic” thoughts - mostly in doxological dress - concerning God’s presence in Israel, in the coming of Jesus and in the Church, as they were expressed by the earliest witnesses of trinitarian thought, and surely I also to the logical and linguistic conditions of our time. One must not forget | that, from its beginnings in the second and third centuries, the doctrine of I the Trinity was intended to be a help for Christian believers, not an obstacle nor an abstract intellectual superimposition upon the “simple faith”. For it i was in simple faith that the early Christians experienced the presence of the I triune God. They did not deduce their theological conclusions from a pre- ;i conceived trinitarian concept. So, too, in our reconsideration of trinitarian | concepts, it is desirable that we, in following the cognitive process of the ! early Church, take ecclesiology as the appropriate theological starting point 1 for re-examining the function of trinitarian thought in the Church’s faith, life and work.
B.
DEVELOPMENTS IN THE VARIOUS TRADITIONS
TOWARDS AN ECUMENICAL AGREEMENT ON THE PROCESSION OF THE HOLY SPIRIT AND THE ADDITION OF THE FILIOQUE TO THE CREED
: ANDRE DE HALLEUX
The insertion of the word filioque into the liturgical creed and the doctrinal controversy on the procession of the Holy Spirit to which it gave rise continue | to form part of the centuries-old controversy between Orthodoxy and Cath- I olicism today, even though many historians and theologians are now inclined to see it as no more than a pretext, or at most the occasion, for a schism which was really engendered by the antagonism between ecclesiastical power structures and a progressive alienation of minds and hearts. The biblical, patristic, canonical and rational arguments have been rehearsed unweary- ingly and with the same variations by both sides right down to and including the interconfessional symposia and colloquies of recent decades. The only real light and shade in this interminable quarrel has been the alternation between long periods of mutual incomprehension and the exchange of an- athemas and short-lived attempts at reconciliation. Negative as this summary may appear, it could equally well throw into sharp relief the necessary conditions and the possibilities of a hopeful approach to this question in the present ecumenical climate. It is in this spirit that these brief reflections of i a Roman Catholic theologian are offered. I speak only for myself and my | purpose is not so much to present a concrete solution as rather to clear away i some of the obstacles blocking the road along which the quest for a rec- ; onciliation desired by all should be pursued.
Official discussions
The Orthodox Church, which is shortly to begin an official theological dialogue with the Roman Catholic Church on the theme of pneumatology, has recently resumed similar conversations with two other western partners
• Andr6 de Halleux (Roman Catholic) is professor of patrology at the University of Louvain, Belgium.
70 Spirit of God, Spirit of Christ
- the Old Catholics and the Anglican Communion - which pick up a dialogue inaugurated in Bonn more than a century ago. This suggests that our starting point should be an appraisal of the ecumenical significance of the results already arrived at in these two recent dialogues.
At the conclusion of its meeting in Chambesy in 1975, the Joint Orthodox-Old Catholic Commission announced its rejection of the filioque not simply as an uncanonicai addition to the Creed but also and above all as an erroneous doctrine. The procession of the Spirit from the Father and the Son, or even of the Father through the Son, is no longer recognized here as a legitimate theologoumenon as it had been by the same two partners during the Bonn conversations of a century ago. The 8i’ Ytou is henceforth restricted to the temporal mission of the Spirit, whose eternal procession from the Father alone is declared to be warranted by Holy Scripture, the Creed and the entire ancient Church.
Meeting in Moscow in 1976, the Joint Orthodox- Anglican Commission, while it also wished to see the filioque expunged from the Anglican liturgical Creed, spoke more circumspectly about the doctrinal aspect of the question. In fact the joint statement here confines itself to pointing out that the Creed should confess in biblical terms the eternal procession of the Spirit from the Father. Nonetheless, while not levelling any formal charge of error against the filioque, it is stated that the biblical passages which associate the Son with the Father in a relationship with the Spirit apply only to the temporal mission of the Spirit. This is tantamount, however, to denying any scriptural warrant for the Latin tradition, although in the Bonn conversations of 1875 the Anglican partner had insisted on safeguarding this tradition.
We seem therefore to be witnessing in a sense the reversal of the position which prevailed at the Council of Florence in 1439. Then, the equivalence of the 8i* Yiou to th q filioque was canonized by the Decree of Union without any reciprocal concession; in other words, while the Greeks recognized the Latin pneumatology, their own was not acknowledged. In the official dia- logue today, it is the turn of the western partners of the Orthodox Church to subscribe to Photian monopatrism without any reciprocal concession. In that case, can we speak of a genuine ecumenical dialogue here? Is this not rather one more makeshift agreement, reflecting this time a reversal of the old distribution of forces which now places Orthodoxy in a theologically superior position over against a West suffering from a sense of guilt at its former complacency? In any case, the resurgence of an inflexible anti-fili- oquism is hardly likely to facilitate the forthcoming official conversations with the Roman Catholic Church. The latter could not abandon its own tradition without repudiating itself.
Towards an ecumenical agreement 71
The neo-Photian theses
I The most probable explanation of this doctrinal aKpt6€ia in contemporary Orthodoxy is the evident influence of a Photian and Palamitic revival in various theological and spiritual circles during the past thirty years, exem- plified especially in the neo-patristic synthesis of a Vladimir Lossky. The I pneumatological theses of this school may be summarized in the following two points. The procession of the Spirit from the Father alone is a dogmatic truth based on John 15:26 and on the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed and confirmed by the patristic principle that, within the Trinity, the Father represents the unique source, principle and cause of the hypostatic proces- sions. Consequently, the participation of the Son does not apply to the constitutive CKTropewts of the Spirit though certainly to the economy and temporal mission of the Spirit and possibly also to the eternal radiation and outpouring of divine energies distinct from the divine essence and its hypostases.
These theses are not novel. Their current success, however, is due mainly I to the way in which the Losskian school has been able to incorporate them within the framework of a radical opposition - both structural and existential in character - between the Greek and the Latin theologies, in much the same way as the “Slavophile” thinkers of the nineteenth century had spoken of the spiritual pre-eminence of the Orthodox East in creating a profound inner unity in love analogous to the trinitarian sobornost , in contrast to the Latin and Germanic West with its inability to reconcile the imposed unity of Roman Catholicism with the individualist freedom of Protestantism.
The argument is that divergent attitudes and intellectual assumptions in the two sectors of Christendom have led to the development of the ancient common trinitarian tradition into two incompatible syntheses and that west- ern theology has emerged from this development with characteristic dis- figurement. Latin triadology is first of all essentialist: it has stressed the essence in God to the detriment of the persons, which are reduced to the fluid category of “relations”, so much so, in fact, that the Spirit, said to proceed from the Father and the Son as from a single principle and regarded as the mutual bond between them, has been reduced (the argument runs) to a pure function of the divine unity. Next, Latin theology is rationalist. It is supposed to claim to unravel the mystery of the immanent Trinity, partly by simple inference from its economic manifestations and therefore with scant respect for the radical apophatic mystery enveloping the essence of God, and partly even on the basis of analogies with human psychology and therefore with all the risk of anthropomorphic illusions. This, it is argued, has fatal consequences for Latin ecclesiology. The subordination of charisma
72 Spirit of God, Spirit of Christ
to the institution, of freedom to power, of the prophetic to the legalistic, of mysticism to scholasticism, of the laity to the clergy - are not all these the expression in the Roman Catholic Church of precisely this inner-trinitarian subjection of the Spirit to the Son which is implicit in Latin filioquism? And
- as the ultimate expression of this ecclesiological “christomonism” - the subjection of synodal communion to the primacy of the papal jurisdiction?!
A question of motive
To make the filioque the master key for deciphering all the differences between Catholicism and Orthodoxy in the manner just described is to adopt an epistemology the very seductiveness of whose logic makes it suspect right from the start, given the complexity of history. Certainly there is some substance in a number of the criticisms directed at the Latin tradition by the neo-Photians and the neo-Palamites; but they sometimes prove to be so tailored to the dictates of a system as to distort and even ignore altogether the real intentions of Augustinian and scholastic theology. The Anselmian axiom concerning the procession of the Spirit - tamquam ab uno principio
- far from expressing a congenital essentialism is simply an attempt to meet the objection that acceptance of the filioque would contradict the divine monarchy: if the two persons of the Father and the Son breathe the Spirit in one and the same act of mutual love, the unique originating principle undoubtedly consists in what is a supremely “interpersonal” exchange!
Nor has it been in virtue of an incorrigible rationalism that the Latin tradition has always spontaneously sought to understand the immanent Trin- ity in the light of the divirie economy and by reflecting on the psychology of human understanding and pf love; for no hubris need necessarily be involved when the human spirit, made as it is in the image of God, seeks to picture to itself its Creator in the light of the “vestiges” imprinted in his works and in terms of his activity in the redemptive history. On the contrary, this is the pathway proposed to us by Scripture itself and in fact followed also by the Greek Fathers themselves. However naive the confidence of scholastic theo- logians in the “necessary conclusions” of their syllogisms may sometimes seem, all of them worthy of the name remained aware, as a rule, of the absolute freedom of the transcendent God and of the hopeless inadequacy of every theological analogy.
It should also be emphasized that, in the Latin tradition, the trinitarian filioque implies no ecclesiological subordination of the Spirit to Christ, still less any “christomonism”. In view of the fact that the economy of Pentecost could in no conceivable circumstances contradict the economy of the Incar- nation of which it is the fulfilment - the Spirit whom Jesus sends secures the
Towards an ecumenical agreement 73
confession of him as Lord! - to play off a totally juridicized church against a purely charismatic church can never be other than a crude caricature. Moreover, it is in its trinitarian root itself that the falsity of the charge of christomonism is demonstrated: the tcx^ls of the spiration of the Spirit by the Son no more implies the subjection of the Spirit to the Son than the generation of the Son by the Father implies any inferiority of the Son in relation to his Father. Perhaps to a greater degree than the triadology of the Greek Fathers, that of the Latins with its preoccupation with subordination- ism never lost sight of the radical consubstantiality of the three persons. One : certainly does not commit oneself to an ideology of power and domination by conceiving of the Spirit as the expression of the mutual love of Father ij and Son!
An empty defence
The danger of the negative approach of contemporary Orthodox neo- Photianism to Latin pneumatology is that it may provoke an equally negative
I defensive response on the part of Catholic theologians which would land us once more in the endless round of fruitless polemics. For example, we might respond ad hominem by accusing the Cappadocian Fathers themselves of trinitarian essentialism. Even for them, 6 0€os can mean the common divin- ity, in contrast to the usage in the New Testament. They, too, could be accused of having reduced the subsistent hypostases to their original rela- tionships, in an unsatisfactory effort to counter Arian subordinationism, whereas it was the Latin tradition which inaugurated an authentic trinitarian personalism with the existential psychology of Augustine rounded off by the ontology of Thomas Aquinas in which the hypostasis is understood as a subsistent relationship. Then again, the charge of rationalism, too, would probably be turned against the same Cappadocians who, over-reacting to the Eunomian dialectics, laid themselves open to the charge of taking refuge in an essentially agnostic apophatism forbidding in principle any inferences from the otl to the ti of God. Having thus divorced the immanent Trinity from the economy, the Palamites could then be said to have left themselves with no alternative but to re-establish the connection by thinking in terms of an eternal radiation of divine energies, somewhat on the lines of the neo-Platonic emanations, divine energies which are really distinct from the closed and impenetrable nucleus of the divine essence, whereas the Latin scholastics, for all their respect for the mystery of the divine essence would consider it nonetheless to some extent accessible to the human spirit elevated by the grace of God or by the “light of glory”.
It need hardly be said that a defence of this kind takes just as little account
74 Spirit of God, Spirit of Christ
of the positive intentions of the Greek trinitarian tradition as the criticisms it refutes fail to do justice to the real motive of the Latin triadology. Engaged in polemics, each speaker naturally tends to absolutize his own standpoint and to discredit the standpoint of his opponent. But ecumenical dialogue would require that each should recognize the truth affirmed by the other while remaining aware of his own imperfections. A balanced judgment is difficult enough even in human affairs. When it is a matter of the mystery of the one Triune God it becomes radically impossible, since here discursive thought, tackling the paradox from one side or the other, as it must, inev- itably appears to come down on one side rather than on the other. Instead of reproaching the other spokesman for his different theological approach, the more appropriate procedure would be to ensure that he does not neglect the corrective supplied by the contrary affirmation. The Latins are no more to be accused of Sabellianism because of their concern for the unity of the divine nature than the Greeks are to be branded as tritheists because of their primary concern for the trinity of the hypostases.
A positive context
This means that there is no more urgent theological task facing the ecu- menical dialogue on the procession of the Spirit than the deliberate detach- ment of the debate from its negative and polemical context. By locating the heart of the controversy in a supposedly insuperable incompatibility between two triadologies which is the source of all the differences between eccle- siologies, anthropologies and spiritualities, the neo-Photians rule out any possibility of reconciliation right from the start. But there have always been other Orthodox theologians convinced that the difference between filioquism and monopatrism had no appreciable influence on the doctrine and life of the two churches. Moreover, to liberate the question of the procession of the Holy Spirit does not mean treating it as if it were an exercise in abstract logic, isolated from other questions in a way that would lead to dangerous distortions of perspective; it means, rather, finding a positive context for it. Instead of locating it at the very heart of our differences, we must replace it within the pneumatological tradition we still share. Within this consensus the difference will assume its true proportions.
Most of the publications stimulated on the Roman Catholic side in recent years by the theological aggiornamento of the Second Vatican Council and the pentecostal or charismatic revival are primarily concerned with the ecclesiological dimension of pneumatology, including its sacramental and liturgical aspects. Since the Spirit manifests his presence from the very first page of Genesis (1:2) down to the very last page of Revelation (22:17), a
Towards an ecumenical agreement 15
complete outline of ecumenical pneumatology based on biblical theology would have to embrace the entire redemptive history from the creation to the second coming. His prophetic function among the people of the Old Covenant would be specially emphasized by reference to the inspiration of the scriptures as well as to the anointing of kings and priests. The present- ation of his role in the life of Christ - principally in his conception, baptism and resurrection - would take into account the diverse standpoints of the synoptic gospels, of Acts, of Paul and of John. His activity as the soul of the Church from the pentecostal mission down to the spiritualization of the resurrection bodies would be illustrated in sacraments and ministries, in martyrdom and monasticism, as well as in the life of Christians generally, from the profession of faith up to and including mystical experiences. In the ordinary way, nothing should prevent unanimity on all these things between Catholics and Orthodox. On the economy of the Spirit there is no significant difference between them.
It is important, moreover, to point out that the doctrinal agreement also covers the essentials of trinitarian pneumatology. The fact is that on both sides we confess the Spirit as the third person-hypostasis of the unique divine nature-essence, consubstantial-6p,oovcriov with the Father and the Son. It may seem obvious for the contemporary theologian to acknowledge the divinity of the Holy Spirit and his personal distinction within the Trinity but we have only to read the Fathers of the fourth century to realize afresh how tremendously difficult it was for Orthodox pneumatology to shake itself free not only from subordinationism but also from a certain confusion between the Spirit, on the one hand, and his gifts, or the divine nature, or the incarnate Logos, or the risen Christ, on the other, a confusion encouraged by the imprecisions of Scripture.
Restored to this context of the common economic and trinitarian faith, the question of the Son’s participation in the breathing of the Spirit by the Father could no longer be regarded as the nodal point of contradiction between two irreconcilable pneumatologies but, on the contrary, would be cut down to its true dimensions as a peripheral difference within the context of a fundamentally identical tradition.
The decrees of union
The fact remains that, historically, the doctrine of the procession of the Holy Spirit was developed in the form of strictly dogmatic definitions. At the Councils of Lyons (1274) and Florence (1439), labelled “ecumenical” by classic Roman Catholic theology, the Latins made recognition of the filioque the condition of a union which was soon to be rejected by the conscience of
76 Spirit of God, Spirit of Christ
the Orthodox Church, since the latter continued to consider the monopatrist formula the only adequate way of expressing the pneumatological faith. Does not this dogmatic crystallization of the controversy constitute an in- superable barrier to any suggestion that the question should be reopened and reconsidered within the context of a legitimate theological pluralism? By strictly adhering here to the decrees of the seven ecumenical councils of the first millenium, the Orthodox Church retains the advantage of not being bound by the dogmatic formulas of the medieval and modern West. Al- though it has a very rich concept of tradition, conceiving this as always integrally present to it, in practice it retains the maximum spiritual freedom to define its faith. But on the Roman Catholic side, too, the ecclesiological renewal of the Second Vatican Council as well as the claims of ecumenism invite theologians to review the irrevocable judgments of previous generations.
It was, moreover, Pope Paul VI himself who, when commemorating the seventh centenary of the Council of Lyons, took the remarkable step of breaking with the custom of referring to this assembly as “the fourteenth ecumenical council” and henceforth designating it “the sixth of the general synods held in the West”. Drawing attention to the all-important role of political and cultural factors, the Pope went so far as to question the vol- untary character of a union which he recognized as having been imposed on the basis of formulas produced by theologians who were ill-informed about eastern realities (A AS 66, 620-625). The same criteria are certainly less applicable to the Council of Florence, though here again what was in practice imposed upon the Greeks was also a definition in the Latin and scholastic style. Moreover, while it would certainly be unrealistic to seek to challenge the dogmatic status of the decree of a council which both parties were agreed in acknowledging as genuinely ecumenical, it would nevertheless be anach- ronistic to interpret this decree in terms of a “fundamental theology” de- veloped by Roman Catholic theologians in the nineteenth century. The pneumatological definition of the Council of Florence, unaccompanied moreover by any anathema, rests only on a rational argument and makes no explicit reference to any biblical or patristic authority.
But we have only to analyse the text of the decrees of these two medieval councils to see that they in no way reject the real intention of Orthodox monopatrism, though the latter is never expressly mentioned. The condem- nation pronounced by the Council of Lyons is directed equally against those who affirmed a double procession of the Spirit as against those who rejected the flioque. It therefore does not touch those for whom the formula Ik |i6vou toO IlaTpos would still be compatible with the Son’s participation in
Towards an ecumenical agreement 77
a spiration wholly subjected to the primary causality of the Father. As for i the decree of the Council of Florence - lacking any trace of a formal condemnation - this, too, is content to insist that all Christians should ; recognize filioquism as an authentic expression of the faith without thereby denying that the Photian formula can equally be so. But the outstanding feature of the decree is its concern to respect the Greek point of view far more than was the case at Lyons. In fact, by reaffirming the principle tamquam ab uno principio , it is now made quite clear that the filioque, far from excluding, actually presupposes that the Father is seen as the unique source and principle of all divinity, since it is wholly from him that the Son derives his spirative power, the causal character of which is therefore not understood in the sense of first cause, as in the ama of the Greek Fathers.
Thus, although at the two “union councils” the Latins may have persuaded the Orthodox to acknowledge filioquism without formally conceding their counter position, nevertheless the radical intention of the monarchy of the Father, which constitutes the profound truth of Photian monopatrism, is clearly respected, objectively speaking, in the decrees of these councils.
Back to the Fathers
Neither of the two parties is prevented, therefore, from reopening the dialogue on the procession of the Holy Spirit in a strictly ecumenical per- j spective, i.e. by reference to an axis which is central enough to sustain the clash of partial viewpoints without resort to relativism or syncretism. This common axis of reference would lead Orthodox and Catholics back to the period prior to the schism when the trinitarian theologies of the Greek East and the Latin West still coexisted peacefully in their pluriformity. Neither of the two churches would any longer require the other to accept subsequent definitions of its own theology as a canon of faith and both of them would
I also recognize the legitimacy of the other’s distinctive theological develop- ments. In practice, the dialogue would mean an effort on the part of each partner to explain his own patristic tradition as understood from within, i.e. with no attempt to subject his partner’s tradition to his own personal criteria, but seeking rather to dig down to the deepest intentions of his Fathers in the faith instead of sticking to florilegia of quotations, which are always open to challenge as artificially isolated from their contexts. This is what is re- quired of us if the two apparently conflicting pneumatologies are ever to be seen as, in reality, complementary approaches to the one divine mystery with all the considerable enrichment this discovery will bring with it.
Another advantage which this projected return to the Fathers would bring with it would be to recall theology to a greater discretion. The fact is that
78 Spirit of God , Spirit of Christ
those who helped to develop the pneumatological dogma in the latter half of the fourth century - Athanasius and Didymus, Basil and the two Gre- gories, Ambrose and Damasus - were content to define the procession of the Spirit negatively, rejecting the dilemma on the horns of which the Pneumatomachi sought to impale those who refused either to regard the Spirit as a creature or to speak of him as engendered as a brother of the Son. To this the Fathers sometimes added that they regarded the positive meaning of the procession as an unfathomable mystery, with an apophatic wisdom which conspicuously relativizes the frail scaffolding of contradictory arguments accumulated since then on both sides in order to explain this mystery.
Nor should we lose sight of the fact that the patristic tradition itself was already employing current philosophical terms and arguments which were equally lacking in any absolute theological value. When they adopted such concepts as “principle” or “cause” as rational tools for their arguments, the Fathers did so doubtless with the intention of preserving the central thrust of the monotheist trinitarian faith against Arianism and Sabellianism and certainly with no notion of developing a sacrosanct metaphysic or, to use their own expression, of “physiologizing the divine”. However indispensable philosophical categories may be for formulating the Christian revelation, we must never lose sight of their fundamental inadequacy to express the mystery and of the need to correct them with the dimension of transcendence. There is no guarantee, for example, that the Aristotelian concept of efficient causality explains the inner divine relationships more satisfactorily than another kind, which deny rational conceptualization, of reciprocally and simultaneously triple relations, which would nonetheless not be restricted to one simple mode of manifestation. It would be much wiser, therefore, to try to keep the ecumenical dialogue on the procession of the Holy Spirit at the level of the strictly theological affirmations of the Fathers.
Two complementary traditions
Having said that, it turns out that the history of the filioque and its equivalents - sometimes older, like ab utroque - is far more difficult to reconstruct than is sometimes claimed. This is the case even if we ignore the semantic difference between the Latin verb procedere and the Greek word eKTropeuecrficu, as well as possible nuances in the use of such prepositions as ex, ab, and de, which are equally demonstrable as against the Greek ck. Confining ourselves strictly to the Son’s participation in the procession of the Spirit, the starting point will be the formula a Patre per Filium, attested from Tertullian {Prax 4) onwards. Tertullian used this phrase to show that
Towards an ecumenical agreement 79
the “economy” does not encroach on the “monarchy”; he conceived of the trinitarian processions as, so to speak, a biological diffusion of the divine ! substance. We find the same formula used by Hilary on the eve of the “Macedonian” controversy, only this time in a context where the purpose I is to prove that the Spirit of God is not a creature ( Trin . 12:55-57). But the per Filium naturally aroused suspicions of subordinationism once the Pneu- matomachi, basing their arguments on John 1:3, among other texts, had presented the Spirit as the first of the beings created by the Word. This may j be why Ambrose in his refutation of the Arians of Illyria preferred to express the unity of nature by saying: procedit a Patre et a Filio ( Spir . 1:11, 120). But that filioquism should have become really traditional in the West can only be attributed to Augustine, the pupil of Ambrose and doctor of the West.
It should be stressed, however, that the most ancient witnesses to this tradition represent no more than one way among others of affirming the consubstantial divinity of the third person of the Trinity, which Latin the- ology and the Latin liturgy loved to express, moreover, in another way by calling the Holy Spirit the bond or unity of the Trinity. In the fourth and fifth centuries the Johannine writings are still expounded without a term like procedere (John 15:26) being given the technical meaning which was sub- sequently assigned to it. In a Victricius of Rouen, the origin is felt to be akin to the Trepixwpticris, both terms being intended simply to show the common possession of the same substance (PL 20:446): in other words, at the end of the fourth century, the precise character of the procession is still not envisaged. So too in the Tome of Damasus, which in a sense constitutes the western counterpart to the Creed of Constantinople (381), the de Patre appears to be a pure synonym for de divina substantia , intended simply to I prove that the Spirit is Deum verum (anath. 16).
Nor was the consubstantial dimension of the trinitarian processions un- familiar to the tradition of the Cappadocian Fathers which is reflected in the Creed of 381. But this tradition inclined to see here the origination of the three hypostases with their incommunicable properties; deeply attached to the principle of the monarchy and causality of the Father, it had used John 15:26 to define the eternal eKTropeixns of the Spirit. There is no justification for claiming these Fathers as filioquists, therefore, and the texts cited by Latin controversialists in this sense on the basis of ancient manuscripts of the writings of Basil or Gregory of Nyssa certainly seem, in the last analysis, to have been interpolations. But it is worth observing that Augustine himself fully respected the “monarchy” in regarding the Spirit as proceeding prin- cipaliter from the Father, where the adverb doubtless does not mean “chie-
80 Spirit of God, Spirit of Christ
fly” but as from the unique principle ( Trin . 15:17, 29; In Jn. 99:8). It was doubtless in order not to yield any ground to pneumatomachian subordi- nationism that the Cappadocian Fathers avoided giving too much promi- nence to the Son’s participation in the eternal procession of the Spirit.
But Epiphanius and, above all, the school of Alexandria, who insisted as did the Latins on the unity of the divine nature and in speaking of the procession did not limit their terminology to that of John 15:26, gave greater emphasis to the fact that the Spirit of the Father and the Son is Trap’ d|jupoT€pa)v (Epiph. Pan. 74:7-8), i.e. ouctwoSws d|jupoiv (Cyril Ador. 1). To limit these and other affirmations of the same tenor to the mission and to leave out the eternal source and essential roots of the economy in the immanent Trinity would be tantamount to foisting on the standpoint of the fourth and fifth century Fathers a dichotomy still alien to them. Moreover, the ancient formula “from the Father through the Son” is not only typical of the Latin tradition but is also found in abundance in the Greek Fathers, including John of Damascus and it was this formula which was regularly proposed as a basis of agreement in the course of attempts at union or dialogue. It should still be capable of reconciling Orthodox and Catholics for while it expresses the Son’s participation in the procession of the Spirit, which is what the filioque intends but is obscured in the Photian formula ck povou tov IIotTpos, at the same time it strictly safeguards the monarchy of the Father which the filioque may appear to jeopardize but which is the real concern of monopatrism. In other words, the most faithful interpretation of the common patristic tradition could be to apply the Greek Ik to the relation of the Spirit to the Father and to interpret the Latin ex in the filioque in the sense of perlhia.
The Creed of Constantinople
But surely the silence of the Creed of Constantinople about any role of the Son in the procession of the Spirit is tantamount to a deliberate denial of any such role on the part of the authors of this basic document of Orthodoxy? The truth is that, since the Acts of the Second Ecumenical Council have not been preserved, the precise circumstances in which the Creed came to be drawn up remain a matter of speculation. Nevertheless, although some scholars go so far as to detach the Constantinopolitanum completely from the Council of 381, it is generally accepted today that the ancient tradition is correct which attributes the completion of the pneuma- tological article of the Creed of Nicea to the Fathers of Constantinople - Gregory Nazianzus was the second president of the Council and Gregory of Nyssa, whose brother Basil of Caesarea had been dead for more than two
Towards an ecumenical agreement 81
years, was present at it. It is also assumed that its extant wording represents ! the revision of an already Nicenized local baptismal creed. The Fathers of • 381, while confessing a doctrine radically opposed to the “Macedonian” i theses, would seem nevertheless to have avoided any explicit enunciation of the divinity and consubstantiality of the Spirit in order to make it easier for i the Pneumatomachi of the Hellespont at some time to rally to Orthodoxy, as the Emperor Theodosius hoped they would. This then is the probable context in which we should read the clause about the procession of the Spirit from the Father.
In the implicit quotation of John 15:26 in this clause, the preposition irapd in the gospel has been changed into €k. This suggests that the point of the statement relates henceforth not so much to the Pentecostal mission of the ( Spirit as to its procession of origin, although the participle eKTropeuoixevov ; has not been put into the aorist tense like the yevvriDevTa which indicates the eternal generation of the Son. The eKiropevopevov is probably not completely lacking in an “economic” connotation, therefore, any more than i are the immediately preceding adjectives “Lord” and “Life giver”, in which the reference to creation and redemption is semantically implicit even though | they point directly to the divinity of the Spirit.
That having been said, the statement of the procession certainly appears to express an intention absolutely parallel to that of the Nicene Fathers in the second article of their Creed: to state that the Son is begotten of the Father was tantamount to excluding his creation from nothing; to state that the Spirit proceeds from the Father was likewise to signify that he is not a creature. It would therefore be wrong to see here the adoption of a position . concerning the precise mode of the eKTropewis rather than a simple confes- sion of the divinity of the Spirit, synonymous in this respect to all the other clauses of the pneumatological article. In other words, the Creed transcends the quarrel between monopatrism and filioquism. The controversy between the Greeks and the Latins on that point broke out only when each of the two parties began to claim support from the Creed for its own position.
The silence of the Fathers of Constantinople is not to be explained, therefore, by their supposed opposition to the idea that the Son participated | in some way or other in the spiration of the Spirit. This silence is all the | more striking, however, when we consider that it would have been much | more in accord with the customary formulas of the Cappadocian Fathers had they combined with John 15:26 another traditional biblical text such as John 16:14 or Romans 8:9, affirming that the Spirit receives from the Son or referring to the Spirit as the “Spirit of Christ”. The reserve evident in the Creed should probably be explained, therefore, as a deliberate precautionary
82 Spirit of God, Spirit of Christ
measure motivated by a given circumstance, namely, the claim of the Pneu- matomachi that the Spirit was created by the Son. By omitting any reference at all to a relationship between the Spirit and the Son, the Fathers of 381 forestalled the illegitimate inference that the Spirit is a creature and subor- dinate to the Son, an inference which seemed unambiguously excluded by the cKTropewis according to John 15:26, interpreteted analogously to the generation of the Son in the second article. The dogma of the Constantin- opolitanum is therefore no obstacle to unity.
The addition to the Creed
Yet even supposing agreement were reached on the procession of the Holy Spirit along the lines of the Greek and Latin Fathers before the schism, this would still leave untouched the original offence which was always central to the Orthodox repudiation of th e fiiioque. What canonical or moral right had the Roman Catholic Church to introduce an additional clause into the liturgical Creed of the common faith which a decree of the Ecumenical Council of Ephesus had forbidden anyone to alter, and to do so unilaterally, i.e. without a new ecumenical council? The Catholic party, persuaded that the supreme magisterium can and should explain the faith confessed in the Creed, if necessary by introducing into this Creed the dogma which it has defined, could not have sufficiently realized the seriousness of what the Orthodox regarded as a breach of the visible sign of the doctrinal unity of all Christians with one another and of the unity of the Church today with the Church of the Fathers.
On the basis of advances in the historical study of the creeds during the past century, we are in a better position to appreciate the question discussed at length at the Council of Ferrara in 1438, namely, whether the prohibition of the Third Ecumenical Council included any other exposition of the faith, as the Greeks understood it to mean, or only any exposition of another faith, as the Latins understood it to mean. We now know that the Fathers of the fourth and fifth centuries used to cite as the faith of Nicea formulas which verbally were sometimes very remote from the actual text of the Nicaenum - which itself, unlike the Constantinopolitanum, was never baptismal or eucharistic - provided that they reflected the anti-Arian dogma defined at Nicea. This patristic freedom of formulation - as well as that of the manu- script tradition of the two great Creeds (the clause “God (born) of God” in the Latin liturgical text is absent in the Greek) - undoubtedly reflects the diverse customs of the local churches. The fact remains that all the Ecu- menical Councils from Ephesus onwards demonstrated their respect for the
Towards an ecumenical agreement 83
Creed of the first two Ecumenical Councils by refraining from inserting into j it the dogmatic formulas of their definitions.
There are still vast areas of obscurity in the history of the insertion of the filioque into the Constantinopolitanum. The view that the addition, first i attested in Spain, was intended to combat the Arianism of the Visigoths is still repeated though it remains no more than a hypothesis lacking any i convincing proof. The more likely explanation is that the filioque was simply transferred from ancient local symbols into that of Constantinople when this latter symbol was adopted instead. The fact that a filioquist formula first appears in the Toledan symbols is generally explained today as having been due to the influence of an anti-Priscillian letter of Pope Leo the Great (ep. 15:1) in which already in 447 the words ab utroque occur as the most normal thing in the world, though there is still no need to trace the filioque back to a source in the pre-Ephesian fides romana. Thus the insertion of the filioque in the Creed of Constantinople need initially have meant no more than a natural adaptation to the local tradition, reflecting doubtless a regrettable ignorance of the conciliar tradition but certainly no subjective mistrust of the Eastern Orthodox Church. On the contrary, special respect was shown to this church by the liturgical reception of its Creed since for Rome this meant sacrificing its own old “apostolic” creed.
Unfortunately, however, the addition of the, filioque became the stone of stumbling and one of the badges of the schism. Orthodoxy has indeed sometimes been disposed to concede to the Latins by the economy of love what canonical dKpCSeia forbad them to concede, while Rome for its part » never - except at the darkest moments - went so far as to make union conditional on the explication of the Greek creed. But is it desirable that a mutual recognition of the two traditions on the procession of the Holy Spirit i should leave written into the very text of the profession of faith the bone of : contention which provoked the scandal of division, even if this difference is a thousand years old? Many theologians on both sides admit that the pneu- matological article of the Creed of Constantinople is imperfect and some i have proposed that a common reformulation should be undertaken. But i could any future Ecumenical Council assume the responsibility of revising : the venerable text by a new dogmatic “addition”? So long as the Constan- tinopolitanum remains what it is for each of the two churches, it would be better, therefore, after theological agreement has been achieved, to restore it in its original form so that Catholics and Orthodox may in future be able to proclaim it together. It would therefore be up to the Roman Catholic Church to suppress the filioque of the Creed, as a token of reconciliation
84 Spirit of God, Spirit of Christ
with the Orthodox Church but without signifying by this renunciation any repudiation of its own tradition.
Conclusion
By way of conclusion to these few thoughts in an ecumenical context, it may be permissible to place the desired agreement on the procession of the Spirit and on the addition of the filioque to the Creed under the twofold patronage of a convergent mutual recognition which dates back to the era when the misunderstanding which would spark off the schism first began to appear. About the year 650, Maximus the Confessor, when reminded by his compatriots that they rejected the filioque , explained to them in the termi- nology of their common eastern tradition that the “Romans” did not thereby intend any denial that the Father was the unique first cause (ama) in the Trinity but meant it in the Greek sense of the procession ('irpoievai) through the Son, in order to show the divine consubstantiality (to cruva<J>es rrj<; oucrias - PG 91, 136). In 810, when Charlemagne’s envoys demanded that the filioque be inserted in the Creed of Constantinople, Pope Leo III roundly refused to do so, although asserting that he was profoundly convinced of the orthodoxy of the Latin tradition (PL 102, 971-976). These two conver- gent examples have lost nothing of their freshness and immediacy, pointing as they do to what is perhaps the only way to an honourable agreement. The Roman Catholic Church will be able to restore the Creed and acknow- ledge the radical truth to monopatrism once the Orthodox Church likewise recognizes the authenticity of the filioque understood in the sense of the traditional 5i Y iou.
THE FILIOQUE CLAUSE: AN ANGLICAN APPROACH
DONALD M. ALLCHIN
I. The Moscow Statement of 1976
The history of Anglican-Orthodox relationships is a long and slowly mov- ing one. Contacts were made in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, and became more frequent in the nineteenth century. In the last fifty years official exchanges have been constant. The appointment of an international Joint Doctrinal Commission in 1931 marked a new stage on the way. Al- though the meeting of 1931 was not followed up, the idea of such a Com- mission was not forgotten. In the 1960’s a new and more representative Commission was set up, and held its first full meeting in Oxford in 1973. After two years of further intensive work the full Commission met again in Moscow in 1976 and issued an agreed statement which covered the subjects of “The Knowledge of God”, “The Inspiration and Authority of Holy Scripture”, “Scripture and Tradition”, “The Authority of the Councils,” “The Church as the Eucharistic Community” and “The Invocation of the Holy Spirit in the Eucharist”. Not the least important section of the agreed statement is that which deals with the filioque clause, which follows directly on the treatment of “The Authority of the Councils”. It reads as follows:
“19. The question of the filioque is in the first instance a question of the content of the Creed, i.e. the summary of the articles of faith which are to be confessed by all. In the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed (commonly called the Nicene Creed) of 381, the words ‘proceeding from the Father’ are an assertion of the divine origin and nature of the Holy Spirit, parallel to the assertion of the divine origin and nature of the Son contained in the words ‘begotten not made, consubstantial with the Father’. The word €k-
j
• Donald M. Allchin (Anglican) is Residentiary Canon of Canterbury Cathedral, a member of the International Anglican/Orthodox Doctrinal Commission, and Chair- man of the Council of the Fellowship of St Alban and St Sergius.
86 Spirit of God, Spirit of Christ
7Topevo|jL€vov (proceeding), as used in the Creed, denotes the incomprehen- sible mode of the Spirit’s origin from the Father, employing the language of Scripture (John 15:26). It asserts that the Spirit comes from the Father in a manner which is not that of generation.
“20. The question of the origin of the Holy Spirit is to be distinguished from that of his mission to the world. It is with reference to the mission of the Spirit that we are to understand the biblical texts which speak both of the Father (John 14:26) and of the Son (John 15:26) as sending (pempein) the Holy Spirit.
“21. The Anglican members therefore agree that: (a) because the original form of the Creed referred to the origin of the Holy Spirit from the Father; ( b ) because the filioque clause was introduced into this Creed without the authority of an ecumenical council and without due regard for Catholic assent; and (c) because this Creed constitutes the public confession of faith by the people of God in the eucharist, the filioque clause should not be included in the Creed.” 1
Two years later in the Lambeth Conference of 1978, the bishops of the Anglican Communion agreed to commend the work of the International Commission, to receive the Report of Moscow 1976, and to recommend “that all member churches of the Anglican Communion should consider omitting the filioque from the Nicene Creed, and that the Anglican-Orthodox Joint Doctrinal Commission through the Anglican Consultative Council should assist them in presenting the theological issues to their appropriate synodical bodies and should be responsible for any necessary consultation with other churches of the western tradition”.2
What was the context of this agreement? Something of the nature of the discussion at the Moscow meeting can be seen in the account written by the Orthodox theological secretary, Father Kallistos Ware, which makes con- siderable use of quotations from the minutes. On the one side it becomes clear that the Anglicans did not see this proposal as a mere gesture of ecumenical good-will. Anglicans have long recognized that in this matter their position is anomalous, at least as regards the position of the clause in the Creed. The view commonly held is that the filioque clause owes its
1 Anglican-Orthodox Dialogue: the Moscow Statement Agreed by the Anglican-Ortho- dox Joint Doctrinal Commission 1976, ed. K. Ware and C. Davey, pp. 87-88. This book contains a useful history of the dialogue written by C. Davey, London, SPCK, 1977, pp. 4-37.
2 The Report of the Lambeth Conference, 1978, London, CIO Publishing, 1978, pp. 51-2. This recommendation was endorsed and reaffirmed at the meeting of the Anglican Consultative Council in London, Ontario, May 1979.
An Anglican approach 87
position in the Creed to a decision of the papacy, over-riding an earlier conciliar decision. But Anglicans in general do not recognize such an au- thority in the papacy. The members of the Commission, however, wanted to go further than this. It was not only a question of the form of the Creed of 381, it was also a question of the intention of those who framed it. Hence the carefully phrased formulation of paragraph 19, about the parallel be- tween the begetting of the Son and the proceeding of the Spirit; hence the first of the reasons given for the recommendation made to their churches by the Anglican members of the Commission that the filioque clause should no longer be included in the Creed. Here is a question of faith which lies behind the subsequent development of divergent theologies.
But as the minutes of the meeting also make abundantly evident, there : was no intention on the part of the Anglican members of the Commission to make any condemnation of the filioque doctrine as such, still less of the whole Latin tradition of trinitarian teaching of which it is a part. Indeed one member of the Commission proposed that an addition to the statement should be made in terms such as these. “We make this proposal without prejudice to the teaching of Augustine on the double procession of the Holy | Spirit, which is found in other Anglican formularies, and without implying any condemnation of the Roman Catholic, Lutheran and other churches which use the filioque ” 3 This proposal was not taken up, but I think it is
! clear that even those Anglican theologians who feel seriously dissatisfied with the filioque tradition of trinitarian theology would not wish either to condemn or outlaw it. Both traditions of trinitarian theology contain ele- ments of value. They bring out complementary aspects of the truth. Befo