Tuesday, August 4, 2009

Filioque

Still to come:
*The controversy of St. Cyril of Alexandria with Bl. Theodoret of Cyrus
*The unilateral addition to the Creed

See also:
(1) my 12/17/2009 paper "The Cappadocian Fathers and Filioque" which addresses the statements of Sts. Gregory the Theologian, Basil the Great, and Gregory of Nyssa, in addition to why the Second Ecumenical Council did not define Filioque.
(2) my 1/6/2010 succinct nine-point post "The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son"

1. This post is an answer to the following threefold question from Mystagogy §5 of St. Photios the Great [PG 102:284AB-285A]: "Who of our sacred and renowned Fathers said the Spirit proceeds from the Son? Did any synod, acknowledged as ecumenical, proclaim it? Which assembly of priests and bishops, inspired of God, affirmed this understanding of the Holy Spirit?St. Photios and the Tradition of the Fathers
2. The Latin Fathers unanimously teach Filioque in the sense of a hypostatic procession; their teaching is not, as Perry Robinson maintains,{1} restricted to an energetic procession. How could the Greek Fathers have held an understanding of the procession of the Holy Spirit antithetical to the unanimous understanding of the Latin Fathers who openly professed Filioque, with whom they were in communion for centuries, and whom the Eastern Orthodox venerate as saints? The teaching of Catholic Church, unlike that of the Eastern Orthodox Church, does justice to the Greek and Latin Fathers. Should we expect any different of a Church that follows the teaching of St. Photios, who, despite his great virtues and learning,{2} misunderstood the West,{3} knew no Latin,{4} and failed express the truly Catholic tradition, for he did not include the Latins, St. John of Damascus, and ante-Nicene saints among the Church Fathers?{5} What we will refer to as Photian monopatrism{6} first appears, not in any orthodox writer, but in the work of the Nestorian Bishop Theodore of Mopsuestia,{7} an arch-heretic of the Antiochene school whose writings and person were condemned by the Fifth Ecumenical Council (Constantinople II) in 553.

{1} Perry Robinson says, "The filioque is not patristic. What the majority of Latins held was an energetic procession and not a hypostatic procession, Augustine and Co being a later exception." See http://energeticprocession.wordpress.com/2008/01/16/saint-mark-of-ephesus-on-false-union-and-the-filioque/#comment-6314.
{2} This is not the place to discuss the sanctity of St. Photios the Great in light of the blots on his ecclesiastical career. It suffices to say that St. Photios is a Catholic saint; Fr. Francis Dvornik of pious memory says in The Photian Schism 389 that under Patriarch Sisinnios of Constantinople (996-998), who was in communion with Rome, the name of St. Photios was added to the list of saintly patriarchs (tomos tês Henôseôs). Fr. Dvornik cites Fr. Martin Jugie, "Le Culte de Photius dans l'Église Byzantine" in Revue de l'Orient Chrétien (1922-3), 3rd ser., tom. III, pp. 109 seq.
{3} His knee-jerk anti-Latin polemical treatise, the Mystagogy, is based on the strawman that Filioque destroys the μοναρχία of the Father.
{4} Malanczuk, V. "Byzantine Theology." New Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 2. 2nd ed. Detroit: Gale, 2003. 818-829. 15 vols. Gale Virtual Reference Library. Gale. Fordham University Libraries. 23 Mar. 2009.
{5} Ibid.
{6} This is the terminology of the venerable Avery Cardinal Dulles, S.J.
{7} "The doctrine of the double procession of the Holy Spirit came into discussion early … Theodore of Mopsuestia denied it … None [of the Greek Fathers] ever wrote 'from the Father only'..." Gill, J., and B. L. Marthaler. "Filioque." New Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 5. 2nd ed. Detroit: Gale, 2003. 719-720. 15 vols. Gale Virtual Reference Library. Gale. Fordham University Libraries. 23 Mar. 2009.

Making Sense of "Hypostatic Procession"
3. The Eastern Orthodox have not preserved the true understanding of the procession of the Holy Spirit, ever since what started as a dispute over misunderstood words became hardened into a theology incompatible with the sacred Catholic dogma that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son; now the Orthodox, at the very most, will grant, following Patriarch Gregory II the Cypriot of Constantinople [PG 142:1233-1245], that the υπόστασις (hypostasis) of the Spirit is eternally energetically manifested through the υπόστασις of the Son. The Orthodox maintain the Patristically impossible position that the Father and the Son do not, together, spirate the hypostasis of the Holy Spirit. Filioque is necessary in order to fully explain the distinction between the person of the Son and the person of the Holy Spirit, to preserve the correct τάξις (order); the Trinity of Persons are distinguished by the relations of origin, as Patriarch St. Gregory Nazianzen the Great Theologian of Constantinople [PG 36:141C] and Bishop St. Gregory of Nyssa [PG 45:133BC] teach. Since the Holy Spirit is a υπόστασις and given that He proceeds in some way from the Son, He must proceed as υπόστασις from the Son, which is to say His υπόστασις is from the Son. In other words, the υπόστασις of the Holy Spirit proceeds (is) from the Son eternally, but the primordial/unoriginate source of His divine hypostasis is the Father alone, for the Father alone is the (unoriginate) πηγή (source) and αἰτία (cause) of divinity. The Holy Spirit receives from the Son the being and oυσία (ousia = nature) of the Father, which the Son receives as Only-Begotten.

Different Senses of "Procession"
4. The Orthodox misinterpret the declarations of the μοναρχία (monarchy) of the Father, Who is the sole πηγαία Θεότης (Godhead-source), to exclude Filioque. The Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity stresses that Filioque deals not with the εκπόρευσις (ekporeusis) of the Holy Spirit from the Father as the sole ἀρχὴ-ἄναρχος (archê-anarchos = principle without principle) and πηγή (peghe = source) of the Godhead, but reveals the procession (Greek το προείναι = proienai; Latin processio) of the Holy Spirit in consubstantial communion from the Father and the Son, i.e., the communication of consubstantial divinity from the Father to the Son and from the Father, διά (through) and σύν (with) the Son, to the Holy Spirit. Is not such a procession implied when the Greek Fathers, e.g., Bishop St. Gregory the Wonderworker of Neocaesarea [PG 10:985A] and Hieromonk St. John Mansūr Chrysorrhoas of Damascus, call the Holy Spirit the Image of the Son? How could a divine person share the essence of a divine person (A) Who does not have existence from Him or (B) Who is not one from Whom He has existence?

Complementary of the Greek and Latin Formulae
5. "From the Son" and "through the Son" are different ways to express the true doctrine of the procession of the Holy Spirit. A few Fathers used the formulae interchangeably (e.g., Bishop St. Hilary of Poitiers and Patriarch St. Cyril I of Alexandria). According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church §248, the Greek formula directly expresses the order according to which the Father and Son are the one principle of the Holy Spirit, and implies Their equality as principle. The Latin formula directly expresses the equality of the Father and Son as principle, and implies the order. The great Byzantine Fathers and Doctors had no reservations about being in communion with those great Latin Fathers and Doctors who openly and dogmatically professed Filioque. Therefore the formulae are complementary, not contradictory.

One Principle, Not Two Principles of the Holy Spirit
6. St. Photios thought that Filioque entails that the Holy Spirit proceeds from two principles, but because the Father and Son are one in everything in which they are not distinguished by the opposition of relation and they are not relatively opposed in their being the principle of the Holy Spirit, they are the one principle from which the Holy Spirit proceeds, as St. Thomas Aquinas, the prince of theologians, shows.{1} The term principle of the Holy Spirit is a substantive name (a substantive name is a form with an accompanying suppositum), but we do not say there are two principles because even though the Father and the Son are two supposita spirating, they are one form, God.{2} We use principle in an indeterminate sense when we confess that the Father and the Son are the one principle of the Holy Spirit.{3}{1} Aquinas, St. Thomas (Angelic Doctor). Summa Theologica I, q. 36, art. 4, corp.
{2} Ibid., ad 7.
{3} Ibid., ad 4.

Whether the Equality of the Holy Spirit Demands that He Cause the Son Due to Filioque
7. The same Patriarch of Constantinople thought that if the Father and the Son both spirate the Holy Spirit, then the Holy Spirit, in order to have the same equality and oneness with the Father as the Son possesses, should, with the Father, cause the Son [Mystagogy §4 in PG 102:284A]. On the contrary, we predicate likeness between the divine Persons on the oneness of the essence, not on the "relative properties."{1}

{1} Aquinas, St. Thomas (Angelic Doctor). Summa Theologica I, q. 36, art. 4, ad 3.

Does Filioque Confuse the Unique Personal Properties of the Father and the Son?
8. St. Photios echoes the teaching of the Cappadocian Fathers that every real divine ιδιος is common to all three persons or proper to one person [Mystagogy §19 in PG 102:297B].{1} But he was mistaken when he thought that Filioque attributes to the Son a property distinctive of the Father and therefore confuses the hypostatic properties of the Father and the Son and destroying the μοναρχία of the Father [Mystagogy §10 in PG 102:289B,292A]. There are three personal properties, taking properties in the strict sense of a relation of origin constituting a divine person: the property of the Father--paternity--is γέννησις (generation), the property of the Son is filiation, and the property of the Holy Spirit is procession, i.e., passive spiration.{2} These are distinctive personal properties because they are instances of relative opposition (DS 1330): the Father to the Son, the Son to the Father, and the Holy Spirit to the Father and Son—for if the Holy Spirit had a relation of opposition to the Father only, He would not be distinguished from the Son, leading to a semi-Sabellian monster).{3} Active spiration is a relation, but not a property. It is not a personal property of the Father, pace St. Photios, because it is not relatively opposed to paternity or filiation; ergo active spiration is common to the Father and the Son.{4} Thus Filioque is no prejudice to the monarchy of the Father.

{1} Bishop St. Basil the Great of Caesarea (Doctor) says in Epistle 214:4 [PG 32:789], "In God, whatever appertains to nature is common … but the Person is known by the character of paternity, or filiation, or sanctifying power." Sts. Gregory the Wonderworker of Neocaesarea, Athanasios the Great of Alexander (Doctor), Gregory the Theologian, Cyril of Alexandria (Doctor of the Incarnation), Eulogios, and John of Damascus (Doctor of the Assumption) teach the same truth. Bermejo, A. M. "Properties, Divine Personal." New Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 11. 2nd ed. Detroit: Gale, 2003. 755. 15 vols. Gale Virtual Reference Library. Gale. Fordham University Libraries. 23 Mar. 2009.
{2} Aquinas, St. Thomas (Angelic Doctor). Summa Theologica I, q. 28, art. 3, ad 1.
{3} Ibid., corp.
{4} Ibid., ad 1.

Does Perfect Procession from the Father Render Filioque Superfluous?
9. What of the Photian objection that the Holy Spirit proceeds perfectly from the Father, rendering His procession from the Son superfluous [Mystagogy §7 in PG 102:288C]? We have just seen that far from being superfluous, Filioque is necessary, since the power of the Father and the Son is numerically one and whatever is from the Father has to also be from the Son unless it is opposed to filiation, for the reason that the Son does not proceed from Himself but rather proceeds from the Father.{1}

{1} Aquinas, St. Thomas (Angelic Doctor). Summa Theologica I, q. 36, art. 2, ad 6.

He Shall Receive Of Mine
10. St. Photios said that "ἐκ τοῦ ἐμοῦ λήμψεται" ("He shall receive of Mine") in Jn 16:14 does not mean that the Holy Spirit receives the divine substance from the Son [Mystagogy §29 in PG 102:309C], but that the Holy Spirit receives the divine substance from the Father alone (from Him that is Mine) [Mystagogy §22 in PG 102:301B]. However, as well shall see below, this is contrary to the exegesis of such illustrious hierarchs as St. Hilary of Poitiers (Doctor), St. Athanasios the Great of Alexandria (Doctor), St. Basil the Great of Alexandria (Doctor), St. Epiphanios of Salamis, and St. Augustine the Great of Hippo (Doctor of Grace), who interpreted John 16:14 to mean that the Holy Spirit receives the divine oυσία from the Son.

Now let us turn to what our God-bearing Fathers themselves have written.

1st Century
East: Bishop St. Dionysius the Areopagite Martyr of Athens (10/9)
11. St. Dionysios the Areopagite says in Divine Names 2:5 in PG 3:641D that "the sole fount of supersubstantial divinity is the Father." This is not antithetical to Filioque; see the explanations above.2nd Century
East: St. Justin Martyr the Philosopher of Caesarea (6/1)
12. In his 7/1440 Encyclical against the Uniates, Metropolitan Mark Eugenikos of Ephesus quotes St. Justin Martyr as stating, "As the Son is from the Father, so is the Spirit from the Father."{1} Mark chides the Uniates for saying that the Son proceeds from the Father immediately, whereas the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father mediately, which he contrasts with the position of St. Justin Martyr. We rightly confess with reference to "the persons themselves spirating" that the Holy Spirit "proceeds from the Father immediately, as from Him, and mediately, as from the Son," and that, with reference to the spirative power, the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son immediately.{2}
{1} Robinson, Perry C. "Saint Mark of Ephesus on False Union and the Filioque." Energetic Procession. 16 Jan. 2008. 5 Aug. 2009 http://energeticprocession.wordpress.com/2008/01/16/saint-mark-of-ephesus-on-false-union-and-the-filioque/.
{2} Aquinas, St. Thomas (Angelic Doctor). Summa Theologica I, q. 36, art. 3, ad 1.

4th Century
East: Patriarch St. Athanasios I the Great of Alexandria (Doctor) 5/2
13. At the Ecumenical Council of Florence, Metropolitan Mark Eugenikos of Ephesus quoted St. Athanasios the Great in support of his theology.{1} St. Athanasios says [PG 28:97BC], "the sole unbegotten and sole fount of divinity, the Father." This, however, does not shut out the Son from participation in the procession of the hypostasis of the Holy Spirit from God the Father. If it does, Mark would make St. Athanasios contradict himself, for the same saint says that the Father and the Son are the one principle of the Holy Spirit [On the Incarnation of the Word Against the Arians 9 in PG 26:1000A]: "David sings in the psalm [35:10], saying: 'For with You is the font of Life;'because jointly with the Father the Son is indeed the source of the Holy Spirit."

14. Moreover, the same great illuminator of the Church and pillar of faith says in 362 [Against the Arians 3:25:24 in PG 26:376A], "Everything the Spirit has, He has from the Word (para tou Logou)." Whatever the Spirit has includes His existence, i.e., it includes His essence and hypostasis. Ergo St. Athanasios explicitly taught that the Father, through and with the Son, communicates consubstantial divinity and thus gives existence to the Holy Spirit, without prejudice to the μοναρχία of the Father.
{1} Gill, Joseph, S.J. The Council of Florence, Chapter V: The Dogmatic Discussion.

East: Bishop St. Basil the Great of Caesarea (Doctor) 1/2
15. This great Cappadocian Father says in in 365 [Against Eunomius 3:1 in PG 29:655A]: "Even if the Holy Spirit is third in dignity and order, why need He be third also in nature? For that He is second to the Son, having His being from Him and receiving from Him and announcing to us and being completely dependent on Him, pious tradition recounts; but that His nature is third we are not taught by the Saints nor can we conclude logically from what has been said."
16. Metropolitan Mark Eugenikos of Ephesus, struck by the unmistakable Filioquism of this passage, which is not compatible with his narrow Photian theology, was forced to maintain that it is not genuine.{1} However, he was wrong, according to the Rev. Reuben Parsons, D.D. of pious memory{2}:
the archbishop of Nicea tells us that out of six codices of St. Basel's works brought by his countrymen to Florence, five gave this passage in its entirety; while the one that wanted it "was defective in some parts, and had many additions, according to the pleasure of the corrupter." When he returned to Constantinople, Bessarion searched the libraries, and he found some new codices, written after the Council of Florence had terminated, and in which the above passage was wanting; whereas in other ancient MSS. which he consulted it was given.
17. And lest anyone think that the formula of St. Tarasios and Filioque are contradictory, the same great Doctor says the following in On the Holy Spirit 5:12 [PG 32:85AB] to show that "from" and "through" can be equivalent:
Whenever one of the terms "through" and "from" takes the meaning of the other, we find them frequently transferred from the one subject to the other. As, for instance, Adam says, "I have gotten a man through God" [Gen 4:1], meaning to say the same as from God; and in another passage, "all those things which Moses commanded Israel through the precept of the Lord" [Nu 36:5]. And again, "Is not the interpretation through God?" [Gen 40:8] Instead of saying from God, he said through God.
{1} Gill, Joseph, S.J. The Council of Florence, Chapter V: The Dogmatic Discussion.
{2} Parsons, Rev. Reuben, D.D. Studies in Church History: Volume III: Centuries XV-XVI. Second Edition. New York and Cincinnati: Fr. Pustet & Co., 1897. p. 139.

West: Bishop St. Hilary of Poitiers (Doctor) 1/13
18. The saintly bishop of Poitiers says 357 [On the Trinity 2:29 in PL 10:69A], "Concerning the Holy Spirit I ought not to be silent, and yet I have no need to speak; still, for the sake of those who are in ignorance, I cannot refrain. There is no need to speak, because we are bound to confess Him, proceeding, as He does, from Father and Son."

19. In 8:20 of the same work [PL 10:250C-251A], the holy Doctor clarifies,
For the present I forbear to expose their license of speculation, some of them holding that the Paraclete Spirit comes from the Father or from the Son. For our Lord has not left this in uncertainty, for after these same words He spoke thus,-- "I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. When He, the Spirit of truth, is come, He shall guide you into all truth: for He shall not speak from Himself: but what things soever He shall hear, these shall He speak; and He shall declare unto you the things that are to come. He shall glorify Me: for He shall receive of Mine and stroll declare it unto you. All things whatsoever the Father hath are Mine: therefore said I, He shall receive of Mine and shall declare it unto you" [Jn 16:12-15]. Accordingly He receives from the Son, Who is both sent by Him, and proceeds from the Father. Now I ask whether to receive from the Son is the same thing as to proceed from the Father. But if one believes that there is a difference between receiving from the Son and proceeding from the Father, surely to receive from the Son and to receive from the Father will be regarded as one and the same thing.
The saint here speaks of the temporal mission and the eternal derivation of the existence of the Spirit. He does not restrict Jn 16:12-15 to the temporal mission, but uses it to bolster his argument about vocabulary in terms of the eternal procession of the Spirit from the Father and Son. "Receiving from the Son" means "proceeding from the Father" and receiving from the Father. Thus "receiving from the Son" denotes the hypostatic origin of the Holy Spirit. This implies that the Son participates in the eternal procession of the Holy Spirit as regards His being, or else the saint would not relate the Son to the eternal procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father. Since the divine St. Hilary elsewhere affirms that the Spirit eternally proceeds, as regards His existence, from the Father and the Son, He regards proceeding from the Father and proceeding from the Son as one eternal act, or one spiration.

20. In 12:57 of this same work, St. Hilary confesses the equivalent Greek formula when he says to the Father [PL 10:471A], "May I receive your Spirit Who takes His being from You through Your only Son."
East: Bishop St. Epiphanios of Salamis (Doctor of the Syro-Malabar Catholic Church) 5/12
21. In 374 [The Well-Anchored Man 71 in PG 43:148B, the great shepherd of the faithful of Salamis states,
But someone will say, "Therefore we are saying that there are two Sons. And how then is He the Only-begotten?" Well then. "Who art thou that repliest against God?" [Rom 9:20]. For if he calls the one Who is from Him the Son, and the one Who is from both (παρ᾽ ἀμφοτέρων) the Holy Spirit, which things we understand by faith alone, from the saints— full of light, givers of light, they have their operation full of light…
St. Epiphanios distinguishes the hypostases of the Son and the Holy Spirit, Who share the two-person description "from the Father," by adding that the Son is from the Father alone, whereas the Holy Spirit proceeds hypostatically from the Father and the Son.

22. He does the same thing in 73 of the same work [PG 43:153A], indicating that the Holy Spirit receives His being from the Father and the Son,
For just as "No one knows the Father except the Son, nor the Son except the Father" [Mt 11:27], so I dare to say that no one knows the Spirit except the Father and the Son, that is, the one from Whom He proceeds and the one from Whom He receives, and that no one knows the Son and the Father except the Holy Spirit, He Who truly glorifies, Who teaches all things, Who is from the Father and the Son.
St. Photios defied St. Epiphanios when he said that the Holy Spirit does not receive (being) from the Son. Eastern Orthodox apologist Thomas Ross Valentine tries to diminish the authority of the eminent heresiologist St. Epiphanios by falsely claiming he is not a Father of the Church.{1} How can that be, when the Greek Orthodox Kontakion in Tone Four says that he and St. Germanos "burned the tongues of the godless with the sacred teachings which they most wisely expounded to all those who in Orthodox belief"?{2} Fr. George Florovsky devotes the 10th chapter of The Eastern Fathers of the Fourth Century to St. Epiphanios.

{1} "Epiphanius of Salamis is regarded as an Orthodox saint primarily for his work as a pastor of his flock. He is not a 'Father' of the Church." Ross, Thomas Valentine. "An Eastern Orthodox Guide to Filioque: Third Edition."
{2} See http://www.oca.org/FStropars.asp?SID=13&ID=101356.

East: Patriarch St. Gregory Nazianzen the Great Theologian of Constantinople (Doctor) 1/2
23. St. Gregory the Theologian says in Oration 34:10 [PG 36:252A], "all that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality." This, however, is no prejudice to Filioque, because the Theologian uses causality to mean άγεινησία and paternity (γέννησις),{1} which, as we have seen above, is not compromised by the notional act of spiration common to the Father and the Son, which is the της προσ αλληλα σχεσεως διαϕορον [Oration 31:9 in PG 36:141C] that distinguishes the Holy Spirit from the Son.24. The Theologian says [Oration 31:8], "the Spirit is a μεσον (middle term) between the Unbegotten and the Begotten." But if the Holy Ghost is the unitive "middle term" of the Father and the Son, it must be the case that He proceeds (προείναι) from the Father and the Son. Even St. Gregory Palamas (2nd Sunday of Great Lent) admits that the Holy Spirit is like the unitive Love of the Father for the Son and the Son for the Father in 150 Chapters 36 [PG 150:1144D-1145A]:
The Spirit of the most high Word is like an ineffable love of the Father for this Word ineffably generated. A love which this same Word and beloved Son of the Father entertains (χρηται) towards the Father: but insofar as He has the Spirit coming with Him (συνπροελθοντα) from the Father and reposing connaturally in Him.
But Palamas avoids the necessary conclusion that the Holy Spirit proceeds (προείναι) from both, and in the same chapter Palamas mimics the monopatrism of St. Photios by robbing the Son of a role in the eternal hypostatic procession of the Holy Spirit [PG 150:1145B]: "Therefore, He is sent to the worthy from both, but in His coming to be He belongs to the Father alone and thus He also proceeds from Him alone in His manner of coming to be."{1} Petavius, Dionysius, S.J. Dogmata theologica Vol. II: De Trinitate, Book VII, Chapter 17, §9, p. 764.

East: Bishop St. Gregory of Nyssa (Doctor of the Syro-Malabar and Chaldean Catholic Churches) 3/9
25. In Sermon 3 on the Lord's Prayer, the Cappadocian Father says,
For both the Son came forth from the Father, as the Scripture says, and the Spirit proceeds from God and from the Father. But just as being without cause pertains to the Father alone, and cannot be made to agree with the Son and the Spirit, so also, conversely, being from a cause, which is peculiar to the Son and the Spirit, is not of such a nature as to be contemplated in the Father. Now, as it is common to the Son and the Spirit to exist in a not-ungenerated way, in order that no confusion arise as to the underlying subject, one must again seek out the unconfused difference in their properties, so that both what is common may be preserved, and what is proper to each may not be confused. For the one is called by Holy Scripture "the Only-Begotten Son of the Father," and the word leaves His property at that; but the Spirit both is said to be from the Father, and is further testified to be from the Son. For, it says, "if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of His" [Rom 8:9]. Therefore the Spirit, Who is from God, is also the Spirit of Christ; but the Son, Who is from God, neither is nor is said to be "of the Spirit," nor does this relative order become reversed.
26. In To Ablabius On "Not Three Gods" [PG 45:133BC], the saint explains,
While we confess the invariable character of the nature, we do not deny the difference in respect of cause, and that which is caused, by which alone we apprehend that one Person is distinguished from another; — by our belief, that is, that one is the Cause, and another is of the Cause; and again in that which is of the Cause we recognize another distinction. For one is directly from the first Cause, and another through that which is directly from the first Cause; so that the attribute of being Only-begotten abides without doubt in the Son, and the mediation of the Son, while it guards His attribute of being Only-begotten, does not shut out the Spirit from his relation by way of nature to the Father.
To be the αἰτία, the cause, is to exist in an ungenerated way.

27. In Against the Macedonians on the Holy Spirit 6 [PG 45:1308AB], St. Gregory says that the Son, with the Father, gives existence to the Holy Spirit:
Where in each case activity in working good shows no diminution or variation whatever, how unreasonable it is to suppose the numerical order to be a sign of any diminution, or any variation with respect to nature. It is as if a man were to see a divided flame burning on three torches (and we will suppose that the cause of the third light is the first flame, kindling the end torch by transmission through the middle one), and were to maintain that the heat in the first exceeded that of the others; that that next it showed a variation from it in the direction of the less; and that the third could not be called fire at all, though it burnt and shone just like fire, and did everything that fire does. But if there is really no hindrance to the third torch being fire, though it has been kindled from a previous flame, what is the philosophy of these men, who profanely think that they can slight the dignity of the Holy Spirit because He is named by the Divine lips after the Father and the Son?
West: Bishop St. Ambrose the Great of Milan (Doctor) 12/7
28. The great Spanish bishop says in 381 [On The Holy Spirit 1:11:120 in PL 16:739AB],
The Holy Spirit also, when He proceeds from the Father and the Son, is not separated from the Father nor separated from the Son. For how could He be separated from the Father Who is the Spirit of His mouth? Which is certainly both a proof of His eternity, and expresses the Unity of this Godhead.
29. In 1:15:172 of the same work the saint states, "Learn now that as the Father is the Fount of Life, so, too, many have stated that the Son is signified as the Fount of Life; so that, he says, with Thee, Almighty God, Thy Son is the Fount of Life. That is the Fount of the Holy Spirit, for the Spirit is Life, as the Lord says: 'The words which I speak unto you are Spirit and Life,' for where the Spirit is, there also is Life; and where Life is, is also the Holy Spirit."

30. Since "Almighty God" (the Father) and the Son are "the Fount of Life" and the Holy "Spirit is Life," the Father and Son are together the one principle of the subsistent person of the Holy Spirit. The great Bishop of Milan thus taught the sense of the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son: Filioque expresses the communication of consubstantial divinity from the Father to the Son and from the Father, διά (through) and σύν (with) the Son, to the Holy Spirit.
5th Century
West: Bishop St. Augustine the Great of Hippo (Doctor of Grace) 8/28
31. The prince of Latin Church Fathers says in 408 [On the Holy Trinity 4:20:29 in PL 42:908],
As, therefore, the Father begat, the Son is begotten; so the Father sent, the Son was sent. But in like manner as He who begat and He who was begotten, so both He who sent and He who was sent, are one, since the Father and the Son are one. So also the Holy Spirit is one with them, since these three are one. For as to be born, in respect to the Son, means to be from the Father; so to be sent, in respect to the Son, means to be known to be from the Father. And as to be the gift of God in respect to the Holy Spirit, means to proceed from the Father; so to be sent, is to be known to proceed from the Father. Neither can we say that the Holy Spirit does not also proceed from the Son, for the same Spirit is not without reason said to be the Spirit both of the Father and of the Son. Nor do I see what else He intended to signify, when He breathed on the face of the disciples, and said, "Receive ye the Holy Ghost" [Jn 20:22]. For that bodily breathing, proceeding from the body with the feeling of bodily touching, was not the substance of the Holy Spirit, but a declaration by a fitting sign, that the Holy Spirit proceeds not only from the Father, but also from the Son.
32. In 416 the great bishop shows that Jn 15:26 is no prejudice to Filioque [Homilies on John 99:6,8]:
Someone may here inquire whether the Holy Spirit proceeds also from the Son. For the Son is Son of the Father alone, and the Father is Father of the Son alone; but the Holy Spirit is not the Spirit of one of Them, but of both... If, then, the Holy Spirit proceeds both from the Father and from the Son, why said the Son, "He proceeds from the Father"? Why, do you think, but just because it is to Him He is wont to attribute even that which is His own, of Whom He Himself also is? Hence we have Him saying, "My doctrine is not Mine, but His that sent Me." If, therefore, in such a passage we are to understand that as His doctrine, which nevertheless He declared not to be His own, but the Father's, how much more in that other passage are we to understand the Holy Spirit as proceeding from Himself, where His words, "He proceeds from the Father," were uttered so as not to imply, He proceeds not from Me? But from Him, of Whom the Son has it that He is God (for He is God of God), He certainly has it that from Him also the Holy Spirit proceeds: and in this way the Holy Spirit has it of the Father Himself, that He should also proceed from the Son, even as He proceeds from the Father.
33. 12 years later the great Doctor adds in Against Maximus 2:14 [PL 42:770]:
The Son comes from the Father; the Holy Spirit comes from the Father. The former is born; the latter proceeds. Hence, the former is the Son of the Father from Whom He is born, but the latter is the Spirit of both because He proceeds from both. When the Son spoke of the Spirit, He said, "He proceeds from the Father" [Jn 15:26], because the Father is the author of His procession. The Father begot a Son and, by begetting Him, gave it to Him that the Holy Spirit proceeds from Him as well. If He did not proceed from Him, He would not say to His disciples, "Receive the Holy Spirit" [Jn 20:22], and give the Spirit by breathing on them. He signified that the Holy Spirit also proceeds from Him and showed outwardly by blowing what He was giving inwardly by breathing. If He were born, He would be born not from the Father alone or from the Son alone, but from both of Them; He would beyond any doubt be the son of both of Them. But because He is in no sense the son of both of Them, it was necessary that He not be born from both. He is, therefore, the Spirit of both, by proceeding from both.
East: Patriarch St. Cyril I of Alexandria (Doctor of the Incarnation) 6/27
34. St. Gregory Palamas (Second Sunday of Great Lent) says that the energies of the Holy Spirit, not the hypostasis of the Holy Spirit, proceed from the Father through the Son; this is how he explains the teaching of St. Cyril of Alexandria.{1} But in many places, the great St. Cyril of Alexandria, who distinguished between the divine essence and the divine energy,{2} affirms the distinctively Catholic teaching on the procession of the Holy Spirit, rather than just an energetic procession, meaning that the Palamite interpretation is inadequate. He accurately restricts εκπορευσθαι to the relation of origin of the Holy Spirit to the Father, the sole αἰτία, i.e., ἀρχὴ-ἄναρχος.

35. In 427 the holy Doctor of the Incarnation says in Commentary on the Prophet Joel 35 [PG 71:377D],
For, in that the Son is God, and from God according to nature (for He has had His birth from God the Father), the Spirit is both proper to Him and in Him and from Him, just as, to be sure, the same thing is understood to hold true in the case of God the Father Himself.
In 429 St. Cyril says in Thesaurus 34 [PG 75:576B], "Thus, Paul knows no difference of nature between the Son and the Holy Spirit, but because the Spirit exists from Him and in Him by nature, He calls Him by the name of Lordship."

36. In the same part of the same work [PG 75:600D], St. Cyril says, "Therefore, when Christ lays down the law, He lays it down that His Spirit naturally exists in Him and from Him."

37. Lest anyone think that, from the Son's sending of the Spirit in the economy, we cannot infer the eternal procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son, the holy patriarch says in On the Incarnation of the Only-Begotten [PG 75:1241A], "Freeing from sin the one who adheres to Him, He anoints him, again, with His own Spirit, infusing Him Himself, since He is the Word from God the Father, and from His own nature He causes Him to fountain upon us." Since the Son sends the Holy Spirit [Jn 15:26], He must have some authority over the Holy Spirit. But it cannot be authority of dominion (e.g., King St. Vladimir I the Great rules Russia), superiority (e.g., John is holier than Jack), or seniority (e.g., a general is ranked higher than a colonel). Therefore the authority must be one of origin, so that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. This is how St. Thomas Aquinas argues in Summa Contra Gentiles.

38. He also expresses the complementarity and equivalence of the Latin and Greek formulae when he says [On Worship and Adoration in Spirit and Truth 1 in PG 68:148A],
The Spirit is assuredly in no way changeable; or even if some think Him to be so infirm as to change, the disgrace will be traced back to the divine nature itself, if in fact the Spirit is from God the Father and, for that matter, from the Son, being poured forth substantially from both, that is to say, from the Father through the Son.
{1} Palamas says,
When you hear him (that is, Cyril of Alexandria) say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the two, because He comes essentially from the Father through the Son, you should understand his teaching in this sense: it is the powers and essential energies of God which pour out, not the divine hypostasis of the Spirit.
{2} St. Cyril says in Thesaurus 18 [PG 75:312C], "Essence (oυσία) and energy (ενέργεια) are not identical." According to Dr. Mike Liccione, the Eastern Fathers (e.g., St. Athanasios the Great of Alexandria, St. Basil the Great of Caesarea, St. Gregory of Nyssa, St. Gregory the Theologian, St. Maximos the Confessor, and St. John of Damascus) and later Byzantines like St. Gregory Palamas used essence differently from the Latins, to mean God-as-what-He-necessarily-is-irrespective-of-what-He-does-ad-extra.

West: Pope St. Leo I the Great of Rome (Doctor) 11/10
39. In his 447 letter 15:2 to Bishop St. Turibius of Astorga [PL 54:680], the author of the Tome that defined the true doctrine of the two natures of Christ teaches the hypostatic procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son when he declares,
Thus, in the first chapter it is shown what impious notions they hold concerning the divine Trinity, when they assert that there is one and the same person of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, as though the same God should at one time be named Father, at another time Son, at another time Holy Spirit; and as though there were not one Who begat, another Who is begotten, another Who proceeds from both.
The Latin reads,
primo itaque capitulo demonstratur quam impie sentiant de Trinitate divina, qui et Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti unam atque eandem asserunt esse personam, tamquam idem Deus nunc Pater nunc Filius nunc Spiritus Sanctus nominetur; nec alius sit qui genuit, alius qui genitus est, alius qui de utroque procedit.
40. St. Photios heaps lavish praise on the holy pillar of faith St. Leo the Great, but infers from the fact that St. Leo did not add Filioque to the Creed at the Council of Chalcedon, that the latter Doctor agreed with his monopatrism [Mystagogy §§79-80]. The dogmatic Leonine epistle quoted above falsifies the Photian historiography.
West: Bishop St. Eucherius of Lyons (11/16)
41. Before 454, St. Eucherius says [Spic. Rom. 5:93], "The Holy Spirit is neither generate nor ingenerate, but rather is He who proceeds from the Father and the Son, as a harmony, we may say, of Both."

6th Century
West: Bishop St. Fulgentius of Ruspe (1/1)
42. In Rule of Faith 11:52 [PL 65:696C], the great African bishop says that Filioque finds all the support it needs in the Sacred Deposit of Faith: "Believe most firmly, and never doubt, that the same Holy Spirit, the One Spirit of the Father and the Son, proceeds from the Father and the Son. That He proceeds also from the Son is supported by the teaching both of Prophets and Apostles."

43. Before 517 St. Fulgentius says [The Trinity 2], "The Father is begotten of none, the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son." This clearly refers to the being of the Holy Spirit, which He receives from the Father and the Son.

44. Moreover, before 527 the God-bearing Fulgentius says [Epistle 14 To Ferrandus], "The Holy Spirit is wholly the Father's and wholly the Son's, because He is by nature the one Spirit of the Father and the Son; for which cause He proceeds wholly from the Father and the Son; for He so abides as to proceed, and so proceeds as to abide." Compare this to the statement of Pope St. Zachary below, who, when he confessed that the Holy Spirit abides in the Son, did not thereby deny that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son.

West: Pope St. Hormisdas of Rome (8/8)
45. Pope St. Hormisdas says the following in his 517 Profession of Faith [PL 63:514B],
Great and incomprehensible is the mystery of the Trinity. God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Ghost, an undivided Trinity, and yet it is known because it is characteristic of the Father to generate the Son, characteristic of the Son of God to be born of the Father equal to the Father, characteristic of the Spirit to proceed from Father and Son in one substance of deity.
The Latin reads,
Magnum est sanctae et incomprehensibile mysterium Trinitatis, Deus Pater, Deus Filius, Deus Spiritus sanctus, Trinitas indivisa: et tamen notum est quia proprium est Patris ut generaret Filium, proprium Filii Dei ut ex Patre Patri nasceretur aequalis, proprium Spiritus sancti ut de Patre et Filio procederet sub una substantia Deitatis.
The Holy Spirit is distinguished from the Son in that the Son is from the Father only, while the hypostatic ιδιος (property) of the Holy Spirit is that He is from the Father and the Son. That is why we are able to distinguish between γέννησις (begetting) and προβολη (spiration).West: St. Anicius Manlius Torquatus Severinus Boethius the Philosopher-Martyr of Rome (10/23)
46. St. Boethius affirms that the Holy Spirit proceeds hypostatically from the Father and Son in How the Trinity Is One God and Not Three Gods 5 [PL 64:1254C], "Ac si meminimus omnium in prioribus de Deo sententiarum, ita cogitemus, processisse quidem ex Deo Patre Filium Deum, et ex utrisque Spiritum sanctum."

West: Pope St. Gregory I the Great of Rome (Doctor) 9/3
47. St. Photios claims Pope St. Gregory as a teacher of Photian monopatrism [Mystagogy §87 in PG 102:373C]. However, the great Dialogist says in 595 [Morals on the Book of Job 2:56:92 in PL 75:599A], "The Spirit proceeds essentially from the Son." In the Latin from Fr. Jacques-Paul Migne, St. Gregory the Great refers to the Son and says, "quia et ex illo isdem Spiritus per substantiam profertur." It is not just a question of the οἰκονομία (temporal mission), or an eternal manifestation of ενέργεια à la the once-unionist{1} Patriarch Gregory II the Cypriot of Constantinople. Pope St. Gregory's teaching here is directly opposed to that of St. Photios.
{1} "Under the Emperor Michael VIII Palaeologus (1259-82), [Gregory of Cyprus] strongly supported the movement for reunion with Rome. However, in 1283 he changed his position; he supported the Emperor Adronicus II, took part in the synod that condemned John Beccos, and wrote against Beccos." Chiovaro, F. "Gregory II Cyprius, Patriach of Constantinople." New Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 6. 2nd ed. Detroit: Gale, 2003. 478. 15 vols. Gale Virtual Reference Library. Gale. Fordham University Libraries. 16 July 2009.

7th Century
West: Archbishop St. Isidore of Seville (Doctor) 4/4
48. This illustrious Spanish Doctor says in 636 [Etymologies 7:3 in PL 82:268A], "The Holy Spirit is called God because He proceeds from the Father and the Son and has Their essence." The Latin reads "Spiritus sanctus ideo praedicatur Deus, quia ex Patre Filioque procedit, et substantiam eorum habet." The saint adds [PG 82:268C], "There is, however, this difference between generation of the Son and the procession of the Spirit, that the Son is begotten of One, but the Spirit proceeds from Both." The Latin reads, "Hoc autem interest inter nascentem Filium et procedentum Spiritum sanctum, quod Filius ex uno nascitur; Spiritus sanctus ex utroque procedit."

49. This, however, does not imply two principles of the Holy Spirit, according to St. Isidore, who says that the Father and the Son are the one principle of the Holy Spirit [Three Books of Sentences 1:15:2 in PL 83:568C]: "One thing which is consubstantial with two could not at once proceed from them and be in them, unless the two from which it proceeds were one." The Latin reads "Non enim res una et duorum consubstantialis poterit simul ab eis procedere et simul inesse, nisi unum fuerit, a quibus procedit."

East: Monk St. Maximos the Confessor of Constantinople (8/13)
50. In his Letter to Priest Marinus of Cyprus, the great St. Maximos says [PG 91:134D-136C],
Those of the Queen of cities have attacked the synodal letter of the present very holy Pope (Martin I), not in the case of all the chapters that he has written in it, but only in the case of two of them. One relates to theology, because it says he says that "the Holy Spirit proceeds (ἐκπορεύεσθαι) also from the Son."

The other has to do with the divine Incarnation, because he has written, "The Lord, as man, is without original sin."

With regard to the first matter, they (the Romans) have produced the unanimous documentary evidence of the Latin fathers, and also of Cyril of Alexandria, from the sacred commentary he composed on the gospel of St. John. On the basis of these texts, they have shown that they have not made the Son the cause of the Spirit — they know in fact that the Father is the only cause of the Son and the Spirit, the one by begetting and the other by procession; but [they use this expression] in order to manifest the Spirit's coming-forth (προϊέναι) through Him and, in this way, to make clear the unity and identity of the essence

The Romans have therefore been accused of things of which it is wrong to accuse them, whereas of the things of which the Byzantines have quite rightly been accused (viz., Monothelitism), they have, to date, made no self-defense, because neither have they gotten rid of the things introduced by them.

But, in accordance with your request, I have asked the Romans to translate what is peculiar to them in such a way that any obscurities that may result from it will be avoided. But since the practice of writing and sending (the synodal letters) has been observed, I wonder whether they will possibly agree to doing this. One should also keep in mind that they cannot express their meaning in a language and idiom that are foreign to them as precisely as they can in their own mother-tongue, any more than we can do.
51. Against the Monothelites, the wonderworking monk says that the Latins do not consider the Son to be the unoriginate source, i.e., αἰτία of divinity, and that the expression procedere in the synodal letter of the righteous Pope St. Martin I was translated inaccurately. It is the height of absurdity to claim that St. Maximus, who lived in the West for a time, was defending a Photian interpretation of the Latin Fathers rather than the unanimous Latin teaching of the eternal derivation of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son.{1} Lest anyone think, from the above diction of the Constantinopolitan man of God, that he denies that the Son has any involvement and mediation in the hypostatic procession of the Holy Spirit, I quote the following words of the monk [Questions to Thalassios 63 in PG 90:672C]: "By nature (ϕυσει) the Holy Spirit in His being (κατ’ ουσιαν) takes substantially (ουσιοδως) His origin (εκπορευομενον) from the Father through the Son Who is begotten (δι’ Υιου γεννηθεντος)."
{1} Gilbert, Dr. Peter. "St. Maximus on the Filioque." De Unione Ecclesiarum. 21 Jan. 2008. 6 Aug. 2009 <http://bekkos.wordpress.com/2008/01/21/st-maximus-on-the-filioque/>.

8th Century
East: Hieromonk St. John of Damascus (Doctor of the Assumption; December 4)
52. The Syrian Doctor says in An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith 1:8 [PG 94:832B], "And we do not speak of the Spirit as from the Son: but yet we call Him the Spirit of the Son." In 1:12 [PG 94:849B] St. John adds, "And we speak also of the Spirit of the Son, not as though proceeding from Him, but as proceeding through Him from the Father. For the Father alone is cause."
53. When St. John of Damascus says that the Spirit does not proceed ἐκ (from) the Son, the great defender of icons is not rejecting Filioque, because εκπόρευσις (ekporeusis) can, by definition, characterize only the relationship of origin to the principle without principle of the Holy Trinity, viz., the Father;{1} to say that το εκ του Πατρος εκπορευομενον και του Υιου confuses the hypostases of the Father and the Son. The Son is not the αἰτία because He receives His fecundity from the Father.

54. In 1:8 of the same work, the saint says [PG 94:833A],
And we confess that He is manifested and imparted to us through the Son. It is just the same as in the case of the sun from which come both the ray and the radiance (for the sun itself is the source of both the ray and the radiance), and it is through the ray that the radiance is imparted to us, and it is the radiance itself by which we are lightened and in which we participate. Further we do not speak of the Son of the Spirit, or of the Son as derived from the Spirit.
St. John preserves the τάξις when he says that the Spirit is δε (of) the Son, but not the other way around (the Son is not δε the Spirit or derived from the Spirit), and does not rule out that the Holy Spirit receives from the Son the oυσία of the Father, which the Son receives as Only-Begotten, lest anyone think that he restricts the involvement of the Son to the energetic manifestation, excluding involvement in the hypostatic procession. For he says in An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith 1:12 [PG 94:848D], "He Himself then is mind, the depth of reason, begetter of the Word, and through the Word the Producer of the revealing Spirit."

55. If that is not what St. John means, then, as we said above, how could he say in 1:13 [PG 94:856B], "The Son is the Father's image, and the Spirit the Son's, through which Christ dwelling in man makes him after His own image."
How could a divine person be the είκών of a person from Whom He does not proceed? And how could it be the case that [PG 94:856B] "The Holy Spirit is God, being between the unbegotten and the begotten, and united to the Father through the Son," being the unitive bond of the Father and the Son, unless He proceeds from the Father and the Son?
{1} Petavius, Dionysius, S.J. Dogmata theologica Vol. II: De Trinitate, Book VII, Chapter 17, §8, p. 763. This is the sense of "non tamen ex ipso existentiam habens" [Greek in PG 96:605B] that Steven Todd Kaster quotes.

West: Pope Adrian I of Rome
56. Adrian I affirmed Filioque in his answer to the Caroline Books.{1} He defended, against the misunderstanding of my ancestor Bl. Charlemagne (January 28), the formula and doctrine of Patriarch St. Tarasios of Constantinople [PL 98:1249-1252], who said at the Seventh Ecumenical Council that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son [Mansi XII:1121D].{2} He quoted Patristic statements to prove that omitting Filioque need not mean that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone, i.e., that the Father alone spirates the Holy Spirit.{3}
{1} Maas, Anthony. "Filioque." The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 6. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1909. 3 Aug. 2009 <http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06073a.htm>.
{2} Gill, J., and B. L. Marthaler "Filioque." New Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 5. 2nd ed. Detroit: Gale, 2003. 719. 15 vols. Gale Virtual Reference Library. Gale. Fordham University Libraries. 23 Mar. 2009.
{3} Higgins, M. J., and F. Nicks. "Byzantine Church, History of." New Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 2. 2nd ed. Detroit: Gale, 2003. 752. 15 vols. Gale Virtual Reference Library. Gale. Fordham University Libraries. 23 Mar. 2009.

West: Pope St. Zachary of Rome (3/5)
57. St. Photios claims Pope St. Zachary as a teacher of Photian monopatrism [Mystagogy §87 in PG 102:373C], even though no pope ever objected to the doctrine of Filioque.{1} The fact that the Holy Spirit abides in the Son does not entail that He does not proceed from the Son, because we also say that the Son abides in the Father, from Whom He proceeds as Only-Begotten.{2} The Holy Spirit abides in the Son as the love (Holy Spirit) of the lover (Father) abides in the beloved (Son).{3} The Holy Spirit abides in the Son with reference to the human nature of the latter, as it is written in Jn 1:33 (Douay Rheims): "He upon Whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending and remaining upon Him, He it is that baptizeth with the Holy Ghost."{4}{1} Scourtis, C. "Eastern Schism." New Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 5. 2nd ed. Detroit: Gale, 2003. 24. 15 vols. Gale Virtual Reference Library. Gale. Fordham University Libraries. 12 Feb. 2009.
{2} Aquinas, St. Thomas (Angelic Doctor). Summa Theologica I, q. 36, art. 2, ad 4.
{3} Ibid.
{4} Ibid.

9th Century
West: Pope St. Leo III of Rome (June 12)
58. Eastern Orthodox apologists make much of the fact that Pope St. Leo III opposed the edition of Filioque to the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed of 381 and had it engraved in its original form in Greek and Latin on two silver shields in front of St. Peter's,{1} but that is where the usefulness of their polemical weapon ceases. St. Leo III told Bl. Charlemagne (January 28) that he agreed with the doctrine of Filioque.{2} But Pope St. Leo III--who omitted Filioque from the Creed for the sake of Church unity{3} and was aware of the sensitivity of the Greeks about their Creed{4} and the nuances of ἐκπορευόμενον vs. προείναι{5}--openly confessed, in letter to all the Eastern Churches, his belief in "the Holy Spirit, proceeding equally from the Father and from the Son, consubstantial, coeternal with the Father and the Son. The Father, complete God in Himself, the Son, complete God begotten of the Father, the Holy Spirit, complete God proceeding from the Father and the Son..."{6} This manifestly concerns the hypostatic procession of the Holy Spirit.
{1} Malanczuk, V. "Byzantine Theology." New Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 2. 2nd ed. Detroit: Gale, 2003. 822. 15 vols. Gale Virtual Reference Library. Gale. Fordham University Libraries. 23 Mar. 2009.
{2} Ibid.
{3} Ibid.
{4} Bonocore, Mark J. "Filioque: A Response to Eastern Orthodox Objections." The Catholic Legate. 12 Dec. 2006. 6 Aug. 2009 <http://www.catholic-legate.com/articles/filioque.html>. Mr. Bonocore says,
Not so in the Byzantine East, however, where Church and Empire (that is, secular civilization) fit neatly and fundamentally together. So, when the Western Church embraced Filioque and actually introduced it into its native recitation of the Creed, what it was doing--as the Byzantines saw it--was "rebelling" against the theocratic unity of the Byzantine Empire, to which Italy and certain other parts of the West at least nominally belonged. … Rome recognized that the Church was not formally bound or limited by any one, "official Creed"; and so amending its liturgical Creed to address real doctrinal challenges within its own Western experience was not a problem, but a valid defense of organic Christian orthodoxy. To the Byzantines, this was (and still is) a very uncomfortable approach, because it violates their view of the world and of the Church, where there was/is no separation whatsoever between Church and state (or secular Christian–that is, Byzantine–culture). Thus, when their fellow ethnic "Romans" in the West (who were now under Visigothic and Frankish rule) approved of an altered version of the Creed, it seemed to the Byzantines as if their Western brethren were being "unpatriotic" --that is, "unRoman" / "unByzantine" … and so "unOthodox." This was, of course, not the case. They were merely being "Catholic" –that is, possessing a sensitivity to Christian truth as it transcends cultural or nationalistic points of view (e.g. the limits of Byzantine culture and experience).
{5} St. Photios talks about the failure of Latin to capture Greek nuances in Mystagogy §87 [PG 102:376A]. However, Pope St. Leo III was not a Photian monopatrist, as we demonstrated above, so St. Photios could not claim him as a witness to his novel opposition to the doctrine of Filioque.
{6} Swete, H. B. On the History of the Doctrine of the Procession of the Holy Spirit from the Apostolic Age to the Death of Charlemagne. Cambridge and London, 1876. p. 230. The Latin reads, "Spiritum Sanctum a Patre et a Filio aequaliter procedentem, consubstantialem, coaeternum Patri et Filio. Pater plenus Deus in se, Filius plenus Deus a Patre genitus, Spiritus Sanctus plenus Deus a Patre et Filio procedens."

West: Pope John VIII of Rome
59. Pope John VIII of Rome, who reinstated Patriarch St. Photios the Great of Constantinople in 880 and remained in communion with him,{1} did not rebuke the doctrine of Filioque: not one pope disagreed with the doctrine that Filioque teaches.{2} St. Photios was thus wrong to claim him as "my John" in Mystagogy §89 [PG 102:380A], i.e., in the sense that John agreed with his novel teaching that the Father alone spirates the Holy Spirit. The so-called letter of Pope John VIII to St. Photios classing those who added Filioque to the Creed with Judas Iscariot is a 14th century forgery.{3}
{1} In The Photian Schism, Fr. Dvornik says that if John VIII had excommunicated St. Photios after learning what transpired at the 879-880 Reunion Council of Constantinople, Archbishop Stylianos would have mentioned it in his letter to Pope Stephen V of Rome [Mansi XVI:432], since that would have been immensely important for his purposes [Dvornik 219]. The anti-Photian compiler does not, as promised [Mansi XVI:448-449], produce the anti-Photian synodical letter of Pope John VIII, but should have if such a thing really existed [Dvornik 218].The anti-Photian compiler is untrustworthy for several reasons, one being his claim that John VIII, as Roman archdeacon, authoritatively condemned Photios at the Council of 869-870, whereas the seventh session Acts of the Council show that Bishop Gauderich of Velletri was the spokesman [218].
{2} Scourtis, C. "Eastern Schism." New Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 5. 2nd ed. Detroit: Gale, 2003. 24. 15 vols. Gale Virtual Reference Library. Gale. Fordham University Libraries. 12 Feb. 2009.
{3} Dvornik, Francis. The Photian Schism: History and Legend. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2008. pp. 197-198.

4th Century
First Ecumenical Council (Nicaea I)
60. Although the Symbol of the First Ecumenical Council does not at all touch on the τρόπος ὑπάρξεως (mode of coming to be) of the Holy Spirit, Gelasios of Cyzicus testifies in History of the Council of Nicaea 2:22 [PG 85:1296C] that Bishop St. Leontios of Caesarea (1/13) declared on behalf of the Holy Fathers assembled there that "the Spirit proceeds from the Father, and is proper to the Son and gushes forth from Him." This statement can be found in Mansi II:868CD. Thus from antiquity the Church believed that the Holy Spirit proceeded in some manner from the Son, although Eastern Orthodox apologists would, through a Palamite lens, interpret "gushing forth" as referring to an energetic procession or manifestation, rather than a statement about the τρόπος ὑπάρξεως of the υπόστασις of the Holy Spirit in relation to the Son.
Second Ecumenical Council (Constantinople I) says in 381,
61. The Holy Fathers assembled at the Second Ecumenical Council wanted to affirm the ὁμοούσιος of the Holy Spirit with the Father, not the precise τρόπος ὑπάρξεως (mode of coming to be) of the Holy Spirit.{1} Thus they considered the εκπόρενσις of the Holy Spirit from the Father as the sole unoriginate πηγή (source) and αἰτία (cause) of divinity, and were not immediately concerned with the relation of origin between the Holy Spirit and the Son.

{1} Nichols, Aidan, O.P. Rome and the Eastern Churches: A Study in Schism. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1992. p. 214.

5th Century
Third Ecumenical Council (Ephesus)
62. In 431 Canon VII of Ephesus (DS 265) prohibits additions to the Creed "defined by the holy fathers who convened in the city of Nicaea," the creed composed in 325; it does not prohibit adding to the Creed that the holy fathers of Constantinople I composed in 381, which did not attain ecumenical status until Rome ratified Constantinople I later on. That is why St. Cyril recites the Nicene Creed of 325 in Epistle 17 [PG 77:117] and the holy fathers of Ephesus read the Nicene Creed of 325, not the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed of 381, at the 6/22/431 opening of the Ecumenical Council of Ephesus. If Canon VII means that no one can add explanatory notes that illumine, rather than upset, the substance of the faith, then the Council of Ephesus anathematized the Council of Constantinople I, which added explanatory notes to the Nicene Creed of 325. If we are to avoid absurdities, then "ἑτέραν" must mean "another" in the sense of contradictory, not "another" in the sense of having explanatory additions. Otherwise, the holy fathers of Constantinople II could not have considered the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed to have lawfully expressed the same faith as the Nicene Creed [Labbe-Cossart V:455].

Fourth Ecumenical Council (Chalcedon)
63. This is all the more obvious when we consider the declaration of the Council of Chalcedon in 451 regarding the Nicene Creed of 325, to which several explanatory statements were added by the 381 Council of Constantinople I,
This wise and saving Symbol of Divine grace would have sufficed to the full knowledge and confirmation of the faith; for it teaches thoroughly the perfect truth of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, and presents to those who receive it faithfully the Incarnation of the Lord.
It is clear, then, that the holy Fathers of the seven ecumenical councils considered expository clauses licit in cases of new heresies.

6th Century
Fifth Ecumenical Council (Constantinople II)
64. The Fifth Ecumenical Council says in 553 [Session 1], "We further declare that we hold fast to the decrees of the four Councils, and in every way follow the holy Fathers, Athanasius, Hilary, Basil, Gregory the Theologian, Gregory of Nyssa, Ambrose, Theophilus, John [Chrysostom] of Constantinople, Cyril, Augustine, Proclus, Leo, and their writings on the true faith."
The Fifth Ecumenical Council followed "in every way" the "writings on the true faith" of the aforementioned Holy Fathers, meaning that it endorsed the Triadology of each of these God-bearing Church Fathers. But we have seen that Sts. Athanasios the Great (Doctor), Hilary (Doctor), Basil the Great (Doctor), Gregory of Nyssa, Ambrose the Great (Doctor), Cyril (Doctor of the Incarnation), Augustine the Great (Doctor of Grace), and Leo the Great (Doctor) taught that the Holy Spirit derives His existence from the Father and the Son.

7th Century
Sixth Ecumenical Council (Constantinople III)
65. This great Council follows the wording of the prohibition by Chalcedon, which, as we have seen, anathematizes a contradictory faith (hetera pistis), not an addition explaining the same faith in response to new heresies of the day.

8th Century
Seventh Ecumenical Council (Nicaea II)
66. Patriarch St. Tarasios of Constantinople (2/25) says at the Seventh Ecumenical Council in 787 [Mansi XII:1122D], "το Πνευμα το αγιον, το κυριον και ζωοποιον, το εκ του Πατροσ δια του Υιου εκπορευομενον." He says, "And in the Holy Spirit, Who proceeds from the Father through the Son, and Who is acknowledged to be Himself God." It is not a question of the energetic procession, but the hypostatic procession of the Holy Spirit; i.e., what characterizes His hypostasis.

1 comment: