The Light of Mt. Tabor - The Filioque Controversy

The Filioque Controversy:

From Blachernae to Florence

The Conflicting Councils of Blachernae and Florence

In this part of the paper I will examine the filioque controversy, but to recapitulate the entire history of this controversy is beyond the scope of this essay, and so I will not do that here; instead, I will focus on the theological differences that exist between the East and the West on the doctrine of the procession of the Holy Spirit. In order to do this I will briefly set out the theology of the West as exemplified in the decree of the Council of Florence (A.D. 1438), and I will also touch upon the recent clarification on the filioque issued by the Holy See in the mid 1990s. [1] Finally, I will explain the Byzantine doctrine of procession, especially as it was proclaimed in the dogmatic tome of the Council of Blachernae (A.D. 1285), and in the subsequent teaching of St. Gregory Palamas himself.

The Latin Church's Florentine decree states the following about the procession of the Holy Spirit:

In the name of the Holy Trinity, Father, Son and Holy

Spirit, we define, with the approval of this holy universal

council of Florence, that the following truth of faith shall

be believed and accepted by all Christians and thus shall

all profess it: that the Holy Spirit is eternally from the

Father and the Son, and has His essence [οὐσίαν] and His

subsistent being [ύπαρχτιχόν είναι] from the Father

together with the Son, and proceeds [ἐκπορεύεται] from

both eternally as from one principle [μίᾶς άρχής] and a

single spiration. We declare that when Holy Doctors and

Fathers say that the Holy Spirit proceeds [ἐκπορεύεσθαι]

from the Father through the Son, this bears the sense that

thereby also the Son should be signified, according to the

Greeks indeed as cause [αἰτίαν], and according to the

Latins as principle [άρχήν] of the subsistence [ύπἁρξεως]

of the Holy Spirit, just like the Father. [2]

This decree is loaded with information, and so I will have to highlight a few of the elements of the Latin theology of procession in order to explain later why the Eastern Orthodox Churches cannot accept this definition as authoritative and binding. First, the decree proclaims the idea that the Father and the Son together give the Holy Spirit His subsistent being. Now in doing this, as the decree itself emphasizes, the Father and the Son act, not as two principles, but as a single principle, and this is important because there cannot be two principles within the Godhead, at least not without admitting that there are two gods. In other words, there can only be one source or font of divinity (πηγή τῆς θεότητος), and in the case of the procession of the Holy Spirit, the Latin Church holds that the Father and the Son together are this single principle or source (that is, for the spiration of the Spirit). Moreover, the decree itself draws an equivalency between the terms cause and principle, asserting that the Latin understanding of the term principle is roughly the same as the term cause (αιτία) in Greek Trinitarian theology, and of course the Greek Church uses the word cause in connection with the Father alone, because it signifies His monarchy. [3]

Now it is hard to see how Byzantine – particularly Palamite – Triadology can be reconciled with the above formulation of the procession of the Holy Spirit. In Eastern Triadology the focus is always placed upon the monarchy of the Father, who, as the sole source of divinity, causes the hypostasis of the Son through generation, and the hypostasis of the Holy Spirit through procession (ἐκπόρευσις). Now, in fairness it must be admitted that the Latin tradition also holds that the monarchy of the Father is important, and it tries to safeguard this theological truth by saying that the Father is the "principle without principle" in the Trinity, [4] but this formulation opens up the possibility, and can even be said to imply the necessity, of a "principle with principle" in the Godhead, i.e., the Son. This idea of a secondary cause in the Trinity is foreign to the Eastern theological tradition, which has always focused upon the idea that there is, and only can be, one cause in the Trinity, the hypostasis of the Father. In other words, the idea that there could be two causes within the Godhead, an uncaused cause, and a caused cause, is utterly foreign to Byzantine Triadology; and moreover, within the light of Byzantine tradition the assertion of two causes in the Trinity smacks of polytheism, because there would be as many gods as there are causes of divinity.

The Latin Church's solution to the problem of two principles or causes within the Godhead is to assert that the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son – in the words of the Florentine decree – ". . . as from one principle and a single spiration." [5] But this solution causes additional problems, because as St. Gregory Palamas taught, the ability to generate a person or to cause the procession of a person within the Godhead are hypostatic properties of the Father alone; and so, to posit the idea that the Son somehow shares in the existential procession of origin of the Holy Spirit confounds the hypostases of the Father and the Son, collapsing them into one and the same hypostasis. [6] The Latin Church, by asserting the idea that the Father and the Son form a single principle in the spiration of the Holy Spirit has fallen into a form of Sabellian modalism, because both begetting and spiration are personal properties of the Father alone, and as personal (hypostatic) properties, they cannot be shared with any other person in the Trinity, or the real distinction between the hypostases collapses.

One further difficulty results from the Latin doctrine which holds that the Father and the Son form a single principle in the spiration of the Spirit, and it is focused upon the nature of the unity of the Godhead. It is an ancient principle of Catholic Triadology that anything that is common to two of the hypostases of the Trinity, is common to all three hypostases, because of their common essence (οὐσία); in other words, if the Father and the Son are a "single principle" in the spiration of the hypostasis of the Holy Spirit, it follows that the Spirit must also be a "single principle" with them in His own spiration, and that is clearly nonsensical. The hypostases of the Trinity are only distinguished by their unique hypostatic properties (ἰδιότης), and so anything that is common to the Father and the Son, must also be common to the Holy Spirit. As St. Basil said, "The Spirit shares titles held in common by the Father and the Son; He receives these titles due to His natural and intimate relationship with them." [7]

Thus, the idea that the Father and the Son can be a "single principle" in the spiration of the hypostasis of the Holy Spirit involves a confusion of hypostasis and essence (οὐσία) within the Godhead, because anything common to the hypostases is founded upon the one divine essence (οὐσία) that co-inheres within them, and that is why the Western notion that the Father and the Son can be a "single principle" in the procession of the Holy Spirit's hypostasis is theologically unworkable. Therefore, to hold that the Father and the Son can be a "single principle" of origin in relation to the hypostasis of the Holy Spirit involves either Sabellian modalism, or an essential subordination of the Spirit to the Father and the Son, because He does not possess a common quality shared by the Father and the Son, and consequently must be essentially distinct and subordinate in relation to them.

Sadly, these differences are not the only source of difficulties separating Eastern and Western Trinitarian thought, because with the rise of Scholastic philosophy in the West a new Aristotelian theory of the Trinity was devised, which involved the reduction of the hypostases to mere relations of opposition within the divine essence, yet there can be no “opposition” within the Godhead, since God is adiastemic. Added to the problems associated with this new philosophical theory of the Trinity was the fact that it was often couched in language related to the Augustinian psychological metaphor for explaining the distinctions between the persons within the Godhead according to processions of intellect (i.e., for the Son) and will (i.e., for the Spirit), even though the divine intellect and will are common properties of the triad of divine hypostases. Now, of course, the Eastern Fathers never accepted this line of philosophical reasoning, and instead affirmed that the hypostases of the Trinity are different in their manner of subsistence (τρόπος υπάρξεως). Thus, the Son, as only begotten, receives His subsistence from the Father through generation; while the Spirit receives His subsistence from the Father alone by procession (ἐκπόρευσις), and generation and procession are ineffably distinct subsistent realities. That being said, there is no danger of division within God, because St. John Damascene's doctrine of perichoresis allows the distinct hypostases to indwell each other, while remaining truly distinct, and that is why the Spirit, which is properly the Spirit of the Father, is also the Spirit of the Son, but as St. John goes on to say, ". . . we do not speak of the Spirit as from the Son." [8] Clearly, there is no filioque in the theology of St. John Damascene, nor is there one in the theology of St. Gregory Palamas, and in fact both men directly reject the filioque as can be seen in the case of St. John from the quotation just given.

Moreover, St. John Damascene does not reduce the hypostases to mere relations of opposition within the divine essence as do most Western theologians (for example St. Thomas Aquinas), nor does he fail to distinguish between essence (οὐσία) and hypostasis as Westerners since the time of St. Augustine have tended to do. [9] Now as far as the Spirit's existential origin is concerned, both St. John and St. Gregory hold that it comes from the Father alone, proof of this can be found by looking at what Fr. Andrew Louth wrote in his book on Damascene, because as he indicates, St. John ". . . speaks of the Holy Spirit as 'the Holy Spirit of God the Father, as proceeding from Him, who is also said to be of the Son, as through Him manifest and bestowed on the creation, but not as taking His existence from Him' (St. John, Sabbat. 4:21-23)." [10] St. Gregory Palamas also teaches this, for as he put it, the ". . . pre-eternal rejoicing of the Father and the Son is the Holy Spirit who, as I said, is common to both, which explains why He is sent from both to those who are worthy. Yet the Spirit has His existence from the Father alone, and hence He proceeds as regards His existence only from the Father." [11] Thus, the Father alone gives existence to the hypostasis of the Spirit, and there can be no existential filioque. [12]

The East's negative view of the filioque, as it is formulated in the West, does not mean that the East rejects the idea that the Spirit is manifested through the Son. In fact, at the Blachernae Council (A.D. 1285) the Byzantine Church taught that the Holy Spirit is manifested as (or in the) divine energy through the Son, but that this manifestation (φανέρωσις) of the Spirit does not involve the existential hypostatic origin of the Spirit, since that comes only from the Father. [13] This distinction (that is, between hypostatic origin and manifestation) is made by St. John Damascene, and other Eastern Fathers, but was clarified by St. Gregory of Cyprus at the Council of Blachernae. [14] In the dogmatic tome of the Council eleven anathemas were pronounced, but in my paper I am only going to briefly examine one of those definitions:

[Those] who affirm that the Paraclete, which is from the

Father, has its existence through the Son and from the Son,

and who again propose as proof the phrase "the Spirit exists

through the Son and from the Son." In certain texts [of the

Fathers], the phrase denotes the Spirit's shining forth and

manifestation. Indeed, the very Paraclete shines forth and

is manifest eternally through the Son, in the same way that

light shines forth and is manifest through the intermediary

of the sun's rays; it further denotes the bestowing, giving,

and sending of the Spirit to us. It does not, however, mean

that it subsists through the Son and from the Son, and that

it receives its being through Him and from Him. For this

would mean that the Spirit has the Son as cause and source

(exactly as it has the Father), not to say that it has its cause

and source more so from the Son than from the Father; for

it is said that that from which existence is derived likewise

is believed to enrich the source and to be the cause of being.

To those who believe and say such things, we pronounce the

above resolution and judgment, we cut them off from the

membership of the Orthodox, and we banish them from the

flock of the Church of God. [15]

Now this anathema mentions an analogy that was very important to St. Gregory of Cyprus in describing the manifestation of the Spirit through the Son, that is, the comparison of this manifestation of divine energy to the transmission of light through the rays of the sun. In the analogy the solar disk itself stands for the Father, while the rays emanating from it represent the Son of God, and the light or radiance is an image of the Holy Spirit. Now, as Patriarch Gregory points out, the rays transmit the light of the sun, but they are not the source of the light, that is, they do not cause the existence of the light, nor do they add anything to it, because only the solar disk causes the light. [16] Moreover, the doctrine of the eternal manifestation of the Spirit through the Son is connected to a distinction made in Byzantine theology between existing (υπαρχει) and having existence (ύπαρξιν ἔχειν), the former concerns the temporal and eternal manifestation of the Spirit through the Son, while the latter concerns the hypostatic origin of the Spirit from the Father alone. [17] Sadly, this distinction is not present within medieval or modern Roman Catholic theology, but perhaps this distinction could form the basis for a rapprochement between the two traditions.

An Eastern Christian Appraisal of the Vatican's

"Clarification of the Filioque"

The Vatican's "Clarification on the Filioque" is an attempt to resolve the problem of the filioque, but sadly the text of the "Clarification" is theologically ambiguous as far as the monarchy of the Father is concerned. Here are a few examples of the problems present within the Vatican's "Clarification."

First, the document says that: "The Father alone is the principle without principle of the two other persons of the Trinity." [18] Now, the problem with this statement is that the Father, rather than being described simply as the "principle of the two other persons of the Trinity," is described as the "principle without principle," which can imply that the Son is a "principle with principle" within the Trinity (i.e., that the Son is a secondary principle within the Godhead). The idea that there can be a "secondary" principle in the Godhead is contrary to the teaching of the Eastern Church, and would ultimately destroy the monarchy of the Father, replacing it with a diarchy of the Father and the Son.

Second, the "Clarification" states that: "The Holy Spirit, therefore, takes his origin from the Father alone (ek monou tou Patros) in a principal, proper, and immediate manner." [19] The problem with this statement is centered upon the concluding portion of the formula, that is, the part of the text that says that the Spirit comes from the Father alone in a "principal, proper, and immediate manner," because this modifying phrase implies, or at least allows for the possibility, that the Son is involved in the existential origin of the Spirit in a secondary, received, and mediate manner. This kind of secondary or mediate causation is incompatible with the Triadology of the Eastern Fathers, and in particular with the doctrine of the Cappadocians, because as St. Gregory Nazianzus said, ". . . all that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality." [20] Now, in order for the ecumenical dialogue between the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Churches to advance, the Latin Church is going to have to issue a document that cannot be read in an equivocal manner on these issues. In other words, it must say that the Father is the principle of divinity, period, end of sentence, and with no modifying phrases or clauses added on. Thus, the West will need to say that the Spirit proceeds from the Father, without adding modifiers like "principally, immediately, properly, etc.," which can imply that the Son Himself participates in the hypostatic origination of the Spirit.

Third, the document continues to support the idea put forward at the Second Council of Lyons, which ". . . confessed that 'the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son, not as from two principles but as from one single principle.'" [21] Clearly, the Western theory that says that the Father and the Son are a "single principle" in the spiration of the Spirit is unworkable in Eastern Triadology, because the fact that the Father is the principle of divinity is held to be a hypostatic characteristic of His person, and so it cannot be shared with the Son, for as St. Gregory Palamas explained:

We do not say that the Son is from the Father in as much

as He is begotten by the divine essence, but rather in as

much as He is begotten by the Father as person. For the

essence is common to the three persons, but begetting is

proper to the Father personally. That is why the Son is not

begotten by the Spirit. Consequently the Spirit is also from

the Father; He possesses the divine essence, proceeding

from the person of the Father. For the essence is always

and absolutely common to the three persons. Therefore

the act of spiration is proper to the Father as a person and

the Spirit does not proceed from the Son, for the Son does

not have the personal properties of the Father. [22]

Now, in saying this St. Gregory Palamas is simply following in the tradition of the Cappadocian Fathers, because within their Triadology it is not possible to call the Father and the Son a "single principle," since that would involve confounding the person of the Father with that of the Son, which would entail falling into the heresy of Sabellian modalism. Thus, the Western notion that the Father and the Son are a "single principle" is incompatible with the doctrine of the Eastern Church.

Sadly, the insertion of the filioque into the Niceno-Constantinopolitan creed shows that the West has confused two distinct – but inseparable – divine realities: (1) the existential procession of the Holy Spirit as person (υποστασις), which is from the Father alone; and (2) the Spirit's eternal manifestation as divine energy (i.e., as uncreated grace), which is from the Father through the Son. In other words, in the theology of the Eastern Fathers the Holy Spirit proceeds as hypostasis from the Father alone, but He is manifested – both temporally and eternally – from the Father through the Son, not as hypostasis, but as divine energy; and this energetic manifestation expresses the consubstantial communion of the three divine hypostases within the Godhead. Now, as is clear from what has been said, it is vital that the Spirit's energetic manifestation through the Son not be confused with His hypostatic procession of origin from the Father alone, because that would ultimately lead to Sabellian modalism.

It should be noted, of course, that these are only a few of the problems with the Vatican's "Clarification of the Filioque," and so, although it is a valiant attempt by the Western Church to make the filioque more acceptable to the East, it ultimately highlights the differences between the two sides as it concerns the doctrine of the hypostatic procession of origin of the Holy Spirit. Nevertheless, I do not want to give the impression that the document is an utter failure, because it at least shows that the West realizes that the filioque is a true obstacle to the restoration of communion, and that further dialogue on this issue will have to be carried out if there is to be any chance at all of resolving this doctrinal disagreement.

Clearly, the best solution put forward so far to resolve the problem of the filioque can be found in the Agreed Statement of the North American Orthodox / Catholic Theological Consultation, which put forward the recommendation that the Latin Church remove the filioque from all liturgical and catechetical documents. [23] The use of the original creed by the Latin Church in its liturgical celebrations, and catechetical instructions, would facilitate ecumenical dialogue, while simultaneously removing one of the major obstacles to the restoration of communion between the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Churches.

Finally, Latin Catholics will often bring up the concept of the per filium (i.e., the idea that the Spirit proceeds through the Son), and will say that this Eastern concept is the equivalent of the Western filioque, but that is simply not the case, because the per filium is not referring to the existential origin of the Holy Spirit as person (υποστασις), since as person the Spirit proceeds (ἐκπόρευσις) only from the Father, Who is the sole source of divinity. Instead, what the per filium is referring to is the manifestation (φανέρωσις) or progression (προϊέναι) of the Spirit as energy from the Father through the Son, but this manifestation must never be confused with the Spirit's hypostatic procession of origin from the Father alone, because that would involve confounding the person of the Father with the person of the Son. Moreover, the failure of the West to recognize this important distinction is what led to the rejection of the so-called "union" council of Lyons II by the Council of Blachernae (A.D. 1285), which in its Tomus emphasized the importance of distinguishing between the procession (ἐκπόρευσις) of the Spirit from the Father alone, and His manifestation or progression as energy through the Son. This important doctrinal distinction is supported by St. John Damascene, who, in his treatise De Fide Orthodoxa, said that the Holy Spirit is of the Son, but "not from the Son," [24] and he confirmed this distinction yet again when – in another treatise – he wrote that, we speak of ". . . the Holy Spirit of God the Father, as proceeding (ἐκπορευόμενον) from Him, who is also said to be of the Son, as through Him [i.e., the Son] manifest (φανεροὑμενον) and bestowed on the creation, but not as taking His existence (ὕπαρξιν) from Him," [25] and elsewhere he said that, ". . . the Word is a real offspring, and therefore Son; and the Spirit is a real procession and emanation from the Father, of the Son but not from the Son, as breath from a mouth, proclaiming God the Word." [26]

The Filioque Controversy: From Blachernae to Florence

by Steven Todd Kaster

Franciscan University of Steubenville

Theology 740: Directed Study on St. Gregory Palamas

Dr. Stephen Hildebrand

14 December 2005 (the most recent revision of this paper was completed on 20 October 2023)

This is a revised and slightly expanded excerpt from my paper entitled: “The Palamite Doctrine of God”

_____________________________________

End Notes:

[1] It is important to note that the clarification on the filioque issued by the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity almost entirely ignores the decree of Florence on the procession of the Spirit, and only makes brief mention of Second Lyons. For a critique of the Vatican clarification, see David Coffey's, "The Roman 'Clarification' of the Doctrine of the Filioque," International Journal of Systematic Theology 5:1 (March 2003), pages 3-21.

[2] Norman P. Tanner, S.J., (Editor), Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, (London and Washington, D.C.: Sheed & Ward, and Georgetown University Press, 1990), pages 526-527.

[3] It should be noted that St. Maximos the Confessor (in the 7th century) defended the Latin Church's use of the filioque, and held that it in no way harmed the sole causality of the Father, but that does not mean that St. Maximos would have accepted the Florentine decree on the filioque. In fact, it is likely that he would have had problems with the Florentine definition, because it appears to be contrary to what he said the Latins meant by the term in his own century. As Richard Haugh has pointed out, "When Maximos questioned the Latins about this, they appealed to the Latin Fathers and 'even to St. Cyril of Alexandria's Commentary on the Gospel of John.' Maximos, however, does his best to interpret the Latin doctrine of the Filioque along the Greek patristic lines, claiming that the Latins were 'far from making the Son the cause of the Spirit, for they recognize the Father as the one cause of the Son and of the Spirit; the former by generation, the latter by procession.' Maximos then states that the Latin Filioque was an attempt 'to express the Spirit's going forth through the Son' and thus to establish the oneness and inseparable unity of their substance. Maximos also states that he admonished the Romans to be more careful in the usage and meaning of their expressions, adding that he thought the reaction from Constantinople would cause the Romans to be more cautious in the future." [Richard Haugh, Photius and the Carolingians: The Trinitarian Controversy, (Belmont, MA: Nordland Publishing Company, 1975), page 33] Now of course it appears that by the 15th century the Latins had forgotten the importance of making the distinction between the existential procession of the Holy Spirit, which is from the Father alone, and His manifestation or shining forth in the divine energy, which takes place through the Son, and that is why the Council of Florence went so far as to say that ". . . the Holy Spirit is eternally from the Father and the Son and has His essence and His subsistent being both from the Father and the Son, and proceeds from both eternally as from one principle and one spiration; we declare that what Holy Doctors and Fathers say, namely, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son, tends to this meaning, that by this it is signified that the Son also is the cause, according to the Greeks, and according to the Latins, the principle of the subsistence of the Holy Spirit, as is the Father also." [Roy J. Defarrari, page 219] St. Maximos, almost eight hundred years before the Council of Florence, insisted that the Latins were not making the Son a cause of the Holy Spirit with the filioque, but ironically enough, that is exactly what the Florentine definition insists is the case, for it declares that the Son is a cause of the Holy Spirit, just like the Father.

[4] See the Vatican's Clarification of the Filioque.

[5] Norman P. Tanner (Editor), Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, (Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press, 1990). 2 Volumes. See also, Roy J. Defarrari (Editor), The Sources of Catholic Dogma, (St. Loius: B. Herder Book Company, 1957), page 219.

[6] St. Gregory, in his treatise Logoi Apodeiktikoi (I, 6), says that, "We do not say that the Son is from the Father in as much as He is begotten by the divine essence, but rather in as much as He is begotten by the Father as a person. For the essence is common to the three persons, but begetting is proper to the Father personally. That is why the Son is not begotten by the Spirit. Consequently the Spirit is also from the Father; He possesses the divine essence, proceeding from the person of the Father. For the essence is always and absolutely common to the three persons. Therefore the act of spiration (to ekporeuein) is proper to the Father as a person and the Spirit does not proceed from the Son, for the Son does not have the personal properties of the Father." [M. Edmund Hussey, The Doctrine of the Trinity in the Theology of Gregory Palamas, (Ann Arbor: UMI Dissertation Services, 1972), page 25]

[7] St. Basil, "On the Holy Spirit," ch. 19, no. 48.

[8] St. John Damascene, "De Fide Orthodoxa," Book I, Ch. 8, in Philip Schaff (Editor), The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, (Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, 1994), Series 2, Volume 9.

[9] For an example of this Western tendency, see the Summa Theologica, Prima Pars, Q. 39, Art. 1 and 2; Q. 40, Art. 1. See also, Christopher Hughes, On a Complex Theory of a Simple God, (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1989), page192; the failure to make a real distinction between ousia and hypostasis, as St. Thomas fails to do, inevitably leads to Sabellianism, as Christopher Hughes puts it in his critique of the Thomist Triadology, "Surely if (a) the essence of x = the essence of y, and (b) the essence of x = x, and the essence of y = y, it follows as the night does the day that x = y. And Aquinas maintains both that the divine persons are not distinct from their essences, and that they all have the same essence." In other words, the Father (x) is the Son (y), and the Son is the Father, and the same holds in relation to the Spirit. Now it should be noted that the first point (a) of Aquinas' theory conforms to the teaching of the Cappadocian Fathers, but that the second point (b) does not; in fact, the second point conforms to the teaching of Sabellius and not to the theological doctrine of the Cappadocians. Moreover, Aquinas' error is confirmed by what St. Basil said in Letter 236, where he called those who fail to distinguish between essence (or nature) and hypostasis in God, "Sabellians"; for as St. Basil said, "On the other hand those who identify essence (ousian) or substance and hypostasis are compelled to confess only three persons (prosopa), and, in their hesitation to speak of three hypostases, are convicted of failure to avoid the error of Sabellius, for even Sabellius himself, who in many places confuses the conception, yet, by asserting that the same hypostasis changed its form to meet the needs of the moment, does endeavour to distinguish persons (prosopa)." [St. Basil, Letter 236] St. Thomas, in certain sense, is even more of a modalist than Sabellius, because Sabellius could at least admit that there are prosopic distinctions in God, while Thomas' theory of divine simplicity does not admit of any real distinctions.

[10] Andrew Louth, St. John Damascene: Tradition and Originality in Byzantine Theology, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002), page 110.

[11] Philokalia, page 4:362.

[12] There cannot be an existential filioque because the Spirit proceeds from the Father to the Son. Nevertheless, the Spirit is manifested through the Son, but this manifestation does not involve the existential origin of the Spirit as hypostasis.

[13] See Dimitru Staniloae, "The Procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and His Relation to the Son, as the Basis of our Deification and Adoption," from the book Spirit of God, Spirit of Christ: Ecumenical Reflections on the Filioque Controversy, Lukas Vischer (Editor), (London: SPCK, 1981), page 183. As Staniloae points out, "The accompaniment of the begetting of the Son by the procession of the Spirit is a manifested accompaniment. For, without doubt, it is only if the begetting of the Son by the Father is accompanied by the procession of the Spirit from the Father, that the begetting of the Son can also be accompanied by the manifestation or shining forth of the Spirit. But if the accompaniment of the begetting of the Son by the procession of the Spirit from the Father is on the one hand the more profound fact, on the other it leaves it possible for us to think in terms of certain parallelism between the two cases. But the accompaniment of the begetting and in general of the Person of the Son by the manifest shining out of the Spirit demonstrates that there is an inner dynamic presence of the Spirit in the Son. That is why it employs the expressions 'through' or 'from' the Son, words which cannot be used of the procession itself. At the same time the shining out of the Spirit through or from the Son constitutes the basis for the shining out of the Spirit through or from the Son to the created world."

[14] St. Gregory of Cyprus was the Patriarch of Constantinople from 1283 to 1289.

[15] Aristeides Papadakis, Crisis in Byzantium, (New York: Fordham University Press, 1983), page 160.

[16] See Aristeides Papadakis, page 92; as St. Gregory of Cyprus explains in his Confession, "Indeed, we affirm the immediate procession, because the Spirit derives its personal hypostatic existence, its very being, from the Father Himself and not from the Son, nor through the Son. Were this not the case, the Son would also be indisputably the cause of the Paraclete, a fact which is impious and which was never said or written by any of the Father. For all that, we say that the Spirit proceeds through the Son, and this without destroying our faith in the immediate procession. For, on the one hand, it proceeds and has its existence from the Father, of whom is born the Son Himself; while, on the other, it goes forth and shines through the Son, in the same manner as the sun's light is said to go forth through its rays, while the sun remains the light's source, the cause of its being, and the natural principle of its origin; and yet, the light passes forth, emanates, and shines through to rays from which it derives neither being nor existence. And, although the light passes through the rays, it in no wise derives the origin of its being through or from the rays, but immediately and exclusively from the sun – whence the rays themselves, through which the light is made manifest."

[17] See Aristeides Papadakis, page 90; see also Dr. David Bradshaw, Aristotle East and West: Metaphysics and the Division of Christendom, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), pages 215-220.

[18] A quotation taken from the Vatican's Clarification of the Filioque.

[19] A quotation taken from the Vatican's Clarification of the Filioque.

[20] St. Gregory Nazianzen, Oration 34:10 in Philip Schaff's (Editor), The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, (Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, 1994), Series 2, Volume 7. As St. John Damascene explained in the De Fide Orthodoxa, "we do not speak of the Son as Cause," because ". . . the Father alone is cause." [St. John Damascene, De Fide Orthodoxa, Book I, Chapter 8 and Chapter 12, in Philip Schaff's (Editor), The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, (Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, 1994), Series 2, Volume 9] See also St. Gregory Nazianzen's Oration 20:10, where he says: "[T]he begottenness of the Only-begotten runs parallel with the being of the Father; he has his existence from him and not after him, except in respect of the concept of source – source, that is, in the sense of cause." [Brian E. Daley, Gregory of Nazianzus, (New York: Routledge, 2006), page 103] In addition to the quotations above in this note, I would also refer those interested in this topic to a text translated by Anna M. Silvas in her book, Gregory of Nyssa: The Letters, where in Letter 32, while asking a question about the relationship between the Father and the Son, St. Gregory of Nyssa clearly asserts that the Son does not possess the power of causality in the Godhead, for as he put it: "Since in truth the Father does not precede the Son, but is co-equal with him in all things except causality, how can we in view of this speculate whether there was a time when the Father was unoccupied with being Father, and the Son unoccupied with being Son?" [Anna M. Silvas, Gregory of Nyssa: The Letters, (Lieden: Brill Publishers, 2007), Supplements to Vigiliae Christianae, Volume 83, page 230]

[21] A quotation taken from the Vatican's Clarification of the Filioque.

[22] St. Gregory Palamas, Logos Apodeiktikos I, 6; this quotation from Palamas' writings was taken from M. Edmund Hussey's dissertation, The Doctrine of the Trinity in the Theology of Gregory Palamas, page 25.

[23] See the concluding recommendations of North American Orthodox / Catholic Theological Consultation's document, entitled: The Filioque: A Church Dividing Issue?

[24] St. John Damascene, De Fide Orthodoxa, Book I, Chapter 8, in Philip Schaff's (Editor), The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, (Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, 1994), Series 2, Volume 9.

[25] St. John Damascene, Sabbat. 4:21-23.

[26] St. John Damascene, Trisagion 28:40-43.