Background:
Two books I read that really became lightbulb moments for me with regard to the filioque were Aristotle East and West and Crisis in Byzantium. To understand the dispute, a person must be willing to slog through a certain amount of philosophy because the theology in question is expressed using very dense philosophical language. These books will help with that.

When we're talking about the men who expressed our theology, many were trained in logic, dialectic, philosophy, etc. Some the greatest saints, east and west, began their lives and journeys to Christ in pagan (what we today would call secular) schools -- men such as St Augustine of Hippo and St John Chrysostom. Others were highly trained as members of imperial courts or wealthy families (St Maximos the Confessor, St Gregory Palamas, St Gregory the Theologian, St John of Damascus etc). When defending points, these men were writing with the precision of language that is not dissimilar to the precision required in mathematics or other modern disciplines. They were, in many cases, the most intelligent men of their age, educated at the highest level.

As such, we need to take great care to understand their words and not to read them carelessly. There were extensive debates over seemingly trifling differences (sometimes single letters!) at many of the councils -- by this we can know that the fathers understood two things:
1. That there is a certain element of reverence, piety, and risk associated with expressing ineffable truths.
2. That the things we say and confess are of the utmost importance.

Why? Because something which can be expressed through logic, if false, can be proven false through logic. So, when faced when describing the indescribable and the necessary paradox, to ensure their words were salvific, they were careful to not speak in error. Many of the fathers talk of this difficulty and how extremely careful they were. St Gregory Nazienzen said "Not to every one, my friends, does it belong to philosophize about God; not to every one; the Subject is not so cheap and low; and I will add, not before every audience, nor at all times, nor on all points; but on certain occasions, and before certain persons, and within certain limits." He continues here. It's worth a read.

With that being said, in the 1200s there was a council held at Constantinople. A man by the name of John Beccus had been made Patriarch, who was, apparently, genuinely convinced that the Latin interpretation of the filioque was both pious and an authentic tradition. He taught this for some eight years. His successor, Gregory II, wound up in a council to debate the fact. You can read more about Blachernae in the book Crisis in Byzantium. Long story short, Patriarch Gregory wrote the following against the position of Beccus. Beccus' theology supporting the filioque hinged on the words through and from as equivalent. However, the council of Blachernae rejected this theology as error. Patriarch Gregory's writings heavily influenced St Gregory Palamas in his Triads and other writings which form the basis of much of his defense of the mystical life of the church against Barlaam -- this conflict was essentially the battle between the western Scholastic theology and the eastern mystical theology. One might say this is mysticism versus intellectualism. (Fun fact, the disagreement between them began in Barlaam's attack against the filioque, which wound up suggesting that God was unknowable so we couldn't know whether the Spirit proceeds from the Father, or the Son, or both.)

Here is Patriarch Gregory's Tomus against Beccus. It is Orthodox in its confession and answers any and all claims I have seen. I have taken the main points describing the error of Beccus, and thus the council's refutation of the filioque. This is not the total of the writings of the repudiation of it; St Photios wrote extensively against it, as did St Mark of Ephesus and others. But, it's a simple and easy read.
http://oodegr.co/english/oikoumenismos/filioque_beccus.htm

Edit: Cut it down to a summary and quotes, removed some points, etc.

3. The basic objection to the filioque is addressed, because by "requiring" the Son in the cause of the spirit they remove the monarchy of the Father. Beccus and others appealed to a quote of St John of Damascus "He Himself [the Father], then, is mind, the depth of reason, begetter of the Word, and, through the Word, projector of the manifesting Spirit." The debate became one of small words: through, of from, etc. However, St John in the same chapter wrote that the only cause in the Trinity is God the Father "thus denying, by the use of the word 'only,' the causative principle to the remaining two hypostases." St John also said "and we speak, likewise, of the Holy Spirit as the 'Spirit of the Son,' yet we do not speak of the Spirit as from the Son."

4. This chapter is a "new" bit of theology from Gregory II, defining the tricky distinction between temporal manifestation (sending, etc) and eternal subsistence (proceeding). Beccus and others also quote 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 form 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.

5. This chapter addresses the use of the word through vs from in Greek. Beccus suggested that "through" and "from" were equivalent, so the filique was in alignment with Patristic texts which used "through the Son". The answer was "If, in fact, it is also said by some of the saints that the Spirit proceeds 'through the Son,' what is meant here is the eternal manifestation of the Spirit by the Son, not the purely [personal] emanation into being of the Spirit, which has its existence from the Father." St Gregory Nazianzus is quoted as a reference: "everything the Father is said to possess, the Son, likewise, possesses except causality."

6. Chapter 6 clarifies the distinction between the essence or nature and the hypostasis. This addresses the common Western addition of the filioque "as from one source" implying that the Spirit comes from the common Essence and Divinity. " The common essence and nature is not the cause of the hypostasis; nor does this common essence ever generate or project that which is undivided." St Maximos the Confessor is referenced to support that it's the other way around the essence plus an individual characteristic is what denotes each hypostasis. St Basil the Great is also referenced that the hypostasis is defined as what describes that is common to the essence AND which cannot be described by the individual characteristics. Thus, Gregory II writes, "the indivisible essence always projects something indivisible (or generates the indivisible that generates)" which is also a reference to St John of Damascus.

7. Next, the meaning of the word "through" in "from the Father through the Son" is discussed. Depending on the phrasing, you could see that there's a variance in which is THE cause "with the result that sometimes they believe and say that the Father is cause, and sometimes the Son. This being so, they introduce a plurality and a multitude of causes in the procession of the Spirit."

8. Chapter 8 discusses the idea that the Father causes the Spirit by the Essence and not the Hypostasis which requires the Son to be the cause of the Spirit, since the Son is "of one Essence with the Father". But this is "absurd" because the Spirit is also God, so is also of the same Essence. So the Spirit must have causality by the same argument as the Son. And, the Spirit must cause itself, being part of the Essence. Third, that we've again removed the monarchy of the Father, because now the Essence is the cause and not the Persons.

9. Chapter 9 addresses the difference between by and through for how the Father created by or through the Son. The argument was that the Father was the maker of all things, by or through the Son; and this was the same as the Spirit. But this is fraught with theological problems (is the Spirit a creation?) It also has a refutation: "In reality, even if the Son, like the Father, is creator of all things made 'through Him,' it does not follow that He is also the Spirit's cause, because the Father is the projector of the Spirit through Him; nor, again, does it follow that, because the Father is the Spirit's projector 'through the Son,' He is, through Him, the cause of the Spirit."

10. This answers an argument that says that the Theotokos is the fountain of life to Christ the same way the Son is the fountain of life to the Spirit. However, this is an "incongruous comparison" because Christ really got his living flesh, his humanity from the Virgin Mary. In this way, she really was the cause of His flesh. This reflects the dual nature of Christ: fully God and Fully man. So how can we compare this to the Spirit? Is it half-Father and half-Son?

////

After these ten points, there is a list of rhetorical questions a demand for patristic authority to back the change to the creed that is ecumenical.

Quote:

---

For where have the God-bearing Fathers said that God the Father is, through the Son, the cause of the Spirit? Where do they say that the Paraclete has its existence from the Son and through the Son? Again, where do they say that the same Paraclete has its existence from the Father and from the Son? In what text do they teach that the one essence and divinity of the Father and the Son is the cause of the Holy Spirit's existence? Who, and in which of his works, ever prohibited anyone from saying that the hypostasis of the Father is the unique cause of being of the Son and the Spirit? Who among those who believe that the Father is the cause of the Spirit has taught that this is by virtue of the nature, not by virtue of the hypostasis? And who has failed to maintain this as the characteristic that distinguishes the Father from the other two hypostases?

---

////

Finally a note about the reason for excommunication:

Quote:

---

And although we excommunicate them, separate them from the Church of the devout, impose on them the awesome and great judgment of separation and estrangement from the Orthodox, we do not do it because we wish to exult over their misfortune or to rejoice over their rejection. On the contrary, we grieve and bear their isolation with loathing. But why do we need to act in this fashion? Mainly for two reasons: the first being that their unhappiness and bitterness will cause them, after they have realized their folly, to return repentant and save themselves in the Church. Secondly, others will henceforth be chastened and disciplined so as not to attempt anything similar, or attack that which is holy, or behave willfully against that which is sacred; lest, if they show such audacity, they receive the same rewards in accordance with the example that has been set.

---

Bookmarked for later

To be fair most of that was just copied and pasted.

Some excerpts from St Photios On the Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit.

Quote:

---

18. It amounts to this: if the unique property of the Father is transposed into a specific property of the Son, then it is clear that the specific property of the Son is also transposed into the specific feature of the Father. We must altogether shun this impious notion. For if, according to the reasonings of the impious, the specific properties of the hypostasis are opposed and transferred to one another, then the Father O depth of impiety! comes under the property of being begotten and the Son will beget the Father. This ungodly doctrine can accommodate all these conclusions because they are of a similar nature to the original premise, which will not cease in its insufferable contentions against God.

---

--

Quote:

---

32. And again, if the Spirit proceeds from the Father and thus the Spirit's hypostatic property is discerned; and the Son is begotten of the Father and thus the Son's hypostatic property is discerned; then if as this delirium of theirs would have it! the Spirit also proceeds from the Son, then the Spirit is differentiated from the Father by more hypostatic properties than the Son of the Father. Both issue from the Father, and even though the Son issues forth by begetting and the Spirit by procession, nevertheless, one of two modes equally separates both from the hypostasis of the Father. But if the Spirit is further differentiated by two distinctions brought about by the dual procession, then the Spirit is not only differentiated by more distinctions than the Son of the Father, but the Son is closer to the Father's essence and the Spirit's equal dignity will be blasphemed as being inferior to the Son with regard to consubstantial kinship with the Father, because of two specific properties which distinguish the Spirit. Thus, the Macedonian insanity against the Spirit again springs forth; however, its revival will also recall the defeat of his impiety.

33. And if the One Spirit comes from multiple sources, how does it not follow that one could also say that only the Spirit has many origins?

34. Furthermore, if these people who with all temerity have innovated a communion only between the Father and the Son, then they have excluded the Spirit from this. But the Father and the Son are joined in communion by essence and not by any hypostatical property. Consequently, they exclude the consubstantial Spirit from kinship according to essence with the Father.

35. If the Spirit proceeds from the Son, then is the procession of the Spirit from the Father the same as the procession from the Son, or is it opposed to it? Because if they were not so opposed but were the same, then the hypostatic properties of the three hypostases in the Trinity by which they are distinguished and worshipped would be eradicated. But if the procession from the Son is opposed to the procession from the Father, how is this not like dancing in the chorus line of Mani and Marcion, whose blasphemous chatter and idle words contended against the Father and Son?

36. According to this line of reasoning, everything not said about the whole, omnipotent, consubstantial, and super-substantial Trinity is said about one of the three hypostases. The procession of the Spirit is not said to be common to the three, consequently it must belong to one of the three. Accordingly, we say that the procession of the Spirit is from the Father. Why do they assimilate themselves to the love of this innovative teaching? If they contend that the Spirit proceeds from the Son, then why do they lack the courage to vomit forth all their poison instead of some of it? For, truly, if they were completely persuaded by this ungodly doctrine then they ought to perfect their hatred of the hypostatic [personal] source of the processions and exclude the Father as a cause of the Spirit. And, likewise, they should transpose the begetting and the procession and they ought to remove the generation of the Son from the Father and transfer it to the Son and thus invent the fantastic idea that the Father is from the Son. But they do not say this because they wish to hide their eternal impiety, so that they may not be convicted of the insanity of their heresy.

37. Furthermore, if the Son is begotten from the Father and the Spirit according to this innovation proceeds from the Father and the Son, then likewise another hypostasis should proceed from the Spirit, and so we should have not three but four hypostases! And if the fourth procession is possible, then another procession is possible from that, and so on to an infinite number of processions and hypostases, until at last this doctrine is transformed into a [pagan] Greek polytheism!

38. But if you say you are against this fourth procession, then what manner of speech is this? If the Son receives the property of causing the procession of the Spirit because He is as great as the Father is, and therefore has all the Father has, by what reason do you incline to such favouritism, by which means you think the Son co-causes the Spirit, but by means of which you deny the Spirit, Who is likewise of equal honour and dignity, since He came forth with equal rank from the same essence?

---

For the Romans:

Quote:

---

78. You cite Western Fathers [Augustine and Jerome]. But this simply pours the West down into the abyss, because it contends against the whole world. For my part, I will kindle for you from the West a never-setting and noetic light of godliness, whose brilliance your darkness cannot resist and can only fade. Ambrose might have said: The Spirit proceeds from the Son. But the evil is wrought by your tongue. But then this is in turn contradicted by the Orthodoxy of the luminous, thrice-blessed Damascene and thus your darkness is destroyed before it came to be. For by confirming the Second Ecumenical Synod, whose dogmas are affirmed to the ends of the world, he resplendently confesses and understands that the Spirit proceeds as Light from the Father. But then you say that Ambrose or Augustine taught otherwise. But again more murk pours forth from your tongue because Clement did not say it, nor hear of it, nor assent to it. On the contrary, he dissipated the blindness of your statements by the luminous radiance of Orthodoxy.

79. What will hinder me from referring to other Fathers? Leo the Great, whilst bishop of [Old] Rome, carefully demonstrated divine matters in his inspired and dogmatic Tome. In this, he was confirmed by the Fourth Synod. He confirmed its decree, and was praised by the sacred, and God-inspired assembly. He clearly taught that the All-Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father. He thus radiates the very same light of Orthodoxy, not only upon the entire West, but also to the ends of the East through his God-inspired and dogmatic epistles, through the legates who exercised his authority, and through the peace with which he illumined that great assembly collected by God. Moreover, he also said that if anyone set up or teach another doctrine other than that taught by the Synod, that person should be deposed if he were of the dignity of the priesthood or anathematised if he were a layperson or even a monastic, religious or ascetic. Whatever that God-inspired Synod decreed, Leo, similarly inspired by God, openly confirmed through the holy men Paschasinus, Lucentius and Boniface (as one may hear many times from them, indeed not only from them, but from him who sent them). Dispatching synodical letters, Leo himself testifies and confirms that the speeches, spirit, and decisions of his delegates are not theirs, but his own. Still, even if there were nothing of this, it is sufficient that they were his representatives at the Synod and that when the Synod ended, he professed to abide by its decisions.

81...You intended to frighten us with the Fathers whom you insult. But if there are among the chorus of the Fathers those who reject your subtle scheming against godly doctrine, then they are the Fathers of the Fathers. And, indeed, they are the Fathers of those very same men whom you acknowledge as Fathers. If you acknowledge Ambrose, Augustine and Jerome, then why do you not acknowledge those others, but indeed, deny them?

82. You should consider the equally renowned Vigilius, equal in throne and rank of glory with those other men, who assisted at the Fifth Synod which is also adorned with holy and ecumenical decrees. Like an unerring rule, this man conformed himself to its true dogmas. He voiced agreement in other matters and with equal zeal matching those Fathers before him and of his own time, proclaiming that the All-Holy and Consubstantial Spirit proceeds from the Father, also saying that if anyone introduced any definition other than the unanimous and common faith of the pious, then he should be delivered to the same bonds of anathema.

83. You should consider the noble and good Agatho, honoured with the same victorious deeds. Through his legates, he convened and made illustrious the Sixth Synod (which also shines with ecumenical rank), being present there, if not bodily, then certainly in will and with all diligence. He preserved the Symbol of our inviolate, pure, and unchangeable Faith without innovation, in accordance with the synods. Moreover, he confirmed the Synod by placing under an equal curse any so bold as to alter any word taught by it as dogma; these words which were affirmed as dogma from the beginning.

84. And why do you pass silently over Gregory [the Dialogist] and Zacharias, bishops of [Old] Rome, who were adorned with virtue, who increased the flock with divine wisdom and teaching, and who shone with miraculous gifts? For although neither of these men were ever assembled at a synod accorded ecumenical authority, yet brightly imitating those who did, they openly and clearly taught that the All-Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father. While Gregory, who wrote Latin, flourished not long before the Sixth Synod, Zacharias, wrote in Greek sixty years after.
....
86. If Gregory and Zacharias, although many years distant from each other, did not differ in the views about the procession of the All-Holy Spirit, and if the intervening sacred choir of Roman bishops who oversaw the priestly institutions also professed the same doctrines without innovation, being warmed by faith, but rather advocated the same dogmas, then not only these two poles, but those men between them kept, established and directed the same faith....

87. Are you ignorant of ancient things? Do you fear your fathers? Do you truly examine their doctrine? Recently (the second generation has not yet passed), Leo [III, pope of [Old] Rome, 795-816], another renowned man who was adorned with miracles, removed all pretext for heresy from everyone. Because the Latin language, frequently used by our holy Fathers, has inadequate meanings which do not translate the Greek language purely and exactly, and often render false notions of the doctrines of the Faith, and because it is not supplied with as many words that can interpret the meaning of a Greek word in its exact sense, that God-inspired man conceived an idea (the idea being conceived not only because of what we have just said, but also because of that heresy [the Filioque] now openly proclaimed without restraint, but then only being hinted at in the city of [Old] Rome). He decreed that the people of [Old] Rome should recite the sacred Symbol of Faith in the Greek tongue. Through these divinely inspired plans, he supplemented and redressed the inadequacy of the Latin tongue and expelled from the pious the suspicion of a difference in faith, pulling up by the roots the pollution then growing in the provinces of [Old] Rome. In the city of [Old] Rome, he posted notices and decrees that the sacred Symbol of Faith be recited in the same Greek tongue with which it had been first proclaimed according to the authoritative utterance of the Synods, even by those who used Latin in the mystical and sacred rites. Not only for [Old] Rome did he decree it, but also throughout the provinces which deferred to the high priesthood and rule of [Old] Rome. He sent sermons and synodical letters that everyone think and do the same, and he ensured the immutability of the doctrine by anathemas.

----
89. Thus, these men shone with piety, attesting that the Spirit proceeds from the Father, as did my John [Pope John VIII, 872-882, who signed the decrees of the Eighth Ecumenical Synod that met in Constantinople, 879-880 and agreed to prohibit the Filioque from the Symbol of Faith, ending the schism] he is mine because, besides other reasons, he was more in harmony with others who are our Fathers. Our John, being courageous in mind as well as piety, and courageous because he abhors and casts down unrighteousness and every manner of impiety, was able to prevail in both the sacred and the civil laws and to transform disorder into order. This man, favoured amongst the Roman archbishops by his more-than-illustrious and God-serving legates Paul, Eugene and Peter (bishops and priests of God), who were with us in the synod [the Eighth Ecumenical Synod that met at Constantinople, 879-880], this grace-filled bishop of [Old] Rome accepted the Symbol of the Faith of the Catholic Church of God, as the bishops of [Old] Rome had done before him. He both confirmed and subscribed to it with wondrous and notable sayings, with sacred tongue and hand through those very illustrious and admirable men aforementioned. Yes, and after that, the holy Hadrian, his successor, sent us a synodical letter according to the prescription of ancient custom, sending us the same doctrine, testifying for the same theology, namely, that the Spirit proceeds from the Father. Consequently, those sacred and blessed bishops of [Old] Rome both believed and taught thus throughout their life, and they remained in the same confession until they passed from this perishable life to the imperishable. Which of these bishops of [Old] Rome, by life, thought or teaching, altered the profession of immortal life by saying the heretical and diseased word [Filioque]?

---

Again, sorry for the length. The whole thing is really, really good (We don't call him St Photios the Great for nothing!)
Whole text here.

This is why we can't have nice things, a philosophy board filled with people who don't like to read.

In all seriousness this is why I have been avoiding the filioque discussion in earnest for so long. It basically becomes one of two things: an appeal to authority or an exercise in philosophy. The first post from Blachernae is the former - St Photio is a little bit of both.

Neither is a quick and easy discussion you can put into three or four bullet points.

k2aggie07 said:

---

This is why we can't have nice things, a philosophy board filled with people who don't like to read.

---

I like to read - but not THAT much.

On general principles, I find it hard to imagine that much can be written about three words. And in fact, it isn't. I think the filioque is used as a cover to discuss many other differences, most of which have nothing to do with those three words.

The filioque itself is a very simple issue - do you believe the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son or just the Father? You can extrapolate it into all sorts of other areas but the base question is really quite simple.

That's a useless way to frame any discussion.

Einstein could have made it a lot simpler by telling Bohr "this is a simple question. Forget all the knock-on ramifications. Do you believe something needs to be in a particular place or not?"

k2aggie07 said:

---

This is why we can't have nice things, a philosophy board filled with people who don't like to read.

---

This is actually true; I like deep discussion; but not if I have to format someone's post to address 6 individual arguments or do a whole bunch of research. Then it becomes less of a hobby and more of a research paper.

Fair enough.

I'll edit the OP to summarize. My concern is this is a tough subject. People will respond to the summary and not read the whole thing which is linked.

k2,

I understand and enjoy having a deep conversation to fully understand a topic. But the reams of discussion over these three words is one of those things that makes the masses of people point and say "look at them argue over nonsense".

PERSONALLY - I don't care whether those three words are there or not. I say them every Sunday but I would willingly jettison them for unity in the church because they are not important to me. There are much more substantial elements of Christianity that call out to me than these three words.

wbt5845 said:

---

k2,

I understand and enjoy having a deep conversation to fully understand a topic. But the reams of discussion over these three words is one of those things that makes the masses of people point and say "look at them argue over nonsense".

PERSONALLY - I don't care whether those three words are there or not. I say them every Sunday but I would willingly jettison them for unity in the church because they are not important to me. There are much more substantial elements of Christianity that call out to me than these three words.

---

I imagine people were saying the same thing about homoousios vs homoiousios. That was not three words, but a single letter. And this was the conflict of Arius, and the cause of the First Ecumenical Council.

I am fine with you not caring. I think, though, this represents (as I said in the other thread) a distinction in what the symbol of Faith means. It is not a list of beliefs, it is a statement which represents the actuality. My faith believes in One God, a begotten son of one essence (homousios -- NOT homoiousios) with the Father, and a theology of divine participation in the essence where the persons are common, and distinction where they are not. There is no more substantial element of Christianity than theology proper (that is, theology about the Trinity). This is the only thing that separates Christianity from Judaism, from Islam, from Mormons.

St Gregory said:

Quote:

---

You may find many other honourable subjects for discussion. To these turn this disease of yours [i.e., inability to control speculation -k2] with some advantage. Attack the silence of Pythagoras, and the Orphic beans, and the novel brag about "The Master said". Attack the ideas of Plato, and the transmigrations and courses of our souls, and the reminiscences, and the unlovely loves of the soul for lovely bodies. Attack the atheism of Epicurus, and his atoms, and his unphilosophic pleasure; or Aristotle's petty Providence, and his artificial system, and his discourses about the mortality of the soul, and the humanitarianism of his doctrine. Attack the superciliousness of the Stoa, or the greed and vulgarity of the Cynic. Attack the Void and Full (what nonsense), and all the details about the gods and the sacrifices and the idols and demons, whether beneficent or malignant, and all the tricks that people play with divination, evoking of gods, or of souls, and the power of the stars. And if these things seem to you unworthy of discussion as petty and already often confuted, and you will keep to your line, and seek the satisfaction of your ambition in it; then here too I will provide you with broad paths. Philosophize about the world or worlds; about matter; about soul; about natures endowed with reason, good or bad; about resurrection, about judgment, about reward, or the Sufferings of Christ. For in these subjects to hit the mark is not useless, and to miss it is not dangerous. But with God we shall have converse, in this life only in a small degree; but a little later, it may be, more perfectly, in the Same, our Lord Jesus Christ.

---

I have been wanting to ask you for book recommendations on the East's opposition to the filioque, so thanks for these. I will read them eventually but probably not soon with two very young children at home. I definitely want to learn more over the differences. I have avoided discussing it because, I truly do not understand the distinction. Maybe one day I will speak on the topic.

May I ask if you ever considered the RCC when you were converting? I am wondering why you joined the Eastern Church and not the Western one? Did you already have reservations about the filioque before you converted? This is not for some trap later, I am just curious. Sorry if that question is too personal.

I actually went completely agnostic and tried to start from scratch. I am not comfortable with causeless existence -- I've written a bit about that on this forum (even if you go back to the big bang, something caused that... I feel like everything has a cause) -- so I could not avoid belief in an uncreated being. I couldn't really jive with any of the eastern religions, and polytheism always seemed a bit much for me. Impractical, somehow. So, Abrahamic religions it was. I had a bit of a bias towards Christianity, so I figured, if there ever was deity like Christianity said, surely at the beginning it was right. I tried to go back as far as I could, with scholarship and so forth, and then work forward to find that "thread". I became Orthodox for a very simple reason: if ever there was an authentic Christian faith, it is with Orthodoxy or nowhere else in existence. That is to say, either Orthodoxy has maintained a consistent truth and tradition, or whatever the Apostles believed disappeared at some point. I believe the former is true.

When you trace the thread from the beginning outward, it's easy to see differences the differences between East and West and how they interpreted things based on pre-existing philosophical frames of reference. I don't find Western Christianity's modern version compelling, whether that's the view of sin, the quasi-legalistic soteriology, the Roman Church's ecclesiology, or Protestantism's lack thereof (or of any sort of definite standard of dogma).

I started in the East in submission with regard to the filioque. After a few years of reading various books... one day it just clicked. It was actually really upsetting, because the knock-on implications are kind of big (even aside from the whole breaking communion thing, the actual implications to real participated grace and receipt of the holy spirit are big). I think it was actually just a poorly expressed philosophy.

And this is the crux between east and west, and the crux of the filioque as well. It's experience, not intellect or logic, from where true Theology speaks.

A bishop whom has greatly influenced my spiritual education once wrote to me:

Quote:

---

St. Augustine has been attacked by some. They forget that he was enlightened. He also did not attack Pelagius (at one point he even compliments his austere way of life). He saw the danger of Pelagius' teachings and set out to guard the faithful from speculation and being led astray. St. Augustine's language is perhaps in error, and his way of expressing his arguments led subsequent theologians in the West to overstate and misuse his writings.

Augustine, like all Saints, did not arrive where he did out of logic alone, but was struggling to express his understanding of the heresy of Pelagius, this Irish, or perhaps British, ascetic, in the best way that he could. His understanding of Pelagius' errors was not, in any event, a matter of philosophy and of theology alone; it rose out of his experience of God and the Mysteries of God. He sensed that Pelagius was not expressing a true experience of God, and therein lies confirmation of his sanctity, in spite of what some consider his theological vagaries and errors in expressing the deficiencies that he saw in Pelagius. Call to mind the words of St. Gregory of Nyssa, who says that we should not "insert our errors of speech" into "theological doctrine." In other words, he was aware that there exists the danger of expressing something wrongly and its being taken as doctrine. His awareness illustrates what I have said about avoiding the sin of condemning St. Augustine for errors in speech that some wrongly take as errors in doctrine.

---

I had commented to him:

Quote:

---

Perhaps it was even a confusion over holiness as an aspect of God's esse versus understanding it as an energeia. Under this thought, it would confuse the absence of sin as holiness itself rather than an accident of holiness.

---

And he responded to me:

Quote:

---

This was a distinction he knew by experience but which he could not express in the consensual language of the Fathers, since he was somewhat separated by language and geography from Patristic traditions that rightly expressed that distinction.

Again, I would be careful about categorizing such things theologically. Yours is an intellectual observation, and it is not fruitful to speak of spiritual mysteries except in a very tentative way. One must experience God, informed and formed by Holy Tradition, and then approach theology. Today, the vast majority of Orthodox have lost that understanding, which is why they so underestimate Holy Tradition and fail to love every iota of it, little noting that it is not secondary to theology and intellectual understanding, but is the source of true theology, explicating from the spiritual experience which elucidates and reveals the very substance of theology. This is, in nuce, what St. Gregory Palamas strove to convey to Barlaam the Calabrian, who wanted to come to Truth through philosophy and argumentation. St. Gregory Palamas witnessed to an experiential, empirical encounter with God. The two were worlds apartas far apart as Truth is from mere philosophical speculation about it.

Someone who struggles for illumination (deification) would approach the question of how virtue and sin are related to our deification in Christ from an entirely different perspective: not from thought, but from experience. This is probably why even Aquinas, the quintessential Scholastic, whose theology molded Barlaam, in the end came to the striking conclusion that all of his "correct" arguments were ultimately "straw." That does not mean that thinking correctly is wrong; it simply means that it is inadequate and is not produced in the same way that correct thought gained from experience is. The crucial issue is the source and consequence of thought, not the tightness of the argument by which one conveys it. (emphasis mine - K2) Theology at the level of the intellect is mere belief and is secondary and not spiritually fecund. The theology of the Trinity, for example, is ultimately not subject to the intellect; it is true only when one theologizes from "within God" and from an experience of His Trinitarian Nature in three Hypostases. Indeed, St. Gregory of Constantinople ("the Theologian) says, in this respect, that trying to pry into the mystery of the Trinity with the mind alone can drive one mad. One must experience the mystery of God In three Hypostases to expound on it.

The crucial issue is the source and consequence of thought, not the tightness of the argument by which one conveys it.

---

This is, in a nutshell, why I am Orthodox and not Roman Catholic.

First, sorry for the thread detail.
Second, I really admire your thoroughness and time you spend on each post even in the OP. I almost don't want to respond because I do not time, energy, or capability to adequately address your points.

I just want to say this in response. Pope Bendict was once asked how many ways are there to reach God, and he responded "as many people as there in the world". I flirted with agnosticism for a while, and honestly, it was reading Aquinas that brought me back to Catholicism. It was seeing God as truth that allowed me to experience him. Scholastic theology is and was never meant to be an end in itself but just another means of bringing us closer to God.

There is more I want to say but my kid is going back to bed, so I am following her example.

k2aggie07 said:

---

This is why we can't have nice things, a philosophy board filled with people who don't like to read.

---

I want to, I really do, but life gets in the way. And of late, I'm realizing that my spiritual growth needs more prayer than learning.

Zosima said:

---

Pope Bendict was once asked how many ways are there to reach God, and he responded "as many people as there in the world".

---

Truth. Lots of ways to Prays (Different strokes for different folks). I will challenge Protestants for not having the fullness of truth on their side, but then I get hit with this statement. Lots of ways to pray, lots of ways that God reaches out to us. Lots of ways for us to Love.

I'm sorry, I don't understand the Benedict quote. Christ is the only way to the father. Was he implying an all paths to God-any religion is fine mentality?

Zosima said:

---

First, sorry for the thread detail.
Second, I really admire your thoroughness and time you spend on each post even in the OP. I almost don't want to respond because I do not time, energy, or capability to adequately address your points.

I just want to say this in response. Pope Bendict was once asked how many ways are there to reach God, and he responded "as many people as there in the world". I flirted with agnosticism for a while, and honestly, it was reading Aquinas that brought me back to Catholicism. It was seeing God as truth that allowed me to experience him. Scholastic theology is and was never meant to be an end in itself but just another means of bringing us closer to God.

There is more I want to say but my kid is going back to bed, so I am following her example.

---

It's kinda funny, booboo and I had different responses to Pope Benedict's comment. There is a path to holiness for every person, but that path is only through Christ Jesus.

St Gregory the Theologian said this in the essay I referenced in the OP. His words are better than mine.

Quote:

---

Is there any thing that procures these Mansions [in heaven], as I think there is; or is there nothing? What is it? Is it not that there are various modes of conduct, and various purposes, one leading one way, another another way, according to the proportion of faith, and these we call Ways? Must we, then, travel all, or some of these Ways...the same individual along them all, if that be possible; or, if not, along as many as may be; or else along some of them? And even if this may not be, it would still be a great thing, at least as it appears to me, to travel excellently along even one. What then when you hear there is but One way, and that a narrow one, (cf Matthew 7:14) does the word seem to you to show? That there is but one on account of its excellence. For it is but one, even though it be split into many parts. And narrow because of its difficulties, and because it is trodden by few in comparison with the multitude of the adversaries, and of those who travel along the road of wickedness.

---

There is only one way.

I don't mean to denigrate Aquinas. I'm sure he was a devout and pious man. But seeing God as truth can lead us to error. God is Truth, yes, but Truth is not God. What I mean to say is that, we need to carry in our minds the idea that any tag we put on God that is true is underdescribing Him or is about His energies, not His essence. St Maximos wrote on these lines:

Quote:

---

The essence in every virtue is the one Logos of God - and this can hardly be doubted since the essence of all the virtues is our Lord, Jesus Christ, as it is written: God made Him our wisdom, our righteousness, our holiness, and our redemption (cf 1 Cor 1:30). These things are of course said about Him in an absolute sense, for He is Wisdom and Righteousness and Sanctification itself, and not in some limited sense, as is the case with human beings, as for human beings...Which is to say that anyone who through fixed habit participates in virtue, unquestionably participates in God, who is the substance of the virtues.

---

St Maximos warns in several of his writings about being Potiphar's wife, who got only Joseph's robe but not Joseph. We don't need to grab for the scriptures, or for spiritual knowledge, or even truth, because we may actually get what we reach for, but not grab onto Christ. This is the gist of what Bishop Chrysostomos was telling me -- being right is fine, but at some point you're only speculating if you haven't been there. And even if you have been there, you still may not be the right person who is blessed by God to describe the indescribable. This is the difficulty represented by the filioque: if they went to the same place, why are they saying (in effect) that the Taj Mahal is black, when our theologians say it's white?

I hear these two thoughts frequently and I'm wondering if they are not a contradiction:

Nicene Creed (RC Version):

Quote:

---

We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,

who proceeds from the Father and the Son.

---

Mary - Bride of the Holy Spirit - View that Mary is the spouse of the Holy Spirit (I have heard this from several members on Catholic channels) to explain that since Mary and the Holy Spirit "created" Jesus, that they were married.

So if I understand this right, the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and Son, and yet is the "Father" of the Son?

I'm not sure that's the best way to think of it.

I would make a hard separation between temporal activity of God and the eternal subsistence of the Trinity.

The Spirit is sent by Christ into the world. The Spirit Proceeds eternally from the Father. Those sound similar but they're not talking about the same thing.

Similarly the Logos was begotten by the Father before all ages. The Logos was incarnated by the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary to become Jesus Christ.

So we can draw no conclusions about the inner life of the Trinity from this, I think.

K2, are you familiar with a book titled "The Myth of Schism" by a theologian named David B. Hart?

I haven't read it. From what I've read about and from Hart he seems like a thoughtful and well-read. I have read an essay by him on the same topic with the same title.

His position is basically - no theological differences, doctrinal differences need to be corrected. He actually says the west needs to drop the flilioque outright, and the west's ecclesiology (i.e. papal primacy) needs to be better defined.

But, one thing I think he minimizes - with good intentions, no doubt - is the real changes that have occurred since the 19th century in Rome. A lot of his arguments stop in the 1800s.

He also really doesn't like Lossky, and I've not come to the root of that disagreement yet ... but that makes me a bit wary.

K2, I think the essay to which you are referring can be found on the left side of this web page:

http://fatherdavidbirdosb.blogspot.com/2012/05/myth-of-schism-by-david-bentley-hart.html

I found the essay extremely informative and actually quite hopeful, but not Pollyanna-ish.

In keeping with the lengthy theme of your original post, rather than post excerpts, I would encourage those who are interested to read the essay by Hart at that link.

But here's one of the more interesting parts from my perspective:

"... I might observe that both Augustine and Gregory of Nyssa even distinguish generation and procession within the Trinity in terms primarily of the order of cause: that is, both claim that the procession of the Spirit differs from the generation of the Son principally in that the former occurs through the Son. As Gregory writes (in a passage that would fit very well in, say, Book V of Augustine's De Trinitate):

Quote:

---

... while confessing the immutability of the [divine] nature, we do not deny difference in regard to cause and that which is caused, by which alone we discern the difference of each Person from the other, in that we believe one to be the cause and another to be from the cause; and again we conceive of another difference within that which is from the cause: between the one who, on the one hand, comes directly from the principle and the one who, on the other, comes from the principle through the one who arises directly; thus it unquestionably remains peculiar to the Son to be the Only Begotten, while at the same time it is not to be doubted that the Spirit is of the Father, by virtue of the mediation of the Son that safeguards the Son's character as Only Begotten, and thus the Spirit is not excluded from his natural relation to the Father.1

---

This is the very argumentmade by Augustine in De Trinitatethat scores of Orthodox theologians in recent decades have denounced as entirely alien to Eastern tradition."

After reading Hart's essay, I pray that someone in Rome who is interested in progressing the possibility of reunion with the East might reach out to Hart and others like him and try to kick off a real discussion.... Hart's comments about the risks of nihilism in the west seem very prescient to me.

With respect to Hart - the commonly used patristic phrase from the father through the son is not objected to at all. This was beaten to death and t Blachernae by Patriarch Gregory against Beccus (items 4-6 above).l and was debated again at the council of Florence. St Gregory's quote is hardly a gotcha - and an alignment with St Gregory and St Augustine is similarly unsurprising. St Photios defends St Augustine against those who took his words and ran with them while critiquing the Filioque.

Hart seems to imply that these doctrinal differences (if for conversation sake we say that the Filioque falls into this category and not theology - debatable) are relatively new. The realty is St Photios talked about these dangers since the 800s, and they were clearly objected to as real distinctions by the east for centuries before the actual schism. It's disenguous to look backwards and say all of those men were misguided, uninformed, etc. Much of what was debated at Ferrara-Florence was directly relating to the different underpinnings of the (then) more modern western philosophy and how that influenced the defense of the Filioque. This same theme repeated in St Gregory Palamas vs Barlaam.

The Filioque is the root, because his main concern about papal infallibility's murky reach is completely crystallized in the unilateral modification of the Filioque. It's hard to separate one from the other (never mind everything that has happened since).