Brother Ghosty,
I think a clarification needs to be made on your insistance that the Holy FAther of the Church, Saint Maximos the Confessor agreed with the Filioque.
The Latin view of filioque and the Maximian view are not the same, to be sure.
The Fathers, speaking of procession, speak of something more akin to an energetic procession, not an from the essence.
Here’s a quote for everyone from the Great Metropolitan:
As Saint Maximus the Confessor insisted, however, in defence of the Roman use of the Filioque, the decisive thing in this defence lies precisely in the point that in using the Filioque the Romans do not imply a “cause” other than the Father. The notion of “cause” seems to be of special significance and importance in the Greek Patristic argument concerning the Filioque. If Roman Catholic theology would be ready to admit that the Son in no way constitutes a “cause” (aition) in the procession of the Spirit, this would bring the two traditions much closer to each other with regard to the Filioque.
orthodoxresearchinstitute.org/articles/dogmatics/john_zizioulas_single_source.htm
The Latin Church has always said that the Father alone is the Source of the Holy Spirit, which seems to be what St. Maximos was speaking of when he denied that the Son was “cause” (which the Latins agreed with him on).
The problem with speaking of “energetic procession” is that it doesn’t have a consistent meaning. For example, some writings will refer to the temporal work of God as energetic, and in the case of the Holy Spirit’s procession from the Son that it happens only temporally and in the world, as when Christ breathed out the Holy Spirit. Some writings, on the other hand, speak of eternal, non-worldly energetic activities, and even of an eternal energetic procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son, but not an eternal
personal procession. Such differences indicate that the language of “energetic procession” is in dire need of refinement, or at least consistent application, if it’s going to be used to address the filioque question.
The Latin Church has already stated definitively that there is only one Source of Deity, and that is the Father. This was said at the Council of Florence:
The Latins asserted that they say the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son not with the intention of excluding the Father from being the source and principle of all deity, that is of the Son and of the holy Spirit, nor to imply that the Son does not receive from the Father, because the holy Spirit proceeds from the Son
With all due respect to Metropolitan John, it seems that the Latins already addressed his concerns long ago at that infamous Council. I’m not sure what more they would have to do, to be honest.
The Latins have never made the Son the Source, and have insisted against it (despite St. Athanasius saying that the Son and Father are together the Source of the Holy Spirit). The Son is not “the Source along with the Father”, but rather only the Father is Source, and the Son receives (not in the sense of being a receptical for the Holy Spirit, but in the sense that the river which flows into a lake receives water from the spring). What the Latins have insisted on is that the Holy Spirit does not exist otherwise than “through the Son”, which is totally consistant with the Eastern Patristic accounts of the Trinity. There is one Holy Spirit, one procession of the Holy Spirit (hence the Latin theological language of “one spiration and one principle”, and it’s important to note that “principle” does not mean source in Latin theology), and this procession is from the Father, through the Son.
Basically, the Latin tradition is not expressing anything about the Holy Spirit’s origin in the sense of Source, as the Greek tradition does (and the Greek word ekporousis expresses this definitively). Rather it is speaking of the procession, the “personal movement” of the Holy Spirit, which is one single movement originating in the Father, and coming through the Son.
East and West have been talking at cross purposes, IMO, with the East insisting on what the West has always maintained, namely that the Father alone is Source, while the West has pushed something that is scarcely dealt with in Eastern theology, but which has its roots in the Cappadocian Fathers.
St. Gregory of Nyssa wrote very succinctly what is identical to the Latin teaching of the filioque:
…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 Cause, and another by that which is directly from the Cause; so that the attribute of being Only-begotten abides without doubt in the Son, and the interposition 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.
Here the Son is directly interposed between the Father and Holy Spirit in the procession, but not as a Source. The Father remains the Source of the Holy Spirit, but the Son inescabably participates in the Holy Spirit’s “coming from” the Source. It’s not necessary to add this fact to the Creed (“from the Father” says all that needs to be said), and for ecumenical reasons it might need to be removed from the Latin Liturgy, but I don’t see how it’s erroneous in any way.
As for St. Maximos himself, I’ve seen nothing from his writings that indicate a disagreement with the Latin teaching. If you have examples, I’m interested in reading them for sure.
Peace and God bless!
