A.E. Siecienski, Vigiliae Christianae 2007

The Authenticity of Maximus the Confessor's "Letter to Marinus": The Argument from Theological Consistency Author(s): A.
Edward Siecienski Source: Vigiliae Christianae, Vol. 61, No. 2 (May, 2007), pp. 189-227 Published by: BRILL Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20474812 . Accessed: 23/12/2013 06:15
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
BRILL is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Vigiliae Christianae.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 193.225.200.89 on Mon, 23 Dec 2013 06:15:34 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
C,6 83
BRI L L 61 (2007) 189-227 VigiliaeChristianae
Vigiliae
Christianae
www.brill.nl/vc
TheAuthenticity ofMaximus the Confessor's Letterto Marinus: TheArgument from Theological Consistency
A. EdwardSiecienski
College Misericordia, Dallas, PA 18612, USA
Abstract
Marinus (PG 91, 136) has been used throughout Maximus the Confessor'sLetter to the centuriesby both Latins and Greeks to defend theirrespective positions vis-a-vis the Yet doubts about itsauthenticity, filioque. raisedby both sides,have preventeditsaccep tance as representative of the consensus patrum on theprocession of theHoly Spirit. 'This paper argues that thebest case for theauthenticity of theLetter,all otherdoubts with the trinitarian Maximus inherited fromtheearlier aside, is itsconsistency principles fathers and establishedinhis other works. For thisreasonthe Letterto Marinus continues tooffer modern theologians and ecumeniststhebesthope forresolving theage old ques tionof the filioquebased on theearliest known patristicreference to thedebate.
Keywords
Filioque, Photius, Trinity, Gregory ofNazianzus, Gregory of Nyssa, Cyril ofAlexan dria,Augustine, perichoresis, processio
Introduction
of patristic texts Among thehundreds over thecenturies broughtforward or disproving either few havehad a theorthodoxy of thefilioque, proving more interesting than Maximus the Confessor's Letterto Marinus.1 history
states: "Therefore the men of theQueen of cities (i.e., Constanti most not in all the letter of the the present synodal holy Pope, nople) chapters you have written about, but only two of them. One relates to the theology and makes the state ment In the first from the Son.'... that, 'The Holy Spirit proceeds place they (i.e., the relevant passage attacked Romans) Alexandria, the unanimous evidence of the Roman Fathers, and also of Cyril of produced from the study he made of the Gospel of St. John. From this they showed that not make the Son the cause of the they themselves do Spirit, for they know that the Father DOI: 10.1163/157007207X195349 1} The
? Koninklijke BrillNV, Leiden, 2007
190
61 (2007) 189-227 A. E. Siecienski /VigiliaeChristianae
Anastasius Bib PhotianSchism (874) by First quoted duringtheso-called was cited to inhis letter toJohnthe Deacon, Maximus's Letter liothecarius to theorthodoxy of theLatin'sposition and itsconformity demonstrate Centuries later Gregoryof Cyprus and GregoryPal Eastern tradition.2 own interpretations of the amas usedMaximus to supporttheir filioque, moving beyond Photius (who had argued forprocession ?iK tOvootoi eternal manifestation (&ibtov the Spirit's EK(paWvTv) norpo6;)toacknowledge asBishop ofThes theSon.3Nilus Cabasilas, Palamas'ssuccessor through thepositionof Pho Marinus as a proof-textfor salonica,saw theLetterto
is the one cause of the Son and the Spirit, the one by begetting and the other by procession, essence_At but they show the progression your through him and thus the unity of the to translate what to them in order to avoid such is unique request, I asked the Romans since the practice of writing and sending (synodal) letters has already been not be able to express if they will comply. Especially, observed, they might their thought with the same exactness in another language as they might in their mother as we could not do." 10; PG 91, 136. tongue, just Opusculum 2) to the "Moreover, we have from the letter written by the same Saint Maximus priest the procession Marinus of the Holy Spirit, where he implies that the Greeks concerning obscurities. But I do not know tomake a case since we do not say that the Son is a cause or prin against us, as assert. But, not of the they Holy incognizant of the unity of substance ciple Spirit, between the Father and the Son, as he proceeds from the Father, we confess that he pro tried, in vain, of course, as "mission." ceeds from the Son, understanding processionem, Interpreting to peace, while he teaches both us and in both piously, he instructs those skilled languages the Greeks that in one sense the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son and in another sense he does not proceed, showing the difficulty of expressing the idiosyncrasies of one language in another." Anastasius Ad Ioannem Diaconum; 567. PL129, 3) "The the holy Tarasius, and even the saintly John knew that the Holy great Maximus, it subsists with respect to both its hypostasis Spirit proceeds from the Father, from whom Spirit flows forth, Son." Gregory of say that the Holy
that the and cause of its being. And at the same time, they acknowledge is manifested, shines forth, appears and is made known through the tomo suo; PG 142, 262. "Whenever you hear him pro Cyprus, Apologia it comes from the Father essentially Spirit proceeds from both, because understand
through the Son, are reverently that he is teaching that the natural powers and energies of God not the forth but divine hypostasis." Gregory Palamas, Logos Apodeiktikos 2, poured Spirit's tou Palama in 20; Boris Bobrinsky, ed., Logoi Apodeiktikoi, Gregoriou Syggrammata vol. 1, ed. Panagiotes Chrestou (Thessalonica, 1962), 96. For a full portrait of Gregory the Cypriot to the Crisis in Byzantium: debate see Aristeides and his contributions Papadakis, filioque Press, 1996);
Bernhard Schultze, "Patriarch Gregorios von Cyprem ?ber das to Pal Peri?dica Christiana 51 (1985): 163-87. For his relationship Filioque," " amas see Andrew 'Palamism before Palamas' and the of Sopko, Theology Gregory of St. Vladimir's 23 139-47'. (1979), Cyprus," Theological Quarterly St. Vladimir's Orientalia
in the II of The Patriarchate Gregory Cyprus(1283-1289) (Crestwood: of Filioque Controversy
A. E Siecienski / VigiliaeChristianae 61 (2007) 189-227
191
tius,accusing theLatins of duplicity because they denied itsauthenticity now thatthe Roman teaching (i.e., thattheSon was,with theFather,the causeof the Holy Spirit)contradicted Maximus's.
But it is completely ridiculous for the Latins to be at war against themselves, sometimesnot being ashamed to bring it forth against us and declaring that this letter of thedivineMaximus isgenuine ... and other times, when we defend our selves fromthis letterin a way thatseems best to us, they maintain theopposite, ashamed to agree with theirearlierposition.4
At the Council of Florence (1438-39)Mark Eugenicusof Ephesusmain tainedthat Maximus's Letterto Marinus was thecriterion sinequa non for orthodox trinitarian while theGreek unionists(e.g.,Bessarion theology, and Scholarius) followedtheLatins in rejecting theLetteras spurious (althoughthis did not stop themfrom proposingitas a potentialreunion formula).5 Among theLatins,onlyAndrew, Archbishopof Rhodes,was willing to accept theauthenticity of theLetter, believingthatitnot only
4) Five Discourses
Les Editionsdu Cerf,2001), 385. The Latin (Paris: Th?ophileKislas, ed.,Sur leSaint-Esprit
as a rejection is especially ironie in light of the fact that the textwas composed defense of the on the as contained in his orthodoxy of Old Rome and of Pope Theodore's teaching filioque to For his part, Cabasilas had no doubts about the authen synodal letter Constantinople. and same style as the other writ ticity of the Letter, "preserving the ancient constructions in of the as well as divine his association and his with Marinus, Maximus, Rome, stay ings from the Western saints in the measure that
against
the Conclusions
of the Latins
on the Matter
of the Holy
Spirit 5,13;
his just reproof against our Church." Ibid. 5) "I will admit as authentic all the citations
are in accord with the Letter of St. Maximus toMarinus. All that are they divergent from V it, I will not accept." Syropoulos, Memoirs 8.6; Laurent, ed., Concilium Florentinum: et Documenta de l'Eglise de Scriptores 9: Les "M?moires"du GrandEccl?siarque Constantinople sur le Concile de Florence (1438-1439) Institutum (Rome: Pontificium Sylvestre Syropoulos reason for was that "we 1971), 394. Bessarion's rejecting the Letter it because we do not possess it in its 8.34; Laurent 420. entirety."Memoirs, to accept the Letter to but only if it Marinus, willing theology ofMaximus's were understood unionist hermeneutic the when Maximus lens?i.e., through spoke about Orientalium Studiorum, do not accept Bessarion was xov Yio\)) he believed it to be the Spirit's progression through the Son (jtpo??vai ?i? equiv ek xou Yiov]), alent to the Latin teaching (i.e., procession from the Son [eK7top?'??G0ai the Father's unique role as "one cause" in the sense that he alone was understanding primor "That the Son
dial cause. Because
Bessarion had this ofMaximus's Letter, he could affirm: understanding we understand is not the cause of the for the of cause in Spirit... meaning as the the strictest sense, as used in the Greek idiom, whereby cause always is understood (PG 161, 240). primordial first cause"Refutatio Capitum SyllogisticorumMarciEphesii
192
A. E. Siecienski /VigiliaeChristianae 61 (2007) 189-227
of the spoke to theorthodoxy filioque,but also of itslicitaddition to the were quick to distance them creed.6 However, theotherLatin delegates selvesfrom Andrew,as they maintained thattheLetter was spuriousand While the could not be broughtforward.7 Greeks severaltimes proposed Letterto Marinus as ameans to reunion, Latins continuedto the using the rejectit,demandingamore explicit affirmation of the Roman teaching.8 It is thussomewhatironicthat fivecenturieslaterthe Vatican, in its 1995 clarification "TheGreek and LatinTraditions RegardingtheProces Marinus as thehermeneutical used theLetterto sionof the Holy Spirit," key to understanding its teaching on theprocession.9 It seemed thatthe Latin argument of thetext historic againsttheauthenticity had, quite sud been laid aside, with Rome now perfectly denlyandwithout ado, simply Marinus as representative willing to accept Maximus's Letterto of thecon sensus patrum. However, itbegged thequestion that had prevented earlier Was the Letterto Marinus an authen generations from embracing thetext: tic Maximus or a productof a later a work of authorhoping to introduce witness to theorthodoxy of the Latin teaching on theprocession? patristic Catholic and Orthodox,who doubt the Even today thereare scholars,
to thatMaximus accepted both the theology of Syropoulus, by demonstrating According thefilioque and the interpolation Andrew "wanted to prove that the addition was not the cause of the schism, but that it occurred for other reasons." Memoirs, 6.35; Laurent 334. Given that Rome did not embrace the addition until the eleventh century, Andrew's claim can is impossible to maintain. As Hans-J?rgen Marx writes, "While Maximus possibly be seen as not the case for the defending the orthodoxy of the Latin doctrine, this is legitimacy on this to the does not say a word." Hans of the addition symbol; for subject Maximus
6)
zum Plural und Verbot eines anderen Glaubens auf dem Florentinum: J?rgen Marx, Filioque ismus in Formeln 223. (Sankt 1977), Steyler Verlag, Augustin: dogmatischen 7) "We chided the on this account, that contrary to our will he has pro Bishop of Rhodes it. it is not found to be We duced do not admit it, because 6.36; complete." Memoirs, Laurent 336. 8) over the addition at Ferrara, the Greeks Early on, in the debates of the Letter was all that was required for the council to succeed, implied that acceptance "If this letter is
claiming: on your part, the union will Ibid. During the final nego accepted gladly happily proceed." tiation in Florence the Greeks again proposed the Letter as a reunion formula: "If the Latins are us to unite with them." by this epistle, then nothing else is required for persuaded
Joseph Gill, ed., Quae supersunt Actorum Graecorum Concilii Florentini: Res Florentinaeges et Insti tae, Concilium Florentinum: Documenta Scriptores 5.2.2 (Rome: Pontifical Oriental tute, 1953), 392-93. 9) in: "The Greek and Latin Traditions the Procession Regarding English translation found
CatholicInternational of the 7 (1996): 36-43. Holy Spirit,"
A. E. Siecienski /VigiliaeChristianae 61 (2007) 189-227 193
text's authenticity, calling intoquestion itsabilitytobring East and West closertogether on theage-oldproblemof the filioque.10 Imaintain that, despite these continued the Letterto misgivings, Mari nus isnot only an authentic work ofMaximus theConfessor, but also a of his thinking on theprocession of the good summary The Holy Spirit. decisiveargument, and theone thateffectively all theothers,is "trumps" theargumentfromtheological con consistency-i.e., thatthe theology in accord with the trinitarian tained in theLetterto Marinus isperfectly inhis other principlesthat works.By examining Maximus established his in on theSpirit's writings ad Thalassium procession, especially Quaestiones 63, Quaestioneset dubia 34, ExpositioOrationisDominicae, and the Ambigua,one discoversthat Maximus's explanation of the filioque in the Letter was consistent with both his reading of the Cappadocian tradition Latin theology andwith seventh-century as he had come tounderstand it. It is thusa clear, of and authentic, expression Maximus's own thinking vis a-vis theChurchs theology of theprocessionas itexistedin theseventh
are: 1)Maximus, toMarinus in another against authenticity epistle a to that has been of letter attributed which him, 129), speaks may or may falsely not be reference to 10. 2) Some, likeV. Karayiannis, believe that while elements Opusculum the section concerning Maximus's of the Letter may be authentic, of support alleged as it is is certainly a later Latin since "the question of the filioquism interpolation filioque treated in this text is premature for the era ofMaximus insomuch as the point of departure chief arguments (PG 91, and Latin theology had not yet been reached." Vasilios Karayiannis, Max ime le Confesseur: Essence et Energies de Dieu (Paris: Beauchesne, 1993), 89. Karayiannis believes the disputed section of the text to be from a later author hoping to bridge the gap between Greek between
10)The
dealt with such an important point of trinitarian 3) It is difficult to believe thatMaximus as a small part of a rather minor epistle. 4) The Letter itself is incomplete and the theology were the issue of the only brought forward in the ninth century, when preserved sections was already in dispute. filioque or none of these are However, arguments, strong enough to individually collectively, as we have received it. the Letter for of the the While rejecting authenticity provide grounds terms ofthe not be clarified until the ninth century precise filioque dispute would during to argue that the so-called Photian Schism, there is certainly enough prima facie evidence was already of the great Latin fathers taking shape. Many (e.g., Ambrose, Hilary, Augus or another, or to one spoken of the Spirit's procession from (ex) degree through Thus despite Karayiannis's argument to the contrary, Maximus
OMOAOrHTHX KAI H EKKAHZIA THIKYIIPOY" Apost?los Varnavas53 (1992): 379-98.
the positions
of Photius
and
the West.
See
idem,
"O AriOI
MAEIMOI
evenby 646 (Polycarp of the Sherwood'sdatingof theLetter) theLatin theology filioque

tine) had,
intothe Creed at the Third incorporated (per) theSon and in 589 the filioquewas formally
could very
Synod of Toledo.
194
/VigiliaeChristianae 61 (2007) 189-227 A. E. Siecienski
one of thebesthopes forresolving theage-old century, and, even today, problemof thefilioque.
Maximus's TrinitarianThought and Although the Trinity playedan important role in Maximus's theology are foundinseveral ofhisworks, it would bemisguided trinitarian "creeds" to try and takethese writings out of contextinordertocomposea separate De Deo uno orDe Deo trino.1" Maximus, unlike Augus dogmatic treatise write anything tinein the likea De Trinitate. West, neverfelttheneed to On thecontrary, Maximus's work alreadyassumes thathis listeners have of thecouncilsand thegreatfathers faith (e.g., embraced the trinitarian he Basil ofCaesarea,Gregory Nazianzus, andCyrilofAlexandria)and thus on thenatureof the need to engage in speculation had little metaphysical Maximus's trinitarian writings need tobe read in light of Trinity. Rather, of humanityin thegoal of his overalltheological program:thedeification for Maximus isnot howwe come to What is important Christ (0&outg). of thetrinitarian Chris theinner understand workings God, but how the tiancomes to participatein thedivine liferevealedin thepersonof the Word made flesh.
well have participated and fifty years before
in trie filioque debates, that debate blossomed
even
though into schism.
it would
be another one hundred
deals with such a significant theological Itmay indeed seem strange to us thatMaximus of the Holy Spirit almost as an afterthought. Yet given the highly issue like the procession to find thatMaximus "situational" nature of much of patristic theology, it is not unusual on a in response to a like views the his detailed perceived heresy. Sim subject only filioque to the issue because someone on of the Maximus the only spoke procession subject ply put, the orthodox teaching of his Roman allies. This had questioned also explain why the Letter only resurfaced two centuries later,when the Latins again their orthodoxy against charges of heresy coming from Con found themselves defending and Alexander stantinople during the so-called Photian Schism. Both Polycarp Sherwood else (i.e., the monothelites) who have done exclude Date internal evidence that "stylistic and other textual analyses of the Letter, conclude fabrication." Polycarp Sher the possibility of a ninth-century List St. Maximus the Confessor (Rome: Herder, of theWorks of
would
Alexakis, wood, 1952),
An Annotated 54; Alexander
Alexakis, Codex Parisinus Graecus 1115 and Its Archetypes (Washing ton DC: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, 1996), 76. in Such creeds can be found in the Capita theologica et oeconomica (Second Century, 1) and Both works can be found in English translation in Ber the Expositio Orationis Dominicae. the Confessor. thold, ed.,Maximus
61 (2007) 189-227 A. E Siecienski /VigiliaeChristianae
195
key tounderstanding Maximus's trini Thus ifthereisa hermeneutical as a whole, it is thatOFoxoyiav tarian writings,indeed,his theology gEV 0 Toi e?oi Aoyo;.12 Althoughan originaland Yap 5i&a,GICF G6aPKO11URVO6 remains Maximus's theology of the Trinity firmly evenspeculative thinker, of this and theunderstanding groundedin the mystery of theincarnation As and thegreatdoctorsof antiquity.13 mystery as revealedin Scripture awareof FelixHeinzer notes, Maximus,more thanothers,"isprofoundly linkbetween what the Greek fathers called the intimate and inseparable betweenthe of thetrinitarian God and the and economy, mystery theology mystery of theincarnation and redemption."14 Maximus, and clearly manifests his reli This thinking was not new to ance on theCappadocian tradition, especially Gregoryof Nazianzus, to as tov i&ayV While maintainingthe whom he referred 6i6a aXov.15 vis-'a-vis God's nature, Gregoryhad affirmed necessity forapophaticism world, "shadowyreflections of that God leftreflections of himselfin the theSun inwater, reflections which displayto eyes tooweak, because (we perceptionin the are) too impotent to gaze at it, theSun overmastering 16These reflections allow us to affirm of its light." that God exists, purity about thedivine nature itself but leaveus unable tomake affirmations (exceptits veryincomprehensibility).17
12) Expositio 13) Orationis Dominicae; "Council P. Van Deun, or Father ed.,Maximi Confessons Opuscula exegetica
or in the of Authority Scripture: The Concept in in the Church: Honor Heritage Essays of Early Theology of the Neiman David and Schatkin Pontifical Reverend ed. (Rome: Margaret Very George Florovsky, Institutum Studiorum Orientalium, 1973), 277-88. 14) Felix in trinitaire de l'?conomie chez Maxime le Confesseur," Heinzer, "L'explication Jaroslav Pelikan, ofMaximus the Confessor," Felix Heinzer Maxime sur and Christoph Sch?nborn, eds., Maximus Confessor: Actes du Symposium Editions Univer le Confesseur, Fribourg, 2-5 Septembre 1980 (Fribourg-en-Suisse: 1982), 159. 4; Bart 48 Janssens, ed., Ambigua 2002), ad Thomam (Turnhout: 15. For more cum Secunda ad Epistula on this see George Berthold, in Heinzer and Sch?nborn, Maxi una
Turnhout, 1991), 31. duo,CCG 23 (Brepols:
sitaires, 15) Ambiguum Eundem, CCG
Brepols, Roots ofMaximus the Confessor," "The Cappadocian mus is usually Confessor, 56. While Gregory ofNazianzus between economy and theology (GeoXoyia) (o?KOvou?a) the Eunomians, this does not mean he denies available through contemplation. 16)Oration 28, 3 (Eng. trans: Gregory of Nazianzus, cal Orations and Two Letters to Cledonius, ed. and
tentative about blurring the lines because of his polemics against a certain of the trinitarian God knowledge On God and Christ: The Five trans. Lionel Wickham
Theologi and Frederick
St. Vladimir's Williams [Crestwood: Seminary Press, 2002], 39). 17)Oration On God and Christ. 40). 28, 5 (Eng. trans: Gregory of Nazianzus,
196
A. E. Siecienski /VigiliaeChristianae61 (2007) 189-227
Maximus adoptsand adapts the positionofNazianzus, assuring thatthe betweentheology "distinction and economyisstrictly upheld... but at the same time... relat(ing) so thata correspondence themintimately isestab lished."'8 While, like hesitantto develop Gregory, what later generations would call "naturaltheology," Maximus did allow theeyesof faithto dis cerncertain "adumbrations" of the within thenatural As he Trinity order.19 writes inQuaestiones ad Thalassium 13:
As frombeingswe believe inGod who is, thathe exists ... fromthe wise contem plation of creation receivingthe idea of the Holy Trinityof theFather and theSon and theHoly Spirit. For the Word ofGod is eternal as being the consubstantial
power and the HolySpirit isthe eternal divinity.20
Maximus even perceives these "adumbrations"in the constitution of humanity, where the Trinityisseenas thearchetype ofmind (vov;) reason ), aswell as in the triadic structure of thehuman (Xoyo;)and spirit(xNV1. soul.21 Yet this perceptionisonlypossiblebecauseof theincarnation of the inhumanity's the"lynchpin" Word, who remains abilitytoaccept thepar To utilizethelanguage adox thatis of latertheology, in Trinity. Maximus's programthere can be no analogiaentis without theanalogiafidei. ForMaximus thisrevelation ofGod inChrist is not simplyan "eco nomic accommodation of the Godhead to the world's condition.It is the as FatherSon and Spirit.22 God himself," revealed only While he does not
Man and the Cosmos: The Vision of Maximus the Thunberg, Confessor (Crestwood: St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1985), 40. 19) statements inMaximus this needs to be balanced where he However, against other essence affirms "the is that Godhead holy explicitly by beyond ineffability and unknowably trace (?%vo?) of and countlessly raised above infinity, leaving not the slightest comprehen to any as to how and how far sion to those who are after it, nor idea any disclosing being is not naturally contained by the trans: is 10 limited" Ambiguum comprehended (Eng. the York: Andrew Louth, ed.,Maximus 1996], 132-33). Confessor [New Routledge, 20) ad Thalassium 13; Carl Laga and Carlos Steel, eds., Maximi Quaestiones Confessons ad Thalassium, CCG 7 (Turnhout: Brepols, 1980), 95. Quaestiones 21)Maximus's on the as can be found in both 7 and Trinity archetype thoughts Ambigua 10. See Edward Jeanneau, ed., 18 (Turnhout: CCG 1988). Ambigua adIohannem, Brepols, 7 in English translation can be found in Paul Blowers and Robert Wilken, eds., Ambiguum is both monad and triad, since the uncreated by what created, nor is the unlimited The Cosmic Mystery of St. Vladimir's Jesus Christ (Crestwood: Seminary Press, 2003), 10 is in Louth, ed.,Maximus the Ambiguum Confessor, 94-154. 22) Aidan Nichols, the Confessor in Modern Byzantine Gospel: Maximus Scholarship 45-78. the same 18)Lars
T&T Clark, 1993), 68. burgh:
(Edin
collapse the two realms (i.e., economy and theology), neitherdoes he in them such a way thatone cannot gain a knowledgeof differentiate inhistory. In nature (i.e.,Ot?oXoyio) from his revelation God's trinitarian hewrites: the Orationis dominicae expositio
In becoming incarnate the Word of God teaches us themystical knowledge of God (eeoXoyicav) because he shows us inhimself theFather and the Holy Spirit. For the fullFather and full Holy Spirit are essentiallyand completely in the full Son, even the incarnateSon, without being themselvesincarnate.Rather, the Father gives approval and theSpirit cooperates in the incarnation of theSon who
effected it.23
thisformula almostverbatiminQuaestiones He repeats ad Thalassium 60, that the incarnation itselfis an essentially trinitarian act demonstrating revealing not only the Word, but alsoGod's mode of subsisting (tp6iogti hypostases. The factthat"no one of them (i.e., the i7C6p4?;) in three hypostases)is able to existor to be conceived without theothers," pre cludes any notion thatone can isolatetheactionof any of thepersons, or theology.24 of economy either on thelevel They must always be co-indi Even the "Our Father"for cated-always be in relationto one another. of thethree Maximus points to theessential unity personssince
the words of theprayerpoint out theFather, theFather'sname and theFather's kingdom to help us learn from the source himself to honor, to invoke,and to adore theone Trinity.For thename ofGod theFatherwho subsistsessentiallyis theonly-begottenSon, and thekingdom of God theFatherwho subsistsessen tiallyis the Holy Spirit.25
not only topoint to allowhumanity Christ'sverybeingand his teachings in the us toparticipate as thesource the of salvation, but also invite Trinity divine lifeitself (which is triune).It ishere thatthe ideaof nIrpliX6prjct; was in ("interpenetration") becomes centralfor Maximus. Justas there Maximus a neptXi'pfl(t; betweenthedivineand humannaturesinChrist we are invited topenetrate intothedivine (i.e.,union withoutconfusion),
23) 24)
Expositio
Orationis Dominicae etoeconomica on
(Eng. ?1
trans: Berthold, Maximus trans: G.E.H. Palmer
Capita theologica "Two Hundred Texts
The Philokalia, vol. 2 25) Expositio Orationis Dominicae
(Eng. and the Incarnate Dispensation Theology [London: Faber and Faber, 1981], 137). (Eng. trans: Berthold, Maximus
the Confessor, 103). and Kallistos Ware, of the Son of God," the Confessor,
eds., in
106).
198
This isaccomplished nature, becomingonewith thedivinity. when, hav ing retrained thegnomicwill (OEXrixa yvoglK6v)and rid itof self-love and loveof neighbor ztix) through prayer, self-mastery (&yKp6-r_ux), ((plkt we follow the of Christ. example and command For (&ycinfl),
he who receives the Logos through the commandments also receives through Him theFather who isby naturepresent inhim, and theSpiritwho likewise isby In this nature in Him.... way, hewho receivesa commandment and carries itout
receives the HolyTrinity.26 mystically
In thisschemanot onlydo we come toknow thetp6Ro0; tj;iin(ip4_xoof God through Christ,but through iptXp opfat;we come to sharesome lifeitself.27 thing of thetrinitarian of the inner-trinitarian life This, of course,leadsus to a discussion and Maximus's theology. therelation of the three personsin Among the trini ofGregory Nazianzus that Maximus felt bound to explain tarian writings in the movement of theTrinityfrom Ambigua concerned the seeming in 'thistext, monad into dyadand culminating Trinity. foundinOration29, stated:
For this reason, a one (gov6;) eternallychanges to a two (6u6c) and stops at theFather, theSon, and the three(Tpui6o;)-meaning Holy Spirit. In a serene, non-temporal, incorporeal way, theFather isparent (ycVVi"twp) of the "offspring" and originator (ntpopoX?5;)of the "emanation" (Rpo6PXa.rj0).28 (ytvvn,ux)
was toprecludeanOrigenist interpre Certainly Maximus's chiefintention ofGregory's tation of "dis work,whichwould have seen thisas some sort integration" of the monad. For thisreason Maximus places the movement notwithin the as itcomes tounderstand Godhead, butwithinhumanity, "For first we are illuminated the of the with reasonforits mystery Trinity. in we are itsubsists, we then about the mode which for being, enlightened isbefore we understand It understandthatsomething how it is."29 always isamovementthattakes place because in theincarnation God has revealed
26) et oeconomica trans: Palmer andWare, The Philokalia, vol. 2,
Capita
theologica
?71
(Eng.
27) See Verna Harrison,
154-55).
"Perichoresis
in the Greek
Fathers," St. Vladimir's
35 (1991): 53-65. terly

28) Oration
Theological Quar
On God and Christ. 70). 29, 2 (Eng. trans: Gregory ofNazianzus, 29) trans: Louth, Maximus 1 the Confessor, 170). (Eng. Ambiguum
A. E Siecienski 61 (2007) 189-227 /VigiliaeChristianae
199
asTrinity, and humanityis invited to himself and hismode of subsistence Him and accept thisrevelation in faith. move toward of the Trinity excluded, Maximus then With anOrigenistinterpretation questions that Gregory'strinitarian addressedsome of the unanswered while Gregory'stextaffirms theFather as schema raised.For example, one bybegetting and theotherbyproces source of theSon and theSpirit, betweenthetwo modes sion,he does not adequately addressthedifference betweentheSon and Spirit.30 of coming tobe, or theeternalrelationship Orations In the passagesfrom Gregory's Ambigua,he also examinedseveral inanArian fashion. Father that couldbemisinterpreted For example,ifthe notmean thatthe of theSon, does that (as begetter) willed theexistence an act of the will and is therefore a crea Son was broughtforth through If theFather is thecause of theSon's existence, notmean ture? does that than theSon is lessthantheFathersince that which is thecause isgreater which iscaused? that in willer, Maximus discussestheSon'sgeneration Ambigua24, equating willed, and will within thedivinity(somethingthatcannot be said of human volition,but is possible for theGodhead). The Fatherand Son, will and thustheFather's willing sharingthe samenature,sharea single presupposestheSon.
at the same time the Father that In our example the begotten Son is therefore without the smallest intervalbeing introduced generates,and is thus eternally, between him and thebegettingFather,for theSon isnot theSon of a will but of thebegetting Father.... TlheSon isnot separatedfromtheFather by awill ... hav a single ing from the beginning a singlewill simple and indivisible, therefore essence and nature.31
as In thenext text Maximus follows Gregory in arguingthattheFather, causeof theSon, isgreater unoriginate (asFather)but not bynature,since their nature is one and the same.This does notmake theSon a passive of another's Father(as if hewere simply vis-a-vis the oper begotten subject ation, likea child froma parent).Rather,because theSon is in eternal
to the difference between in con begetting and procession Gregory's famous response tained in Oration 31: "What, then, is proceeding? You explain the ingeneracy of the Father account of the Son's and I will give you a biological begetting and the Spirit's proceed us go mad the pair of us for prying into God's secrets." Oration 31, 8 (Eng. let ing?and trans: On and Christ. God of Nazianzus, 122). Gregory 31) ad Iohannem, 149-51. 24; Jeanneau, Ambigua Ambiguum 30)
200
relationto theFather ("simultaneously with him and inhim") theSon is understoodas "an essentially subsistent whose relationship to the activity" thehypostatic Fatheras only-begotten determines identities of both.32 indiscussingtherelationship of the This last point becomes important since theFather Son and Spirit inMaximus's thought, who spiratesis whom he is in eternalrelation). The alwaystheFatherof theSon (with procession of theSpiritfromtheFatherthuspresupposestheexistence of It is the with thisin mind Sonwithwhom theFatheris ineternalrelation. we turn to Quaestiones ad Thalassium that 63, one ofMaximus's most where hewrote of theSpirit6); ?KtobHXtpo6; debated texts, owte6; 6&' Yioi3 7yVVj0?Vt0; Pierre Piret,inhis book Le &ppa6wO; ?oKropr6O?VOV.33 Maxime leConfesseur, has examined this textin Christet la Trinite selon detailnot onlybecauseof itssignificance vis-'a-vis Maximus's overalltrini tarian but because of the role it later program, played in thedebate over of filioquism. Maximus's allegedsupport isan exegesis ofZechariah4:2-3 and isused by Max Question 63 itself imusas a meditationon the roleof the Holy Spirit in theChurch.34In Zechariahsvision:
Accordingly, theChurch of God, worthy of all praise, is a lampstand wholly of gold, pure and without stain, undefiled and without blemish, receptacleof the true light thatneverdims.... The lamp above her is the true lightof theFather which lights man coming into this up every world, our Lord Jesus Christ, become lightand called such.... And ifChrist is the head of theChurch according to human understanding,thenhe is theone who by his naturehas theSpirit and has bestowed thecharismsof theSpirit on the Church.... For the Holy Spirit, just as
is neither the name of the essence nor a name of the energy but of a relationship (schesis) and it says how the Father is towards the Son and how the Son is towards the Father." Ambiguum ad lohannem, 153. 26; Jeanneau, Ambigua same a wrote that, "the Father John of Damascus reality century laterwhen he expressed the could not be so called without a Son," for the Father's very identity as Father is determined rather a name one who eternally begets the Son. De Fide orthodoxa 1,8; John of Damas by his being the Damascus: cus,/*?/?? of Writings, Hermigild Dressler, ed., FC 37 (Washington DC: Catholic University of America Press, 1958), 178. 33) ad Thalassium 63; Carl Laga and Carlos Steel, eds., Maximi Quaestiones Confessons 22 (Turnhout: 1990), 155. Quaestiones ad Thalassium, CCG Brepols, 34)He said to me, "What do you see?" And I said, "I see a lampstand all of gold, with a bowl on the top of it; there are seven lamps on it,with seven lips on each of the lamps that are on the top of it.And are two olive trees, one on the by it there right of the bowl and the other on its left." (NRSV Zech 4:2-3)
32) "The name of the Father
201
he belongs to the nature of God the Father according to his essence so he also belongs to thenatureof theSon according to his essence, since he proceeds inex pressibly from the Father throughhis begotten Son, and bestows on the lamp stand-the Church-his energiesas througha lantern.35
In thistextone notes thecentral mediatory roleof the incarnate Logos, thegifts of theSpiritupon the who not only illumes men, but pours forth Fathercan certainly be said to flow of the Church, so thatthelight through him to humanity. This passage clearly demonstrates Maximus's debt to Gregory Nazianzus (whohad used a similarimageinOration31) and to another Both had utilized the Cappadocian father, Gregoryof Nyssa.36 imageof lightand flameto show the flowfromtheunoriginate source in another (i.e., theFather)through another(i.e., theSon) to shineforth (i.e., theSpirit).37 YetMaximus andNazianzus are, in thiscontext, clearly of theeconomic manifestation of the speaking Trinity and the way Chris in time,thegifts tians come toexperience, of theSpirit. on the However, Piret concentrates specifically meaning of, "To ya'p
t ep aet xt'oi aV ti6p ?1 toi ee0o Ka' rahxp6, 6 6yov nVdVga -0 &yiov, e e ,t3 t ,o x, \ x , re ,,, oiStw; KMl Toi YIOV3 piV&1 Ktat OVO1aV&EtiV, (0; ?K tOl) HarpO5; oV1to56;
He takesthisto estab &1' Yiov YcVV0?Vt0o; &pp6atw; ?Knopei.6wVoV." lish (I think rightly) not merely an economic relationof the Son to one. This isbecause, as Piretnotes, "originated theSpirit,but an eternal inhis relation fromtheFather,theSpiritcomprehends, to theFather,the
are three was and he was and he was. subjects and three verbs?he was. There are three But the and predicates?light single reality light and light. light . in the is one. . . We receive the Son's from the Father's God light light light of the is the plain and that iswhat we ourselves have seen and what we now proclaim?it Comforter. These
ad Thalassium 63; Laga and Steel, CCG 22, 155. man into the world'?yes, the true Light that enlightens every coming the Father. 'He was the true Light that enlightens every man coming into the world'?yes, the Son. 'He was the true Light that enlightens every man coming into theworld'?yes, the Quaestiones 36) "'He was But a is one, Spirit:
35)
trans: explanation of the Trinity." Oration 31, 3 (Eng. Gregory ofNazianzus, Christ. 118). 37) "It is as if a man were to see a on three torches (and we will separate flame burning to the middle, is that first flame caused of the that the third pose by being transmitted then kindling the end torch)_But
simple On God and
sup and
to the third torch if there is really no hindrance being fire, though ithas been kindled from a previous flame, what is the philosophy of these men, who profanely think that they can slight the dignity of theHoly Spirit because He is named On the by the Divine Holy Spirit against theFollowers of lips after the Father and the Son?" Macedonius (Eng. trans: NPNF 2, 5, 317).
202
A. E. Siecienski / VigiliaeChristianae61 (2007) 189-227
relationship betweentheFatherand theSon."38 Because theFather isnot of theSon, theSpirit simply unoriginate causeof theSpiritbut alsoFather proceeds fromhim in such a way that this relationship to the Son is not excluded. ForMaximus the formula"proceeds throughthe Son" which this"comprehension" of thatrelationship appearsas the means by is Itmanifests what Piret, and others have called Max expressed. Garrigues, imus's differentiation between"trinitarian ordering" (t6Rtt) and hypostatic
origination.
The ideaof trinitarian ordering was not new to Maximus. Gregoryof Nyssa'sContra Eunomium had spokenof the Spirit, while eternally coequal he is emphatic with Fatherand Son, being thirdin the 'ar4t; (although in thegeneration of thatthisdoes not introducethe ideaof temporality Son or Spirit). He writes: either
isonly in the Our account of the Holy Ghost will be the same also; thedifference place assigned in order (at6t;). For as theSon isbound to theFather,and,while deriving existence from Him, is not substantiallyafter Him, so again theHoly Spirit is in touchwith the Only-begotten,who isconceived of as before theSpir it'ssubsistenceonly in the theoreticallightof a cause.39
in thetc1t;,proceedsfrom First The Spirit, being third the Cause (i.e., the Father) in such a way thathe comprehendstheFather'srelationto the Son. Thuswhile he does not derivehypostatic origination only-begotten fromtheSon, his processionfromtheFatherdoes presupposetheSon's How is thiseternalrelationship betweenSpirit and Son then existence. For Maximus (aswell asGregory)it is in speaking of the Spirit's expressed? procession (orprogression) toiYioii. This canbe seennotonly inQuaes 1&a etdubia 34,where hewrites: tiones ad 7halassium 63, but inQuaestiones
Justas the mind (i.e., theFather) is cause of the Word, so ishe also (cause) of the Word. And, just as one cannot say thatthe Word isof thevoice, Spirit throughthe so too one cannot say that theSon isof theSpirit.40
thesolecauseof theSpirit's The Fatherremains hypostasis (as theonewho awareof theFather's of spirates begetting him), but theSpirit,intimately
Maxime le Confesseur (Paris: Beauchesne, Piret, Le Christ et la Trinit? selon 1983), 99. 39) Conta Eunomium 2, 5, 100). 1, 42 (Eng. trans: NPNF 40) et dubia, CCG et dubia 34; Jos? Declerk, 10 (Turnhout: ed., Quaestiones Quaestiones Brepols, 1982), 151. 38) Pierre
A. E Siecienski /VigiliaeChristianae 61 (2007) 189-227 203
theSon, comes forth fromthebegetter through thebegottenas theSpirit As we shalldiscoverin the nextsection, manifesting their commonnature. it is thisidea that Maximus'sLetterto Marinus expresses with suchclarity.
The Letter to Marinus According toPolycarp Sherwood, Maximus composed the Letterto Mari before his journeytoRome.41Sher nus in645 or 646, sometime shortly based on thefactthatthe letter was writtenfrom wood's dating is largely that Maximus traveled back to Africa Carthage,and he believesitunlikely aftertheLateranSynod in649. The problem with this dating is thatthe would not beMartin I (as has been com pope mentioned in the letter TheodoreI (642-49). Since there are monly supposed)but his predecessor, no extantsynodalletters either which from pope, it is impossible toverify However thereisno primafacie rea one authoredtheepistleinquestion. son to rejectSherwood's conclusion since, as Jean-Claude Larchet has bothTheodoreand Martin defendedthe argued, orthodox positionagainst themonenergistsand monothelites,and thus eithercould have been responsible forthecomposition of thedisputed text.42 The historical contextforthe Letterto Marinus, and thereasons Maxi himself bound to speak to theissue of thefilioque can be assumed mus felt from within theletter itself. Therehewrote: several passages
men of the Queen of cities (i.e.,Constantinople) attacked the syn Therefore the most holy Pope, not in all thechaptersyou havewritten odal letter of thepresent One relatesto the theology andmakes thestatement about, but only twoof them. that,"The Holy Spirit proceeds from theSon." The other deals with the divine
incarnation.43
According to John Meyendorff, by 646 (Sherwood's datingof the letter) Pope Theodorewas alreadyinfamousinConstantinople,having signed "witha pen theexcommunication of the monothelitePatriarch Pyrrhus See underhis TheConstantinopolitan Eucharistic chalice."44 dipped in the
41) 42) Sherwood, Jean-Claude Annotated Date List, 54. le Confesseur, m?diateur entre l'Orient et l'Occident (Paris:
Larchet, Maxime
Les Editions du Cerf, 1998), 11. 43) Opusculum 10;PG 91, 136. 44) Divisions: The Church450-680 AD John MeyendorfF,ImperialUnity and Christian
(Crestwood: St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1989), 365.
204
successor, Paul II (also a monothelite), would certainly have looked for every opportunity to impugn Theodore'sorthodoxy inorderto strengthen in the thecase againstthedyothelites West. If,so theargument runs, The odore expressed heretical viewson the Trinity and on theincarnation, cer wills ofChrist tainly hisviewson the must be equallyas heterodox. Maximus understoodthelogicbehind this argument and knew that his own position would beweakened iftheorthodoxy of "Old Rome"was put intoquestion. For thisreasonhe differentiated between the faith of the was still Romans,whichwhile couched in strange and language orthodox, of the monothelitesin the imperial theobvious impiety capital.
accused of precisely those thingsof The latter(i.e., theRomans) were therefore whereas the former(i.e., theByzantines) which it would be unfair to accuse them, was quite just to accuse them (i.e.,monothe were accused of those thingsthat it which theyhave offered, even now, not the leastdefense."45 litism)and for
was a heresy and ecclesi Whereas monothelitism worthyof both imperial astical condemnation,the accusationsagainst theRomans' trinitarian cannot be sustained. The attemptby "New Rome" to distract theology ownmisdeeds simply cannotbe justified attention their from by thefacts. This leads Maximus todealwith thesubstance of theaccusations made the the on to Western the and of against Pope explication teaching the procession of the Holy Spirit.Firsthe addressesthe (assumed)chargethat theteaching was novel.
In the first place they(i.e., theRomans) produced theunanimous evidence of the Roman Fathers,and also of Cyril ofAlexandria, from the studyhe made of the gospel of St. John.46
The unresolvedissue raisedby thisstatementis the exactnatureof the Maximus is referring that as itpertains patristictestimony to, especially century there were to theLatin fathers.47 mid-seventh Certainlyby the
45) 46) 10;VG 91, 136. Opusculum Ibid. Alexakis that Maximus postulates (edited around 645/6),
florilegium fathers with
(at least) one passage cus 1115, 74-85. 47) It is an inNorth Africa, ever open question whether Maximus, during his many years came to know the works of of Hippo and the other Latin fathers (354-430) Augustine
a is pre-existing referencing pro-filioque from the Latin consisting largely of quotations from Cyril. See Alexander Alexakis, Codex Parisinus Grae
61 (2007) 189-227 205 /VigiliaeChristianae A. E. Siecienski
who had utilizedsomevariant of the proce more thana few Latinwriters the Spirit's Tertullian had spoken of dereexFilio or per Filium formula. Ambrose, procession throughtheSon as earlyas the second century.48 in hisDe SpirituSancto,had written that theSpirit "proceedsfromthe a Patreet a Filio) and that"whenthe Holy Fatherand theSon" (procedit Spiritproceeds fromtheFatherand theSon He is not separatedfrom workAm nor isHe separatedfromtheSon."49In thatsame theFather, of life,"that is, brose describestheFatherand theSon as the fountains Yet inbothpas of the thefountain Holy Spirit,since theSpirit isLife."50 Ambrose is clearlyspeaking of theSpirit's sages it should be noted that in theeconomyof salvation and not speculating about the inner activity life. trinitarian of most oftencredited with thedevelopment The twoLatin authors of in the West are andAugustine Hippo. Hil Hilary of Poitiers filioquism ary's De Trinitate had spokenof theSpirit,"qui Patreet Filio auctoribus which has been understoodby some (IhomasAquinas confitendus est," of thefilioque,althougha betterreading included) as an endorsement
whose
writers into trinitarian ofWestern writings shaped Western theology. Translations monasteries of Latin Greek were rare, and in Greek-speaking (like Euchratas) knowledge was often limited or non-existent Letter to Marinus that Maximus the indicates (although Latin language to discern the problem of translating certain did understand enough of the terms to and from the Greek). In makes 15 (PG 91, 168) Maximus Opusculum theological Western of Milan and Pope Leo I (? xfj? [Ley?Xr\q reference to authors such as Ambrose 'P(o|iaic?v recognized direct evidence v ? navaXKr\(; kocI navienoq) but both were already 8cjocp%o? 'EiCK^nc?ac A? is no in the East as great fathers of the Church. As forAugustine, although there for a connection, so the majority is that his influence had, by the opinion cannot be excluded. See, for that such a connection
widespread the Confessor Know Augustine?" Studia Patr?s "Did Maximus example, George Berthold, that "a prima facie argument (can) be made tica 7 (1982): 4-17. Jaroslav Pelikan concludes ... but that refer for some knowledge of Augustine only makes the absence of Augustinian ences all the more Thought," in the History "Maximus of Christian fascinating." Jaroslav Pelikan, Actes du in Felix Heinzer and Christoph Sch?nborn, eds., Maximus Confessor: sur Maxime le Confesseur, Fribourg, 2-5 Septembre 1980 (Fribourg-en-Suisse:
seventh century, become
Symposium Editions Universitarires, 1982), 399. 48) "Hoc mihi et in tertium non aliunde a sit quia puto, quam Spiritum gradum dictum P?tre per Filium." Adversus Praxeam 4,1; PL 2, 182. 49)De trans: Ambrose of Milan,Theological and Dogmatic Spiritu Sancto 1, 11, 120 (Eng. DC: of America FC 44 Catholic Works, trans. Roy Deferrari, University [Washington
Press, 1963], 79).

50)De
Spiritu Sancto
1, 15, 152 (Eng. trans: Ambrose,
Theological and Dogmatic
Works, 90).
206
him on theevidenceof theFatherand theSon."51 might be "confess Else more explicitly to the issue, asserting: whereHilary spoke
Nor will I infringe upon any one's liberty of thought in this matter, whether they may regardtheParacleteSpirit as coming fromtheFatheror fromtheSon (utrum ex Patre an ex Filio Spiritum paracletum putent esse). The Lord has left nothing uncertain.... Consequently,He receives(accipit) fromtheSon who has been sent byHim and proceeds fromtheFather (A Filio igitur accipit qui et ab eomittitur et a Patreprocedit).... The Spiritof truth proceeds fromtheFather,butHe is sent by theSon fromtheFather (A Patre enim procedit Spiritus veritatis,sed a Filio a
Patre mittitur).52
Here Hilary apparently draws a distinction betweenproceeding (proce forthe and receiving dere),sending(mittere) reserving procedere (accipere), of theFather. activity Perhaps,as shallbe arguedbelow, Hilary isattempt to theFatherby ingtocommunicate theuniquenessof theSpirit'srelation his sending/receiving a Patrefrom a differentiating procession &Kn1iopeiot;, in he a variant of the formula later his used Although work, perfilium filio. You (i.e., theFather) throughthe speakingof theSpirit,"who is from Only-begotten," Hilary does not appear as an explicit proponentof the will later be understood.53 LikeMaximus, Hilary double processionas it more than to affirm wanted nothing theunique roleof the seemingly whilemaintainingtheunitybetween Fatherin theprocession of theSpirit of theeconomyand thetheology. Fatherand Son both on the level The trinitarian teaching of Augustineof Hippo moved beyond Hilary to an explicit affirmation of theSpirit's both theFatherand processionfrom made possibleby theSon. Thismove was, in large part, Augustine'strini tarian model, which had viewed theSpirit as thebond of loveexisting betweenFatherand Son.54 as the lovejoin Augustine thenaffirmed that,
51)De Trinitate 2, 29. The believe translation in the Fathers series has "Him inwhom of the Church the Son who begot Him" (Eng. trans: Hilary ed., FC 25 [Washington: Catholic University of translation in the NPNF is, "we are bound to
we must
together with
the Father and
of Poitiers, America confess Him,
Press,
The Trinity, Stephen McKenna, 1954], 57-58). The English
as he does, from Father and Son," proceeding, although the attached footnote indicates the possibility of the translation above (NPNF 2, 9, 60). 52)De Trinitate 8, 20 (Eng. trans: Hilary, The Trinity, 289-90). 53)De Trinitate 12, 57 (Eng. trans: Hilary, On the Trinity, 543). 54) "For whether he is the unity of both the others or their holiness, or their charity, whether
he is their unity because their charity and their charity because their holiness, it is clear that he is not one of the two, since he is that by which the two are joined each to the other, by
ingFatherand Son, the Holy Spirit"isnot just theFather's alone,nor the Son's alone, but theSpiritof themboth." ("necpatrisest soliusnec filii soliussed amborum").55 Althoughhemaintained that, "onlytheFather is called theone from whom the Word isborn and from whom the Holy he immediately Spirit principally proceeds(proceditprincipaliter)," clarified thisstatement, stating,
I added "principally," because we have found that theHoly Spirit also proceeds fromtheSon (quia et de filiospiritussanctusprocedere reperitur)... He (i.e., the Father) so begot him then that theircommon gift would proceed fromhim too, and the Holy Spiritwould be theSpirit of themboth.56
Augustine,inhis Tractates on the GospelofJohn, justified this positionfrom toequate (or,as later the Scriptures, unafraid Byzantinetheologians would say, confuse)theeconomicand immanent trinities.
Why, then,shouldwe not believe that the Holy Spirit proceedeth also fromthe Son (de Filio procedat Spiritus sanctus), seeing that He is likewisetheSpiritof the Son? For did He not so proceed, He could not,when showingHimself toHis disciples after the resurrection, have breathed upon them,and said, "Receive ye the Holy Spirit."Forwhat elsewas signified by such a breathingupon them,but Him also the thatfrom Holy Spirit proceedeth (nisiquod procedat Spiritus sanc tuset de ipso)?57
While Augustine went further thananyprevious Latin father in explicitly thepossibility of a double procession,like admitting Hilary he seems to make an important between the distinction(hereexpressed adverbially) from the Spirit's principal procession(proceditprincipaliter) and his Father, processionfrom both theFatherand Son as thebond of lovejoiningthem It shouldalso be noted that together. Augustinedoes not employthe lan as later Western theologians as they would do, unafraid guageof causality
is loved by the one who in turn loves the begets him and begetter.... common to Father and Son, whatever it is, or is their very Spirit is something or communion, commonness trans: and coeternal" De Trinitate 6,5,7 consubstantial (Eng. trans. Edmund Hill, The Works of St. A The of Trans Hippo, Augustine Trinity, Augustine: which the begotten So the Holy
New City Press, 1991], 209). lationforthe21stCentury [Brooklyn:

55)De 56)De Trinitate Trinitate 15, 17, 27 15, 17, 29 (Eng. (Eng. Tractatus trans: trans: Augustine 57) In
foannis Evangelium
of Hippo, The Trinity, 418). of Hippo, The Trinity, 419). Augustine 99, 16, 7 (Eng. trans: NPNF 1, 7, 383-84).
208
A. E. Siecienski / VigiliaeChristianae61 (2007) 189-227
were touse the Bishop ofHippo to supporttheir laterinterpretation of the Latin teaching.58 Itwould thusbe a mistake (albeit a common one) to East and between posit Augustineas the pointofdivision West-filioquism, understoodas advocatinga genuine "doubleprocession"fromtheFather and the Son, was theCarolingian's responseto ninth-century Spanish Adoptionism.9 While we cannot establishhow well acquainted Maximus was with of theLatin Augustineand the trinitarian West, in theLetterto theology Marinus he referred also to theteaching of the Greek fathers whom (with
58) In
failing
Michael Azkoul, The Influence Orthodox Texts and Church, Augustineof Hippo on the of
Studies in Religion 56 (Lewiston: Latin Edwin Mellen Press, 1990), 148. Azkoul makes the claim that while trinitarian previous fathers had made these distinctions, albeit clumsily, Augustine's
procession,
to from generation distinguish procession must be admitted that it Augustine opened
and temporal mission from eternal the door to this interpretation. See
himself
so, he argues, Augustine separated a trinitarian in positing theology East. As a result of incompatible with the tradition of the Augustine's alleged deviations the Orthodox from the "true" faith, his place within Church has remained a subject for Azkoul in writes is Augustine Rose, The Place Brotherhood, out of the orthodox tradition, a more positive view in the Orthodox Church (Pla Blessed of Augustine a For Catholic view, see Aidan Nichols, 1996). in the Byzantine-Slav Tradition," Angelicum
In theology erased them altogether. doing fathers of theWest from the other orthodox
debate. While
presented Seraphim tina: St. Herman of Alaska
64 (1987): 437-52.
59) Among
"The Reception
of St. Augustine
and His Work
that have governed nineteenthand twentieth presuppositions is that, from the time of Augustine, Western thefilioque century scholarship surrounding two distinct (and and Eastern Christianity ways of ultimately developed incompatible) not of the While it is the that procession Holy Spirit. understanding acknowledging simply "a question of sharp contrasts, namely that Augustine is philosophical the Eastern whereas is among those Orthodox who maintain fathers are biblical," Theodore that, Stylianopoulos "the crucial difference seems to be that despite his own repeated reservations, Augustine as a seems to contrast Athanasius and the metaphysical problem_By explain the Trinity about defending the uncreated nature (against the Arians) tremen differences in theological approach signal... dous of Western the of Eastern and way theology theology." or Error," in "The Filioque: Dogma, Theodore Stylianopoulos, Theologoumenon Spirit of Truth: Ecumenical Perspectives on the and S. Mark Holy Spirit, ed. Theodore Stylianopoulos Cappadocians... of the Son and the Spirit_These implications regarding the way Heim Press, 1986), 29-30. Holy Cross Orthodox not exclusive to Th?odore de R?gnons dic interpretation of history is Orthodoxy. tum (in itself valid) that "Latin first considers the nature in itself and proceeds philosophy to the agent; Greek to first considers the agent and afterwards passes philosophy through as well as Orthodox to find the nature," has been used by Catholics Vladimir Lossky) (e.g., to the in show the inherent incompatibility of Augustine's De Trinitate approach thought (Brookline: This are concerned
the erroneous
hewasmore familiar), and specifically toCyrilofAlexandria's Commentary It iscertainly on the Gospelof St. John.60 truethatby theseventh century in any one could findthe8ta' TouYiot formula (or somevariantthereof) numberofGreek patristictexts, althoughitsexact meaning oftenvaried For example, Basil'sOn the dependingon context. Holy Spiritcombated theunityof the three both in the subordinationism by stressing persons, economyof salvationand in our doxological confession of theFather he spokeof the"natural Son in the For thisreason through the Holy Spirit. holiness and royaldignity (that) reachesfrom the goodness, inherent Father throughtheonly-begotten (&& toi3 to theSpirit.61 Movoyt?voii;) In this particular text Basilwas not speaking about theSpirit's hypostatic of natureand our expe origination through theSon, but to their equality rience ofGod's giftsin the world. ofNyssa had also spoken to the issueinhisLetterto Gregory Ablabius, tocountertheargument thattrinitarianism as he attempted led necessarily This ledhim to stresstheunityof natureamong the three to tritheism. while differentiating their mode of existence, one tobe persons "believing
of the Cappadocian Trinit? (Paris: Retaux,
fathers. Th?odore 1892), 309.
de R?gnon,
Etudes
de th?ologie positive
sur la Sainte
as of Toledo and Felix of usually associated with such figures Elipandus Adoptionism, to is the "term used by historians of doctrine... the idea that Jesus was a Urgel, designate chosen to exercise the function or role of divine sovereignty and human being uniquely in Sonship." Lionel Wickham, "Adoptionism," ofEarly Christianity, ed. Ever Encyclopedia ett The Last Christology 1998), 20. See also John Cavadini, (New York: Garland, Ferguson
in Spain and Gaul 785-820 West: Adoptionism (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylva of the nia Press, 1993). To counter the heresy's Arian presuppositions, stressed the theologians the truth that the Son of the Father the and Son, scriptural consubstantiality emphasizing shared all that the Father has, including a role in the procession of the Spirit. It is no acci dent that many of the early synods that taught the double procession occurred in Spain, or wrote with an and Paulinus of Aquileia) that some of its strongest advocates (e.g., Alcuin not intent. them For of the only contradicted rejection explicitly anti-adoptionist filioque to be an of the doc the teaching of Augustine (who was understood explicit proponent trine), but opened the door to christological heresy. 60) See in foannem 9, 14, 16-17; PG 74, 257. Alexander Alexakis esp. Commentariorum beleives position. this had long been part of the collection See n. 46. of texts used by the Latins to support
their
61) De SpirituSancto 18,47; SCI7, 197 (Eng. trans: Basil ofCaesarea, On the Holy Spirit,
trans. David Anderson which [Crestwood: both Latins St. Vladimir's and Greeks Seminary Press, 2001], 75). Basil's Con used as support for their own views, became text debated at the Council of Florence.
traEunomium, the single most
problematic
patristic
210
/VigiliaeChristianae61 (2007) 189-227 A. E. Siecienski
a Cause, and theother fromtheCause."62This being the case, he then betweentheSon and theSpirit. differentiated
For the one is directly from the First, and the other is through the one who is with the result that theOnly-begotten remains theSon directlyfrom the First, and does not negate theSpirit'sbeing from theFather since the middle position His distinction asOnly-begotten and does not exclude of theSon both protects His natural relation to theFather.63 theSpirit from
In thistext Nyssa appearsto foreshadow Maximus's own viewson thesub ad Thalassium jectas hewould expresstheminQuaestiones 63.While not Gregory denyingtheFatheras unique sourceof thedivinity(as xciticx), between theSon and theSpirit.This is allows foran eternalrelationship order(t5t;), the theunique because in thetrinitarian Spiritcomprehends relationship between theonly-begotten and theFather,recognizing that the"first cause" is alwaystheFatherof theSon. Gregory (like Maximus) thisreality expresses by utilizingthe idea of theSpirit'scoming 8ta' Toii Thus while theSpirit's Yioi, but not by procession proper (?ioKtp?D65;). existence isnot causedby the Son becomes the for Son, the presupposition not only in theeconomy, theSpirit's but ineternity. manifestation, thattheone father It isnot surprising specifically namedby Maximus as an "apologist" Latin position isCyrilofAlexandria, forthe whosewritings containseveral to theprocession references of the Holy Spiritfrom(?K)or through theSon, althoughthesereferences usuallyspeakof our reception of theSpirit in timeand our abilityto confess Christ as Lord.64 However, areotherinstances there whereCyril appearsto refer not only to theecon
Fridericus Mueller, ed., Gregorii Nysseni opera dogm?tica minora, vol 3.1, Brill, (Leiden: 1958), 56. opera Nysseni Gregorii 63) Ibid. 64) For wrote that "since the is in us, effects our example, Cyril Holy Spirit, when He being conformed to God, and He actually progresses from the Father and Son (npoeioi ?? Kai ?K it is clear that He is of the divine essence, Kai Y?ou), Ilaipo? progressing substantially in it and from it (ouoioo?co? Ttpo'i?v)" Thesaurus de sancta et consubstantiali trinitate 34; PG 75, see Marie-Odile Boul 585. For a more detailed exposition of Cyril's views on thefilioque trinitaire chez nois, La paradoxe Cyrille d'Alexandrie: Herm?neutique, analyses philosophiques et (Paris: Institut d'Etudes 1994); George argumentation th?ologique Augustiniennes, de Halleux, et le Revue d'histoire "Cyrille, Th?odoret Filioque? eccl?siastique 74 (1979): "La Procession du Saint-Esprit chez les P?res orientaux," Russie 158-78. 62) AdAblabium;
A.
Berthold, "CyrilofAlexandria and theFilioque? Studia Patr?stica 19 (1989): 143-47;

597-625; John Meyendorff, (1950):
etchr?tient?2
61 (2007) 189-227 /VigiliaeChristianae A. E. Siecienski
211
Cyril retains a passages Yet even in these omy,but also to the theology.65 between EKnopcU?aOct and npoi?vat (which distinction terminological This interpretation. will discussed below), thatseemstoexcludea filioquist Maximus of Jn15:26,where, in language becomesclearestinhis exegesis a distinction appears to be made between the would use centurieslater, theSon. through processionfromtheFatherand his progression Spirit's
Jesuscalls the Paraclete "theSpirit of Truth," that is to say,his consoling Spirit, He proceeds fromtheFather (xapa't roi5 RCtpo6 and at the same timehe says that Thus as theSpirit is naturallyproper to the Son, who exists in t-K7nopEeGuOcat). him (&t' m9)oi itpot6Ov), yet he is at the same time Him and progresses through theSpiritof theFather.66
work ofNyssa and operativein the Thuswe see inCyril thesamedynamic ad 7halassium 63, that as containedin the Quaestiones Maximus, especially betweentheSon and the and eternalrelationship thereisboth a temporal from the Father is For becausethe Spirit proceeds (FoKtop?uaThtc Spirit. Cyril,this of the to theessence onlySon because ?Ktoi Hawp6;),but "isnot a stranger he progresses naturallyfromhim (npO&161 &? qu61Kc5 ?4 aCTn5)." case tocase,defying variesfrom easycategoriza AlthoughCyril'slanguage that Maximus seemstohave ofhis trinitarian thinking tion,it is this aspect of the on theprocession Holy Spirit. adopted inhis ownwritings of the This leadsus back to our discussionofMaximus's explanation witnesses to the ortho After citing Latins' positionvis-a-visthe filioque. Maximus details their position as he theology, doxyof Latin trinitarian understoodit.
do From this (i.e., the writingsof the fathers)theyshowed that they themselves know that theFather is theone notmake theSon thecause of theSpirit for they cause of theSon and theSpirit, theone by begettingand theother by procession, him and thus theunityof the essence.68 but theyshow theprogression through
the Father as well as of the Son, and comes forth "(The Holy Spirit) is the Spirit of God (7tpo%e?u?VOv) substantially from both (?? ?uxpo?v), that is, from the Father through the et Veritate 1; PG 68, 148. "The is of the essence in Son" De Adoratione Spirit Spiritu 65)
PG 75, 608.
of the Son, existing from him according to the nature, coming through him to the creature trinitate 34; de sancta et consubstantiali in order to his renewal*'Thesaurus accomplish 66) Commentariorum 67) Commentariorum injoannem injoannem 10, 15, 26-27; 10, 16, 12-13; PG PG 74, 417. 74, 444.
68) Opusculum 10; PG 91, 136.
212
A. E Siecienski /VigiliaeChristianae 61 (2007) 189-227
Maximus hereaffirms thatthe innoway violated the Latin teaching mon archy of theFather, who remainedthe sole cause (,tuix axitia)of theSon and theSpiritand theprinciple ofunity within thegodhead.For centuries thishad been a point of emphasis in Eastern trinitarian seen theology, in especially the writings ofGregory ofNazianzus (to whomMaximus was so indebted). Gregoryhad written that:"The name of theone without origin is theFather, and fortheorigin,theSon, and fortheonewith the origin,the Holy Spirit."69 Similarsentiments can be foundin Athanasius, Basil ofCaesarea and CyrilofAlexandria,all ofwhom viewed theFather as the"source of divinity" (in1yij and "the principle/origin of ti; Oe_?tftlo;) For Gregory divinity"(tci; Nazianzus (and theEastern e5r6tjo; &05pxi). tradition) establishing theFatheras sourceof thedivinity meant locating inhim the principle ofunitythatjoined thethree of the hypostases Trinity. As Gregory viewed it:
There is one nature in the threeand that isGod. The union is the Father from whom proceed and to whom returnthose who follow.70
Since theSpiritand Son sharedtheFather's substance andwill, both being from him,one could posit in theFathertheunoriginate causeof the Trin ity's essential As sole cause unity. within thegodhead,one could also speak of thedistinctiveness of thethree persons,sincethe Fatheralonewas called cause, theSpiritand Son beingcaused (one bybegetting theotherbypro cession). Because causality became so centralinestablishing both theunity and thedistinctions within thegodhead itwas a principlethat Eastern theology could not compromise. This does not mean thatLatin theology was unconcerned with the monarchyof theFather. Augustine,despitehis advocacyof theSpirit's processionfromtheSon, clearly it inhisDe Trinitate.71 affirmed Hilary of Poitiersused theLatin auctorto describetheFather's unique role within
69)Oration 42, 15; SC 384, 82.

70) say, "whom the Father will send from me" as he had said send from the Father, and thereby he indicated that the source of all godhead, prefer it, of all diety, is the Father (videlicet ostendens quod totius divinitatis, vel, dicitur, deitatis, principium Pater est). So the Spirit who proceeds from the Father Son 29 is traced back, on both counts, trans: Augustine of Hippo, to him of whom The Trinity, the Son is born." De (Eng. 174). Ibid. 71) "He did not however whom or ifyou simelius and the I
will
Trinitate 4, 20,
/VigiliaeChristianae 61 (2007) 189-227 A. E. Siecienski
213
to the of TheodoredeRegnon the Trinity.72 Yet there issomevalidity dictim in counterparts theEast, posited the that Latin theologians, unlike their but in thedivine unityof theTrinitynot in thepersonof theFather, While not an unimportant principle in essencecommon to all three.73 of theFather would neverbe as central as it Latin theology, the monarchy of orthodoxtrintarian was in theEast,where it became the touchstone This isevidentfrom thecontent of the Letterto Marinus,where thought.74 Maximus's interlocutors apparently questioned theRomans' positionon his other As for it isclear from writingsthat thisissue. Maximus himself, on the matter, he was fullyin agreement with the Cappadocian teaching as source of of divinity and principle unity. upholdingtheFather both the
There is one God, because theFather is the begetterof theunique Son and the without division. The fountof the Holy Spirit: one without confusion and three Logos, also unoriginate, and the fountof the unique everlastinglife,theHoly
Begetter of the unique Father is the unoriginate intellect, the uniqueessential Spirit.75
was one, "thatfor Maxi monarchicalprinciple According toPonsoye,the theprocession mus was thecriterion of orthodoxy of the concerning Holy of the Spirit.If thepope consideredtheSon as a cause of theprocession with the Holy Spirit (or thattheSon was sortof a second cause,or even Maximus would not have considered suchan opin Fathera unique cause) ionacceptable."76 Maximus con Protecting the monarchicalprinciple did notmean that in isolation or envisioned with treated anypersonof the Trinity templated One had to protecttheuniquenessof theFather, out theothers. yetone also had to account forboth theessential unityand eternalrelationship
72) "There
is one
source
things (ex quo
omnia);
and quern omnia); trans: De Trinitate 2, 1 Hilary, On the Trinity, 35). (Eng. 73) See Th?odore de R?gnon, Etudes de th?ologie positive sur la Sainte Trinit?
are all the Father is one from whom (auctor unus) of all. God are all and our Lord Jesus Christ is one through whom things (per in omnibus)." is one, the in all the Holy Spirit gift things (donum (Paris: Retaux,
God inPatristicThought(London: SPCK, 1952), 233-41; J.N.D. 1892); G. L. Prestige,
1978), 252-79. (San Francisco: HarperCollins, Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines 74) See Yves source absolue de la divinit?," Istina 25 (1980): 237-46. "Le P?re, Congar, 75)Diversa ac vitio, 4; PG et oeconomiam spectantia deque virtute capita ad theologiam trans: Palmer and Ware, 1180 The Philokalia, vol. 2, 165). (Eng. 76) et 82. Ponsoye, Opuscules pol?miques, th?ologiques
90,
214
sharedbetweentheSon and theSpirit. Maximus, like Cyril andGregory ofNyssa before him, chose to communicatethisreality utilizinga termi nologicaldistinction between E'KRopiEc60at and npoUv-vcV, speaking not onlyof theSpirit's processionfromtheFather, but also of his eternal pro gressionthrough Son with whom theFather is in eternal relationship. Jean-Claude Larchet, in his book,Maxime le Confesseur, m6diateurentre et l'Occident, summarizes He writes: l'Orient this distinction.
For the most part theGreek fathers use theverb CKRopEUFOaoctl when they want to affirm that theSpirit receiveshis personal existence fromtheFather (proceed in those cases ing fromhim in the strictsense) and theyuse the verb npovxiVOC want to affirm that the when they Holy Spirit comes fromtheFather throughthe Son (i.e., is or temporallyin the manifested throughhim, either eternally world where he is sentor given)."
of thisdistinctionin Juan Miguel Garrigues discusses the importance Le probleme du Filioque.78 chaptertwoof his book, L'Esprit qui dit 'Pere' in is 'The verb ?Klcop?a1, Garriguesargues, used both Scripture(Jn 15:26) and the Greekversion of thecreed to speakabout thecomingforth In othercontextsit isused toii2tutpo;EKnopc1Thal). of theSpirit (o ntocp& to signify a "coming or even out" a "goingaway" of the wherebythesubject This might verb appears to leave itspoint of origin as a distinctentity. from the mouth (Pr3: 16),demonscoming apply to aword comingforth fromthe temple out of thepossessed (Acts19: 12) orwater comingforth (Ez 47: 1, 8, 12).Although in Greek patristic thought it isusuallyreserved to the processionof theHoly Spirit,Pseudo-Athanasius and Johnof Damascus also applied it to thecreationof Eve,who came forth out of Adam's rib.79 On theotherhand, npoY?vOCt, as distinctfromiEKoopEXEaOct, has the forceof "progression" or "advance" whereby the subject flowsfrom its an element sourcebut retains of continuity Trinity, (or, in thecase of the
77)
Les Editions du Cerf, 1998), 53.

78) See Juan Miguel 1981). The
Jean-Claude
Larchet, Maxime
le Confesseur, m?diateur
entre l'Orient et l'Occident
(Paris:
(Paris: Tequi, Garrigues, L'Esprit qui dit 'P?re: Le probl?me du Filioque are on his earlier article, "Procession et arguments here largely based ekpor?se Istina 17 (1972): du Saint Esprit: discernement de la tradition et reception oecum?nique," 345-66.
79) Aliae 15 (PG 28, 785), De Fide orthodoxa 1, 8 (PG 94, 817). Quaestiones
For example,inThucydidesthe consubstantiality).80 word isoften used to and in describetheadvanceof armies, isdescribed as Herodotus timeitself moving forward Unlike the term TOi (ntpOI6VTo; XpOVOVo).81 cKRopUEcAOxt, literature refers which inpatristic only to thehypostatic origin of the Holy Spirit, and appliedboth to theSpiritand npoi?vxl isusedmore generally theSon, not only in terms of their economic manifestation, but also of the eternal communication of thedivinenature, which flows fromtheFather through thebegotten Son to theSpirit. is supported This theory bymuch of thepatristic witness.Gregoryof to Nazianzus had differentiated between theSpirit's unique relationship the Father(by?K6op?V65;) and that Spiritand the enjoyed byboth the Son from" (both having "progressed theFather).82 AlthoughCyrilwould, on to theSon's generation occasion,apply?KnoprIvSHcTOa fromtheFather, he never uses it todescribetherelationship of the Spiritto theSon.As a gen can only characterize eral rule inGreek trinitarian thought, ?Kopc1J5t; one's relationship to thesource of the Trinity, theFather. cannotbe applieduniversally, sincethere isstilla lack Garrigues's theory in the of linguistic Greek fathers thatallows themat timestouse rigidity For example,severalfathers and npo-i?vxI ?KILOpF?V?T0Xl synonymously. (including Gregory Nazianzus and Cyril) used npo-i?VxI to designatethe Maximus's ownQuaestiones Spirit's hypostatic origination.83 ad Thalassium fromtheFather 63 spoke of theSpirit'scoming forth(i?KROprjO'g&?vov) an absolutedifferentiation theSon. While these through examples prevent between the two terms,thisdoes not necessarily invalidate Garrigues's at leastas itapplies to Maximus. As SergeiBulgakovhas pointed theory, doctrine of theprocessionremained out, thepatristic both in ambiguous, terms there of contentand form, a and thus existed fluidity of language even ifone acknowledgedthatfor most thatdefied rigidcategorization, writers to the had a veryspecific meaning (i.e., referring Spirit's ?'Ktop?rIic;
ment (Oxford: Clarendon, 1996), 1145.

81)
80) See Henry
Liddell
and Robert
Scott,
eds., Greek English
Lexicon,
rev. ed. with
supple
39, 12; SC 358, 175. 83) GregoryNazianzus, Oration 20, 11 (SC 270, 78); Cyril of Alexandria,Epistle 4 (PG 77, 316).
War 1.61.5, 2.21.1, 4.13.2; Herodotus, Histories 3.96. Thucydides, Peloponnesian 82) "The not is Ghost truly Spirit, coming forth (rapo'iov) from the Father indeed, " but Holy in the same way as the Son, for it isnot by Generation but by Procession (?K7topea)xco?) Oration
216
A. E Siecienski /VigiliaeChristianae61 (2007) 189-227
In the hypostatic originfrom the Father).84 Letter, Maximus simply clarified thedistinction betweenthe two terms, differentiating theSpirit's unique hypostatic coming-to-be from his ipo?vlct from the Father (K1itop0u61;) in theeconomy through theSon, applied hereboth to theirrelationship and ineternity (i.e., in thetrinitarian t64t;). 'Thefactthat theLatin languagecould not adequatelyreproducethis subtlety isprobably whatMaximus refers to when hewrote:
At your request, I asked theRomans to translate what isunique to them in order has to avoid such obscurities.But since thepracticeofwriting and sending letters will comply.Especially, they alreadybeen observed, I do not know if they might not be able to express theirthought with the same exactness in another language as they mother tongue, just aswe could not do.85 might in their
Maximus appearshere to recognizethat Theodore'suse of 'Knop*UE1TOCCl toi3 was apparently how the Constan JKOK Ytoi To HIvE,oux (which toaiytov the Latin formula sanctum etiam tinopolitans had received "Spiritum a poor rendering of his intent exFilioprocedere"), was, ifnot unorthodox, Thismisunderstanding occurred and easilycapable ofmisinterpretation. in largepart because the West did not possess an exact equivalent to The terms could EKnop&UEcd3cxl. processio/procedere, accordingtoGarrigues, nevercommunicatethe ideaof theSpirit's"uniquehypostatic coming-to was not be," especially as the closestGreek equivalent to procedere but npoh'xVi. ?KmopcAicGOcx, Juan Miguel Garriguestracesthe rootsof theproblemback toTertul lian's writings against Praxeas, wherehis use ofprocedere servedto translate, as not the ideaof EiKnopniTUhaO, but the Greek notionof npo?PFiljcaOxi inhis rendition of used by Irenaeus and theother Greek fathers.86 Jerome, the Gospel of John,thentranslated and with ?K1Lopn16ceol npoPpXFraOx the verb which now came toencompass both thetemporal man procedere, of theSpiritaswell as his hypostatic ifestation origination.87 The unique nessof ?KEtopF_1JccYOTIl appeared lostinLatin translation.
84) 85)
2004), 75-87. Publishing,

86) Opusculum 10; PG 91, Juan Miguel 1981), 57-64. 87)V. Rodzianko Garrigues,
Sergius Bulgakov,
The Comforter, 136. L'Esprit
trans. Boris
Jakin (Grand Rapids: William
Eerdmans
qui dit
'P?re': Le probl?me translation
du
Filioque
(Paris: Tequi, of the Nicene
has also pointed
to the Latin
(or mistranslation)
61 (2007) 189-227 217 A. E Siecienski /VigiliaeChristianae
were thosein the West, like Hilary However, Garriguesarguesthatthere the uniqueness of oKtop?v? ofPoitiers, who continuedtoacknowledge uoat, of theFather while usingmittere and reserving procedere for theactivity the eternal relationship to the Son.88 Accord to speak about Spirit's accipere unique ingto Garrigues, even Augustinefollowed Hilary inrecognizing the EK7OpEAXYb of theSpirit fromtheFather, choosing to expressthis in the Latin adverbially, writingthattheSpiritproceedsfromtheSon, but prin fromtheFather."89 cipallyproceeds (procedit By protecting principaliter) with theadverb was the distinctiveness principaliter, Augustine ofprocedere or the to deliberately attempting ward off any ideaof a "doubleprocession" idea (embracedby laterLatin theology) that the Spirit derived his fromtheSon. EKROpEUc; Maximus can If this is true, thatit is, then and theevidencesuggests Roman fathers make thegood-faith thatthe affirmation certainly (Hilary, Son isa causeof the Spirit, nor Augustine,'Theodore) do not teachthatthe fromtheSon. IfPope Theodorehadwrit confess his coK7opCix1t; do they sanctum ten?_Kop?v?TOax K&K toi Ytoi7 to Flvei3ia to &y7ov(Spiritum must not be understoodas a denial of etiamexFilio procedere), thenthis theFather's within thegodhead,but as a poor translation of unique role in their belief theSpirit'seternal progression (ipoicvai) fromtheFather with a longhistoryinByzantine theSon (8t&toi Yiov), an idea through affirmed both thought. Maximus, LatinsandGreeks together Accordingto cause the Son the of sole of and the Spirit) and the monarchy the Father(as of theFather'srelationship to theSon, as he flows Spirit's comprehension thebegotten,sharingthecommon natureof fromthebegetterthrough betweentheir differences both.Thus ifthe Constantinopolitans perceived not as substantive, ofLatins, these must be regarded but as faith and that linguistic.
of the Letter to Marinus TheAuthenticity on the his thoughts of theTrinity, and especially Although his theology from our of the procession Holy Spirit,areneverset forth systematically,
Creed, which middle since the Greek word eKTiopeueaBai, the he has called "entirely wrong" voice of eK7tope\)C0, does not have any of the connotations of passivity or derivation in Patristic communicated 297. Thought," by the Latin processio. Rodzianko, "Filioque 88) See above. 89) De Trinitate 15, 17, 29. Garrigues, L'Esprit qui dit P?re, 73-74.
218
one can still discerncertain earlier study of Maximus's trinitarian writings thatseem toundergird his thinking: theological principles 1- There isan intimate relationship betweentheeconomy(oiKovo'ia) whichwhile recognizing a distinction, and theology (Oeokoyia), asTrinityis acknowledges that God's very mode of subsistence revealed tous inChrist. 2 - Themystery of theincarnate Word not only reveals God's mode &6t6KEt OCapKOUFvoq ofsubsistence asTrinity yap (Otooyilav,U?V us into the of the O 1;i0 coi)? mystery A6yo;) but also invites
trinitarian communion (icplXpinjprt;).
3 - The Fatheris thesource of life within the and unity Godhead and greater as theone cause (kick of the Son's and generation oitisx) but not greater theSpirit's procession, bynature. 4 - Because theFather is alwaysFatherof theSon, thiseternalrela of both. thehypostatic determines identities tionship who comes forth from the 5-TIheHoly Spirit, (?Kiroprz?PaOc) Father, isexpressed this eternal and thisreality comprehends relationship, fromthe by speakingof the Spirit's flowingforth(irpoUhvat) theSon. Fatherthrough 6 - Tfhis theSon appliesnot only to the level of progression through of the theology but expresses and theplace economy, something of theSpirit in the t64t;. are thenplaced besides the Letterto 'Whenthese principles Marinus, there iseveryreasontobelieve that not only is the Letter consistent withMaxi as a good summation but thatit isalso serves of mus's trinitarian theology, mind on theprocession of the thepatristic Holy Spirit. Although textual nature of the the questionscontinueto exist(e.g., thefragmentary Letter), case for of the textis Maximus's authorship made much stronger by the isundoubtedly containedtherein his. If,as theskep factthatthetheology creationauthoredby a sympa ticsbelieve, theLetteris a ninth-century Latin during the so-calledPhotian Schism, it is difficult thetic (if not impossible)tomaintain that it could have avoided "contamination" by of the the later understandings filioque. By theninthcentury Carolingian Photiandialecticthat would characterize the filioquedebatesforcenturies
61 (2007) 189-227 219 A. E. Siecienski /VigiliaeChristianae
The theology Maximus's tocomewas already well-established. containedin Letter, expressing an earlier, and fuller, understanding of theprocession consistent with hisoveralltheological program, would havebeenprecluded inbothConstantinopleand theFrankish West. by thepositionscurrent theFather'sroleas sole cause (,iia cdiioc) CertainlytheLetterstressed within thegodhead,a "non-negotiable" principle both for Maximus and theEastern tradition thatupheld both theunityand distinctions within the divinity. Yet itwas in clearlydistinguishing between the Spirit's fromtheFatherand his rpoYt?VAI throughtheSon, that ?K7EopEUPYAOxt to the Maximus makes his greatest contribution filioquedebates,explicat inga theological principle he believed tohave been part of theChurchs There isan eternal andwhich he himself held tobe true. faith, relationship from betweentheSon and theSpirit,thelatter the Fatherthrough flowing as Father. theSonwithwhom he enjoysan eternalrelationship This truth Maximus makes explicitnot only in theLetter to Marinus, but in the to thirteen Quaestiones ad Ihalassium 63writtentwelve yearsearlier. While of Byzantinetheologians later generations (e.g.,Photius)would speakof theSpirit's theSon onlyin the temporal or economic processionthrough realm, Maximus and theCappadocians understoodthisidea of progres sion (npoU'vct) very differently. Maximus's understanding of thegodhead as revealed by the incarnate in were "co-indicated" of the Word, wherebythe three hypostases Trinity actionof each person (e.g., the incarnation of the every Word), made it The Father is unique impossibleto speak of any of them in isolation. as sole cause,but he isalwaystheFatherof ofTrinity among thepersons of the theSon. Thuswhile theprocession Holy Spirit is a distinguishing one of the Father's Fatherfrom characteristic hypostasis, cannot isolatethe theSon withwhom he sharesa commonnatureandwill.Maximus, like of the thisreality ofNyssa andCyril,chose toexpress Gregory by speaking eternalflowing the forth (npo'xi?v)of theSpiritfromtheFatherthrough of theSpiritpoured Son. This appliednot only to thegifts only-begotten man of salvation, but to theeternal out upon the Church in theeconomy ifestation of theSpiritas both theSpiritofGod and SpiritofChrist. of this While willing to accept thefilioqueas an orthodoxexpression not to readinto onemust be careful Maximus's positionan endorse reality, Maximus does not appear to ment of the Latin teaching. post-Carolingian a transference an understanding of thefilioque that allow for attributed of to theSon making him, even in a sec theFather's hypostatic properties was While there ondaryway, responsiblefor the Spirit's ?K7OpEUGYt.
220
there could neverbe among the three personsof the Trinity, nEpixcopplra; of their The Fatherremained confusion or exchange hypostatic properties. of theSon and theSpirit, and to theextentthat thesole cause (gioczxitix) of later Latin theology attributed causalityto theSon (a unique property the Father's hypostasis), itderivated from thetradition of the Church (both East and West) as Maximus understoodit. For this reasonan interpretation of theLetter to Marinus, or any of of theiKnope16GOact K&Ktoi5 Maximus'swritings, that uses his acceptance TO to support what later becameknown as Yioiv toHvei4wR &7tovformula At bestone can arguethat Maximus believed "filioquism" must be rejected. a theological truism it merelya clumsy way of articulating (i.e., theexpres sionof thenpoU?vat of theSpirit through theSon in the trinitarian order is if it as the Thefilioque, understood expressing ?Knp?6FiYt; of the [-dxR;]). Son (i.e., theideaof thedoubleproces the Fatherand the Spirit both from of no supportin thetrinitarian sion), finds program Maximus, whether it Letterto Marinus. ad 7halassium be in the Quaestiones 63 or in the We do not knowhow the Letterto Marinus was received Maximus's by to thereign From the mid-seventh opponents inConstantinople. century on the of ofCharlemagnethereisa silence the issue Byz processionfrom with the wide antinesources. However,by theend of theeighth century, in the West and theadditionof thefilioque of filioquism spreadacceptance into thecreedof severallocal churches,thissituation changeddramati Maximus's timeas aminor issue,raisedin the What had emergedin cally. context of a larger became forthe Carolingians dispute (monothelitism), a theological casusbelli. and the Byzantines Maximus's irenicism would go as both sides turned a largely intoa difference largely forgotten linguistic genuinely Church-dividing dogmaticdispute.
Conclusion on the Maximus'swritings Letterto Marinus remain as ecu filioquein the were in theseventh It isper menicallysignificant century. todayas they a period of intense haps providentialthat themid-twentieth century, in the ecumenicalactivity, also saw a renewedinterest works of Maximus the Thiswas especially truein the Westernworld,where Confessor. Maxi scantacademic attention until the 1941 publica mus'swritingsreceived tionofHans Urs vonBalthasar's Das Weltbild Kosmische Maximus Liturgie:
Maxi critical editionsand translations of Since thattime, desBekenners.20 by hundredsof books and complimented mus'sworks have proliferated, and thespiri to theology Confessor's unique contributions articles on the writtenby French have been thestudies Of particularinterest tual life.91 and his teaching of the Trinity Roman Catholics onMaximus's theology Letterto Marinus.92 on the filioqueas containedin the on the Karl Rahner'sadvocacy of filioqueitself, Althoughhewrote little of the of trinitarian studies,based on a renewedappreciation a revival influential among activityin theworld, has been particularly Trinity's His Grundaxiom, that"the 'economic' Trinityis the WesternChristians.93 Trinity," Trinityis the 'economic' and the 'immanent' 'immanent' Trinity aspect theexperiential was originally conceivedas an attemptto recapture to echoes Maxi Rahner'sdictum, some degree, of trinitarian theology.94 and theecon betweenthe theology mus's own viewof theclose relation in the Orthodoxworld)would accusehimof omy,even ifsome (especially
90) translation: Hans Urs von Balthasar, Cosmic Liturgy: The Universe According to English Maximus the Confessor, trans. Brian Daley (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2003). Lars Thun into five periods Maximus modern studies divides 1930-41, 1941-70, (pre-1930, berg a division See Lars Thunberg, Micro 1970-85, 1985-present), largely accepted by scholars. cosm and Mediator: Maximus the Confessor (Chicago: Open The Theological Anthropology of Court Press, 1995), 12-20. 91) For a review of the recent literature on Maximus see the Confessor Polycarp Sherwood, on Maximus 20 (1964): 428-37; Andrew Recent the Traditio of Work Confessor," "Survey Louth, "Recent Research on St. Maximus the Confessor:
42 (1998): 67-84. calQuarterly

92) These works include: Juan Miguel ioque (Paris: Tequi, l'Orient et l'Occident 1981); Jean-Claude (Paris: Les Editions
A Survey," St. Vladimir's
Theologi
Garrigues,
Fil L'Esprit qui dit 'P?re': Le Probl?me du entre le Confesseur, m?diateur Larchet, Maxime du Cerf, 1998); Pierre Piret, Le Christ et la Trinit?
Press, 1966), 77-102; idem, The Trinity, trans. Smyth (Baltimore: Helicon 1970). (New York: Herder and Herder, Joseph Donceel 94) The Trinity, 22. Rahner was afraid that for most Christians, Rahner, theologians littlemore than a footnote following the treatise De Deo the included, Trinity had become that "Christians are, in their practical Uno in the handbooks of dogma. He had complained life, almost mere monotheists. We must be willing to admit that, should the doctrine of the as false, the to be remain major part of religious literature could well Trinity have dropped Ibid., 10-11. virtually unchanged." 4, trans. Kevin
selon Maxime le Confesseur (Paris: Beauchesne, 1983). 93) inDiscussion of God with and Threefoldness See, for example, Karl Rahner, "Oneness trans. York: Edward Crossroad, 1983), Islam," Theological Investigations 18, (New Quinn Treatise De Trinitate!' Theological Investigations 105-21; idem, "Remarks on the Dogmatic
222
betweentheology thecomplexrelationship oversimplifying and distorting and economyas found in the fathers.95 Given thehistoric Byzantinecri tique thatLatin theologyconfused the Spirit'seternalprocession (6o with his economic manifestation and mission (bo ?Knop?AwA30xl) it is certainly easy to understand why Orthodox theology ngnrEO6cu), mightbewaryofRahner's work.However,John Zizioulas and others have on Rahner, especially his decision to ground the lookedquite favorably Father(asopposed to theunity understanding ofGod on thepersonof the of thedivine substance).96 Although (asGregory Havrilakmakes clear) toEastern luminar "one would searchlongand hard for directreferences ies inRahner's trinitarian works," thereisan obvious sympathy with the insights ofCappadocian theology, and by extension, with the teaching of Maximus himself.97 Juan AlthoughYvesCongar followed Miguel Garrigues in recognizing Maximus's distinction betweenixKnopVocuOcu fromipoivcut,he did not believe that Garrigues's proposed reunionformula, embracing as itdid a betweenhypostatic and consubstantial genuinedifferentiation existence, West.98Congar suggestedthat was acceptable to the Greeks and Latins
studies, John Behr has to assert the simply enough or to the of economic' and the 'immanent' that the Trinity Trinity, identity emphasize 'economic' of the Trinity.... It is doubtful basis of our knowledge that the distinction, cor trinitarian drawn in the manner, between 'immanent' and 'economic' theology really as is often asserted, to the and '"econom?a" John Behr, patristic usage ot'theologia responds, Although questioned the usefulness of his famous dictum. "It is not The Formation Seminary of Christian Press, 2004), 2: The Nicene Faith, vol. 1 (Crestwood: St. Vladimir's Theology "Karl Rahner and the Greek Trinity," 7. See also Gregory Havrilak,
95)
he credits Rahner
with
a renaissance
in trinitarian
St.Vladimir'sTheological 34 (1990): 61-77. Quarterly

96) Zizioulas
believes Rahner admirably captured the Biblical and Greek patristic notion or 'cause' of the that "the unity of God, the one God, and the ontological 'principle' being and life of God does not consist in the substance of God but in the hypostasis, that is, the as Communion: Studies in Personhood and the person of the Father." John Zizioulas, Being St. Vladimir's Church (Crestwood: Seminary Press, 1985), 40. 97) "Karl Rahner and the Greek Trinity," 77. Havrilak, 98) formula was: "I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord the giver of life, who Garrigues's issued forth from the Father (ek xox> ?atp?c and proceeds from the 8K7topeD?|i?VOv), Father and the Son (?ic xox) riaxpoc Kai xov Yio? See Juan Miguel 7tpo'iov)." Garrigues, et idem, "Procession (Paris: Tequi, 1981); L'Esprit qui dit P?re: Le probl?me du Filioque et du Saint la discernement de tradition Istina 17 Esprit: ekpor?se reception oecum?nique," (1972): 345-66; idem, "Le sens de la procession Contacts 3 (1971): du Saint-Esprit dans la tradition latine du premier mill?naire," 283-309.
in trinitarian simply had to recognizethat, despitea legitimate diversity thinking, both sidesconfessed thesamecentraltruths: theconsubstantial of thethird within the the of the ity person monarchy Father(who Trinity, or beginning remains "Principle withoutprinciple of the whole divinity"), and thenotion thattheSon was "notunrelated"to theFatherin thepro ductionof theSpirit.99 TheOrthodoxworld has also begun to lookmore deeplyat the trin tarian of the more oftenthannot, this writings Confessor, although, has between been throughthePalamite lens (i.e., seeing in thedistinction of theessence/energy a foreshadowing distinc and tpoU?vat ?K1EopeV?&aOat The bestknownproponent of thePalamiteunderstanding in the tion).100 of filioquism wasVladimirLossky, whose critiques were twentieth century that And yetLossky recognized particularly damning.'01 Orthodoxycould theFix .O6vou not follow Photius in simply parroting TO5 formula, Fkttpo6; an eternalrelationship between theSpiritand the refusing to recognize Son. On thecontrary, Eastern theology knew thereto be an important between distinction
the hypostaticprocession of theHoly Spirit-His personal existence ?K govou toi3 the Hxtp6;-and manifesting natural procession of the common Godhead ad extrain the The Father reveals Holy Spirit throughtheSon-&&t to6Yi..... his nature throughtheSon and thedivinityof theSon is manifested in the Holy
Congar accepted system, but did not implications) on onto
trinitarian the Greek the legitimacy of Garrigues's paradigm within to transpose this its Palamite all think itwas possible (with teaching the Latin model. He did, however, accept the orthodoxy of Palamas's the essence-energy distinction need not be the claims of earlier Catholic system despite
writings
perceived
that the Trinity, believing as antithetical to the Catholic
/ Believe in theHoly Spirit 3, trans. David Smith (New York: theologians. Yves Congar, Crossroad 61-71. Co., 1997), Publishing 99) Ibid., 201. 100) See le Confesseur: Essence etEnergies de Dieu (note 10). Karayiannis, Maxime 101) and savants is introduced of the the God of the philosophers the "By dogma filioque, latibulum into the heart of the Living God, the place of theDeus absconditus, quiposuit taking essence of the Father, Son, and suum. The unknowable Holy Spirit tenebras receives
It becomes positive qualifications. who could be the god of Descartes, the god of Voltaire Lossky, "The Procession Image and Likeness
the object of natural theology: we get 'God in general,' or even or the to some extent, perhaps, god of Leibniz, Deists of the eighteenth century." Vladimir and of the dechristianized of the Holy (Crestwood: in Orthodox Trinitarian Doctrine," Spirit St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1985), 88. in In the
ofGod
224
A. E. Siecienski /VigiliaeChristianae 61 (2007) 189-227 Spirit. 'Thisis why, in the realmof divinemanifestation, it ispossible to establish an orderof persons (t6).'02
in thelanguage This teaching, ofGregory ofCyprus and althoughframed onMaximus's graspof thetrinitarian GregoryPalamas,drewheavily mys of the tery and on his reading Greek fathers. OliverClement, a student of Lossky's, went beyondhismentor'scritiqueof the West in order to dis cover what he called "theauthenticintuitions of filioquism."''03 Following Maximus, Clement recognized thatthe inseparability of thethree persons within thedivinity made it impossible to isolatetheactivities of anyone of he asked them. Therefore
whether thesubsequent controversies(about theprocession) did not arisebecause people partly forgot the divine "logic" which is always simultaneouslyone and threefold.... To say that the Spirit "proceeds" from the Father is necessarily to name theSon, since fromall eternitytheFatherputs hisOther inunity; sowhen he causes theSpirit to "proceed" he remainsFatherof theSon.'04
betweentheperson/essence of theSpirit(o HIvc,5ga) Distinguishing and his energy Clement utilizedthe Palamite model inan attempt to (nvEibga), "105 it. "gobeyondfilioquism by integrating Thus
as person, on the level of essence, one might say, the Spirit proceeds from theFather alone, since theFather is the one "cause" in theTrinity. He proceeds with the Son on whom he rests. But the "spirit" as divine energy "conjointly" pours forth from the Father through the Son, or, if one prefers, from theSon.106
102) Ibid., 91-92. 103) Oliver Cl?ment,
Essor du christianisme
oriental
1964), 18.
104) Oliver Cl?ment, 1993), See n. 32. Cl?ment, New City, Damascus. 105) Oliver 72. This
(Paris: Presses Universitaires
de France,
trans. Theodore The Roots of Christian Mysticism, (London: Berkeley a direct connection has both toMaximus and John of teaching
et le christianisme (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, Byzance trans: Boris TheMystery 1964), 47 (Eng. Bobrinskoy, of the Trinity: Trinitarian Experience trans. in the Biblical and Vision and Patristic Tradition, [Crestwood: Gythiel Anthony St. Vladimir's reading as expression the Son. 106) Ibid. of Seminary the Eastern Press, 1999], tradition himself Bobrinskoy echoed his willingness the mutual love and common 290). and seems to to favor Clement's integrate the filioque gift of both the Father and
of the Spirit being
Catholic and Orthodox, havemade great While individualtheologians, of the place in progressin coming to a commonunderstanding filioque's official statements and dialogueshavecome evenfurther modern theology, gap" between East andWest. In 1995 the in "bridging theunbridgeable Vatican issued"TheGreek and LatinTraditions RegardingtheProcession the Roman positionon of the Holy Spirit," a documentaimedat clarifying The Roman Catho thefilioque vis-'a-vis thehistoric Orthodox critique.'07 licChurch affirmed thatitupheld thepositionoutlined in theLetterto must be understood... in such of thefilioque Marinus, that"thedoctrine it to the monarchyof theFathernor away that cannotappear contradict tcittoc) of theEKn6p6.E)at; of the the factthathe is the sole origin (tfoc had once made theRoman teaching Problemsof translation Spirit."''08 which is to communicate, difficult whyMaximus explainedto hisCon stantinopolitan interlocutors:
of theSpirit issued from the (that) thefilioquedoes not concern the t"Kxopeusit butmanifests his xpoivtU (processio)in the con Father as source of theTrinity, substantialcommunion of theFather and theSon.'09
(using the idea of the trinitarian Explaining this teachingfurther at6t; on in et dubia 34), the document goes to say that because found Quaestiones as FathertheFatherfrom whom theSpirittakes Son characterizes his "the Trinitarian of theSpiritfrom order""thespiration origin, accordingto the of theSon.""0 theFathertakes place by and through... thegeneration For themost part,Orthodox theologiansapplauded theVatican's move evencloserto Maximus's Rome to at a clarification, urging attempt For example, Letter. Zizioulas arguedthat John positionas outlined in the Maximus shouldbe thebasis for enunciated the"single cause"principle by on the discussion further writingthat: filioque,
As St.Maximus the Confessor insisted... thedecisive thing... liespreciselyin the Romans do not implya "cause" other than the point that in using thefilioquethe would be ready to admit that theSon in Father.... IfRoman Catholic theology
sionof the CatholicInternational 7 (1996): 36-43. Holy Spirit,"

ios) ?j^g Qreek 110) Ibid., 40. Ibid., 42. and Latin Traditions 109> Regarding the Procession
107) English
translation
found
in: "The Greek
and Latin Traditions
Regarding
the Proces
of the Holy
Spirit," 39.
226
A. E. Siecienski /VigiliaeChristianae61 (2007) 189-227 in the procession of the Spirit, this no way constitutesa "cause" (itfxloc) would bring the two traditions much closer to each otherwith regardto the filioque."'
Zizioulas believed the that Rome's recognition of thedistinction between and npoievatwas particularly ?K1opTO6A1xt significant, acknowledging in the theunique purposeof tpoUiNoc Greek tradition, where it
was used to denote the Holy Spirit'sdependence on the Son owing to the com mon substance or o06ai which the Spirit in deriving from the Father alone as Person or iX06otixat;receivesfromtheSon, too, as o01'atC;, that is, with regard to the one o05D6rx common to all threepersons.... For him (i.e.,Maximus) the was todenote not the `KnopFOU,0a filioquewas not hereticalbecause itsintention but thexpoi?VuCof theSpirit."12
Afteralmost a millenniumof estrangement, Catholics and Orthodox in a renewed the twentieth have expressed desire toheal theschism century thatdivided themforcenturies. Pope JohnPaul II made it a particular themeof his pontificate, especiallyas he prepared theRoman Catholic Church forthe jubileeyear with his landmark Ut Unum Sint encyclicals and OrientaleLumen. Inmany ways Rome and Constantinopleenjoy a more cordial relationship today than in thosecenturies preceding the incommunion.'13 when East and West were technically schism, The eraof isover. estrangement The eraof dialoguehas begun. The filioque, whichwas once believed to be thechiefdogmatic reason fortheschism,remains unresolved despite the levelof consensusreached in recent yearsover its meaning.Althoughmost theologians no longer regard thetheology of the as an insurmountable flioque, in itself, obstacle to unity,itspresencein thecreed remains a stumbling block to unity."4 Perhaps it is in theLetterto Marinus, encompassing as itdoes thebestof
in)
John Zizioulas,
"One
An Orthodox Single Source:
Response
to the Clarification
on the
from the several face-to-face meetings between pope and Rome and have exchanges between Constantinople Tomos Agapis ("Book of Love"). in: E.J. Stormon, translation English Ecumenical ing of the Schism: The Sees of Rome and Constantinople, the many written York: Paulist Press, 1987). 114)There is, however, reason removed. In 1987, when to be that the interpolation optimistic I visited Patriarch Dimitrios Pope John Paul
Filioque," 112) Ibid. 113) Aside
http://agrino.org/cyberdesert/zizioulas.htm. patriarch since been collected ed., Towards Documents 1964, in the
the Heal 3 (New
(some day) be may II, and then again in
theearlytradition, thatthebesthope of resolving the issue lies. As more scholars both theauthenticity Letter of the recognize and thecontributions itcanmake to thedialogue, it can only be hoped thatfurther study of Maximus'swritings on the will receiverenewed consideration by filioque all those, who likehim, genuinelystriveforecumenicalunderstanding solidly based on thefaith of theundivided Church.
document of 381
and proclaimed with them (inGreek) the creedwithout the filioque. The CDF's 2000
Iesus began with Dominus as the basis for its teaching. a consideration of the creed, using the unaltered
1995 during Patriarch
Bartholomew's
visit, the pope
celebrated
the Eucharist
at St. Peter's text

A.E. Siecienski, Vigiliae Christianae 2007

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Descrizione originale:

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

A.E. Siecienski, Vigiliae Christianae 2007

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

The Authenticity of Maximus the Confessor's "Letter to Marinus": The Argument from Theological Consistency Author(s): A.

? Koninklijke BrillNV, Leiden, 2007

61 (2007) 189-227 A. E. Siecienski /VigiliaeChristianae

in the II of The Patriarchate Gregory Cyprus(1283-1289) (Crestwood: of Filioque Controversy

A. E Siecienski / VigiliaeChristianae 61 (2007) 189-227

dial cause. Because

A. E. Siecienski /VigiliaeChristianae 61 (2007) 189-227

CatholicInternational of the 7 (1996): 36-43. Holy Spirit,"

A. E. Siecienski /VigiliaeChristianae 61 (2007) 189-227 193

OMOAOrHTHX KAI H EKKAHZIA THIKYIIPOY" Apost?los Varnavas53 (1992): 379-98.

evenby 646 (Polycarp of the Sherwood'sdatingof theLetter) theLatin theology filioque

/VigiliaeChristianae 61 (2007) 189-227 A. E. Siecienski

well have participated and fifty years before

in trie filioque debates, that debate blossomed

though into schism.

be another one hundred

Alexakis, wood, 1952),

An Annotated 54; Alexander

61 (2007) 189-227 A. E Siecienski /VigiliaeChristianae

Turnhout, 1991), 31. duo,CCG 23 (Brepols:

sitaires, 15) Ambiguum Eundem, CCG

Theologi and Frederick

A. E. Siecienski /VigiliaeChristianae61 (2007) 189-227

power and the HolySpirit isthe eternal divinity.20

T&T Clark, 1993), 68. burgh:

A. E. Siecienski /VigiliaeChristianae 61 (2007) 189-227 197

Orationis Dominicae etoeconomica on

trans: Berthold, Maximus trans: G.E.H. Palmer

Capita theologica "Two Hundred Texts

The Philokalia, vol. 2 25) Expositio Orationis Dominicae

61 (2007) 189-227 A. E. Siecienski /VigiliaeChristianae

receives the HolyTrinity.26 mystically

27) See Verna Harrison,

Fathers," St. Vladimir's

35 (1991): 53-65. terly

A. E Siecienski 61 (2007) 189-227 /VigiliaeChristianae

A. E. Siecienski /VigiliaeChristianae61 (2007) 189-227

32) "The name of the Father

A. E. Siecienski /VigiliaeChristianae 61 (2007) 189-227

simple On God and

A. E. Siecienski / VigiliaeChristianae61 (2007) 189-227

A. E Siecienski /VigiliaeChristianae 61 (2007) 189-227 203

A. E. Siecienski /VigiliaeChristianae61 (2007) 189-227

florilegium fathers with

61 (2007) 189-227 205 /VigiliaeChristianae A. E. Siecienski

seventh century, become

Press, 1963], 79).

1, 15, 152 (Eng. trans: Ambrose,

Theological and Dogmatic

61 (2007) 189-227 A. E. Siecienski /VigiliaeChristianae

the Father and

of Poitiers, America confess Him,

The Trinity, Stephen McKenna, 1954], 57-58). The English

A. E Siecienski /VigiliaeChristianae 61 (2007) 189-227 207

New City Press, 1991], 209). lationforthe21stCentury [Brooklyn:

A. E. Siecienski / VigiliaeChristianae61 (2007) 189-227

to from generation distinguish procession must be admitted that it Augustine opened

presented Seraphim tina: St. Herman of Alaska

and His Work

A. E Siecienski /VigiliaeChristianae 61 (2007) 189-227 209

of the Cappadocian Trinit? (Paris: Retaux,

fathers. Th?odore 1892), 309.

traEunomium, the single most