Page 290 - Orthodoxy Zizioulas

O r t h o d o x y
In the Byzantine period, the Orthodox side accused the
Latin-speaking Christians, who supported the Filioque, of in-
troducing two Gods, precisely because they believed that the
Filioque implied two causes—not simply two sources or prin-
ciples—in the Holy Trinity. The Greek patristic tradition, at
least since the Cappadocian Fathers, identified the one God
with the person of the Father, whereas St. Augustine seems to
identify Him with the one divine substance (the deitas or di-
vinitas).
As St. Maximus the Confessor insisted, however, in defense
of the Roman use of the Filioque, the decisive thing in this
defense lies precisely in the point that, in using the Filioque,
the Romans do not imply a “cause” other than the Father. The
notion of “cause” seems to be of special significance and im-
portance in the Greek patristic argument concerning the Fil-
ioque. If Roman Catholic theology would be ready to admit
that the Son in no way constitutes a “cause” (αἴτιον) in the
procession of the Spirit, this would bring the two traditions
much closer to each other with regard to the Filioque.
Closely related to the question of the single cause is the
exact meaning of the Son’s involvement in the procession of
the Spirit. Saint Gregory of Nyssa admits a mediating role of
the Son in the procession of the Spirit from the Father. This
role is expressed in the patristic formula ἐκ Πατρὸς διὰ Υἱοῦ—
from the Father through the Son. Such language preserves the
principle of the single cause: the Father remains sole cause,
while the Son is not excluded from the eternal relation of the
Spirit.
Another important point is the distinction between
ἐκπόρευσις and processio. In the Greek tradition a clear dis-
tinction was always made between ἐκπορεύεσθαι and
προϊέναι. The first denotes exclusively the Spirit’s derivation
290