What the East Gets WRONG About the Filioque (Fr. Thomas Crean, O.P.)

[00:00:00]Futius takes control of the sea of Constantinople against the man who is recognized by the pope. His way of justifying himself is to claim that the pope is a heretic because he recognizes the filioquay and so Futius thought that would be a good weapon.

[00:00:17]>> Do you think St. Maximus the confessor properly understood the filioquay because he had exposure to the Latins?

[00:00:23]>> The Holy Spirit also has a single source and his source is the father and the son in their unity. Oh, it's all been a a misunderstanding. The Greek Orthodox and the Roman Catholics all mean the same thing really. They just didn't understand each other. That's rather patronizing, I would say, to the theologians on both sides. We would all agree there's been no ecumenical council that teaches that the idioquay is false or that the Wic position is heresy.

[00:00:47]Maybe if had it not been for Fotius, we wouldn't be having this discussion right now. It's taught by the fathers. It's attested to in the scriptures. It's an apostolic premise. So therefore, it's not really something we should be fighting about.

[00:01:00]Today, I am very excited to be speaking with Father Thomas Crane from the Order of Preachers. Father, how are you today?

[00:01:08]>> I'm doing very well, thank you.

[00:01:09]>> Thank you for being on, Father. I've been really excited for this episode particularly because we're going to be speaking about one of the most complicated subjects in church history and one of the most uh complex theological doctrines. And it has been an unfortunate barrier between us and our Eastern uh Christian brothers and sisters. And so today I hope that we can you know close the gap a little more give a little bit more understanding on this teaching of the filioquay. who wrote this incredible book called Vindicating the Filioquay and you go into the history of the filioquay, the theology behind it and I think you do an excellent job. For those before we get into this teaching, can you just tell us a little bit about yourself? Who are you and what it is that you do?

[00:01:59]>> Uh yes, I'm a a Dominican frier. So I belong to the religious order called the Dominicans. Uh I live in London in England. Uh I was ordained a priest about 25 years ago and I I do various things priestly ministry and writing and a bit of online teaching as well.

[00:02:18]>> That's awesome. What what called you to the monastic life?

[00:02:21]>> Well, I suppose my initial uh inspiration was when I was at university already studying philosophy and theology and I got to know the works of St. Thomas Aquinus >> and they were very uh helpful for me in in helping me to navigate uh navigate those difficult subjects and then I was inspired by the by the Dominicans that I saw in in Oxford where I was studying and thought that um I couldn't think of anything better to do than to uh to try to live that kind of life.

[00:02:52]>> I love that. In in regards to this book, you wrote this book Vindicating the Filioquay. Before we actually get into the content, the material that's in here, I think it's helpful if we define our terms, you know, for those that are listening that may not be uh as familiar with the topic. What is the filioquay?

[00:03:09]Why is this such an important topic for our church? And why has it been a stumbling block between us and our Eastern Orthodox and even our oriental orthodox brothers and sisters?

[00:03:20]>> Yes, there's a lot lot of questions there. Uh so to start at the beginning, the word filio is a Latin word. uh it means and from the sun. So it's uh a word that appears in the Latin version of the the Nyian creed. So the creed that um we say at mass u when we talk about the holy spirit we um say he proceeds from the father and the son. So the original version of the creed as it was drawn up um the council of Constantinople back in the 4th century uh was shorter than our present version.

[00:03:54]uh it just said uh about the Holy Spirit. He he proceeds from the father with the father and and the son is worshiped or adored and glorified. So that the purpose of that council was to to teach the divinity of the holy spirit which was being denied by some heretics at that time. It wasn't really trying to teach the eternal origins of the holy spirit in any detail. uh and so just contented itself with using the phrase that uh our lord speaks in the gospel that the uh when he talks about the the spirit of truth uh proceeding from the father >> and it became a bone of contention really quite a lot later not not really a serious problem until the the 9th century um so by that time uh in certain churches in western Europe um The word filioquay had been added to the creed as a way of explaining more fully uh the origins of the Holy Spirit. Um it was probably done in order to affirm the divinity of of Christ, the divinity of the son. Um because there were places in in Western Europe like Spain where the the divinity of the sun um had been denied by certain groups who were lingering in in that part of Europe, >> the Aryans. Uh and so to emphasize that the son is perfectly equal uh to the father. His role in eternally as we say breathing forth or spirating the the holy spirit was explicitly put into the creed. It becomes a problem in the 9th century uh when a certain bishop in Constantinople uh Thutius um assumes uh the sea uh takes control of the sea of Constantinople against the uh the man who is recognized by the pope as being the legitimate occupant of the sea and Thutius obviously needs to justify himself uh against the pope for doing and his his way of justifying himself is to claim that uh the pope is a heretic uh because he recognizes uh the filioquay even though it wasn't in the the creed said in the church of Rome at that time because the the creed wasn't used at the mass in Rome in that time.

[00:06:21]Uh nevertheless, the pope obviously recognized the filioquay as as true doctrine. Uh and so Futius thought that would be a good uh weapon uh to use against him. Why he he chose that that particular weapon? I suppose it's because there was a certain uh a certain you could say that there was a certain case to answer uh in the sense that the creed of Constantinople uh had been taught by the ecumenical council and no other ecumenical council afterwards had uh had approved the addition of the word filioquay. So at least from the point of view of um uh you might say uh if you're being unkind, you might say propaganda. Uh Fotius said a certain uh plausibility about his about his claim that uh that the pope needed to uh to explain himself.

[00:07:14]>> So I don't know if that's a sufficient summary. Obviously it could be expanded almost in infinitely.

[00:07:19]>> Yeah. How how does Fotius cause all of this commotion? And if the filioquay had already been explicitly affirmed previously to that, we see it in the third council of Toledo at 589. We see it in the fathers. We see it in St. Siril of Alexandria. We see it in the pseudoanian creed. We see it in uh St. Augustine's writings. We see it in St. Fentius of Rusp. How is it then that uh Fotius is able to cause this commotion if this was at least in the west it was understood as being an orthodox doctrine if if I'm not mistaken? Well, I think the the Greek part of the church was historically quite uh ignorant of what was going on in the West because they didn't tend to know Latin. And there had been a long period during which and and it was really still going on in in Fotius's time where the the West was culturally and intellectually uh behind uh Constantinople because the the West had suffered the Bulbarian invasions which had had brought the Roman Empire to an end in a way that hadn't happened in the east. And so I I think there was just a a long tradition of of looking down upon upon the the Latins and and thinking they probably um were not worth studying.

[00:08:38]As you say, if if one had actually studied the Latin fathers such as St. Augustine or St. Gregory the Great, one would see that the doctrine of the Vidioquay and its meaning and its its what it means, what it doesn't mean are spelt out. And so I think it would been it would have been hard for Botis's claim to have gotten momentum if the Latin fathers had been well known in uh in Constantinople.

[00:09:02]>> Help us understand the the the teaching a little bit further. So the filioquay is basically this this uh this teaching that the holy spirit proceeds from the father and the son. But when the west says and the son what it means is through the son. But it's also there's many ways to there's a couple ways to explain it. Correct. Um what is it? What is precisely being meant there? Because I've heard hypothic procession. What do we mean when we when we hear that term hypoatic or I've even heard like energetic procession? But I think that's coming more from like the orthodox side.

[00:09:35]>> What do we actually mean by these terms procession, spiration, hypoatic?

[00:09:40]Hopefully that's not too much of a a crazy question. Well, what we mean is that just as God the son has eternally one source in the blessed trinity, he comes forth from the father alone. So the holy spirit also has a single source and his source is the father and the son in their unity. So we don't mean that the father contributes a part of the holy spirit and the son contributes another part. That would obviously be nonsense because god doesn't have parts.

[00:10:09]We don't mean that God the father starts off the process and and the son finishes finishes it off. Um we don't mean that the son does anything independently of the father but but we we mean as I say that the father and the son are one single principle of the son of the holy spirit. Um so St. St. Thomas Aquinas talking about this is rather uh I think a beautiful explanation where he he he he's explaining the the idea that's much more prominent in the west. It's not totally absent in the east but it's much more prominent in the west that the procession of the Holy Spirit is a procession of love that it that is comes that it um happens because of the love of God eternal love of God. Uh and he says well St. Thomas says, "Well, it's a it's a feature of love to be unifying.

[00:11:01]Love is a uni unifying thing, a unitive thing." Um, and so that's why because the the love of God is is perfect and infinite.

[00:11:14]The father and the son in their love are one perfect principle and not two principles of the coming forth of the holy spirit.

[00:11:24]So you mentioned the the idea of of through the through the sun >> and that's that's another perfectly valid way of of talking about it. See the thing is really that no one preposition can do justice to two things at once. Uh so God the son has it from the father that he is a one principle with the father of the the coming forth of the holy of the holy spirit because everything that the son has he has from the father including being with the father uh on principle uh and you can't say the other way round. You can't say that the father has from the son he's on principle with the son because the father is the first origin in the trinity. And so to express that idea that the son has it from the father that he is with the father one principle uh we use the word through um but also we don't want to give the impression that there's some kind of um temporal uh gap the father does something first and that the holy spirit does something second uh son does something second and we don't want to give the impression that uh the father is more of a principle of the Holy Spirit than the sun is. So as when I I might say I I move the the the snooker ball through a queue or something like that. Well then I'm more of a principle of the moving of the snooker ball than the queue is. Uh so we don't want to give that impression and so to avoid that we use the word from. So these two words from the sun and through the sun uh they refer to the same reality but they bring out different aspects of it and they're both necessary. uh they complement each other and together they express the whole whole mystery.

[00:13:12]>> So St. Maximus the confessor who's an eastern monk he's an eastern Christian monk but he had spent a lot of time with the west you know he had a lot of exposure to the Latin west he was a great ally of pope uh St. Martin he in his letter to Marinus he expounds on the on this teaching a little bit it do you think St. Maximus the confessor properly understood the filioquay because he he had exposure to the Latins. It in his letter are we seeing a proper understanding of the filioquay as we understand it today as as Catholics?

[00:13:45]>> Uh yes I think so. I think he recognizes his language shows that he recognizes the sun as being a real active principle of the coming forth of the the Holy Spirit. Um so he he famously is is the first person to bring attention the first person that we know of to bring attention to this this problem in the difference between the eastern and Latin vocabulary. So he's writing in uh he's the mid-seth century isn't he? Same same Maximus.

[00:14:18]>> Now I I think he's he's sometimes misinterpreted in fact mistransated this is something I go into in my book. He's sometimes presented as if he was saying that the pope and his papal theologians uh are causing problems by the way they speak about the Holy Spirit and that they need to change. Now I I don't think that's actually what he's saying and I make the case uh in my book that what he's saying is that the the heretics who are in control in Constantinople at the time that he's writing these people they call monopolytes people who said there's only one will in Christ that they're causing problems and that the way they do it is to misrepresent what the West believes about the Holy Spirit. um uh and that that they're playing on this difference between uh from and through uh to give the impression that the the west thinks that the son is independent of God the father in >> breathing forth the holy spirit and that's obviously not true. So yes, I think St. Maximus is uh is a witness to the the the same doctrine just like many of the other uh Greek fathers are. Mhm.

[00:15:31]Before we get into the council of Florence, I want to touch on um Fotius one more time, >> do you think he properly understood the filioquay? You know, he wrote the mystigi of the holy spirit. When you look at that text, do you see somebody who properly understands the filioquay or do you think he's approaching it from a probably a misunderstanding or a straw man position of the filioquay? I think probably the latter it's a it's a while since I read the Mr. Goji. Um but my my strong impression from reading it was that this is someone who is really like a barristister with a brief. He's he's making a case or an attorney making a case and he he's not it's not doesn't read to me like a serious attempt to uh to express or to understand the say the position of St. Augustine. Uh see who will say for example that the the west teaches that the holy spirit proceeds from the divine nature. Uh and that's ridiculous because that would mean the holy spirit proceeds from himself because the holy spirit is also identical to the divine nature. Um but and this isn't actually what um St. Augustine or other western fathers or western theologians um would say. Um, so I I'm not an expert in in photos.

[00:16:52]That wasn't the focus of my my researches. So I hesitate to pronounce a uh a judgment on him. Uh, but he didn't fill me with confidence as someone who was uh impartially looking for the truth.

[00:17:07]>> Right. So you anchor your book in the Council of Florence. Why is the Council of Florence important for our discussion on the filioquay?

[00:17:16]>> Yes. Well, uh it's a unique really council because it is the great reunion council between uh Rome and Constantinople.

[00:17:26]Uh it took place in in the 15th century.

[00:17:29]Um there had been obviously lots of attempts at reunion before especially in the the council of Leyon, second council of Leyon where a kind of union had been achieved. But on that occasion um uh the Greek delegation were were simply given a statement of faith to read and they read it because uh they wanted military help from the west. Whereas the council of Florence is very different.

[00:17:54]But even though there was still this this desire for for military help from from western Christrysendom against the Turks, uh there was a very full discussion. So we we've got the the actor uh of the um council of Florence the extent and they've been very well edited in a critical edi edition recently.

[00:18:15]uh and it shows that session after session took place in which uh discussions were held between the pope's Latin theologian and the bishops of the the Greek party a large party of Greeks came and all the eastern uh patriarchets were were represented uh and eventually a formula was was um put together which was crystal clear and uh explained both the meaning of the Latin in phrasiology and the Greek phrasiology and how they expressing the same truth and how this is a doctrine of the fathers the Greek fathers and the Latin fathers um and it it was signed by uh almost all the the Greek bishops two Greek bishops who didn't sign it um but the the uh the council as a whole uh did its work thoroughly and and um as far as one one could see a reunion was achieved though of course sadly it stick.

[00:19:17]>> If I understand you correctly in the book, you contrast the definition at the council of Florence with this uh 1995 pontipical council uh clarification document. Correct. Where it's it gives this impression that the filioquay that there's a there's a acceptable understanding that we can say as Catholics that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the father alone.

[00:19:42]uh if I'm not if I'm not mistaken which is somewhat >> contentious with the definition that was >> presented here at the council of Florence is is am I understanding that properly?

[00:19:54]>> Yes. Uh it's a very strange document really because it's so it's it's not a what we call a magisterial document.

[00:20:02]It's not something that that the pope has promulgated saying this is the faith of the church or anything like that.

[00:20:06]It's a document produced by this this committee of theologians that obviously they're chosen by the pope, the Pontipical Council, but it's not as such a binding document. It's a it's a theological working paper, you could really say. Uh, and it's claiming to present the Greek and Latin traditions on the procession of the Holy Spirit. Um, but it's obviously very unhappy with the Catholic dogma that was defined at the Council of Florence and it manages to to go from beginning to end without ever mentioning the Council of Florence, which is a a massive omission. Um, it touches on other ecumenical councils that are of less importance for the subject, but misses out the the one that's of tow towering importance. Uh, is a rather confusing document. Um I mean the impression that you get is from it is kind of that the disagreement between uh Catholics and Eastern Orthodox is only a a verbal disagreement not a real one. Uh but also at the same time paradoxically that the Eastern Orthodox position is is better than the Catholic position.

[00:21:21]>> Um so I don't I just don't think it makes sense as documented. why I begin my book because it has been presented as being this great breakthrough in a communical relations and you know it' be wonderful uh if it was but I don't think it is. So that's why I began my book by pointing out what I think the the flaws in it are.

[00:21:39]>> Yeah. What could could you tell us more about the that teaching that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the father alone?

[00:21:44]If I'm not mistaken, I think we first see that in Fotius, but I I could be wrong, but talk talk to us a little bit about that because I often hear from Eastern Orthodox that that is only the Eastern Orthodox position that truly preserves and they say this word, the monarchia, the monarchy of the father, while the other definitions of of the trinity um you know, strip that from from the father.

[00:22:10]>> Yes. Well, I mean it depends what you mean by by monarchy. And if you mean by monarchia the idea that God the father alone is an active principle within the trinity. Uh then obviously you have to say from the father alone. But uh then the question arises of why do you say that god the father alone is an active principle within the trinity. It's not written in uh in the gospel or in any of the new testament. Uh it's not in the fathers of the church. Um as far as I can see when the fathers use the word monaka they're talking about something very different. So St. Gregory the Great talks about monarchy but what he's talking about is simply the fact that there is one God as opposed to the pagans having a poly polyarchia and the atheists having anarchia. The true thing that we can say is that God the father is as we say that the alone the principle without principle. So there's only God the father who is uh the principle who has no principle of himself. So the son is is a principle with the father but the son has a principle namely the father. So each of the three divine persons has their their distinct characteristic otherwise it wouldn't be distinct and the holy spirit uh is not a principle uh within the trinity because a fourth divine person doesn't proceed from him. things can get confusing and this is where you have to to just you can't just pick out texts out of the context uh because sometimes the word ar meaning principle or it which also means principle it sometimes translated a bit misleadingly as cause they can be used and you have to understand what how they're being used they're sometimes used to mean what the what we mean in in English uh what the Latins mean by saying principle without principle. So if you said that God alone, God the father alone is the ar what that will mean and I I would argue and I do argue it in various places in my book is that God the father alone is is the principle without principle. So I think that's what the word ar means uh when it's used by by some of the Greek fathers. But you have to read the read the whole of their their works in order to to see that.

[00:24:21]>> Yeah. When we talk about the procession of the Holy Spirit, the eternal procession of the Holy Spirit, are we we're talking about the person of the Holy Spirit, but we're also talking about the subsistence of the Holy Spirit or how how would we phrase that?

[00:24:35]>> Yeah, the person of the Holy Spirit and the subsistence is is the same thing we talk about, at least in Greek, it sounds a bit strange in Latin, but uh in Greek, we talk about the three subsistences, >> uh hypotheses. In Latin, we normally talk about the three persons. uh and that that comes to exactly the same thing. There's no difference there. Now, some later Greek Orthodox theologians have tried to say, well, as well as the hypothatic uh procession, there's al also this eternal manifestation of the persons.

[00:25:06]Now, the reason I would say they do that is because they see in the Greek father's language that seems very much like does indeed talk about the the holy spirit coming from the son or coming from the father and the son. We find this in in St. um St. Ser Alexandria you mentioned or or indeed St. Gregor of Nazanzan St. Basil uh and so they want to say oh well when these fathers talk about the son talk about the holy spirit coming from the son or coming from the father and the son uh they don't mean his hyperthetic procession they don't mean his person they mean something else they call manifestation eternal manifestation >> uh now I would argue that's that's just a distinction that is not in the fathers and when at times they talk about manifestation they're just using that as a as a synonym for coming forth in eternity of the person. But once again, this is not something you can just do a quick Google search and find the answer to. You actually have to study the texts carefully to to get to the truth about that.

[00:26:04]>> So why is the filioquay such a big deal?

[00:26:07]Like what what are the ramifications?

[00:26:09]What are the implications of whether or not we believe that the spirit proceeds from the father alone or if it if he proceeds from the from the father and the son? I mean in the first place it's it's not so much important for its I would say for its practical consequences but just because uh it is worth knowing in itself. Uh so that there's this kind of ultimately I'd say it's a Marxist mentality which uh uh puts uh practice above contemplation above theoria.

[00:26:40]and says, "Oh, well, what does this matter? Surely, it's just a matter of speculation, a matter of of abstract theology." But in fact, there there is nothing better for us to do than to know the truth about God. That is what we hope to do uh in eternity. And so there is actually no higher truth to know what is the the nature of God and the origin of the divine persons. You can you can argue if you want. Some people have tried to argue that uh if you believe that the holy spirit proceeds not through the logos then you will have a concept of love which is irrational possibly it seems to be very difficult to prove that kind of thing. Other people, Gree and Orthodox people would argue in different ways I suppose and say the emphasizing the or talking about the role of the sun in the spirish of the Holy Spirit has led to a downgrading of the the new methodological character of the Christian life and the way Latin is not sufficiently open to the the breathing of the Holy Spirit. They emphasize the the rational nature of theology too much. I mean the these are all sort of um interesting uh charges and countercharges that one can probably bring forward without ever being able to prove but uh I don't I don't think that they are really what what the we should be focusing on. I think we should just be focusing on the on the mystery in itself right >> the sources of revelation say about it.

[00:28:10]Mhm. Having spent so many years studying the filioquay, engaging in discussions about the filioquay, what are some big what are some common misunderstandings that you find from Catholics and Orthodox alike? I think one common misapprehension is the idea there is some fundamental disagreement or even even fundamental different difference of approach between the the Greek fathers and and the Latin fathers or the idea that the Greek fathers are sort of a block and the Latin fathers are another block whereas in fact among among the fathers who wrote in Greek there are big differences so between St. Athanasius uh St. Seriel on the one hand or St. Basil and St. Um, Gregory Nazanzen on the other hand, there are there are big differences.

[00:28:54]I think from from the writings of St. Athanasius for example, it would be quite easy to make a case for the Holy Spirit proceeding from the son alone uh not from the father. Now obviously I don't think that St. Athanasius believe that um but I think it would be quite easy to make the case if you were perversely minded and wanted to try to do so. Mhm.

[00:29:13]>> Um that's an example of how the the Greek fathers are not at all homogeneous in their way of speaking. Another thing I think is more common these days is and this is what's promoted by that document you mentioned of the Pontipical Council.

[00:29:27]The idea that oh it's all been a a misunderstanding. The Greek Orthodox and the Roman Catholics all mean the same thing really. They just didn't understand each other. Well, that's rather patronizing I would say to uh the theologians on both sides who who not not stupid. Um so I don't think it is how I don't think it just has been a verbal misunderstanding. Um it is a real real difference.

[00:29:56]So those would be the main main things >> right with the filioquay it's almost like this u well it is this two-fold um issue right on on one hand you have the theological issue but on the other hand you have the issue of authority you know whether or not the church has the authority to to insert this into the creed talk to us a little bit about that side of the the filioquay issue >> yes that's interesting uh I I sometimes wonder Part of the difficulty is that the in the Latin West there's not such an idea of there being the creed or the one creed as in the Greek speaking east because in in the Latin West we've long had three three different creeds that are used liturggically. So as well as the Nyian uh creed we use at mass. There's also the um uh the apostles creed that we use for example of baptism uh and the Athanasian creed that's traditionally used in the divine office. Later on there's also the creed of uh Pope Pius IV that that is traditionally used in reconciling uh converts. Um so I think that's one difference of perspective. Um the uh the Latins didn't put it in as I said a while ago that they didn't put it into the creed uh in one go. It happened peacemeal here and there as far as we can tell and it was quite late um by the time the church of Rome put it into the creed. So that didn't happen till the 1000s um when the uh the Germanic Roman emperor was getting crowned in in Rome and he was surprised to find out that the uh the pope didn't have the creed in mass and so asked him to put it in. Uh so the the council of Florence in the 1400s as well as defining the the procession uh did also define that the um filioquay had been put into the creed um lawfully and reasonably. I think that was the phrase that was used literatio.

[00:32:09]It didn't specify anything more. So it didn't say uh when that putting in was lawful and rational. I think you could hold if you wanted to that the local councils in the west had been rash uh in putting the word into the creed without uh getting uh the expressed decree of an ecumenical council. Um but I think we do as Catholics have to hold at least by the 1000s uh when the pope put it into the uh when the pope put the creed with the filioquay into the mass in the church of Rome that that was a reasonable and lawful thing to do. And I think it's quite easy to say why you could argue that and that's because by the 1000s uh Futius uh and had had made the the claim that the Fidioquay was a heresy and so in response to that I think it was reasonable for the uh the pope then to to put the word into the creed.

[00:33:05]>> Right. What do you think what do you think needs to happen in order for us to bridge this gap between the east and west on this topic? I have in this book here, this is um ending the Byzantine Greek schism uh by Dr. Dr. James Ludis and he included a little excerpt from the Latinright church in Greece that they actually omit the filioquay and they give a they give like a reason why they omit it from the creed uh in their church even though it's a Latin right church but they're based in Greece they omit it you know basically they give the reason you know just trying to um be mindful of the sensibilities in Greece and the the the climate there but also they fully affirm the doctrine. They say, "No, we we fully affirm this as apostolic. It's it's, you know, it it's it's a true dogma, but just, you know, for the sake of relations, we're going to take it out of the creed and use the the creed without the filioquay in our services." What what do you think about that approach? And um yeah, what just overall the question, what do we need to do to bridge this gap?

[00:34:10]>> Yeah. Yes. It's difficult, isn't it?

[00:34:11]Because you can you can see why they would want to do that. But on the other hand, I would say that taking words out of the creed sets a very bad precedent.

[00:34:18]Uh and uh even if you say in the footnotes, well, we still affirm the doctrine. Uh you inevitably give the impression that you're not quite sure about the doctrine. I think so.

[00:34:28]>> Right.

[00:34:29]>> Anyway, I'm I'm not a a Greek Greek speaking Latin bishop, so fortunately I don't have to make that kind of judgment.

[00:34:35]>> What do we do to overcome it? Well, in one sense, we've already we already have overcome it. We overcame it at Florence.

[00:34:40]And even though the the union with the church of Constantinople didn't stick, I think probably because of the the Turkish uh victory in 1453 when they uh wanted to make sure that there weren't going to be reinforcements coming from the west and so they put in an an anti-Latin patriarch. Yeah. So even though that didn't stick, Florence has been the basis for other agreements with um Bzantine churches, Bzantine right churches that have stuck and most most famously of course Ukrainians.

[00:35:12]>> Um >> so I I think the doctrinal work has been done.

[00:35:16]>> Uh there might be little bits around the edges to talk about, but I don't I don't think we need another discussion about it really. I mean in the sense of an echminical council to discuss it. Uh, and I think it just has to be a change of heart. Uh, these are these are supernatural gifts of God that we can't plan. God in his providence, I'm sure, will bring us all together. At least I I strongly hope that they um just as the two boats uh in the church when when Peter's boat was uh was filling with fish and was sinking and they called his uh colleagues in the other boat uh John and James to help him. Well, hopefully that's a a type for something that will happen one day in the in Christendom, right? When, when, and how, really, God knows.

[00:36:08]>> Yeah, I think I echo the same sentiment as you. I uh I read this and I'm like, "Okay, that makes sense. I I appreciate that they're trying to be mindful of the sensibilities of of the Greeks, but at the same time, it can read as a type of capitulation to uh that maybe we're not sure of this of this doctrine." And this is certainly the case that when you know I I I think it was recently when the pope he had some type of service with the ecumenical patriarch of Constantinople and he omitted the creed he omitted the the filioquay from the creed >> and many Eastern Orthodox Christians they're like see the pope is now backpedaling now he's taking things out now he's now he's showing us that the the Orthodox have been right this whole time I think >> yeah so the thing is I mean symbols are often more important than word more powerful than words aren't they symbolic gesture even if you say afterwards or in the footnotes or we still affirm the doctrine uh has has a power of its own that it's naive I would say to to overlook >> right I I attend a Byzantine right Catholic church and we don't say the filioquay in the creed but it is part of our tradition that we have the Ukrainian Catholic catechism you can read it it has the filioquay in it and I think that's a big misunderstanding that that people have they think that because we don't say it in the creed that therefore we have a different symbol of faith a different faith altogether from the west So yeah, there's there's a lot of there's a lot of issues with that. But from the Western perspective, I mean, this is not something that's um irreconcilable or or or there's tension here. This is just simply um two different rights expressing the faith.

[00:37:37]So it's not it's not a problem, you know, for our end.

[00:37:40]>> Yes. There's a difference between not using a word that you've never used and and taking out a word that you haven't used.

[00:37:46]>> Exactly. Yeah. So I have some I have some questions here like some frequently asked questions and maybe some orthodox objections to the filioquay if it's okay if you want to tackle some of these.

[00:37:56]>> Sure.

[00:37:57]>> Yeah. So we'll just we'll just kind of do a little rapid fire on on any of these. Let's see. This one is particularly on the fosious dilemma. It says fosious pressed a sharp syllogism.

[00:38:08]The power of procession is either common to all three persons or proper to one.

[00:38:12]If it belongs to the father and the son, why not also to the spirit? forcing the absurdity of the spirit spy reading itself. How do you dismantle the forion argument on its own logical terms? I've heard this one from orthodox as well. Um they basically are saying um that we're we're taking away something that is that that something needs to be common to all. But if we add the filioquay now we're now we're saying that the spirit share something that the the the father and the son don't. I don't know. It gets kind of confusing. I'm not sure if you've heard that one before.

[00:38:43]>> Yes. Uh so the divine divine power is the divine essence. So it's common to all the three persons but the way in which that is possessed will affect use slightly inadequate word will affect the way in which it is that power is used. So, so for example, the power to generate the son, that power is the divine essence.

[00:39:08]And so it's common to all the three persons, but obviously because of the way the father possesses the divine essence, namely as principle without principle, only he does generate the son. And it's the same with the the power of spiration. It is as power. That is common to all the three persons. But because of the way the three persons possess the divine nature, only the first two persons possess their power in such a way that they do actually spirate. So it would need bit more explanation to go into it I think. But uh the short answer would be that that would that objection wouldn't be an objection can't be an objection to the idiocy unless it's also an objection to the um the father alone being the one who generates. I would as far as I understand what the objector is saying.

[00:40:01]>> This one this next one right here is a a scriptural objection. It says uh John 15:26 Christ says the spirit proceeds from the father. The orthodox take this as a decisive scriptural statement of single procession. Why doesn't this verse settle the question and does the Catholic reading do justice to the text rather than around it?

[00:40:18]>> The reason it doesn't settle the question is because well for one thing a lord doesn't say from the father alone.

[00:40:24]Even in cases some cases where something similar is said about something that only one divine person does. We don't actually understand it as meaning that the other divine persons don't do it. So a famous example is where Christ says no one knows the father but the son.

[00:40:40]Now, that's that's an even more powerful text apparently because it doesn't just say the son knows the father. It says no one knows the father but the son. And so somebody might say, >> "Oh, so the holy spirit doesn't know the father >> because our lord says no one knows the father but the son." So maybe someday >> uh a new group of uh of um heretics will arise who will teach that the the holy spirit knows everything apart from who the father is. And they will say, "Well, there it is in black and white in in St. in Matthew's gospel and obviously it's in there that's not what Christ is talking about. He's drawing a uh he's drawing a contrast between his knowledge of the father uh and the knowledge which mere human beings have of the father.

[00:41:22]And he's not trying to tell us about whether the holy spirit knows the father or not. Um and it's we can say something similar about that part of St. John's gospel. Um he's talking about uh the witness that will be borne to him. He says that that the spirit who proceeds from the father will bear witness to him. Um now if he if he had actually said the spirit who bears the spirit who proceeds from the father and from me will bear witness to me. Um well for one thing that might have uh somebody might think well if he if he proceeds from you um is he is he uh is he an independent is he a trustworthy witness? Um because we we normally think of witnesses as as people who are independent of us.

[00:42:14]That's that's one possible response. Uh uh but I think probably a better response is that our lord is the best of teachers. He doesn't uh teach everything all at one go.

[00:42:28]>> Doesn't bring out a whole list of documents, a whole list of dogmas and put them on the table of the upper room and tell the apostles that's all you've got to sign at the bottom. He tells them one thing at a time and as he says at the last supper I have many things to say to you which you cannot bear now. um when he comes the spirit of truth will will lead you into all the truth. are one of the truths into which the spirit of truth led the apostles is is the his eternal origin uh in in the unity of the father and the son >> right if the orthodox are able to overcome this objection on the filioquay >> do you think that settles it or do you think that we've already gone so far apart from each other that so many other things keep us at a distance from each there.

[00:43:17]>> Uh well, I think that if if they did overcome it, I mean, please God, it will happen. And that would be a sign that a great I would say really psychological blockage had been overcome because it's understandable that having become a sort of badge of eastern orthodoxy for so many centuries people are are naturally very reluctant to to um you know abandon fishian position and I and I think if they if they were to do that, if they were to embrace the the Catholic doctrine, I mean, it's not so much that a logical consequence of that would be that everything else would follow, but that that probably won't happen until the the working of grace has taken away the blockage and and and then um that will be sort of the last uh the last thing to the last barrier that remains and then I think that that will reunion between us. I think it's worth perhaps pointing out that as far as I can see even on the Eastern Orthodox position, the ecclesiological position, there's no reason why that shouldn't happen because the normal position has of the Eastern Orthodox has been that only ecumenical council can define a doctrine uh and um put something in the creed. Now there is we we would all agree there's been no ecumenical council that teaches that the idioquay is false or that the western position is a her Catholic position is a heresy.

[00:45:01]>> So if there's been no ecumenical council that teaches the idioquay that teaches that the idioquay is wrong then on the eastern orthodox ecclesiology they should at least be open to the position that it might be true.

[00:45:13]>> Right? And if they can be open to that position that that it might be true, then uh they can on their own on their own principles and in good conscience they can ask the Holy Spirit to to show them if it is true.

[00:45:28]>> I'm I'm of the opinion and you can tell me if I'm totally wrong for this or if it's too dismissive. I I really am of the opinion that I think the filioquay is somewhat of a non-issue. Like I really don't think that you know maybe if had it not been for Fotius we wouldn't be having this discussion right now that it it's taught by the fathers you know it's attested to in the scriptures it's an apostolic premise so therefore it's not really something we should be fighting about. Is that too overstating the the case?

[00:45:58]>> Uh yeah I think I think that's right in a sense that it's a kind of accident of history. Mhm.

[00:46:03]>> Uh so it's not surprising that there should have been some serious rupture between Rome and Constantinople. There are these ruptures going on uh throughout the first millennium that get healed and then another one breaks out. Um so it's not surprising that something should have become as far as we can see a definitive at least until now a definitive rupture. Uh and if it wasn't going to be the video quake it might have been something else. It might have been unleavened bread, >> right? uh um it might have been beards. Uh but I suppose you can say it's more likely that it would be um something to do with the nature of God himself as that sounds indeed is uh the most important kind of thing. Uh >> right. But I think now now that all these centuries have gone by, uh even though it needn't have been the Fidio Quay, you know, it is uh and a lot of ink has been spilled defending uh the Fosian position.

[00:47:10]And so for that for the video to be accepted will be a will require a great grace I would say. Yeah, this might be a controversial question, but you mentioned earlier how Fotius weaponized this um this approach against the West, you know, bringing up the filioquay, >> accusing it of being a heresy.

[00:47:34]>> Do you that kind of begs the question, do you think Fotius was sincere in his condemnation of the filioquay, or was it something that was advantageous at the moment to use?

[00:47:46]>> Yeah. So I I I've not not studied the 9th century in any kind of depths. So my my knowledge of this is is not a scholarly knowledge. Uh as I said before based on my reading of the mystogy of fosious uh I didn't have the impression that I was in in the presence of a serious truth seeker.

[00:48:03]>> He didn't strike me as a sincere person but uh I' I've not made a detailed study of his life.

[00:48:09]>> Okay. Okay. So before we wrap up, how what what's your hope for for the future in regards to this filioquay and are you working on any other books because you've written this incredible work. Is there anything else that you have down the pipeline?

[00:48:23]>> Uh right. Well, my my hopes is really just as I said before that um by the grace of God um uh and by by on a study um more and more um Greek orthodox theologians will will come to accept the the fidioquay and that has happened down the centuries most famously at the council of Florence. one of my one of my own heroes, a man called Bisarion, who's one of the bishops at Florence, Eastern bishop. He started out convinced that their position was the right one. But by being open to the um the fathers of the church and especially to the idea that the the Greeks venerate the Latin fathers and so they can't Latin fathers therefore can't be heretics. They can't be grossly in error about something as fundamental to the faith as the blessed trinity. Um he had a real conversion both of intellect and heart during the council of Florence. Um and I pray obviously that that he he will be a inspiration to many others. Um so that that's my hope for the future. Uh what am I working on at the moment? Uh nothing really in this area. Lots of different things. One one book I'm trying to write is uh a commentary on the gospel of St. John's.

[00:49:36]Um I've written some things on two of the other gospels. They're aimed at a popular audience. So um believers uh who who want to uh take the gospels slowly and to really try to understand why our Lord says what he says at any given point in the gospel. So that's uh that's what I'm working on, but it's proceeding very slowly. So maybe the Holy Spirit will allow me to finish that one day or maybe I'll I'll die when I'm still in chapter 11. I don't know.

[00:50:09]>> Well, we look forward to to seeing the the commentary come out. I'm going to put a link in the description for uh Father's book here, Vindicating the Filioquay if anybody's interested in picking this up. It will be in the description. Thank you so much, Father, for your time today. Really appreciate it. Really enjoyed this conversation.

[00:50:25]So, I look forward to to having more conversations and to continue to learn from you as well.

[00:50:32]Thank you, father.