Filioque

===Focus on Saint Maximus as a point of mutual agreement===
Recently, theological debate about the ''Filioque'' has focused on the writings of Maximus the Confessor. Siecienski writes that "Among the hundreds of figures involved in the filioque debates throughout the centuries, Maximus the Confessor enjoys a privileged position." During the lengthy proceedings at Ferrara-Florence, the Orthodox delegates presented a text from Maximus the Confessor that they felt could provide the key to resolving the theological differences between East and West.<ref>{{cite conference|last=Siecienski|first=A. Edward|year=2003|title=Missed opportunity: the Council of Ferrara-Florence and the use of Maximus the Confessor's theology of the filioque|conference=Twenty-Ninth Annual Byzantine Studies Conference, Lewiston, ME, 16–19 October 2003}} Abstracted in {{cite journal|year=2003|title=Twenty-Ninth Annual Byzantine Studies Conference|journal=Abstracts of Papers|publisher=Byzantine Studies Conference|issn=0147-3387|url=http://www.bsana.net/conference/archives/2003/abstracts_2003.html|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090105191316/http://www.bsana.net/conference/archives/2003/abstracts_2003.html|archive-date=5 January 2009|url-status=live}}</ref>

The {{abbr|PCPCU|Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity}} states that, according to Maximus, the phrase "and from the Son" does not contradict the Holy Spirit's procession from the Father as first origin (ἐκπόρευσις), since it concerns only the Holy Spirit's coming (in the sense of the Latin word ''{{lang|la|processio}}'' and Cyril of Alexandria's {{lang|grc|προϊέναι}}) from the Son in a way that excludes any idea of [[subordinationism]].{{sfn|PCPCU|1995}}{{efn|"The ''Filioque'' does not concern the {{lang|grc|ἐκπόρευσις}} of the Spirit issued from the Father as source of the Trinity," according to {{Harvtxt|PCPCU|1995}}, "but manifests his {{lang|grc|προϊέναι}} (''{{lang|la|processio}}'') in the consubstantial communion of the Father and the Son, while excluding any possible subordinationist interpretation of the Father's monarchy".}}

Orthodox theologian and Metropolitan of Pergamon, [[John Zizioulas]], wrote that for Maximus the Confessor "the Filioque was not heretical because its intention was to denote not the {{lang|grc|ἐκπορεύεσθαι}} ({{transliteration|grc|ekporeuesthai}}) but the {{lang|grc|προϊέναι}} ({{transliteration|grc|proienai}}) of the Spirit".{{sfn|Zizioulas|1996}}

Zizioulas also wrote that "Maximus the Confessor insisted, however, in defence of the Roman use of the Filioque, the decisive thing in this defence lies precisely in the point that in using the Filioque the Romans do not imply a "cause" other than the Father. The notion of "cause" seems to be of special significance and importance in the Greek Patristic argument concerning the Filioque. If Roman Catholic theology would be ready to admit that the Son in no way constitutes a "cause" (aition) in the procession of the Spirit, this would bring the two traditions much closer to each other with regard to the Filioque."{{sfn|Zizioulas|1996}} This is precisely what Maximus said of the Roman view, that "they have shown that they have not made the Son the cause of the Spirit – they know in fact that the Father is the only cause of the Son and the Spirit, the one by begetting and the other by procession".

The {{abbr|PCPCU|Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity}} upholds the monarchy of the Father as the "sole Trinitarian Cause [''aitia''] or principle [''principium''] of the Son and the Holy Spirit".{{sfn|PCPCU|1995}} While the Council of Florence proposed the equivalency of the two terms "cause" and "principle" and therefore implied that the Son is a cause (''aitia'') of the subsistence of the Holy Spirit, the {{abbr|PCPCU|Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity}} distinguishes "between what the Greeks mean by 'procession' in the sense of taking origin from, applicable only to the Holy Spirit relative to the Father (''ek tou Patros ekporeuomenon''), and what the Latins mean by 'procession' as the more common term applicable to both Son and Spirit (''{{lang|la|ex Patre Filioque procedit}}''; ''ek tou Patros kai tou Huiou proion''). This preserves the monarchy of the Father as the sole origin of the Holy Spirit while simultaneously allowing for an intratrinitarian relation between the Son and Holy Spirit that the document defines as 'signifying the communication of the consubstantial divinity from the Father to the Son and from the Father through and with the Son to the Holy Spirit'."<ref>{{cite journal|last=Del Cole |first=Ralph |date=Spring 1997 |title=Reflections on the Filioque |journal=Journal of Ecumenical Studies |volume=34 |issue=2 |location=Philadelphia, PA |publisher=Temple University |page=202 |issn=0022-0558 |url=https://www.questia.com/read/1G1-55540667 |url-access= |via= }}{{dead link|date=July 2021}} Previously accessed via {{cite web|url=http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb3236/is_2_34/ai_n28699494/pg_4/?tag=content;col1 |title=Reflections on the Filioque |page=4 of online text |via=Find Articles |access-date=25 April 2013 }}{{dead link|date=May 2017 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes }}</ref>

Roman Catholic theologian [[Avery Dulles]] wrote that the Eastern fathers were aware of the currency of the ''Filioque'' in the West and did not generally regard it as heretical: Some, such as Maximus the Confessor, "defended it as a legitimate variation of the Eastern formula that the Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son".{{sfn|Dulles|1995|pp=32, 40}}

Pomazansky and Romanides<ref name="Romanides1987"/> hold that Maximus' position does not defend the actual way the Roman Catholic Church justifies and teaches the ''Filioque'' as dogma for the whole church. While accepting as a legitimate and complementary expression of the same faith and reality the teaching that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son,<ref name="CCC248"/> Maximus held strictly to the teaching of the Eastern Church that "the Father is the only cause of the Son and the Spirit":{{refn|{{harvnb|Siecienski|2010|p=90}} "Adhering to the Eastern tradition, [[John of Damascus|John]] affirmed (as Maximus had a century earlier) that 'the Father alone is cause [''αἴτιος'']' of both the Son and the Spirit, and thus 'we do not say that the Son is a cause or a father, but we do say that He is from the Father and is the Son of the Father'."}} and wrote a special treatise about this dogma.<ref name="Romanides1987"/>{{sfn|Pomazansky|1984|loc=[http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0824/_P14.HTM "On the procession of the Holy Spirit"]}} The Roman Catholic Church cites Maximus as in full accord with the teaching on the ''Filioque'' that it proposes for the whole Church as a dogma that is in harmony with the formula "from the Father through the Son",{{sfn|PCPCU|1995}} for he explained that, by ''ekporeusis'', "the Father is the sole cause of the Son and the Spirit", but that, by {{transliteration|grc|proienai}}, the Greek verb corresponding to ''{{lang|la|procedere}}'' (proceed) in Latin, the Spirit comes through the Son.{{sfn|PCPCU|1995}} Later again the Council of Florence, in 1438, declared that the Greek formula "from the Father through the Son" was equivalent to the Latin "from the Father and the Son", not contradictory, and that those who used the two formulas "were aiming at the same meaning in different words".<ref>{{cite book|last=McBrien|first=Richard P.|year=1994|title=Catholicism|edition=New|location=New York|publisher=HarperSanFrancisco|isbn=978-0-06-065404-7|page=[https://archive.org/details/catholicism0002mcbr/page/329 329]|url=https://archive.org/details/catholicism0002mcbr|url-access=registration}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|last=Gaillardetz|first=Richard R.|year=1997|title=Teaching with authority: a theology of the magisterium in the church|series=Theology and life series|volume=41|location=Collegeville, MN|publisher=Liturgical Press|isbn=978-0-8146-5529-0|pages=96–97|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=u9VOAzAZM8YC&pg=PA96}}</ref>{{sfn|Rush|1997|p=168}}{{sfn|Kasper|2004|p=109}}