Those of the Queen of cities (Constantinople) have attacked the synodal letter of the present very holy Pope, not in the case of all the chapters that he has written in it, but only in the case of two of them. One relates to the theology (of the Trinity) and according to this, says 'the Holy Spirit also has his ekporeusis from the Son.'

The other deals with the divine incarnation. With regard to the first matter, they (the Romans) have produced the unanimous evidence of the Latin Fathers, and also of Cyril of Alexandria, from the study he made of the gospel of St. John. On the basis of these texts, 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--but that they have manifested the procession through him and have thus shown the unity and identity of the essence.

They (the Romans) have therefore been accused of precisely those things of which it would be wrong the accuse them, whereas the former (the Byzantines) have been accused of those things it has been quite correct to accuse them (Monothelitism).

In accordance with your request I have asked the Romans to translate what is peculiar to them (the 'also from the Son') in such a way that any obscurities that may result from it will be avoided. But since the practice of writing and sending (the synodal letters) has been observed, I wonder whether they will possibly agree to doing this. It is true, of course, that they cannot reproduce their idea in a language and in words that are foreign to them as they can in their mother-tongue, just as we too cannot do.

Saint Maximos' Letter to Marinus, PG 91, 136

http://www.geocities.com/athens/atrium/8410/maxfilioque.html

Post Edited (Namaste 2.0) : 11/27/2006 9:35:48 AM (GMT-6)

Post Edited (PotOnWheel) : 11/27/2006 10:01:55 AM (GMT-6)

Post Edited (PotOnWheel) : 11/27/2006 12:13:55 PM (GMT-6)

http://www.goarch.org/en/ourfaith/articles/article8153.asp

. . .

Gennadios Scholarios (attended the Council at Ferrara-Florence ) points out that Augustine accepted and developed the filioque under four presuppositions:

1. Augustine was under the impression that he was following Hilary and his teacher Ambrose. He points out that Jerome, who was educated in the Greek East, avoided the filioque language. The difference between Hilary and Ambrose on the one side and Augustine on the other is that the first two fathers were expressing a personal opinion whereas Augustine struggled against all those who expressed views opposite to his.[22]
2. On the basis of Scripture that states the Spirit as power issued from the Son to heal all the sick, as well as the Son who sends and breathes the Spirit on the Apostles, Augustine interpreted these passages on the basis of the opinion of Hilary and Ambrose.[23]
3. Augustine used human models beyond the limits to describe the Holy Trinity and for that reason he fell into error.[24]
4. Augustine followed the Platonic position that God primarily is the Good (Agathon). The Good eternally begets (aidios) the Mind (Nous). The Mind is the cause of all beings and is also called secondary cause, and is referred to as "idea" and "logos." From the mind the universal soul is derived that gives vitality to all living beings. So, Scholarios claims that Augustine transferred this view into the Christian Trinity. The "Good" (Agathon) is unbegotten and not bound to intellect (agenneton). The Mind (Nous) is begotten only from the Good. The Soul is derived from the Mind and returns to the Good. The Soul is the relational connection as love between the Good and the Mind. These views not only were accepted by Plato, but also by Plotinus as well as by numerous heretics.[25] 

Scholarios blames Augustine for his notorious philosophical approach to revelation. It was the Manichean influence that Augustine underwent during his pre-Christian involvement with that heresy. His pagan and Manichean training remained with him all his life. In fact, Scholarios says "Lord deliver us from the Augustinian dialectic."[26]

The view of Vladimir Lossky is that, through a better understanding of Augustine by the East, it is possible to bridge the two positions in theology. To quote Lossky:

"Reconciliation will be possible and the filioque will no longer be an impedimentum dirmens at the moment when the West, which has been frozen for so long in dogmatic isolation, ceases to consider Byzantine theology as an absurd innovation which can be found in a less explicit form in the Fathers of the first centuries of the Church."[46]

http://www.goarch.org/en/ourfaith/articles/article8153.asp