documents that literally grant “authority” to the Spirit:
Likewise we become also in one Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of Life, which proceeds from the Father and rests in the Son, the object of equal adoration and glorification with the Father and the Son, since it is con-substantial and co-eternal, the Spirit of God, direct, authoritative, the foundation of wisdom and life and holiness; God existing and addressed along with the Father and the Son; uncreated, full, creative, all-ruling, all-effecting, all-powerful, of infinite power; Lord above all creation, and not under any Lord.74
Such an authority is associated with the energies of God, which Eastern theology distinguished from God’s essence.75 The divine energies function to make the incomprehensible and inaccessible essence of God comprehensible and accessible, thus providing a theoretical foundation for communion with God and for the Eastern understanding of the Trinity. John also popularized the use of the term perichoresis in the theology of the Trinity.76 It was first used by Maximus the Confessor to express the oneness of action and effect resulting from the union of the two natures in Christ.
Perichoresis in the theology of the Trinity points to the in-existence of the Persons within each other, the fact that they are present to each other, that they contain one another and that they manifest each other. This in-existence is based on the unity and identity of substance between the three, even in the teaching of the Greek Fathers.77
The Greek en was used to indicate the way that the Persons that exist within God “hypostatize” the same substance. They are “in” or “within” each other. Each one is also eij, turned “toward” the other and given “to” the other. John begins by speaking of the one God as the absolute being, rather than of the three hypostases. This one God, however, is also the Father, who by means of monarchy is Father by nature of the Son and the “Producer” of the Holy Spirit. The Spirit is not another Son—he does not proceed by begetting but by ekporeutoj.78 In contrast to Augustine, John draws a parallel between the Son who is “begotten” and the Spirit who “proceeds”: “We have learned through faith that there is a difference between begetting and proceeding, but faith tells us nothing about the nature of that difference.”79 The Spirit, therefore, proceeds from the Father alone. The crucial distinction between John’s theology and Western theology thereby arises when we consider the relationship between the Spirit and the Son. John says, “We do not say that the Son is the cause, nor do we say that he is Father . . . We do not say that the Spirit comes from the Son (ek tou Uiou), but we do say that the Spirit is of the Son.”80 The idea here is that the Spirit’s property—procession—is only accessible and intelligible to us in reference to the Son, and that the Spirit “penetrates” the Son until the Spirit remains and dwells in the Son while still dwelling in the Father.
Other Contributors
John of Damascus’ conception of the procession of the Spirit from the Father and through the Son did not stand in direct opposition to Filioque. It was only with Photius that the issue became one of serious controversy, so much so that the Filioque addition became grounds for official separation. For Photius, “the distinction between the divine persons was adequately explained by the personal properties of each.”81 In 867, while Patriarch of Constantinople, Photius attacked Filioque on several fronts, arguing that: (1) it was a Western innovation, (2) it was unbiblical (nowhere in Scripture, he proclaimed, is the Son mentioned as the source of the Spirit within the divinity), (3) the Western position splits the divinity (because the Spirit appears to proceed from two principles), and (4) Augustinian thought (that the Father and Son form a single source) cancels the distinction between the Father and Son. Photius’ most persuasive argument, however, is that the Augustinian view distorts the idea of personal source (the Father being that source), by replacing it with an essentially impersonal one—the relationship between the Father and the Son.
Anselm (1033–1109) begins with the common ground between the Latin and the Greek conceptions of the Trinity in order to attempt a reconciliation regarding Filioque (at the Council of Bari). He examines the identity of the Person (which is found in either origin or procession), and the Father and Son as source, and concludes that there is no inequality between the Father as principle source and the Son as a derived source. The Spirit’s procession is from “God,” who is the divine essence. This essence includes Father, Son, and Spirit—each possessing equality of divinity.82 Anselm, however, broke from the previous tradition regarding procession. Augustine had regarded the Father as the sole origin (with the Holy Spirit proceeding originally [principaliter] from the Father but also from the Son), and Aquinas has affirmed the Father is the source and that the Son’s procession is thereby derivative from the Father. Nevertheless, Anselm did not recognize the Father’s originality, and has perhaps influenced Western theology more than any of his predecessors.
The “Executorial Authority” of the Spirit—Definition and Storyline
Medieval theology challenges the universal Church to consider whether or not the Holy Spirit’s authority to execute God’s will in the world is in any way related to the authority of Jesus Christ, the one who proclaims, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me” (Matt 28:18). Is the Spirit’s authority executed under the authority of Christ or, as the Eastern tradition implies, is the Spirit somewhat “independent” of Christ’s authority in his execution of God’s will?
Whereas Patristic theology helps us discern a provisional definition of a generic “divine authority” with respect to the Spirit of God (the “who” of the Spirit’s authority), in this section we begin to discern the nature of the Spirit’s “executive authority” (the “how” of the Spirit’s authority with respect to the pattern of divine authority). In other words, while both Eastern and Western theologies grant the Spirit some measure of divine authority by nature,83 the difference between the two lies in the nature of the execution of this authority in the world. The two views are implied by their conceptions of the Spirit’s procession:
1. The Eastern formulation (as expressed by John of Damascus as the procession of the Spirit from the Father through the Son) implies that the Spirit has an “authority” derived from or delegated by the Father alone. Photius, in particular, emphasizes the parallel between the Spirit’s procession and the Son’s generation, thus giving them distinct origins in and from the Father. The Spirit has his own complementary role alongside the Son, cooperating with the Son. Rather than the unity of the Trinity residing in the Spirit, as we have seen in Augustine, unity in the Orthodox tradition lies in the Father. A supreme “executive authority” of the Spirit (one that parallels the “executive authority” of Christ) is thereby implied by Eastern Orthodox theology.84 The Spirit simply possesses an authority to execute the Father’s will. This authority is not subject to Christological limitations, and there is no directly implied subordination of authority by the Spirit to the Son.85
2. The Western view implies that the Spirit has an authority derived from and delegated by both the Father and the Son for the primary purpose of glorifying the Son (John 16:13–14). The Spirit does this by carrying out the Son’s will after his departure. Therefore, we may infer that an analogy to an executor of a will may best describe the Western understanding of the Spirit, as one who has been given the authority to carry out Jesus’
