The Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit

by Photius, Joseph P. Farrell (Translator)

"Mr. Farrell... has given us a text which is faithful to Saint Photios' original Greek text; a theological overview of the filioque controversy - an essential controversy in the history of the whole Church - that is not too technical to be understood by an untrained theologian; and an historical view of this subject and Saint Photios that presents no problem to the reader untrained in historical investigation. His is not the only translation to be had in a modern language, but it certainly is the only translation which consciously attempts to reach the average Orthodox reader... introducing the faithful to the inner spirit of the Patristic witness." -Archmandrite Chrysostomos

Genres: Theology, Christianity, Religion, Spirituality, Christian, Nonfiction, Philosophy

120 pages, Paperback

First published May 1, 1983

About the author

Photios I (/ˈfoʊʃəs/; Greek: Φώτιος, Phōtios; c. 810 – c. 893a[›]), also spelled Photius or Fotios, was the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople from 858 to 867 and from 877 to 886. He is recognized in the Eastern Orthodox churches as St. Photios the Great.

Photios is widely regarded as the most powerful and influential Patriarch of Constantinople since John Chrysostom, and as the most important intellectual of his time, "the leading light of the ninth-century renaissance". He was a central figure in both the conversion of the Slavs to Christianity and the Photian schism.

Photios was a well-educated man from a noble Constantinopolitan family. Photius's great uncle was the previous Patriarch of Constantinople, Tarasius. He intended to be a monk, but chose to be a scholar and statesman instead. In 858, Emperor Michael III (r. 842–867) deposed Patriarch Ignatius of Constantinople, and Photios, still a layman, was appointed in his place. Amid power struggles between the pope and the Byzantine emperor, Ignatius was reinstated. Photios resumed the position when Ignatius died (877), by order of the Byzantine emperor. The new pope, John VIII, approved Photios's reinstatement. Catholics regard a Fourth Council of Constantinople (Roman Catholic) as anathematizing Photios as legitimate. Eastern Orthodox regard a second council named the Fourth Council of Constantinople (Eastern Orthodox), reversing the first, as legitimate. The contested Ecumenical Councils mark the end of unity represented by the first seven Ecumenical Councils.

Reviews

[April · Rating 1 out of 5]

This was an absolute PAIN to get through. He can't stick to the point at hand and runs off on little rabbit trails (tangents) constantly. He contradicts himself, he uses circular logic and logical fallacies to try to prove his point. He uses the argument that the Fathers of the Church who did argue for the Filioque were in fact wrong, because no one (himself) happened to be there to point out to them that they were wrong...oh, but you can't hold that against them, because they're human.

I have never seen so poor an argument for anything. If this paper had been turned in to my college level argumentation class (how to write a good paper which actually proves your argument) he would have received an F.

Additionally, the writing style changed DRASTICALLY somewhere just past the middle of the work, and didn't change back until nearer to the end. I wondered whether this is actually a composite work. Regardless, it proves nothing.

If there is a modern writer who actually knows how to write a good argument, and has the evidence to back up his supposition, then I would like a recommendation, because this work is terrible!

I have a lot more I could add, but that's all I care to share presently.

[Jacob Aitken · Rating 4 out of 5]

In some ways St Photios' book is a hard one to read. As it stands, few scholars in the "modern" world pay any attention to it. The book is unorganized, written mostly from memory, and it appears that Photios doesn't actually deal with the real arguments, but only with implications of those arguments.

The book should not be dismissed, though. Given the context in which Photios wrote it (exile, lack of library), it should be hailed as a masterpiece. Since the book is not organized around any one theme, one will discuss the major issues that arise from the book.

Refuting the "of = hypostatically from" argument

The Filioquist makes the argument that if the Spirit is "of" the Son, the Spirit must be from the Son from all eternity. Instead of dealing with the precise argument, Photios immediately uses a reductio: All Trinitarians confess that each Person is in the other (e.g., the doctrine of perichoresis and circumenessio), which means in some sense the Person is "of" the other Person, but no one will say the Father is from the Son! (60).

Another reductio is that if the Spirit is "from" the Son because "of" the Son, then since the Spirit is also from "God," then "of" God; however, the Spirit is also God, so this means that the Spirit eternally proceeds from himself!!! Again, the Spirit is "of truth," therefore, the Spirit must be from the attribute of truth! Yet no one takes this reasoning to this conclusion.

The Charge of Semi-Sabellianism

The heresy of Sabellianism said there were no real hypostatic distinctions in the Persons, so that each Person was simply a "mode" of the other. Photios's argument is that the Filioquist is guilty of "semi-Sabellianism." The hypostatic characteristic of the Father is causality. The Filioque, though, attributes the characteristic (idiomata hupostike) of causality to the Son. This "blends" the distinctions between the two together. There is now the cause/personal characteristic of "Father/Son" on the one hand, and Spirit on the other (63).

Traditionally, Trinitarian thought distinguished the Persons by their operations. In this case, though, the distinctions are blurred because the operations are now confused. (On this point, though, St Photios could be criticized. This is a huge implication, and if fleshed out, it is devastating to the Filioquist position. He does not flesh it out, though. The reader is encouraged to see what Joseph P. Farrell said about this point in God, History, and Dialectic.).

Did Photios deliberately misunderstand the Filioquist position?

It appears that Photios has misread what the Filioquist is saying. Photios thinks the Filioquist holds "two" causes in the Godhead. Yet as all readers of the Fathers know, if one holds to two causes in the Godhead, one's position reduces to polytheism and anarchy. Official Catholic theology denies two causes, so is Photios just stubbornly wrong on this point? Maybe, but I think Photios is simply reducing the argument to the following dilemma: if you apply causality to the Son, then you either have two causes (polytheism) or by maintaining causality but simply calling it "one cause" you have confused the properties of Father and Son, and have introduced a fourth term in the Trinity--Father, Son, Father-Son, Spirit.

He continues: "If the Father and the Son share what is common--procession--then the Spirit is excluded from this common sharing (76). If the Spirit is excluded from this common sharing, it is also excluded from the common life of the Trinity.

Because the Spirit proceeds from the Father, he is in need of nothing: if he is known more fully in another procession which is proper to the essence, then what precisely does this new procession provide (79)?

St Photios says the double procession divides the Spirit in two: for the first procession is from an uncaused Cause (the Father), but the second procession is from a caused Cause (the Son), one that is not underived. As a result, this turns the Trinity into something four-fold (79).

Following this argument Photios makes an interesting, but undeveloped suggestion. "If the Father is a cause of the Spirit just as he is a cause of the Son, then the procession and generation occur at the same moment, because the Son is begotten without an interval of time. But if one says the Spirit also proceeds from the Son as from one cause, then one could conceive of the divine nature as mutable and changing" (88). Commenting elsewhere on this argument, Farrell notes that there is something "physical" in the doctrine of the double-procession.

Conclusion:
This is not a well-written book, but contrary to the average university professor's response to this book, it simply cannot be dismissed. St Photios had the largest library in Europe, yet he was forced to write this book from memory. The fact that two of his arguments are this pointed speaks well for the book.

[Oakley C. · Rating 2 out of 5]

They say you catch more flies with honey than vinegar but St. Photios is under the impression that battery acid is the best lure. I am by no means someone excessively schooled in the Fathers, and I know that polemic was often the form of choice for many Church Fathers (just read Gregory the Theologian) but, wow, Photios simply HATES those in the West at the time who supported the Filioque clause. On one hand I can understand this as he was noticing a very dangerous schismatic trend within the then still unified Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church (and as the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople he had a duty to combat this most destructive addition to the creed). But on the other hand he is so much more vitriolic than many of the other Church Fathers before him who were dealing with heresies that would have utterly destroyed the church entire. Athanasios, who was repeatedly hounded by bishops who literally denied THE DIVINITY OF THE SON was nowhere near as harsh (from what I've read) than Photios is here. But tone should only be so important, shouldn't it? Perhaps what makes this text a little unwieldy for me is that despite it's minuscule size (half of which is taken up by a contemporary introduction) Photios simply repeats and restates and reiterates the same arguments over and over and over. Truly, this could have served so much better as a five page homily than what it ended up being. The best argument is simply this–not only is the Filioque clause an addition to the creed which the first Greek Fathers never uttered (and which is unsupported by the ecumenical councils) but it is something of a slippery slope that easily denies the Divinity of the Spirit by illogically introducing a degree of "causality" and even "complication" to the equal relationship between the three hypostases (which paradoxically may have come about by extreme divine simplicity in the West taking root). In other words, if the Spirit proceeds from the Father AND the Son then he as a person in the trinity is not co-equal, possibly not co-eternal, and makes of the Father a person that is MORE divine than both the Son and the Spirit whereas if the Spirit proceeds ONLY from the Father (as the Son is begotten ONLY from the Father) than the relationship of the Father being "first among equals" is not injured, denied, or manipulated. Augustine, who liked to think of the Spirit as the "love" shared between the Father and the Son committed great violence against the very personality of the Spirit, making the Spirit a sort of impersonal "force" that can only be generated by the Father and the Son together (and not a unique hypostasis). To this day I still hear many Catholics say this, including Bishop Robert Barron. Moving on, perhaps the weakest portion of Photios' argument is when he concedes that yes, there were Latin Fathers who spoke of the Spirit proceeding from the Son (Augustine and Jerome, for instance), and he is very eager to point out that even the most respected Church Fathers are human and make mistakes; Photios, however, does not at all extend the same courtesy to his contemporary opponents and accuses THEM of making the Latin Fathers into ignoble heretics because they are too focused on their errors—in other words, Y’ALL took the theology of Augustine and Jerome TOO seriously (while I was wise enough not to)! IN a church that relies on Holy Tradition, it is quite odd to on one hand extol Augustine and Jerome while on the other curse at those in the West who were "over extolling" them. All in all I don't know how any of this was/is helpful and I don't think this book changed the mind of anyone who strongly held to the Filioque (just as calling half of the electorate "deplorables" also wasn't a very smart tactic). Additionally I've grown quite suspicious of contemporary Orthodox writers (like in the introduction of this text) that always feel a compulsion to attack figures like Plotinus and even Plato which occurs in the selfsame introduction. Yes, it would be absurd to simply transplant purely Platonic or Neo-Platonic ontological categories into the Gospel, something I don't think Augustine does at all. But it is just as absurd to proclaim the admittedly orthodox brilliance of the Greek Fathers while continually shitting on their own philosophical milieu. I highly doubt that Gregory of Nyssa and Basil the Great ever felt the need to "take down" or "destroy" Plato, Aristotle, and Plotinus and were perfectly happy to utilize their thought when need be and cast it aside just as readily without making a fuss. The idea that the Latin Fathers were somehow especially corrupted by Greek Philosophy (when Augustine didn't even read Greek and complains in the confessions how much he hated studying it as a youth) is sort of ridiculous. Not to go too far down the rabbit hole but it reminds me of when Vladimir Lossky (whom I love) in his brilliant Dogmatic Theology and Mystical Theology felt compelled to rake Sergius Bulgakov (whom I also love) over the coals every three or four pages, seemingly protesting too much. But back to the matter at hand...I ultimately feel that simply reading some good contemporary works (like Lossky) in conjunction with masterworks like Gregory the Theologian's On God and Christ as well as Basil's On the Holy Spirit will teach you far more about the errors of the Filioque than this often repetitive and frankly tiresome screed will (even though, from what I can tell, the Filioque clause was not much of a thing during the time of Gregory or Basil).

[Adonis McReynolds · Rating 5 out of 5]

A blazing quick refutation of the Filioque by Saint Photius. A great quick resource getting to the heart of why this doctrine is erroneous.

[Navel · Rating 5 out of 5]

St. Photius (810-890) excioriates those professing the blasphemous heresy of "filioque." The insertion into the Nicene-Constantinoploitan creed that the Holy Spirit proceeds not solely from the Father but also the Son. (Filioque is latin for "and the Son.").

St. Photius leaves no stone unturned in his rooting out of this heresy which over time completely engulfed the western half of the Church. He lambasts those who bear false witness against Ss. Ambrose, Augustine, and Jerome seeking to use them to justify the filioque.

St. Photius pray for us that our souls may be saved and that those professing filioque turn from this heresy and return to the One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church. 🙏🏻☦

[Christian Proano · Rating 5 out of 5]

The filioque controversy, involves more than just technicality of words and expressions. The introduction of the book traces the thought process that brought forth the filioque clause from the Western theologians of the 9th century, through the Carolinian's augustinianism, through the blessed Augustine himself, and finally Plotinus. Thus showing that the Western dialectic way of theologizing to the eyes of the Eastern Church was not only Neoplatonic (pagan) in its nature but also less than favorable to employ since it starts any discourse about God with His essence, arbitrarily defining God's essence through a "limited" dialectic system, which at the same time made God's essence confusable with the attributes, the attributes with the persons, and the persons with the essence. The introduction also mentioned some Eastern heresies like Arianism that had the same starting presuppositions as the Western theologians did. The Christian Eastern perspective which begins theology not with a definition of God's essence but rather by the revelation of the Persons who share the same essence, an essence that is indefinable, that no matter how much we recognize it to be One, it cannot be separated nor spoken apart from the Persons: Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Thus St. Photios goes at length to show that the procession of the Holy Spirit is a personal procession that proceeds from the Father, and not a procession of essence.

The actual text is divided in 94 articles, St. Photios starts tackling the philosophical underpinning that caused the filioque clause showing how it either reduces the super-essential essence of God, or dishonor the distinction of persons by destroying their uniqueness as Persons (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit). The following is clear for St. Photios, If something is said about the persons of the Trinity, it either is true of one of them, or true of three of them, at the moment something is said as true of just two of them, then the third person automatically becomes subordinated and less in honor, and unequal (as God) of the other two. (eg: if the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, then the Father and the Son are more than the Spirit, or the Spirit then by necessity has to originate some procession or must beget (God, a 4th person, and this 4th a 5th one successively) in order to be equal to the Father and the Son. Or if two are the causes of the Spirit, then the person of the Spirit is divided in two origins, but if the procession is of essence, and the essence is simple, then how can the Sprit have a compound origin of essence, or if the procession is personal then how can He must have a double procession making the procession of the Father incomplete (implying imperfection in the Father) that needs a perfection from the Son, and at the same time making the Son personal distinction disappear by assuming the distinction of the Father. Another implication in the double procession is that the Spirit Personal distinction is confused or rather reduced by making the Holy Spirit just an attribute belonging to both the Father and the Son, etc.)
Then he goes analyzing some biblical verses particularly the Paraclete ones in the Gospel according to St. John, and a few other in the Pauline correspondence, elucidating their meaning.
Then St. Photios calls upon the Church testimony and authority. He accuses the proponents of the clause as making dogma that the Church as a whole has never declared or believe. The proponents of the clause called upon Augustine, Ambrose and Jerome, since they employed the "procession from the Son," but St. Photios asserts that a group of people cannot isolate Father's writing and make dogma out of it arbitrarily. Neither of those three wrote dogma. The Church as a whole proclaims dogma, and this is that which is handed down once and for all by the apostles; believe, taught, and experience through the Christian tradition, protected, proclaimed, articulated , and clarified (as needed by the occasion) by the Ecumenical councils (the whole Church), and the whole Church from the beginning professed that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father only, as reflected in the Creed and confirmed and affirmed numerous times. The point here is that Christian teaching, and for the most part the way to understand Scripture, must be in harmony 0r gravitate toward the theology of the Ecumenical Synods (7 of them) which has given us teachings, that which has been believe from the beginning, by everyone, everywhere. In isolation no Church Father proclaims or writes dogma, and people should not be making dogma out of isolated Fathers, specially if the Church has not accepted their teaching (eg: the Spirit's procession from the Son). Thus St. Photios wonders, since the proponents of the clause make dogma out of Augustine, Ambrose, and Jerome; why don't they pay attention then to those from Rome who did teach in accordance with the Church's teaching: Virgilius Bp. of Rome (1st. Nicea), Leo Bp. of Rome (Chalcedon), Agatho Bp. of Rome (6th Ecumenical Council), certain Gregory and a Zacharias teachers of Rome, Leo III Bp. of Rome (795-816), and John VIII Bp. of Rome (872-82) this last one signing a decree that prohibited the addition to the Creed, and everyone else in between.
As a concluding thought St. Photios comments on another Biblical passage elucidating it in relation to the filioque controversy.

The translator at some point indicates that St. Photios reply to the filioque clause possibly is the formal Eastern Orthodox reply to Augustinian theology. Wherever side the reader lands in the argument, this text will be informative, engaging, perspectival, and edifying, and you will be able to understand the issue in a deeper way.

[Keith Bates · Rating 3 out of 5]

My rating is based on the presentation and not the content. St. Photios’ criticism is excellent and sound theology, it’s the book’s way of giving it to you that brings the rating down. The introduction is excessive and points out some of St. Photios’ arguments and uses them, this makes for tedious reading as we will again read them but this time from St. Photios himself. Which, honestly, is what the reader is really here for. No offense to the translator but we’re here for St. Photios, not the opinions of the translator.

All in all it’s a worthwhile read if you’re interested in the Orthodox perspective on the Filioque and the procession of the Holy Spirit.

[Steven · Rating 3 out of 5]

The introduction was spot on with its philosophical and historical landscape. It helps you grasp the underpinnings of early theology. All that aside, from actual first entry of Photius to his last entry, it was a terrible read. Blame it on my modern western mind, maybe; but his thought is jumbled at best with so much ad hominem to probably take up half of his writing. I will definitely read the introduction a few more times but I’ll never read the actual text again.

[Johnny Lawrence · Rating 3 out of 5]

Great Church Father, poor modern introduction.

[Samuel · Rating 1 out of 5]

Overall an irate and confused work, Photius teaches us not put up with Roman "heresies" unless politically expedient.