So far, we have examined the historical side of the Filioque (how it came into being), which involved its canonical aspect; in other words, how the Westerners had unilaterally introduced the Filioque into the Symbol of Faith (the Creed), without asking the Eastern Church, or asking for its acceptance. This is the canonical side of the issue, which Westerners today are beginning to acknowledge and they appear to be somewhat predisposed towards rectifying what they had done, by officially removing the Filioque from the Symbol of Faith. Perhaps some day soon, this will finally happen. For us, in Dogmatics, the problem is not the canonical one. There is the theological aspect that is related to the Filioque, and that is what we shall now focus on. We shall examine the theological side of the problem, by separating the whole issue into two parts. On the one part, we shall examine the arguments that the Westerners presented in favor of the Filioque, and then we shall see what the Orthodox arguments were, against the Filioque. We shall see how serious these problems were, and if they could be solved. The theological justification of the Filioque in the West began basically with the Franks, who had relied on Augustine’s theology to support the Filioque. This is the theology that we analyzed, which contained the following elements that were implemented, in favor of the Filioque. The first element is Augustine’s position that in the Holy Trinity, the Son is also named the Logos of God, therefore, He represents the Knowledge of God, while the Spirit represents the Love of God. On the basis of this assumption, Augustine gave precedence to the Son and not to the Spirit, thus making the Son a Source of the Spirit also, adjacent to the Father. And this was the concept of the Filioque. This was justified by the argument that, since the Son is Knowledge and the Spirit is Love, Knowledge supposedly precedes Love, so the Son must therefore precede the Spirit. Given that Love is supposedly dependent on Knowledge in order to exist, so the Spirit is dependent on the Father and the Son. A second Augustinian position that was used to theologically justify the Filioque was that –according to Augustinian theology- in God, the Essence has precedence. The “one God” equals the one Essence of God. The Personae are pursuant to the Essence. Thus, for Augustine, the Personae are merely relationships that stem from -and reside in- the one Essence. In other words, God is a Being, He is an Essence, He is the one God, in Whom three relationships exist: the Father (Who is also Memory), the Son (Who is Knowledge) and the Spirit (Who is Love). Thus, the Spirit is also a form of relationship. But, in order to have a proper and complete form of relationship, we must necessarily have pairs of relationships. This idea was developed by the scholastics, mainly Thomas Aquinatus. Pairs of relationships are what the scholastics called “relationships between contrasts” or “contrasting relationships”. In other words, in order to have something that originates from a relationship –like the Spirit- it must originate from a relationship of two others, and not one. That is precisely why we need a pair. The Spirit must originate, not from one person (because one person is like no person); it must come from a relationship between others. So, it does come from a relationship. Given that there is no other Persona -except for the Son- from which the Spirit can originate, we can thus appreciate the need for the Filioque, inasmuch as the Spirit has to originate from a relationship, and not from one single Persona. With the Reform, Protestants inaugurated an entirely different approach. They cast out all this theology that speaks of the Essence of God, or of God as a metaphysical Being. In their place, they introduced the principle that we recognize God through His works in Providence, in History. In this way, we always commence from History, i.e., what God did throughout History. That is our basis. We cannot have a metaphysical theology on God. The interesting thing is that, with this approach, the Protestants supported the Filioque in another way. They claimed that since the Holy Trinity appears in Providence, in History, in this manner, i.e., that the Father sends forth the Son, and the Son gives the Spirit, the Spirit is therefore given to us by the Son. Given that everything we know and can say about God is dependent on what we see in Providence, in History, we must therefore say that the Spirit is dependent on the Son, and not just the Father. In this way, Protestants returned to the confusion that the Westerners had introduced, back in the 4th century, between the two meanings that are expressed by two different verbs in the Holy Bible: the verb «εκπορεύεται» (travelling/proceeding out of) and «πέμπεται» (sent by). The Spirit proceeds from the Father, but it is sent -or is given to Providence- by the Son or through the Son. Therefore, the Son apparently has something to do with the appearance of the Holy Spirit. In the West, both these two verbs had been translated into Latin -from the very beginning- with the one verb: “procedure”. This caused confusion. When saying that the Spirit originates from the Father and the Son, what are we referring to? Are we referring to the eternal existence of God, or of Providence, where the Spirit is given through the Son? For the Protestants, there can be no talk of an eternal Trinity, except only with regard to Providence. Consequently, “procedure” expressed both the “travelling out of” and the “sent by”; in other words, both the eternal relationship of God in His eternal existence, and His eternal Providence. This was the situation in the West, and these were the arguments used, to theologically found the Filioque. Now let’s see what the arguments against the Filioque were in the East, when the politics on this problem became more exacerbated between the East and the West. First: The East found it difficult to give precedence to the Essence and not the Personae; i.e., that primarily, the one God is the Essence; that God is expressed by an essence and that the three Personae are relationships within that one Essence. It was difficult for the East, because for Eastern Theology – the Theology of the Cappadocian Fathers – the one God is the Father; the one God is not a faceless Essence. It is the Persona of the Father. Now let’s see how this made things difficult for the East. If the one God is the Father, then, by making the Son equally the Source of the Holy Spirit, it would be like acknowledging two Gods, two ontological principalities in the Holy Trinity. Monotheism would be at risk. In the West, this problem does not exist, because for them, monotheism is secure, with the essence. The essence expresses the one God. Thus we have here a discontinuation in the discussion, because the argument posed by the one side was not a valid argument for the other side. For the East, this was a very powerful point, i.e., that with the Filioque, ditheism is being introduced. Because for the East, that which secures the one God, the unity of God, is that the Persona of the Father is the Source, the only Source, the only Causer. That which secures monotheism in Patristic thought is monarchy (sovereignty). In God there is monarchy, from which stems God’s entire Life. This one principality is not the one Essence, which the Personae spring from; the one principality is the one Persona –the Father- Who gives birth to the Son, and sends forth the Spirit. If we try to parallel monotheism to monarchy, the following question is posed: Where do we place monarchy? If we place it inside the Essence, we don’t have a problem with the Filioque – monarchy is preserved. But if we place monarchy inside the Persona of the Father, then we cannot have the Filioque, because that would signify an acknowledgement of two principalities in God; in other words, we would be annulling monarchy (sovereignty). The Father would no longer express monarchy. And if monarchy is annulled, so is monotheism, because here is the sensitive point in the Holy Trinity. How can we have three Personae, without having three separate Gods? That which allows us to escape this danger of not having three Gods, is that in these three Gods, the two of the three come from the one Source. The one God is now understood from the aspect of principality, since it is One, who provides existence to the whole Holy Trinity; God is one. Given that these three Gods are Uncreated and are naturally in perpetual Communion between each other, we do not have a case of three separate Gods. So, that which secures the one God is the monarchy (sovereignty) of the Father. Consequently, if we annul the monarchy of the Father and introduce the Son as a new principality, then we are annulling the monarchy and we no longer have any means of supporting monotheism; not unless we support monarchy in the essence, as they did in the West. This was one of the serious arguments, one of the greater difficulties that the East had to confront opposite the West. The second difficulty lies in the similes used by Augustine, when resorting to psychological characteristics to describe the Holy Trinity. He asserted that the Father is Memory, the Son is Knowledge, and the Spirit is Love. For the Eastern Greek Fathers, these created a serious problem of anthropomorphism in God, because it was the projection of human experiences onto God. The Greek Fathers’ view is that we cannot resort to such arguments (that the Son is Knowledge and the Spirit is Love) and use them to support the Filioque. According to the Greek Fathers, the only thing we can say about the Father, the Son and the Spirit is that: the Father is Unborn and that He is the Father; the Son is Born and that He is the Son; and the Spirit “proceeds from” and that He is the Spirit. All of these characteristics are what we call hypostatic characteristics, which have to do with their “being”; with the how these three Personae came into being. We cannot say what psychological characteristics each of the three Personae might have, because that would inevitably entail anthropomorphism. So, we have here a kind of negation, which however is not agnosticism; i.e., we aren’t saying that we don’t know anything; we are simply saying that what we do know about God, about the Father, are not things that we have taken from human experience; they merely denote God’s manner of existence – they denote how God exists. We have a similar problem, when giving precedence to Knowledge instead of Love. To the Easterners, Knowledge does not precede Love. We need to remember what we said about the cognizance of personae and the cognizance of things. In order to recognize something as a persona, I need to simultaneously love it. I cannot firstly attain cognizance and then love. Therefore, if the Spirit is Love, it cannot be something that is pursuant to the Son, if we uphold that the Son is Knowledge. For the Easterners, Augustine’s argument that Knowledge precedes Love is unfounded. Love is linked to Knowledge; we “know” persons, only to the degree that we love them. Under what conditions can Orthodoxy therefore accept the Filioque? The Filioque can be understood Orthodoxically, and it can become accepted by Orthodoxy, under certain conditions. The first condition is to uphold the discernment between the eternal and the providential Trinity. Confusion however exists in the West, between “proceeding from” and “sent forth”. The “proceeding from” pertains to the eternal existence of God, while the “sent forth” pertains to providence. These two terms are clearly distinguished in the East, because it is one thing to say that the Spirit is equally dependent on the Son with regard to Providence; in other words, that the Spirit is given to us in History because Providence is chiefly the Son’s; that the Son is incarnated, and that the He gives us the Spirit, through Providence. And it is another thing, to say that this dependency between the Son and the Spirit somehow also pertains to the “proceeding from”, i.e., to the eternal, never-ending existence of God. In Eastern tradition, these two must be clearly discerned. As far as the eternal Trinity is concerned: The Eternal Existence of God does not allow us to speak of the Filioque, because the Causer is only one – the Father. We cannot have the Son as the co-Causer. Despite all the above, the Greek Fathers do make a certain distinction. They allow a particular role to the Son, during the “procession” of the Holy Spirit. In one of the passages by Saint Gregory of Nyssa, which is a key passage for this subject, he says: “We do not deny the difference between Him (the Father), who exists as the Causer, and Him, Who is of the Causer”. In this way, we can comprehend how the one Persona is distinguished from the other Persona; i.e., by realizing that “the cause” is one thing, and that “of the cause” is another thing. In other words, if we ask what the difference is between the Father and the Son (or the Father and the Spirit), then, according to the above passage, the difference is that the Father is “the Cause”, while the Son and the Spirit are “of the Cause”. Therefore, the distinction between “the Causer” and “of the Causer” is extremely significant. Gregory continues his “key passage”, by saying: “as for that which is of the causer (=the Son), we acknowledge a further difference (that for both the Son and the Spirit, “the Causer” is the Father, while the Son and the Spirit are both “of the Causer”). One difference is that the Son originates immediately, directly from the First, from the Cause, whereas the other, the Spirit, originates via the One who originates directly from the First; through the intervention, the mediation of the Son.” And why is this? Because, in this way, the mediation of the Son in divine life preserves His characteristic as the Only-born, while the natural, the essential relationship of the Spirit towards the Father is not annulled. In other words, the problem is that we must somehow move away from the notion of two Sons; to concede that the Son is the only-born son, and that there is no second Son. According to Gregory, this compels us to “attribute” to the Son a characteristic, an intermediary role – a mediation – in the “procedure” of the Spirit. This mediation preserves the essential relationship of the Spirit with the Father. This is what led many to the idea that there is an “orthodox Filioque” and that the Filioque is admissible, provided it doesn’t refer to the Personae; in other words, that the Spirit does not proceed from the (Persona of the) Son also, but that it proceeds from the Essence of the Father, which is common between Father and Son. As for the status of the Essence, well, it could be considered a “dependency” by the Son…This is in a certain way correct, but it also creates various difficulties, because neither the Son nor the Spirit proceeds from the Essence directly; because the Son is born of the Father, and the Spirit proceeds out of the Father, i.e., out of the Persona of the Father. It is difficult for one to discern these two statuses –of essence and hypostasis- given that it is the hypostasis that provides existence. In the passage we just mentioned, there is a certain truth in the fact that the Filioque can somehow become acceptable, except in the way it discerns between Providence and eternal Godhood, where the issue is very clear. But even here, it can become acceptable. In what way? If we don’t accept the discerning of those two statuses between essence and persona. What matters in the Cappadocian Fathers’ Theology is that we are not allowed to attribute the role of Causer to the Son. Since we do not recognize the role of Causer in the Son, one could say that any other role of the Son in the procedure of the Spirit is permissible. In conclusion, the Filioque would be acceptable, under the condition that the Son does not become the Causer of the Spirit, and that the Cause is only one: the Father. That is where Maximus the Confessor –and Photios the Great later on- rested their entire line of arguments against the Filioque. Because according to them, the Westerners were bestowing the role of Causer on the Son also. The reason why it is so important not to attribute such a role to the Son is because it is only in that way, that we preserve monotheism, monarchy. Because the question was posed in recent years, and because it had also been posed during the 15th century at the synod of Florence, whether the Filioque can be theologized or if it is a heresy, the answer is that it depends on one thing only, and that is: if –with the Filioque- we acknowledge the Son as ontologically the co-Causer of the Existence of the Spirit, together with the Father. If we interpret the Filioque in a way that does not make the Son the Cause, but reserves the role of Causer exclusively for the Father, then the Filioque can be taken into consideration for theologizing and become accepted.

到此為止， 我們審查了及聖子之問題的歷史性的方面(它是如何出現的)， 而這主要是介入到它的教規性的方面的； 換句話說， 西方人是如何獨自地將及聖子介紹於信仰的符號(信條)中，而完全沒有問到東方的教會，問它是否願意接受這個。 這是教規方面的事情， 而西方人今天開始承認這事，並且他們看來有點兒像是想要矯正他們已做出的錯誤， 將及聖子的説法從信仰的符號中徹底除去。也許某一天，他們將會這樣做。 對我們來説， 在教義學中， 問題並不是教規性的。在那裏有與及聖子有關的、神學性的問題，而這就是我們現在將注意的事。 在審查這個問題的神學性的方面之時， 我們將把整個問題分成兩部份。在一方面上， 我們將審查一下西方人爲了辯護及聖子之事而提出的論據等等， 然後我們將再看看東正教爲了反對及聖子之事而提出的論據 。我們將看到這些問題是多麽地嚴重， 並且它們是否能被解決。 在神學性的方面上辯護及聖子， 這事在西方在基本上是由法蘭克人所開始的， 他們是依靠著奧古斯丁的神學來辯護及聖子的想法。這就是我們所分析過的神學， 它包含著以下的、有益於及聖子而被實施的要素。 那第一個要素是奧古斯丁所有的立場，認爲在神聖的三位一體之性中， 兒子也被命名為上帝的 Logos， 因此， 他代表著上帝的知識， 而聖靈則代表著上帝的愛。在這種想法的基礎上， 奧古斯丁將優先權給與兒子而不給與聖靈， 因而使得兒子也是聖靈的起源， 位於父親身邊。而這就是及聖子的概念。 這是如此被辯正的： 因為兒子是知識而聖靈是愛， 知識應是在愛之前， 因此兒子必須是在聖靈之前。既然愛是依靠著知識而能存在的， 聖靈則是依靠著父親和兒子的。 第二個被用來在神學上辯護及聖子的奧古斯丁的立場則是， 依照他的神學來説，在上帝中， 本質是有優先權的。"是為一者的上帝" 等於上帝的唯一本質。人格是隨著本質之後的。所以呢，對奧古斯丁來説， 人格僅僅是起源於、並存在於、那唯一本質之中的關係而已。換句話說， 上帝是一個存有者， 他是一個本質， 他是是為一者的神，而在他之中有三個關係存在著： 父親(他並且也是記憶)， 兒子(他是知識)， 以及聖靈(他是愛) 。因而， 聖靈也是一種關係。 但是， 為了能有一種適當的和完整的關係形式， 我們必須有一對一對的關係。這種想法是由經院學家們所發展出的， 主要是由托馬斯-阿奎那。一對一對的關係即是經院學家們所謂的"對比性的關係" 。換句話說， 為了能有一件起源於某個關係的東西 -- 例如聖靈 -- 它必須是起源於另外二者的關係的， 而不是僅僅一者。那就是為什麼我們需要一對的關係。 聖靈必須不是只起源於一人的 (因為一個人等於是沒有人)； 它必須是來自於在其他人之間的關係的。如此， 它就是來自於一個關係。既然除了兒子之外沒有其他的人格來使聖靈起源於其中， 我們則能了解到為甚麽他們會如此需要及聖子， 因為聖靈必須起源於某個關係，而不是只起源於一個人格。 在改革時期之後， 新教徒們開始了一種完全新的方法。他們把所有那些講上帝的本質的神學、 或是將上帝當成是一個形而上學型的存有者的説法等等皆扔到了一邊。他們介紹出一個新的原則，説道，我們可以經由上帝在神命中、在歷史中所作出的事等等而認得他。這樣， 我們將永遠從歷史開始， 即， 上帝在歷史中所作之事。那是我們的基礎。我們無法有形而上學性的有關於上帝的神學。 有趣的事情則是， 以這種方法， 新教徒們則在另外一方面上支持了及聖子的想法。他們聲稱， 既然神聖的三位一體之性在神命 (Providence) 中、在歷史中、有出現， 也就是以這樣的方式： 父親派出兒子，而兒子派出聖靈，那聖靈就是由兒子所給與於我們的。既然我們在有關於上帝的方面上所能夠知道的和説到的一切皆是依據於我們在神命中、 在歷史中、所見到的事情， 那我們則必須說，聖靈是依據於兒子的， 而不僅僅是依據於父親的。 如此，新教徒們再次回到於西方人在第四世紀時期所製造出的混亂， 那就是將在聖經中所有的那兩個動詞的意思搞混掉： «εκπορεύεται» (從某某之中發散出) 以及 «πέμπεται» (派出) 。聖靈是從父親之中散發出來的， 但它是由兒子或是經由兒子所派送出的 -- 或是給與於神命的。所以， 兒子看來是與聖靈的出現有所關係。 在西方， 從一開始起， 這兩個動詞皆是由一個字而被翻譯於拉丁文中的： procedure。 這則導致於混亂。當我們說聖靈是起源於父親和兒子的之時， 我們到底是在講些什麼東西? 我們是在講上帝之永恆的存有， 還是在講兒子之給與聖靈這事所在的神命? 對新教徒們來説， 講到永恆的三位一體等等是沒有的事情， 除非那是在有關於神命的方面上。如此， "procedure" 既表達出"從某某之中散發出"、 也表達出"被派送出"的意思； 換句話說， 它既表達出上帝在他的永恆存有中所有的永恆的關係，也表達出他的永恆的神命。 這是在西方世界中的情形， 並且這些就是爲了辯護及聖子而被用上的論據等等。現在我們則將看看，在東方的世界中，用來反對及聖子的論據是些什麽 -- 當有關於這個問題的政治形勢在東方和西方之間更為惡化之時。 第一： 東方人發現他們很難只把優先性給與本質而不給與人格； 即， 主要來説， 是為一者的上帝是本質； 或者，上帝是由本質而被表達出的，並且， 那三個人格是在那一個本質之内的關係等等。這對東方人來説是很爲難的， 因為在東方神學中 -- 在卡柏多西亞教父們的神學中 -- 是為一者的上帝是父親；是為 一者的上帝不是個無面的本質。他是父親的人格。 現在讓我們來看看這事如何為難於東方人。如果是為一者的上帝是父親的話， 那， 把兒子也當成是聖靈的來源，就像是承認了有兩個神， 在神聖的三位一體中有兩個公國。一神論於是就受到了危險了。 在西方， 這個問題並不存在， 因為對他們來説， 一神論是穩固的， 因本質之故。本質表達出是為一者的上帝。所以呢，在這裡討論就得終止， 因為由一邊所提出的論據對另一邊來説並不是正當的。 對東方人來説， 這是一個非常有力的論點， 即，及聖子的想法介紹出二神論。因為對東方人來説， 那穩固是為一者的上帝之事， 那保證上帝之一體性的事情， 則是，父親的人格是起源， 是唯一的起源， 是唯一的起因者。 在教父思想中穩固一神論的東西是君主制 (主權) 。在上帝之中有君主制， 而這是從上帝的整個生命中所顯現出來的。這是為一者的公國 (principality) 不是那是為一個的、人格從其中所出現的、本質； 這是為一者的公國是一個人格：父親； 父親生出兒子並且派送出聖靈。 如果我們設法將一神論相對於君主制， 那我們就會有以下的問題： 我們將在哪裡安置君主制? 如果我們將它安置在本質裡面， 我們就不會有及聖子的問題 -- 君主制則可被保存住。但是如果我們將君主制安置在父親的人格裡面， 我們則無法有及聖子， 因為那就會承認在上帝之中有兩個公國； 換句話說， 我們會廢除掉君主制(主權) 。父親將不再會表達出君主制。並且如果君主制被廢除掉， 一神論也會被廢除掉， 因為在神聖的三位一體中的敏感之點就是在此。 我們如何可以有三個人格， 而又不有三個不同的神? 那個允許我們逃脫有三個神的這個危險的事情則是， 那三個神當中的兩個是來自於其中的一個的。 是爲一者的上帝現在是由公國 (principality) 的地位的這個角度來被明白的， 因為它是一者， 為整個神聖的三位一體提供存有； 上帝是一者。既然這三個神是未受造的， 並且很自然地一直是在與彼此共融， 我們不是有著三個不同的神的。 所以呢， 那穩固是為一者的上帝之事是父親的君主制(主權)。所以呢， 如果我們廢除掉父親的君主制， 並介紹出兒子為一個新的公國， 那我們就是等於廢除掉了君主制， 並且我們不再是擁有著支持一神論的方法； 除非我們是在本質中支持著君主制， 如同西方人的做法一樣。 這是非常嚴重的論據之一， 也是東方人在面對於西方人之時所必需面對的爲難之事之一。 第二個難題則是在於奧古斯丁所使用的直喻之事之中， 也就是他爲了描述神聖的三位一體之性而使用心理特徵等等的説法之事。他説道， 父親是記憶， 兒子是知識， 以及聖靈是愛。對東方的希臘教父們來説， 這則導致於在上帝中有擬人化的這個嚴重的問題， 因為這是把人類的經驗等等投射於上帝身上。希臘教父們的看法是， 我們是無法採用這種論據的（兒子是知識、聖靈是愛) 並且用其來支持及聖子。根據希臘教父們的看法， 我們在有關於父親、兒子和聖靈的方面上所能說的唯一之事則是： 父親是未出生的，並且他是父親； 兒子是出生的，並且他是兒子； 以及，聖靈是"從某某散發出" 的，並且他是聖靈。所有這些特徵皆是我們所謂的位格性的特徵，它們是有關於他們的"存有"的: 有關於這三個人格是如何開始存在之事。 我們不能去說， 那三個人格中的每一個有些什麼樣的心理特徵， 因為那不可避免地會導致於擬人化。 如此, 我們在這裡有一種否定性， 然而這不是不可知論; 即， 我們不是在說, 我們什麼也不知道； 我們只是在說，我們在有關於上帝、有關於父親的方面上所知道的事情， 不是屬於我們從人類的經驗中所取得的事情之類; 這些事僅僅表示出上帝存在的方式 -- 它們表示出上帝是如何存在的。 當我們將優先性給與知識而不給與愛之時，我們也有一個相似的問題。對東方人來説， 知識並不是在愛之前的。我們必須記住， 我們在有關於對人格和事物的意識的方面上，說過了些甚麼。為了能將某某認識為人格， 我們必須同時愛他。我們無法先獲得到意識然後再愛。所以, 如果聖靈是愛， 它是無法是在兒子之後之事的， 若是我們堅持兒子是知識的話。對東方人來説， 奧古斯丁的論據： 知識是在愛之前的，那可是無理的。愛是與知識相連的； 我們"認識" 一人, 那只是因為我們愛他。 在什麼情況下東正教可以接受及聖子? 及聖子是可以以東正教的方式而被瞭解的， 並且在某種情況下它是可以由東正教所接受的。 第一個情況、第一個條件、則是，在永恆的三位一體以及神命性的三位一體之間作出區別。 但是西方世界卻把"從某某之中散發出" 以及"派送出"這兩件事搞混掉 。"從某某散發出" 是屬於上帝的永恆存有之事的， 而"被派送出" 則是屬於神命的。這兩件事在東方有很明顯的區別， 因為， 說道聖靈在有關於神命的方面上也是依靠於兒子的，那是一回事； 換句話說, 聖靈是在歷史中被給與於我們的，因為神命主要是屬於兒子之事的； 兒子是道成肉身的， 並且他經由神命給與我們聖靈。但是說道這個在兒子和聖靈之間的依靠性也是屬於"從某某散發出"之事， 即， 也是屬於上帝之永恆的、無休止的存有，那則是另一回事。在東方的傳統中， 這兩件事必須很清楚地被區別開。 在有關於永恆的三位一體的方面上： 上帝之永恆的存有並不允許我們講及聖子之事， 因為起因者只有一個 -- 父親。我們不能再有兒子來與父親一起是起因者。 即使如此， 希臘教父們卻是有作出一個特定的區別。他們在聖靈散發之時確實有給與兒子一個特殊的角色。在 Saint Gregory of Nyssa 所寫的一篇書中 （而這對這個主題來説是有關鍵性的）， 他說道： "我們並不否認在是為起因者的他(父親)以及是為從起因者之中所出現的他（兒子）之間有所區別。" 如此， 我們能夠了解到一個人格是如何能與另一人格分別開的； 即， 那"起因者" 是一件東西， 而那"出於起因者之者" 又是另一件東西。換句話說, 如果我們問說，在父親和兒子(或父親和聖靈)之間的區別是甚麼， 那， 根據以上的説法， 區別則是, 父親是"起因", 而兒子和聖靈是"出於起因的" 。所以， 在"起因者" 和"出於起因者" 之間的區別是極端重要的。 Gregory 然後繼續說道： "至於那出源於起因者之者呢 (= 兒子), 我們又為他認得另一個區別（對於兒子和聖靈兩者來説， 起因者皆是父親， 而兒子和聖靈皆是出源於起因者的) 。那一個區別則是, 兒子是立刻地、 直接地起源於第一者的、起源於起因者的， 但是另一者，聖靈， 則是經由那個直接起源於第一者之者而再出現的， 也就是通過兒子的調停和干預。" 而這是為甚麼呢? 因為， 這樣, 兒子在神聖的生命中的調停則保存了他是唯一生子的特徵， 而聖靈與父親的自然性的以及根本性的關係又不會被廢除掉。換句話說, 問題則是, 我們必須在某種方面上逃離開有兩個兒子的概念； 我們必須承認， 兒子是唯一生子, 並且沒有第二個兒子。 根據 Gregory 的説法， 這一點強迫我們給與兒子一個特徵： 他是一個中間者 -- 在聖靈出現之事中作調停。這個調停保存了聖靈與父親的根本關係。這使得許多人相信有"正教的及聖子" 之事， 並且及聖子是可以被接受的, 只要它並不提及到人格； 換句話說, 聖靈不是也從兒子的人格中出現的； 它是從父親的本質中出現的，而這個本質是共同於父親和兒子兩者的。 至於本質的地位呢，它能被認為是兒子之"依靠性"... 這在某種方面上來説是正確的， 但這也製造出許多種的困難， 因為兒子和聖靈皆不是直接地從本質中出現的； 因為兒子是從父親中生出來的， 而聖靈是從父親中散發出來的， 也就是， 從父親的人格中。將這兩種地位辨別出 （本質和人格），那是很困難的， 因為存有是由位格所提供的。 在我們剛剛所提及到的段落中, 及聖子這事在某種方面上是可以接受的，這倒有一點真實性， 除了它在神命和永恆的神性之間作出區別之事之外，因為在那裏問題可是非常清楚的。 但即使是在這裡， 它也能變成是可以接受的。而這又是如何的呢? 如果我們不去接受在本質和人格之間所作出的辨別。在卡伯多西亞教父們的神學裡的重要之事則是, 我們不能將起因者的角色給與兒子。 既然我們不能在兒子中認得到起因者的角色， 你能夠說， 在聖靈之出現之事中，兒子是可以有任何其他的角色的。 總結之, 及聖子是可以接受的, 如果兒子並不因此成為聖靈的起因， 並且如果起因是只有一個的話： 父親。那就是Maximus the Confessor -- 以及之後的 Photios the Great -- 爲了反對及聖子而做出的論據的中心要點。因為根據他們的説法，西方人把起因者的角色也給與了兒子。 至於為什麼不把這樣的角色也給與兒子， 那會是這麽重要的一件事呢，那則是因為，只有那樣, 我們才能保存住一神論和君主制。 及聖子這事是否可以被搞成神學，或者這只是異端邪說， 由於這個問題近年來曾被提出過， 並且因為它在第十五世紀期間在佛羅倫斯的大公會議中也有被提出，答案則是， 它取決於一件事而已， 而那就是： 以及聖子， 我們是否有在存在性的方面上承認了兒子與父親一起是聖靈的存有的起因。如果我們能夠以不把兒子當成是起因的方法來解釋及聖子的話， 而把起因的角色完全留給父親， 那我們則可考慮把及聖子搞成神學，並且接受它。