Pontifical University of the Holy Cross, Rome, April 9, 2024
The following participated in the disputatio invited by Giulio Maspero (Pontifical University of the Holy Cross, Rome): Edward Siecienski (Stockton University), Isidoro Katsos (University of Athens); Alexei Bodrov (Institute of Eastern Christian Studies, Radboud University St. Andrew’s Biblical Theological Institute, Moscow); Theresia Hainthaler (Philosophisch-Theologische Hochschule Sankt Georgen, Frankfurt); Leonardo De Chirico (Institute of Evangelical Training and Documentation, Padua); Khaled Anatolios (University of Notre Dame).
Giulio Maspero published the volume Rethinking the Filioque with the Greek Fathers in 2023. However, during the round table he specified that the subject of the work would be limited to the following work proposal. In their response to the Pneumatomachians the Greek Fathers introduced the idea of an active role of the Son in the procession of the Holy Spirit in divine immanence, but this role cannot be considered “causal” because it is, instead, purely “relational”. Photius did not know this tradition. Augustine, for his part, developed a less powerful relational ontology. Independently, the Syriac tradition followed a path similar to that of the Latins. Having said this, the question that Professor Maspero posed to his interlocutors is precisely whether starting from these premises it is possible to “profess” together such an interpretative version of the Filioque.
Professor Sieciensky asked himself: “can we finally abandon the Filioque?”; Isidoro Katsos has traced a scenario in which other readings can be considered possible; Alexei Bodrov illustrated the idea of why a “Russian translation” is possible. Theresia Hainthaler’s speech analytically and with particular rigor retraced the ecumenical documents of reference in search of ideas and considerations of interest in light of Maspero’s proposal. Leonardo De Chirico underlined how historically the tradition of the Reformed Churches has always been open to dialogue, not apologetically defending the received tradition; nevertheless, he recalled how often ecumenical themes as well as the search for a composition of the same does not depend only and exclusively on the in-depth study of theological themes. Khaled Anatolios closed the work of the group; he made a very preliminary premise that the two formulations do not contradict each other if considered from a literal point of view. The question is – given the apophatism – whether we can talk about causality in God as we talk about it in relation to man. In other words, is it possible to apply causality to intradivine life? Is it possible to think about causality in God or rather can it only be thought of in terms of relationships?
