A Response To Michael Lofton On The Filioque

For those unfamiliar, Michael Lofton is a Roman Catholic apologist who recently did a video critiquing Fr. Josiah Trenham’s video regarding the heresy of the filioque. Lofton replied saying most Orthodox are behind on the issues, and equate our criticisms of the filioque the same way a Protestant says iconography is idolatry. The same video has drawn responses from other Roman apologists as well. So, I’m going to respond to the majority of Lofton’s video from an Orthodox perspective. I will seek to do so in a loving way, even if we may disagree. May God have mercy on us all, in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Amen.

The Refutation (First 10 Minutes Or So)

Michael states the Eastern Churches were in communion with the Western Churches which professed the filioque, so what does the say about the East? If we read St. Maximus the Confessor who does indeed defend the meaning of the filioque during that time period, he is defending a different meaning from the one the Roman Catholic church proclaims today. St. Maximus was essentially saying to the Eastern Churches, “the West is saying the filioque to combat heresy but they don’t believe the Son causes the Holy Spirit.” Compare that to today; such as the Roman Catholic Catechism which says, “The Holy Spirit is eternally from Father and Son. He has his nature and subsistence at once (simul) from the Father and the Son.” This is a huge contradiction between first millennium and second millennium Catholicism.

For those wanting the exact quote from St. Maximus, not a paraphrasing here it is: “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.” (Letter to Marinus).

(Side Note: the existence of this letter is debated for it’s authenticity which is outside the scope of this article which would require its own separate article).

There’s a few factors to consider for Michael’s statement of why didn’t the East address the filioque at the 6th or 7th Ecumenical Councils if it was such a problem? First, I’d say this is the equivalent to saying “oh Origenism wasn’t formally condemned at the first four Ecumenical Councils, therefore it wasn’t really an issue and Origenism has credence.”

If the East is under the impression that the filioque does not mean an eternal cause from the Son, then there is nothing to take issue with and address at the council. (This is exactly what Edward Siecienski states as well, using one of Michael’s own sources). I could also argue the filioque is not in widespread use during the time of the Ecumenical Councils as a major factor, and that it takes quite a while for news to travel in those days too as a minor factor.

The filioque was a uniquely Western problem, that added to the fact that the East was facing iconoclastic controversies are some other factors we could add too. As I’ll discuss a little later in this, the East is mostly unaware of the filioque, and what they do know they take from St. Maximus the Confessor until the time of St. Photios.l (Source: Edward Siecienski).

12:30 Minute Mark

Michael appeals to the Fifth Ecumenical Council which proclaims St. Augustine as a church father amongst others like St. Basil the Great. He says this proves that his writings are authoritative including the ones regarding the filioque. However there’s a problem with this, just because someone is a church father doesn’t mean we regard everything they teach as authoritative, if that were the case we would accept St. Gregory’s universalism or St. Ireneaus’s Chiliasm, which of course, we don’t. And neither do the Roman Catholics. This is one of two arguments I was shocked to see Michael make for how easily dismissible it is.

15:00 Minute Mark

The conversation turns to Pope Leo III who had shields made around the year 810, which engraved the original Nicene Creed on them without the addition of the filioque. Michael states Pope Leo III affirmed the theology of the filioque but agrees Pope Leo III did not think it should be added to the Nicene-Constantinople Creed. That is Fr. Josiah’s entire point, even the Pope himself did not think the interpolation of the filioque should be added, while other Popes did. And this is a doctrinal matter of contradiction for the Romans, which Pope is right? I know the Catholics will say the Pope can be wrong, but the infallibility of the Pope applies to matters of faith (and morals), how is the filioque not a matter of faith?

The concept is that we need Lofton and the other Roman apologists to tell us what exactly the Pope means while at the same time saying the Pope solves meaning of issues.

Regarding the Donation of Constantine being used by both Rome and Constantinople, I would like to see what Michael is referencing for this as he doesn’t cite specifically where he gets this from. Regardless, even before the forgery existed East and West were already growing these tensions. Constantinople started to claim equality at the Second Ecumenical Council along with the Fourth Ecumenical Council which all took place before the Donation of Constantine existed. So ultimately yes, both sides will just claim their positions are before the forgery (again assuming Michael’s statement is correct I would want a source).

22:19 Minute Mark

Michael eventually gets to St. Photios and uses the same erroneous pretense as if it’s a gotcha moment. “St. Photios goes back into communion with Rome who believes the filioque.” Yes which understanding of the filioque again? I don’t think I need to restate the argument, I would refer back to it.

St. Photios is the first to proclaim the filioque is heresy that destroys Triadology. In his time, we have the Eighth Ecumenical Council of which Rome accepts for over 200 years which affirms no use of the filioque in the Creed. St. Photios was an integral part of this, and he goes back into communion with Rome on the basis that the filioque is not professed in the Creed. So the reinstating of communion that is supposed to cut against the Orthodox, just cuts against Rome.

Rome also will then change its position and declare this council is no longer ecumenical over 200 years later. Michael’s claims here fall flat, both regarding St. Photios and the filioque.

The problem again for the Roman Catholics is that what was an economic procession is now an eternal hypostatic causation. So it’s true irony that Michael claims the Orthodox changed positions on this, when they are the ones who now have a different definition of filioque from first millennium to second millennium, and now even just another position change into an entirely relativistic one.

Michael cites Edward Siecienski about the filioque, however Siecienski says it’s the 7th century before the filioque even appears and then the 9th century before it begins to become widespread. Match the timelines and you’ll see how this just doesn’t bode well for the majority of Michael’s arguments.

Mr. Siecenski also says St. Maximus’s letter squashed the issue until the time of St. Photios. Which means it’s reasonable to state those few in the East who knew about the filioque were under the impression it was an economic procession, therefore not heretical and not a problem. (Source: Interview with Gospel Simplicity). He also says for most of the East, it was just being simply unaware of the filioque until the time of St. Photios and its use starting to spread at the same time (the 800’s). So Michael’s own source, which is he quick to note is Eastern Orthodox himself, goes against his own claims.

32:40 Minute Mark

Michael says Fr. Josiah is accusing the Pope of pride and motives for changing the creed and says this was more organically born in the West. Sure and I would agree with this that it was more organically born, what does that have to do with changing the creed? The Pope still unilaterally did so in violation of The Council of Ephesus as well as The Fourth Council of Constantinople.

The present Roman position that Michael makes is essentially that both Popes (Pope John VIII) and Councils (Third & Eighth Ecumenical Councils) can assert it is unlawful to change something such as the Creed, but be completely wrong in the assertion. More “nuance, definitions, distinctions, etc” make the Roman position ever-changing and re-interpreted endlessly, which makes sense that many Roman Catholics are basically relativists at this point. (Again not all, I do want to be fair, please forgive any of my offense).

Michael says Orthodox aren’t really taught Church history and priests he’s spoken to never actually had to read all the Ecumenical Councils in detail in their seminary classes. 1) that’s hearsay, an accusation with no proof 2) he appeals to an anecdote to prove this. Lol okay? I myself have taken seminary classes and one of them is entirely about reading the Ecumenical Councils in detail (with Greek and Latin included). Does my anecdotal evidence weigh for Lofton? I’m sure he will say no. So this is pointless to be blunt, it’s an appeal to make his arguments appear sound when in reality they just aren’t. Calling your opponent unqualified doesn’t really matter if you make unqualified arguments yourself.

41:00 Minute Mark

Fr. Josiah gives an adequate summation of the problem with the filioque, as he is using the same argumentation from St. Gregory Palamas when he says what is common to one must be common to all in essence, like God is love, good, etc. And what is unique must be unique to the Person alone, such as only the Son became Incarnate, He is begotten. The Father is the cause, monarch. The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father.

Michael quickly retorts with a laugh which I think again is him just trying to puff up his statements again. He then says Fr. Josiah and the Orthodox cannot make any real distinctions about the difference between begetting and processing. He goes on to say the Catholics can, how? By just saying the same thing we do, the Father is cause, the Son is begotten and the Holy Spirit proceeds. So Michael just did the exact same argument that he just critiqued Fr. Josiah for making. So why doesn’t Michael qualify the difference between begetting and processing himself?

Personally, I don’t think he has an actual rebuttal for that refutation of how the filioque destroys the Trinity. Furthermore St Gregory the Theologian writes: "You ask what is the procession of the Holy Spirit? Tell me first what is the unbegottenness of the Father, and I will then explain to you the physiology of the generation of the Son, and the procession of the Spirit, and we shall both of us be stricken with madness for prying into the mystery of God" (5th Oration, Chapter 7-8). Michael is claiming to have an answer that the saints say would drive you into prelest delusion if you pried into it’s actual workings.

Other saints like St. John of Damascus say very similar things, that the differences are made known to us, we just do not know them in depth, it’s a mystery not revealed to us. Immediately the retort will be something like, “aha they just appeal to mystery! They can’t answer!” when I would ask how does Michael know the intricacies of the Trinity better than the holy saints? Or he will say something like “if you don’t know in depth how can you be sure the filioque procession is wrong?” to which I’ll just say use St. Gregory again, can you explain to us how the Father is uncaused? You can’t, even though you know it’s true. Apply the same logic.

Lofton relies heavily on the “grass isn’t always greener” schtick when talking about Orthodoxy, which in reality all this does is play defense while trying to appear on the offense against us. He goes on to ignore Fr. Josiah’s point of all the theological controversies in Rome by trying to point to things in the Orthodox Church. Hence his schtick.

54:00 Minute Mark

He claims the majority of Orthodox believe in the filioque. That’s probably one of the wildest claims I’ve ever heard an apologist of any background make and I’ve heard a lot, it’s simply untrue. Go to your local parish and see if they profess the filioque in the Liturgy, they don’t. Go to your everyday Orthodox person, they know the filioque is wrong, especially for how the Latins mean it. And I mention the Divine Liturgy, because this as Michael knows is one of the utmost criterion for belief, how we worship. Can he point to which Orthodox Church proclaims the filioque in the Liturgy? Outside of a random story of a rogue Greek bishop?

Michael says Catholics have a definitive way of resolving disputes while the Orthodox don’t. Firstly, why doesn’t the Pope settle the disputes in the Roman Catholic Church then if he could? He will just gloss over all the relative truth issues between Eastern Rite Catholics and Western Catholics. Secondly, Michael will never bring up when Orthodox actually do solve disputes, such as the rift between Serbia and Macedonia was healed in May of 2022 last year. But according to Michael we have no way to solve disputes? Verifiably untrue.

He then references the Moscow-Constantinople schism happening now, which I have spoken of numerous times. Historically the Church has always had Sees that break and reinstate communion with each other many times throughout the first millennium. Michael fails to see how if this is a church deficient issue for the Orthodox, how it cuts right back at him even worse such as the Second Ecumenical Council. Which was called out of communion with Rome, yet there’s no deficiencies there. If the "tendency of schism" is removed in the Catholic Church due to the papacy, how does one explain the Protestant Reformation for example?

Michael appeals to a bunch of other topics which he says show Orthodox are divided, while again propping up his strawman as if things like universalism is an actual serious widespread issue in Orthodoxy. I know many Catholics would find it unfair if I used some random rogue Catholic person’s statements and pretended they were a sweeping generalization to apply to all catholics. Such as the Brazilian Catholic Archbishop giving communion to Muslims, for me to pretend this is widespread Catholic practice wouldn’t be equitable. Just extend the same courtesy to us please.

1:01:00 Minute Mark

Michael then appeals that Fr. Josiah is out of step with his own bishops because they refuse to denounce the filioque as heresy. Lofton cites a document from 2003, titled “North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation Issues Agreed Statement on Filioque, a Question that Divided the Two Communions for Many Centuries.” In which it states that Orthodox and Catholics should refrain from calling heretical the traditions from the other side. Lofton then uses this as another gotcha moment! “See Fr. Josiah your hierarchs disagree with you!” (paraphrasing) as Michael once again does the same thing he accuses Fr. Josiah of, insinuating prideful ego to someone’s motives. This is a grave sin by his own words. This is where I think Lofton definitely went off the path of charity. I don’t want to impute anything on him, sometimes we all get heated talking about things we love and I get that, I do just want to apply the same measure back for him to see how that’s unfair.

Michael proposes as if this document is universally binding on Orthodox, but I thought we had no way of doing this at all without the Papacy? Contradiction again. Do two bishops and a handful of priests (almost all of which were Greek and some OCA) get to determine this? Certainly not. To pretend as if this is a sweeping endorsement of the filioque by Eastern Orthodox is deceitful at worst, ignorance at best.

I can also just use this very same document against him when it says, “That the Catholic Church, following a growing theological consensus, and in particular the statements made by Pope Paul VI, declare that the condemnation made at the Second Council of Lyons (1274) of those “who presume to deny that the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son” is no longer applicable.” Now the Roman Catholic Church has flipped flopped again on this issue by reversing their decision. Essentially our position is completely acceptable to you, so why are you even arguing with us in the first place? Why did you even make the ‘refutation’ of Fr. Josiah, if this document is authoritative for you (as you pretend it is for us) then you have no foundation to even make a case. The entire video could be nullified by this point alone if we really got down to it.

I sincerely pray this article provides wisdom and grace, and any offense on both sides is covered in love by God. Even if I disagree with Lofton, I believe we can still dialogue back to people we disagree with as Orthodox, without compromising tenets of the Faith. Such as this matter of the filioque, which indeed is a heresy in it’s understanding of causation.