The following theses are an elaboration on our first theses on this subject, attempting to explain, from a history of doctrine perspective, the reason for the Greek schism.
1. Every tradition of doctrine within Sacred Tradition has its Fathers. The Assyrians have the council of Seleucia-Ctesiphon. The Miaphysites have St. Kryillos. The Greek Chalcedonians have the Three Holy Hierarchs. The Latin Tradition was built on St. Augustine as its greatest Father. Augustine is the Latins’ sine qua non.
2. Thus Augustine forms truly the substance of the Latin Patristic Tradition such that one cannot have the Latin tradition without Augustine any more than one can have the Greek Chalcedonian tradition without the Three Holy Hierarchs.
3. The doctrine of the Holy Spirit at Lyons and Florence are faithful to the Latin Tradition via Augustine. They are of the same substance as Augustine’s doctrine.
4. The Greek Chalcedonians (insofar as they are of the party of Photios), wish to accept the Latin Fathers and Augustine but not the place that Augustine has held to built the west. In other words, they refuse to accept the Latin tradition even as it existed since Augustine, who died centuries before the schism can be dated.
5. In this they are schismatic because they demand that Divine Providence work some other thing than the Latin tradition as it was held and developed with Augustine at the center. The west cannot give up Augustine any more than the Greeks can give up the Three Holy Heriarchs.
6. In order to reject Lyons and Florence, the Greeks must assert one of the following:
6.1. Divine Providence failed to guide the west and their heavy reliance on Augustine is a corruption of their own tradition. Thus Lyons and Florence are faithful to Augustine but unfaithful to the other Latin Fathers. Augustine must not be given the place that the Three Holy Hierarchs hold among the Greeks. Thus the Latin tradition was corrupted from the start and was not guided by the Holy Spirit like the Greek Chalcedonians were.
6.2. Divine Providence did guide the west in their use of Augustine but Lyons and Florence are not faithful to Augustine and the Latin Fathers. Thus when Maximos defends the Latin Filioque he refers to an earlier, orthodox Filioque which is of a different substance than the Lyons-Florence doctrine.
7. Since 6.1 is untenable, the Greeks must assert that Maximos spoke of a non-Augustinian Orthodox Filioque in the west. However, since Maximos lived near Augustine’s birth place in the seventh century and knew Latin, the Greeks must prove one of the following:
7.1 God did guide the west in their use of Augustine, but Augustine was a Trinitarian heretic. However, he made these errors innocently (like other Fathers) and so has achieved sanctity. When Maximos refers to the “unanimous documentary evidence of the Latin fathers” he excludes Augustine.
7.2 Augustine was absolutely orthodox, and thus Maximos does refer to Augustine’s doctrine. But the Florentine-Lyons dogma is of a different substance than Augustine and the Latin Fathers.
It is historically untenable to state that Maximos refers to a non-Augustinian west. Therefore the Greeks must prove that Florence and Lyons are of a different substance than Augustine. But these assertions are a mess of contradictions from a history of dogma perspective. If Maximos is correct, then Augustine’s Filioque is orthodox. But if Florence and Lyons are faithful to Augustine, then the Filioque is orthodox.
Greek Attempts to Prove the Filioque is a Heresy
Some point out that Maximos was rejected at Florence, and ask rightly, how can Maximos then support the Florentine view? The reason is that Maximos was writing so that Greeks could understand. Florence was making a dogma so that both sides could understand. Gill observes that the Latins rejected Maximos’ words because taken in themselves, they exclude all eternal causality from the Son whatsoever, which would not be faithful to the Fathers. Objective Orthodox can admit that such a doctrine would indeed be unfaithful to the Fathers.
However the Latins had already confessed the monarchy of the Father at Lyons. As Augustine himself says, the Holy Spirit proceeds “principally” from the Father. Thus the mode of generation from the Father and the Son is different for the All Holy Spirit. Nevertheless it is as from one source, since they are not opposed and there is only one source in the Godhead.
Some assert that the Thomistic method of distinguishing persons is different than that given by Damascene. Yet (Eastern Orthodox) Gilbert points out that the Fathers themselves across the Tradition (even among the Greeks) had different methods of distinction for divine Persons. This cuts along the Cappadocian, Antiochian, and Alexandrian traditions of Trinitarian language (manifested later in the Greek, Assyrian, and Miaphysites schisms respectively).
Damascene says that “the mode of generation from the Father is what distinguishes the Son from the Spirit.” Some then state that Thomas, by distinguishing by number of generations, contradicts this. However, in order for this to be a contradiction, one must prove that number is not a species of mode. In other words, if the mode of generation is ineffable, can we not allow number to be a mode of generation?
Orthodox who are objective are willing to admit that “the Holy Spirit eternally proceeds from the Father through the Son” or “eternally manifests from the Son.” They draw a distinction, however, because they claim the hypostatic property of the Father cannot be communicated to the Son. However, this an attempt to over-extend the Chalcedonian tradition of hypostatic distinctiveness over the whole Tradition. As we said, the Fathers used different ways to come to the same doctrine of the Blessed Trinity. This is what is happening between Augustine and the Chalcedonians (as well as the Alexandrian and Antiochian schools of thought). As the modern dialogue between the Chalcedonians and Miaphysites has shown, many of these disagreements can be resolved by allowing a legitimate diversity of exprsssion within the one orthodox faith.
8. Since the Greeks are unable to universally agree on how the Filioque is heresy, and what is the Orthodox doctrine of the Filioque, they sin against charity and choose schism. In this way the division is properly called the “Greek schism.” This is above all seen in their disunity in accepting or not accepting filioquist baptisms. Some Orthodox accept them, others do not.
9. No man can be blamed for holding to and passing on the Tradition of his fathers. This is the virtue of piety. He can only be blamed if he lacks charity and humility toward his brothers, and piety toward other Christian Fathers. The Assyrians held to the teachings of the Council of Seleucia-Ctesiphon, yet did so to the exclusion of the Ecumenical Councils, and thus became heretics and schismatics. The Miaphysites held to their father St. Kyrillos, but did so to the exclusion of Chalcedon, and thus became heretics and schismatics. The Chalcedonian Greeks held to their fathers the Three Holy Hierarchs, yet did so to the exclusion of their Latin brothers, and thus became heretics and schismatics at Lyons and Florence. The Latins held to their father Augustine, yet not to the exclusion of their brethren and their fathers. The Roman Church alone has held charity with the Assyrian, Miaphysite and Chalcedonian Fathers. She has only required that they confess the one orthodox faith. She has not required them to abandon a patristic, traditional, and legitimate diversity of expression.
Timothy S. Flanders
 “It must be admitted that the Father and the Son are a Beginning (principium, Eng. Principle) of the Holy Spirit, not two Beginnings (principia); but as the Father and Son are one God, and one Creator, and one Lord relatively to the creature, so are they one Beginning relative to the Holy Spirit. But the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit is one Beginning in respect to the creature, as also one Creator and one God.” (De Trinitate Book V, Ch. 13-14) “From Him, certainly, from whom the Son had his Divine nature, for He is God of God, He has also, that from Him too proceeds the Holy Spirit; and hence the Holy Spirit has from the Father Himself, that He should proceed from the Son also, as He proceeds from the Father. Here, too, in some way may this also be understood, so far as it can be understood by such as we are, why the Holy Spirit is not said to be born, but rather to proceed; since if He, too, was called a Son, He would certainly be called the Son of both, which is most absurd, since no one is son of two, save of father and mother. But far be it from us to surmise any such thing as this between God the Father and God the Son. Because not even the sons of men proceeds at the same time from both father and mother; but when he proceeds from the father into the mother, he does not at that time proceed from the mother; and when he proceeds from the mother into this present light, he does not at that time proceed from the father. But the Holy Spirit does not proceed from the Father into the Son, and from the Son proceed to sanctify the creature, but proceeds at once from both; although the Father has given this to the Son, that He should proceed, as from Himself, so also from Him. For we cannot say that the Holy Spirit is not life, while the Father is life, and the Son is life: and hence as the Father, while He has life in Himself, has given also to the Son to have life in Himself; so has He given also to Him that life should proceed from Him, as it also proceeds from Himself. I have transferred this from that sermon into this book, but I was speaking to believers, not to unbelievers…. Lift up your eyes to the light itself, and fix them upon it if you can. For so you will see how the birth of the Word of God differs from the procession of the Gift of God, on account of which the only-begotten Son did not say that the Holy Spirit is begotten of the Father, otherwise He would be His brother, but that He proceeds from Him. Whence, since the Spirit of both is a kind of consubstantial communion of Father and Son” (De Trinitate, Book 15, Ch. 27)