Within the context of the dialogue between the Old Catholic movement and the Russian Orthodox Church in the 19th century, the theologian Professor Vasilii Bolotov (1854-1900) published his famous “Thesen über das ‘Filioque'” anonymously in Revue international théologie 6 (1898): 681-712. He later published the article in Russian under his own name.

Bolotov’s theses about the Filioque may today be mostly known for his influential distinction between dogma, theologoumena, and private theological opinions, but they are also very interesting (and still relevant) for his views on the actual theological question.

The article has five parts. It is in the introduction he makes his distinction between various theological statements. Dogmas are binding truths of faith (in the article it becomes apparent that these are basically the doctrinal formulas of the ecumenical councils). Theologoumena are probable truths of faith put forth by church fathers. Private theological opinions are the theories of “mere” theologians.

Dogmas are mandatory doctrinal formulas and the necessary foundations of Christian theology. Theologoumena are the private opinions of church fathers which, unless they have been explicitly condemned by the competent authority (an ecumenical council?), must be tolerated and treated with respect due to their Patristic authority. They are not, however, binding, but one may not dismiss them as unacceptable theological opinions even if one thinks they are wrong.

The private theological opinions of “mere” theologians have only the force of the arguments in their favor and their aesthetic impression but may not contradict dogmas. One may freely reject and criticize private theological opinions.

The second part of the article deals with the doctrinal history and the formulation of the doctrine of the Trinity in the 4th century. Bolotov notes that the debate was based both on Biblical revelation and natural analogies and tried to make sense of mystery of the Trinity.

Bolotov also notes that the Greek Patristic tradition is more Biblical while St. Augustine’s theological speculation about the Trinity gives too much room for natural analogies instead of Biblical revelation and the Patristic tradition. He also notes that St. Augustine was not familiar with Greek theological speculation about the mystery of the Trinity.

The third part deals with the first set of theses about the Greek tradition after the formative period of the 4th century. The first thesis is that the dogma of the Orthodox Church is only the truth that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and is consubstantial with the Father and the Son. The formulas that the Holy Spirit proceeds “from the Father and the Son,” “from the Father through the Son,” or “from the Father alone” are not dogmas but theologoumena.

Among the theses in this section one may note that Bolotov shows that many fathers use the formula “through the Son” not only in relation to the temporal mission of the Spirit but also in the relation to the eternal procession. He also notes that St. Photios could not find much support among the fathers for his theologouemnon that the Spirit proceeds from the Father alone.

The fourth part deals with the procession of the Spirit in the Latin tradition. Bolotov notes that the Filioque represents the isolated theologoumenon of a single Latin church father, St. Augustine, and is not as well founded as the Greek theologoumena about the procession of the Spirit.

Bolotov emphasizes that the theology of St. Augustine was isolated from early Greek Patristic theology so it cannot be viewed as a response to Greek theological speculation nor can Greek theological speculation before St. Photios be viewed as a response to St. Augustine. He also emphasizes that the Greek formula “through the Son” is something else than St. Augustine’s Filioque.

Bolotov notes that the Filioque as a theologoumenon is not heretical even if it is not as good as the Greek theologoumena about the procession of the Spirit. He also notes that the Filioque was not a reason to break communion since the Eastern Churches remained in communion with the Roman Church even after they became aware of the theology of St. Augustine and the Filioque. Even St. Photios was in communion with the Roman Church despite his critique of the Filioque.

This leads to the final part of the article which is composed of two theses that states that the Filiqoue was not the reason for the schism between the Roman Church and the Eastern Churches (in the introduction he stated that the papacy was the real reason for the schism and this reason will probably remain until the end of time). The second thesis is that the Filioque is not an impedimentum dirimens to communion between the Western Church and the Eastern Churches.