(English pronunciation ; ) is a Latin term meaning and the Son. The inclusion or omission of this term in the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed has been a theological and procedural controversy, a major cause of the schism of 1054 AD between the Western and Eastern churches, and an ongoing source of disagreement for over a thousand years. The clause is inserted in the words , which specifically address the procession of the Holy Spirit, defining whether He proceeds from the Father, or from the Father and the Son (Jesus Christ).
The Nicene Creed was written in Greek, adopted by the First Council of Nicaea in 325 AD, and amended by the First Council of Constantinople in 381 AD. However, the wordings of the creeds adopted at Nicaea and Constantinople are not recorded in any surviving document until the Council of Chalcedon in 451 AD. Christian tradition holds that the Constantinople council added the passage stating that the Holy Spirit 'proceeds from the Father' ().
The Third Council of Toledo in 589 AD inserted the word Filioque into the creed, in response to the Arian interpretation of the Trinity, which the council considered heretical. Supporters argue that this was merely a clarification of existing theology expressed by the Church Fathers. Opponents argue that it violated Canon VIIFor a different view, see e.g. Excursus on the Words πίστιν ἑτέραν of the Council of Ephesus (431 AD), which forbade modifications to the creed. The use of Filioque spread to the Frankish church in the 8th century, who claimed that it was an authentic part of the Nicene Creed, so no canon had been violated. Under pressure from Henry II, Holy Roman Emperor, in 1014 AD Pope Benedict VIII incorporated Filioque into the creed used at Rome.
There have been a number of attempts to resolve the conflict, such as by explaining it as a matter of semantics not doctrine, or by appealing to the early seventh century work of Maximus the Confessor who is accepted by both sides.
Nicene Creed The Nicene Creed as amended by the Second Ecumenical Council held in Constantinople in 381 includes the section:
Greek originalLatin translationEnglish translation And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father, who with the Father and the Son is adored and glorified,
The controversy arises from the insertion of the word ("and the Son") in the line:
LatinEnglish translation who proceeds from the Father ,
Controversy The controversy referring to the term involves four separate disagreements: Controversy about the term itself Controversy about the orthodoxy of the doctrine of the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son, to which the term refers Controversy about the legitimacy of inserting the term into the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed Controversy about the authority of the Pope to define the orthodoxy of the doctrine or to insert the term into the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed.
Although the disagreement about the doctrine preceded the disagreement about the insertion into the Creed, the two disagreements became linked to the third when the pope approved insertion of the term into the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed, in the 11th century. Anthony Siecienski writes that "Ultimately what was at stake was not only God's trinitarian nature, but also the nature of the Church, its teaching authority and the distribution of power among its leaders."
Hubert Cunliffe-Jones identifies two opposing Eastern Orthodox opinions about the Filioque, a "liberal" view and a "rigorist" view. The "liberal" view sees the controversy as being largely a matter of mutual miscommunication and misunderstanding. In this view, both East and West are at fault for failing to allow for a "plurality of theologies". Each side went astray in considering its theological framework as the only one that was doctrinally valid and applicable. Thus, neither side would accept that the dispute was not so much about conflicting dogmas as it was about different theologoumena or theological perspectives. While all Christians must be in agreement on questions of dogma, there is room for diversity in theological approaches.
This view is vehemently opposed by those in Eastern Orthodox Church whom Cunliffe-Jones identifies as holding a "rigorist" view. According to the standard Eastern Orthodox position, as pronounced by Photius, Mark of Ephesus and 20th century Eastern Orthodox theologians such as Vladimir Lossky, the Filioque question hinges on fundamental issues of dogma and cannot be dismissed as simply one of different theologoumena.
In a similar vein, Siecienski comments that, although it was common in the 20th century to view the Filioque as just another weapon in the power struggle between Rome and Constantinople and although this was occasionally the case, for many involved in the dispute, the theological issues outweighed by far the ecclesiological concerns. According to Siecienski, the deeper question was perhaps whether Eastern and Western Christianity had wound up developing "differing and ultimately incompatible teachings about the nature of God". Moreover, Siecienski asserts that the question of whether the teachings of East and West were truly incompatible became almost secondary to the fact that, starting around the 8th or 9th century, Christians on both sides of the dispute began to believe that the differences were irreconcilable.
From the view of the West, the Eastern rejection of the Filioque denied the consubstantiality of the Father and the Son and was thus a form of crypto-Arianism. In the East, the interpolation of the Filioque seemed to some to be an indication that the West was teaching a "substantially different faith". Siecienski asserts that, as much as power and authority were central issues in the debate, the strength of emotion rising even to the level of hatred can be ascribed to a belief that the other side had "destroyed the purity of the faith and refused to accept the clear teachings of the fathers on the Spirit's procession".
History
New Testament It is argued that in the relations between the persons of the Trinity, one person cannot "take" or "receive" () anything from either of the others except by way of procession. Biblical texts such as John 20:22 ("He breathed on them and said: Receive the Holy Spirit") were seen by Fathers of the Church, especially Athanasius of Alexandria, Cyril of Alexandria and Epiphanius of Salamis, as grounds for saying that the Spirit "proceeds substantially from both" the Father and the Son.Maximus the Confessor, Letter to Marinus (PG 91:136), cited in Other texts that have been used include Galatians 4:6,(And because you are children, God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, “Abba! Father!”) Romans 8:9,(But you are not in the flesh; you are in the Spirit, since the Spirit of God dwells in you. Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him.) Philippians 1:19,(for I know that through your prayers and the help of the Spirit of Jesus Christ this will turn out for my deliverance.) where the Holy Spirit is called "the Spirit of the Son", "the Spirit of Christ", "the Spirit of Jesus Christ", texts in the Gospel of John on the sending of the Holy Spirit by Jesus,; ; and John 16:7.(Nevertheless, I tell you the truth: it is to your advantage that I go away, for if I do not go away, the Advocate will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you.) Revelation 22:1(Then the angel showed me the river of the water of life, bright as crystal, flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb) states that the river of the Water of Life in Heaven is "flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb", which may be interpreted as the Holy Spirit proceeding from both the Father and the Son. Tension can be seen in comparing these two passages: John 14:26 NASB – "But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you." John 15:26 NASB – "When the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, [that is] the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify about Me"
Siecienski asserts that "the New Testament does not explicitly address the procession of the Holy Spirit as later theology would understand the doctrine", although there are "certain principles established in the New Testament that shaped later Trinitarian theology, and particular texts that both Latins and Greeks exploited to support their respective positions vis-à-vis the ". In contrast, Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen says that Eastern Orthodox believe that the absence of an explicit mention of the double procession of the Holy Spirit is a strong indication that the is a theologically erroneous doctrine.
Church Fathers
Cappadocian Fathers
Basil of Caesarea wrote: "Through the one Son [the Holy Spirit] is joined to the Father".Basil of Caesarea De Spiritu Sancto 18.45 (NPNF2 8:28), in He also said that the "natural goodness, inherent holiness, and royal dignity reaches from the Father through the only-begotten () to the Spirit".Basil of Caesarea De Spiritu Sancto 18.47 (NPNF2 8:29–30), in However, Siecienski comments that "there are passages in Basil that are certainly capable of being read as advocating something like the , but to do so would be to misunderstand the inherently soteriological thrust of his work".
Gregory of Nazianzus distinguished the coming forth () of the Spirit from the Father from that of the Son from the Father by saying that the latter is by generation, but that of the Spirit by procession (),Gregory of Nazianzus Oratio 39 12 (NPNF2 7:356), in a matter on which there is no dispute between East and West, as shown also by the Latin Father Augustine of Hippo, who wrote that although biblical exegetes had not adequately discussed the individuality of the Holy Spirit:
Gregory of Nyssa stated:
Alexandrian Fathers
Cyril of Alexandria provides "a host of quotations that seemingly speak of the Spirit's 'procession' from both the Father and the Son". In these passages he uses the Greek verbs (like the Latin ) and (flow from), not the verb , the verb that appears in the Greek text of the Nicene Creed.
Epiphanius of Salamis is stated by Bulgakov to present in his writings "a whole series of expressions to the effect that the Holy Spirit is from the Father and the Son, out of the Father and the Son, from the Father and out of the Son, from Both, from one and the same essence as the Father and the Son, and so on". Bulgakov concludes: "The patristic teaching of the fourth century lacks that exclusivity which came to characterize Orthodox theology after Photius under the influence of repulsion from the Filioque doctrine. Although we do not here find the pure that Catholic theologians find, we also do not find that opposition to the that became something of an Orthodox or, rather, anti-Catholic dogma."
Regarding the Greek Fathers, whether Cappadocian or Alexandrian, there is, according to Siecienski, no citable basis for the claim historically made by both sides, that they explicitly either supported or denied the later theologies concerning the procession of the Spirit from the Son. However, they did enunciate important principles later invoked in support of one theology or the other. These included the insistence on the unique hypostatic properties of each Divine Person, in particular the Father's property of being, within the Trinity, the one cause, while they also recognized that the Persons, though distinct, cannot be separated, and that not only the sending of the Spirit to creatures but also the Spirit's eternal flowing forth () from the Father within the Trinity is "through the Son" ().
Latin Fathers