Filioque clause

In Christian theology the filioque clause or filioque controversy is a heavily disputed part trinitarian theology regarding the relationship between God the Son and God the Holy Spirit, that forms a divisive difference between the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox traditions.

The Latin term filioque means "and [from] the son." In the Orthodox tradition, the Nicene Creed reads "We believe in the Holy Spirit ... who proceeds from the Father", while in the Catholic tradition it reads "We believe in the Holy Spirit ... who proceeds from the Father and the Son".

Development of the creed

First Council of Nicea in 325 did not deal with the question of the Holy Spirit's relationship to the Father and the Son, stated simply, "We believe in the Holy Spirit." In 381, following John 15:26b, the First Council of Constantinople modified this statement by stating that the Holy Spirit "proceeds from the Father." This creed was confirmed at the Council of Chalcedon in 451.

Historical origins

The aforementioned councils are all considered "ecumenical" and therefore binding on all orthodox Christians. In the West, Saint Augustine of Hippo followed Tertullian and Ambrose in teaching likewise that the Spirit proceeded from the Father and the Son, though subordinate to neither. Other Latin Church fathers also spoke of the Spirit proceeding from both the Father and the Son. While familiar in the West, however, this way of speaking was virtually unknown in the Greek-speaking, Eastern Roman Empire. However, a regional council in Persia in 410 introduced one of the earliest forms of the filioque in its version the creed, specifying that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father "and from the Son."

The first Latin council to add the phrase and the Son ('filioque) to its creed was the Synod of Toledo in Spain in 447. The formula was also used in a letter from Pope Leo I to the members of that synod. The addition came about in opposition to fifth century manifestations the Arian "heresy," which taught that the Son of "like" rather than "same" substance with the Father and which was prevalent among the Germanic tribes of Europe. By affirming the Holy Spirit's procession from both the Father and the Son, the bishops at Toledo intended to exclude Arian notions that the Son was not actively involved with the Father from the very beginning of existence. At a the third synod of Toledo in 589, the ruling Visigoths, who had been Arian Christians, submitted to the Catholic Church and were thus obliged to accept the Nicene Creed with the addition of the filioque.

The Franks and the filioque

After the Visigoths, the filoque was also accepted as part of the Creed by the Franks, which under the leadership of Pippin the Younger and his son Charlemagne rose to dominance in the West, with Charlemagne being crowned Emperor in 800.

The filioque was widely thought to be an integral part of the Creed — in fact, most thought that the Greek churches, which at that time were under the thumb of successive emperors and dominated by iconoclasm, were in error for omitting it. Contemporary usage was thought to be normative and authentic. Frankish predominance put pressure on Rome to adopt the filoque, which however only occurred after the year 1000.

The Photius controversy

Within a couple of generations, in 858, a new situation came to pass. The Byzantine Emperor Michael III removed Patriarch Ignatius I as Patriarch of Constantinople. The emperor replaced him with a layman, Photius, who was the first Imperial Secretary and Imperial Ambassador to Baghdad. However, Ignatius refused to abdicate. Michael and Photius asked Pope Nicholas I of Rome to settle the matter. His legates, possibly under pressure from Byzantine leadership, took part in a synod in 861 that deposed Ignatius.

In opposition to this removal of Ignatius, the Bishop of Rome supported Ignatius as legitimate Patriarch. Moreover, contrary to existing canons, Photius had been ordained to the office of bishop very quickly. Recent scholarship has shown that violation of these church laws, together with an attempt to leverage the situation in order to force the Emperor to accept the Pope's claim to sovereignty over the exarchate of Illyria, were the main reasons the Bishop of Rome rejected the appointment of Photius.

Therefore, after the arrival of an embassy from Ignatius, in 862, Nicholas said that Photius was deposed, as well as the bishop who ordained him and all the clergy Photius had appointed. As would be expected, this did not go over well in Constantinople. In 867, Photius rejected the Pope's assertion and objected to Latin missionaries in Bulgaria. Photius' response cited the filioque as proof that Rome had a habit of overstepping its proper limits. His Encyclical to the Eastern Patriarchs is neither gentle nor irenic.

However, the other Patriarchs (of Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem) concurred with the Pope's choice and cast the decision as conciliar. In 867 and 869–870, synods in Rome and Constantinople restored Ignatius to his position as Patriarch. In 877, after the death of Ignatius, Photius again resumed office, by order of the emperor. He resigned in 886 when Leo VI took over as emperor. Photius spent the rest of his life as a monk, in exile in Armenia; he is revered by the Orthodox today as a saint. He was the first important theologian to accuse Rome of innovation in the matter of the filioque.

Further East-West controversy

In the ninth century, Pope Leo III agreed with the filioque phrase theologically but was opposed to adopting it in Rome, in part because of his loyalty to the received tradition. He also knew that the Greeks resented the new Roman Empire in the West and Charlemagne in particular; the Pope wanted to preserve Church unity. In fact, Leo III had the traditional text of the Creed, without the filioque, displayed publicly. He had the original text engraved on two silver tablets, at the tomb of St. Peter. In any case, during the time of Pope Leo's leadership, 795–816, there was no Creed at all in the Roman Mass.

Later, in 1014, the German Emperor Henry II, of the Holy Roman Empire, visited Rome for his coronation and found that the Creed was not used during the Mass. At his request, the Bishop of Rome added the Creed, as it was received in the West with the filioque, after the Gospel. At this time, the papacy was very weak and very much under the Imperial influence. For the sake of survival, the Pope needed the military support of the Emperor. This was the first time the phrase was used in the Mass at Rome.

So, over a 400 year period, dispute over the filioque had not divided the Church definitively; for the most part, in spite of cultural and linguistic conflicts, the Roman and the Byzantine Churches remained in full communion.

In 1054, however, the argument contributed to the Great Schism of the East and West. There were many issues involved, in large part based on misunderstandings between Greek and Latin traditions, as well as the irascible temperament of the antagonists. These were Cardinal Humbertus from Rome and Patriarch Michael Cerularius of Constantinople. In addition to the actual difference in wording and doctrine in the filioque, a related issue was the right of the Pope to make a change in the Nicene Creed, on his own, apart from an Ecumenical Council.

Complicating factors

One must acknowledge, however, that the filioque was introduced in the West first of all in Spain, then in Gaul, not in Rome, and not by the Pope's initiative. Centuries later, the phrase became something to argue about; for a long time, as mentioned, it was in no way justification for breaking communion.

By the same token, it is not accurate to say, as some historians do, that the "Catholic Church" introduced the filioque into the Mass. Eastern Churches, for example, the Maronites, fully part of the Catholic Church, never used the filioque. Moreover, the phrase was in wide use in the West, following the language of many Latin fathers, outside the Mass, especially in Spain and Gaul. Instead, it is more accurate to speak of the filioque as a Latin expression or as an expression found in the Latin Church. In the first millennium, the "Catholic Church" is the "Roman Church" of both East and West.

For many years after the condemnations of 1054, many Orthodox and Catholics did not think of themselves as being in schism; neither Church, in fact, had excommunicated the other. Many Slavic Christians saw the whole episode as a dispute among individuals.

In the thirteenth century, Thomas Aquinas, O.P., was one of the dominant Scholastic theologians. He dealt explicitly with the processions of the divine persons in his Summa Theologica. Following John Damascene, Cyril of Alexandria, and many other Eastern Fathers, he taught that it is proper to speak of the Spirit as proceeding "through the Son" (per Filium), but he also acknowledged the orthodoxy of the filioque. Using Augustinian language, he also speaks of the Father as the ultimate principle (cause or source) of the deity.

In 1274, the Second Council of Lyons said that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, in accord with the filioque in the contemporary Latin version of the Nicene Creed. Reconciliation with the East, through this council, did not last. Remembering the crusader's sack of Constantinople in 1204, most Byzantine Christians did not want to be reconciled with the West. In 1283, Patriarch John Beccus, who supported reconciliation with the Latin Church, was forced to abdicate; reunion failed.

The aforementioned crusaders had earlier been excommunicated for attacking other Christians (the town of Zara). In 1204, they became embroiled in local Byzantine politics involving a certain claimant to the throne, and ultimately sacked Constantinople and completely destroyed the Byzantine Empire [for a time] before returning home without ever setting foot on Muslim soil. Pope Innocent III had sent the Crusaders a letter, forbidding them to attack Constantinople; after hearing of the sack of the city, he lamented their action and disowned them. Nevertheless, the people of Constantinople had a deep hatred for the people they called the "Latins."

For much of the fourteenth century, there were two bishops, each claiming to be Pope, each excommunicating the other. The Western Schism was ultimately resolved at the Council of Constance, but in the meantime the East could hardly seek reconciliation with a Western Church divided among itself. In the middle of the century, about a third of Western Europe died of the Black Death. People were more concerned about the plague than about Church unity.

Failing efforts to reunite East and West

At the Council of Florence, in the fifteenth century, Byzantine Emperor John VIII Palaeologus, Bishop Joseph, Patriarch of Constantinople and other bishops from the East travelled to northern Italy, in hope of reconciliation with the West and the aid of Roman armies in their conflict with the Ottoman Empire.

After extensive discussion, in Ferrara, then in Florence, they acknowledged that some Latin Fathers spoke of the procession of the Spirit differently from the Greek Fathers. Since the consensus of the Fathers was held to be reliable, as a witness to common faith, and since the Byzantine Empire desperately needed the military aid of the West, the Western usage was held not to be a heresy and not a barrier to restoration of full communion. All but one of the Orthodox bishops present, Mark of Ephesus, agreed and signed a decree of union between East and West, Laetentur Coeli in 1439. Mark refused to sign on the grounds that Rome was in both heresy and schism as a result of its acceptance of the filioque and the papal claims of universal jurisdiction over the Church. For his stand, Mark is now venerated as a Saint in Eastern Orthodoxy and is often honored as a pillar of Orthodoxy.

Now briefly, officially and publicly, the Catholic and Orthodox Churches were in communion. So, the Council of Florence helped establish a fundamental principle: the Church must be one in its faith, its essential beliefs, but may be diverse in its culture, customs and rites. Although theologically the Church had to be uniform, the addition of the Filioque did not seem at the time to violate that uniformity.

However, the reconciliation achieved at Florence was soon destroyed. Many Orthodox faithful and bishops, including the Patriarch of Constantinople, rejected the union, and would not ratify it. The emperor indeed had wished to secure the support of the West in the face of the Ottoman danger, and had pressured some Eastern bishops to sign. To many in the East, the agreement of Florence seemed to be an imposition of Scholastic theology and a desperate plea for help.

The promised Western armies were too late to prevent the Fall of Constantinople to the Turks in 1453. From that time onward, the Turks fostered separation from the West, which remained an adversary to Islamic political and military dominance. The Patriarch of Constantinople now had to carry out the will of his Muslim overlord; the Church was no longer free.

Although the filioque controversy had been officially resolved for both Orthodox and Catholic, (partly because of the historical situation) the resolution at Florence was neither fully received nor permanently sustained.

Eastern Orthodox Church

To this day, the Orthodox Church uses the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed of 381 without the filioque. Many times, the Eastern Churches have rejected the phrase as an unauthorized interpolation, an example of what they consider to be Western hubris. Even more, they objected to the teaching it expressed, as conflicting with biblical and accepted doctrine. They said that for the Holy Spirit to proceed from the Father and the Son there would have to be two sources in the deity, whereas in the one God there can only be one source of divinity or deity.

Western theologians anticipated this objection by saying the Spirit proceeds from the Father and Son "as from one principle." The East, however, again objected that this formulation would merge and confuse the persons of the Father and the Son. It was also pointed out that if Father and Son are sources of deity (and only the Holy Spirit is not), it follows that the status of the Spirit is diminished, relative to the Father and the Son, by excluding the Spirit alone as a source of divinity, making the Spirit, rather, a recipient of it — as if the Son and Spirit were both subordinate in their own doctrine. Finally, if one says that the divine essence itself is the source of deity in God, which they took the Latin theologians to say, then (as the Eastern theologians pointed out) another problem is created, a suggestion that the Holy Spirit proceeds from himself, since he is certainly not separate from the divine essence. (By the same reasoning, the Father and Son would also proceed from Themselves. The typical Eastern approach to Triadology avoids this problem by starting with Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and considering that the unique divine Essence is the content of these Three, rather than that the Three "proceed" from the Essence.)

Both Patriarch Photius in 862 and Patriarch Cerularius in 1054 accused the West of heresy for introducing the filioque in the Creed. In general, except for reconciliatory pauses in 1274 and 1439, at the Second Council of Lyons and the Council of Florence, many Orthodox have repeated the charge of heresy, up to the present day. On the other hand, from the thirteenth century, other Orthodox have pointed out that no ecumenical council ever condemned the entire Western Church and excommunicated its members. Hence, they argued, Latins should not be denied Communion because of the filioque in their Creed.

An Orthodox Patriarch of Constantinople, Gregory II, of Cyprus (1241–1290), proposed a different formula which has also been considered as an Orthodox "answer" to the filioque, though it does not have the status of official Orthodox doctrine. Gregory spoke of an eternal manifestation of the Spirit by the Son. In other words, he held that the Son eternally manifests (shows forth) the Holy Spirit.

In general, even up to the time of the Council of Florence, the writings of Latin fathers were not widely read in the East; the language was not understood. Hence, the formulation of the filioque, let alone its meaning, was not readily understood in the East. Up to the present, some Western practices are still condemned as heresy by some in the East, disciplinary customs such as mandatory celibacy for priests or the use of pouring water for baptism, rather than triple immersion. When the Pope of Rome visited Greece, some clergy refused to pray with him; others protested publicly against his visit. In Ukraine, when he visited, one Orthodox community held a ceremony of "cursing" for a bishop they considered a heretic. Some Orthodox, too, speak of what they call the "heresy of ecumenism." The Patriarch of Constantinople has accused some monks of Mount Athos, Greece, as being schismatic in spirit, because they consider the entire West to be mired in heresy. Again and again, the filioque is brought up as the first example of heresy.

In the recent past, however, several Orthodox theologians have considered the filioque anew, with a view to reconciliation of East and West. Theodore Stylianopoulos, for one, provides an extensive, scholarly overview of the contemporary discussion. A "Father Chrysostom", following Jean-Miguel Garrigues, appeals for common prayer, instead of polemicism. Twenty years after first writing The Orthodox Church, Bishop Kallistos of Diokleia says that he has changed his mind; now, he considers the filioque dispute to be primarily semantic.

The Moscow patriarchate has said that it does not rebaptize or even chrismate Catholics who become Orthodox; they simply repent and are welcomed. Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople has said that all that is necessary is resolution of what he calls the "Uniate" problem. Should the conflict over Eastern Rite Catholic Churches in Russia be resolved, the filioque dispute would perhaps not be an obstacle to full reconciliation. For many Orthodox, then, the filioque, while still a matter of conflict, would not impede full communion of the Catholic and Orthodox Churches.

Roman Catholic Church

In 1274, at the Second Council of Lyons, the Catholic Church condemned those who "presume to deny" that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. In the recent past, many Catholic theologians have written on the filioque, with an ecumenical intention. Yves Congar, O.P., argues that varying formulations may be seen not as contradictory but as complementary. Irenee Dalmais, O.P. points out that East and West have different, yet complementary, pneumatologies, theologies of the Holy Spirit. Avery Dulles, S.J., traces the history of the filioque controversy and weighs pros and cons of several possibilities for reconciliation. Eugene Webb makes use of the pneumatology of Bernard Lonergan, S.J.

From an official standpoint, the Roman Catholic Church has not imposed the recitation of the filioque on the East. The Eastern Rite Churches of the Catholic Church include, for example, the Maronites, the Melkites, and the Ruthenians. Those who returned to union with the Papacy at various dates were not required to include the "and the Son" formula in their recitation of the Creed. The Maronites, who claim to have never been out of communion with Rome (though this claim is disputed), have also never used the filioque. Nonetheless, its conciliar definition makes it de fide for all claiming communion with the faith of Rome.

In many liturgies, when celebrating with bishops from the East, the Pope has recited the Nicene Creed without the filioque. It is certain that Pope Paul VI and Pope John Paul II regard the text of 381 to be entirely correct on its own merit and that using filioque in Eastern liturgies would not even be appropriate.

Of special importance is a recent clarification of the filioque by the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity. This document was prepared at the specific request of the Bishop of Rome. It is entitled The Greek and Latin Traditions Regarding the Procession of the Holy Spirit.

Overview

In part, the filioque was originally proposed in order to stress more clearly the connection between the Son and the Spirit, amid a heresy in which the Son was taken as less than the Father because he does not serve as a source of the Holy Spirit. In other words, when the filioque came into use in Spain and Gaul in the West, they were not aware that their language of procession would not translate well back into the Greek. Conversely, from Photius to the Council of Florence, the Latin Fathers were also not acquainted with the linguistic issues.

To be more specific, the origins of the filioque in the West are to be found in the writings of certain Church Fathers in the West and especially in the anti-Arian situation of 7th-century Spain. In this context, the filioque was a means to affirm the full divinity of both the Spirit and the Son. It is not just a question of establishing a connection with the Father and his divinity; it is a question of reinforcing the profession of Catholic faith in the fact that both the Son and Spirit share the fullness of God's nature.

It is ironic that a similar anti-Arian emphasis also strongly influenced the development of the liturgy in the East, for example, in promoting prayer to "Christ Our God," an expression which also came to find a place in the West. (As Joseph Jungmann, S.J., has shown, this shift in mentality caused a loss in appreciation of the mediating role of Christ in the liturgy, as well as other changes in piety.)

In this case, a common adversary, namely, Arianism, had profound, far-reaching effects, in the orthodox reaction in both East and West. It should be noted that the Nicene Creed was not introduced into the celebration of the Mass in Rome until the eleventh century; in this respect, in terms of the Roman liturgy, filioque is a relatively late addition.

As noted, Church politics, authority conflicts, ethnic hostility, linguistic misunderstanding, personal rivalry, and secular motives all combined in various ways to divide East and West. More than once, the filioque dispute was used to reinforce such division. Now, with a growing spirit of charity, in accord with the will of Christ, that there be one flock (Jn 10:16; 17:22), perhaps the filioque dispute will be resolved, so that the Catholic and the Orthodox Churches may be reconciled.

Recent discussions and statements

Dialogue on this and other subjects is continuing.

A little-known sign of shifting Roman Catholic policy in the ongoing story of this controversy can be found in an official Roman Catholic document published on August 6, 2000 and written by Pope Benedict XVI, when he was Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, and assisted by the Congregation's then secretary, Tarcisio Bertone. This document, Dominus Iesus, (Latin for "Lord Jesus"), and subtitled "On the Unicity and Salvific Universality of Jesus Christ and the Church" contains a remarkable gesture, as in the official Latin text of this document (second paragraph in the first section), the filioque clause is quietly left out without notice or comment. Was this removal an attempt to reach a hand across the theological and historical chasm separating Eastern and Western Churches? This document takes on increased significance with the elevation of one of its authors from cardinal to pope.

The filioque clause was the main subject discussed at the 62nd meeting of the North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation, which met at the Hellenic College/Holy Cross Greek Orthodox School of Theology in Brookline from June 3 through June 5 2002, for their spring session. As a result of these modern discussions, it has been suggested that the Orthodox could accept an "economic" filioque that states that the Holy Spirit, who originates in the Father alone, was sent to the Church "through the Son" (as the Paraclete), but this is not official Orthodox doctrine. It is what the Greeks call a theologumenon, a theological idea. (Similarly, the late Edward Kilmartin, S.J., proposed as a theologumenon, a "mission" of the Holy Spirit to the Church.)

Recently, an important, agreed statement has been made by the North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation, on October 25, 2003. This document The Filioque: A Church-Dividing Issue?, provides an extensive review of Scripture, history, and theology. Especially critical are the recommendations of this consultation, for example:

1. That all involved in such dialogue expressly recognize the limitations of our ability to make definitive assertions about the inner life of God.
2. That, in the future, because of the progress in mutual understanding that has come about in recent decades, Orthodox and Catholics refrain from labeling as heretical the traditions of the other side on the subject of the procession of the Holy Spirit.
3. That Orthodox and Catholic theologians distinguish more clearly between the divinity and hypostatic identity of the Holy Spirit (which is a received dogma of our Churches) and the manner of the Spirit's origin, which still awaits full and final ecumenical resolution.
4. That those engaged in dialogue on this issue distinguish, as far as possible, the theological issues of the origin of the Holy Spirit from the ecclesiological issues of primacy and doctrinal authority in the Church, even as we pursue both questions seriously, together.
5. That the theological dialogue between our Churches also give careful consideration to the status of later councils held in both our Churches after those seven generally received as ecumenical.
6. That the Catholic Church, as a consequence of the normative and irrevocable dogmatic value of the Creed of 381, use the original Greek text alone in making translations of that Creed for catechetical and liturgical use.
7. 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.

In the judgment of the consultation, the question of the filioque is no longer a "Church-dividing" issue, one which would impede full reconciliation and full communion, once again. It is for the bishops of the Catholic and Orthodox Churches to review this work and to make whatever decisions would be appropriate.

References

ISBN links support NWE through referral fees

There is a great deal written on the topic of the filioque; what follows, therefore, is selective. As time goes on, this list will inevitably have to be updated.

• "Filioque," Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church. Oxford, 1997, p. 611.
• David Bradshaw. Aristotle East and West: Metaphysics and the Division of Christendom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004, pp. 214–220.
• John St. H. Gibaut, "The Cursus Honorum and the Western Case Against Photius," Logos 37 (1996), 35–73.
• Elizabeth Teresa Groppe. Yves Congar's Theology of the Holy Spirit. New York: Oxford University Press, 2004. See esp. pp. 75–79, for a summary of Congar's work on the filioque. Congar is widely considered the most important Roman Catholic ecclesiologist of the twentieth century. He was influential in the composition of several Vatican II documents. Most important of all, he was instrumental in the association in the West of pneumatology and ecclesiology, a new development.
• Richard Haugh. Photius and the Carolingians: The Trinitarian Controversy. Belmont, MA: Nordland Publishing Company, 1975.
• Joseph Jungmann, S.J. Pastoral Liturgy. London: Challoner, 1962. See "Christ our God," pp. 38–48.
• James Likoudis. Ending the Byzantine Greek Schism. New Rochelle, New York: 1992. An apologetic response to polemical attacks. A useful book for its inclusion of important texts and documents; see especially citations and works by Thomas Aquinas, O.P., Demetrios Kydones, Nikos A. Nissiotis, and Alexis Stawrowsky. The select bibilography is excellent. The author demonstrates that the filioque dispute is only understood as part of a dispute over papal primacy and cannot be dealt with apart from ecclesiology.
• Bruce D. Marshall, "'Ex Occidente Lux?' Aquinas and Eastern Orthodox Theology," Modern Theology 20:1 (January, 2004), 23–50. Reconsideration of the views of Aquinas, especially on deification and grace, as well as his Orthodox critics. The author suggests that Aquinas may have a more accurate perspective than his critics, on the systematic questions of theology that relate to the filioque dispute.
• John Meyendorff. Byzantine Theology. New York: Fordham University Press, 1979, pp. 91-94.
• Aristeides Papadakis. Crisis in Byzantium: The Filioque Controversy in the Patriarchate of Gregory II of Cyprus (1283–1289). New York: Fordham University Press, 1983.
• Aristeides Papadakis. The Christian East and the Rise of the Papacy. Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1994, pp. 232-238 and 379-408.
• Duncan Reid. Energies of the Spirit: Trinitarian Models in Eastern Orthodox and Western Theology. Atlanta, Georgia: Scholars Press, 1997.
• A. Edward Siecienski. The Use of Maximus the Confessor's Writing on the Filioque at the Council of Ferrara-Florence (1438–1439). Ann Arbor, Michigan: UMI Dissertation Services, 2005.
• Malon H. Smith, III. And Taking Bread: Cerularius and the Azyme Controversy of 1054. Paris: Beauschesne, 1978. This work is still valuable for understanding cultural and theological estrangement of East and West by the turn of the millennium. Now, it is evident that neither side understood the other; both Greek and Latin antagonists assumed their own practices were normative and authentic.
• Timothy [Kallistos] Ware. The Orthodox Church. New edition. London: Penguin, 1993, pp. 52–61.
• Timothy [Kallistos] Ware. The Orthodox Way. Revised edition. Crestwood, New York: 1995, pp. 89–104.
• [World Council of Churches] /Conseil Oecuménique des Eglises. La théologie du Saint-Esprit dans le dialogue œcuménique Document # 103 [Faith and Order]/Foi et Constitution. Paris: Centurion, 1981.

External links

General

• Orthodox/Catholic joint statement
• Filioque at OrthodoxWiki
• Catholic Encyclopedia entry
• Notes on the Filoque Controversy

Historical origins

• An extensive history of the filioque dispute, assembled by Gerard Seraphin. The author makes an important reference to Johannes Grohe, who speaks of Eastern use of the filioque.
• Chronology of the Filioque Controversy. A one-page overview of the dispute, from 325 to 1453.
• John S. Romanides, "The Filioque". The author shows how Franks in the Carolingian Empire in the ninth century worked in opposition to the ancient Church of Rome-Constantinople, the "Roman Church" of East and West.
• "History of the Mass: Part VI". A brief but more objective presentation of the influence of the Franks in matters of discipline.
• "The Patriarch Photius: The Era of Confrontation and Polemics". Yves Congar, O.P., here provides the historical context of the filioque dispute, as it took place with Patriarch Photius.
• Encyclical to the Eastern Patriarchs. The polemical letter of Patriarch Photius, condemning the filioque, as well as other practices, such as fasting on Saturdays. From the very words of Photius, it is evident that the origin of his hostility is in what he perceives as competition from "Westerners" (Latin priests) in Bulgaria, a territory he considers under his jurisdiction. It is also evident, as Photius says, that he never heard of the filoque until now; in spite of his considerable erudition, he is, therefore, not familiar with the Latin Fathers.
• "Photius of Constantinople". From the 'Catholic Encyclopedia, an introduction to Photius, reflecting the state of scholarship on this topic at the beginning of the twentieth century.
• "The Patriarch Photius and his disputes with Rome". Milton V. Anastos (like Congar, Dvornik et al.) gives a much kinder assessment of Photius. Contemporary scholarship has corrected many false statements about his actions and provided a more accurate historical context. Pope John VIII, for example, never excommunicated Photius.
• The Orthodox Church. In this excerpt from the book, Bishop Kallistos Ware writes of the role of the filioque in the East-West disputes, especially objections to that phrase by St. Photius and Patriarch Cerularius. The author provides the historical context of the estrangement of East and West; he does an excellent job.
• "Hugh and Leo Etherianus". At Constantinople, in the twelfth century, Hugh Etherianus prepared the first exhaustive and scholarly defense of the filioque, using both Latin and Greek Fathers: De haeresibus quas Graeci in Latinos devolvunt, sive quod Spiritus Sanctus ex utroque Patre et Filio procedit. In English, that's "About the heresies of which the Greeks accuse the Latins, whether the Holy Spirit proceeeds from both the Father and the Son."
• "St. Thomas Aquinas". Introduction to Thomas Aquinas, O.P., prominent Scholastic theologian and philosopher, defender of the filioque.
• Excerpt from the Summa Theologica, "The Processions of the Divine Persons". Explicit explanation of the processions of the Trinity, according to Aquinas.
• Another excerpt from the Summa, "Whether the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Son?" The Scholastic perspective of Aquinas, precisely on the topic of this present article.
• Scott Steinkercher, O.P., "Notes on Thomas Aquinas". Background, method, and anthropology of the Scholastic theology of Aquinas.
• Thomas Aquinas, Contra errores Graecorum. This 55-page essay, in Latin, is not for the faint of heart. Alta Vista and Google probably cannot render the text clearly in English, because of the dense logic of the arguments. In this essay, Aquinas argues that the Greeks don't accept universal jurisdiction of the Pope because their pneumatology is defective, as evidenced, he says, in their rejection of the filioque. This essay was influential among the participants in the 1274 Council of Lyons. Pope Urban IV had asked Aquinas to prepare this document, in preparation for that council. Regrettably, there does not seem to be a complete English translation of Contra errores available online.
• Contra errores Graecorum. This is an English translation of the first part of this essay, by Antoine Valentin. Although the relevant passages are not translated, in this excerpt you can see how Aquinas argues.
• Patriarch John Beccus of Constantinople. The remarkable life of this Orthodox bishop; he did not consider the filioque heresy and favored reconciliation with the West.
• Tomos of 1285. The definitive rejection by Patriarch Gregory and the Council of Blachernae of the union of 1274 and the preceding patriarch, John Beccus. Calling the filioque addition to the Creed "blasphemy," this document represents a polemical, violent reaction to Scholastic theology, used to explain and defend the filioque. In this document, Beccus and his followers are said to be banished and "expelled from Orthodoxy."
• Excerpt from The Council of Florence by Joseph Gill, S.J., "The Addition to the Creed". Dialogue between East and West at Ferrara, on the filioque.
• Another excerpt from The Council of Florence, "Florence and the Dogmatic Discussions". Dialogue at Florence on the filioque.
• A third excerpt from The Council of Florence, "Reunion". History and text of Laetentur Caeli, 1439 decree of union between East and West.

Orthodox Church

• George Dragas, "The Manner of Reception of Roman Catholic Converts into the Orthodox Church" Tracing the history of such reception, the author makes the important point that the practice of re-baptizing Roman Catholics became widespread in the thirteenth century, after the sacking of Constantinople by the Crusaders. Even single immersion, as in the West, was often considered invalid. In Russia, says the author, such re-baptizing was a universal practice; it must, he says, have been transferred there from the Greek Church. However, a synod in 1484 prescribed only chrismation (anointing), with a renunciation of the filioque and other Western practices, such as the use of unleavened bread for the Eucharist. In both re-baptism and chrismation, the Latins were treated as heretics undergoing reconciliation.
• Ecumenism and Heresy Here is a list of links, giving Orthodox positions that are anti-ecumenical and positions that are more irenic in character. See especially the sites with authorship by the Sacred Community of Mount Athos, John Meyendorff, and David Armstrong.
• "The Filioque: Dogma, Theologumenon or Heresy?" Theodore Stylianopoulos here presents an extensive, scholarly overview of the contemporary discussion of the filioque. His article is carefully reasoned and works toward reconciliation.
• "Papal Primacy". In this article, Emmanuel Clapsis provides a well-documented study of the context in which the filioque dispute may be resolved: a communion ecclesiology, with a renewed understanding of the primacy of the Bishop of Rome. As Cardinal Ratzinger says, we can return to the understanding of that primacy as it was in the first millennium; that would provide a basis for reconciliation of the Orthodox and Catholic Churches.
• "The True Faith" Father Chrysostom here appeals for prayer, to resolve long-standing conflict and polemicism.
• "Apostolic Christianity and the 23,000 Western Churches - 6. The Great Schism" Steven Kovacevich details here in Q&A format the heresies, especially the filioque, that led to the Great Schism.

Catholic Church

• Yves Congar, O.P., I Believe in the Holy Spirit, "Attempts at and Suggestions for an Agreement". This renowned theologian says that varying formulations may be seen not as contradictory but as complementary.
• Irenee Dalmais, O.P., "The Spirit of Truth and of Life". The author speaks of differing pneumatologies (theologies of the Spirit) in East and West.
• Avery Dulles, S.J., "The Filioque: What Is at Stake?". The author traces the history of the filioque controversy and evaluates current options. He says that it is important for the East to acknowledge that the West has not been in heresy for the past 1500 years. PDF.
• Eugene Webb, "The Pneumatology of Bernard Lonergan: A Byzantine Comparison". The author uses the pneumatology of Bernard Lonergan, S.J., to resolve the filioque controversy. PDF.
• "On the Procession of the Holy Spirit". Father John McCarthy of the Roman Theological Forum analyzes what the Filioque means.
• "The Greek and Latin Traditions regarding the Procession of the Holy Spirit," a clarification from the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity. A very important document, making a substantial contribution to contemporary theological dialogue, working toward reconciliation.
• Ioannis Zizioulas, "One Single Source: An Orthodox response to the Clarification on the Filioque". The author says that East and West can easily continue dialogue on the filioque, provided that both agree that the Father is the sole cause/origin both of the Son and of the Spirit. This article is a positive statement, giving grounds for further progress towards reconciliation.
• Jean-Claude Larchet, "À propos de la récente « clarification » du conseil pontifical pour la promotion de l'unité des chrétiens. A 56-page, scholarly response to the clarification of the Pontifical Council, by Jean-Claude Larchet, in French. An extensive, well thought-out analysis.
• Filioque, from the Robert Appleton Company's Catholic Encyclopedia, provided online by New Advent. A relatively brief Catholic synopsis of the filioque controversy.
• Filioque, from the Catholic Answers library]. A very brief Catholic synopsis and apology of the filioque controversy.

Overview

• Excerpt from The Mass of the Roman Rite Here, Joseph Jungmann, S.J., explains the importance of the mediating role of Christ in the liturgy, largely lost in the East, because of anti-Arianism, the same reactive force that in Spain gave rise to the filioque.

Recent discussions and statements

• The agreed statement of the North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consulation, 25 October 2003. A very important document, with objective, historical accounting and critical recommendations, to promote ultimate reconciliation between East and West, on the filioque dispute.
• "The Catholic-Orthodox Dialogue: Lights and Shadows" Catholic James Likoudis, an ex-Orthodox polemicist, here provides a record of some responses to the 2003 agreed statement.

This article incorporates text from the public domain 1907 edition of The Nuttall Encyclopædia.

Credits

New World Encyclopedia writers and editors rewrote and completed the Wikipedia article in accordance with New World Encyclopedia standards. This article abides by terms of the Creative Commons CC-by-sa 3.0 License (CC-by-sa), which may be used and disseminated with proper attribution. Credit is due under the terms of this license that can reference both the New World Encyclopedia contributors and the selfless volunteer contributors of the Wikimedia Foundation. To cite this article click here for a list of acceptable citing formats.The history of earlier contributions by wikipedians is accessible to researchers here:

• Filioque clause  ^history

The history of this article since it was imported to New World Encyclopedia:

• History of "Filioque clause"

Note: Some restrictions may apply to use of individual images which are separately licensed.