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 filoque was later accepted by the Franks, who, under the leadership of Pippin the Younger and his son Charlemagne, rose to dominance in the West, with Charlemagne being crowned Emperor in 800. In the West, the filioque was thus widely accepted as an integral part of the Nicen Creed.

In the early ninth century, Pope Leo III stated that although he personally agreed with the filioque, he opposed adopting formally as pope in Rome since it was clearly not part of received tradition of the ecumenical councils. As a gesture of unity with the East, he caused the traditional text of the Nicene Creed— without the filioque—to be displayed publicly. This text was engraved on two silver tablets at the tomb of Saint Peter.

The practice of adding the filioque was retained in many parts in the West in spite of the papal advice, and by the middle of the eleventh century it had gained a firm foothold in Rome itself. Scholars do not agree as to the exact time of its introduction at Rome, but most assign it to the reign of Benedict VIII.

The Photian schism

File:StPhotios.jpg

Saint Photios

In the East, however, no such developments had occurred, and the inclusion of the filoque clause in western versions of the creed was looked upon with suspicion, especially in view of the fact that the canons of the Third Ecumenical Council in 431forbade and anathematized any additions to the Nicene Creed.

Meanwhile, in 858, the Byzantine Emperor Michael III removed Patriarch Ignatius I as patriarch of Constantinople for political reasons and replaced him with the future Saint Photios, a layman and scholar who had previously been imperial secretary and ambassador to Muslims at Baghdad. A controversy ensured and the emperor called a synod to which Pope Nicholas was invited. The pope sent legates to participate in the meeting in 861 which formally confirmed Photios. On learning of the council's decision the next year, the pope was outraged that the synod had not considered Rome's claims to jurisdictio over the churches of Bulgaria and consequently excommunicated his own delegates. He then convened a council in Rome in 863 in which he excommunicated Photios and deposed him on the basis that his appointment as patriarch of Constantinople was not canonical. He recognize Ignatius as the legitimate patriarch instead. Thus Rome and Constantinople found themselves, not for the first time in their history, in schism.

The filioque entered the controversy in 867, when Photius' Encyclical to the Eastern Patriarchs formally rejected the pope's claims and cited the filioque as proof that Rome had a habit of overstepping its proper limits not only in matters of church discipline but also in theology. A council was convened with over a thousand clergymen attending. This synod excommunicated Pope Nicholas, condemned his claims of primacy, his interference in the newly converted Bulgaria, and condemned the innovative addition of the filioque clause to the Creed.

However, the patriarchs of Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem concurred with Rome—at least on the issue of Photius ordination if not on the filoque.

The murder of Emperor Michael in 867 by the usurper Basil the Macedonian, resulted in the actual deposition of Photios and the re-installation of Ignatius. On the death of Ignatius in October 877, Photius again resumed office, having been recommended by Ignatius prior to his deathbut was forced to resign 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.

Further East-West controversy

In 1014, the German Emperor Henry II visited Rome for his coronation and found to his surprise that the Nicene Creed was not used during the Mass. At his request, the Pope Benedict VIII included the Creed with the filioque, after the reading of the Gospel. This was the first time the phrase was known to be used in the Mass at Rome.

In 1054 the issue contributed significantly to the Great Schism of the East and West, when pope Leo IX formally included the term in his official expression of faith and the Catholic and Orthodox churches each declared the other guilty of heresy for including or not including the filioque in their respective creeds.

Efforts to reunite East and West

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

After extensive discussion, they acknowledged that some early Latin Church Fathers spoke of the procession of the Spirit differently from the Greek Fathers. The Western usage was held not to be a heresy and no longer 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 in 1439.

For a brief period, the Catholic and Orthodox Churches were once again in communion. However, the reconciliation achieved at Florence was soon destroyed. Many Orthodox faithful and bishops rejected the union and would not ratify it, seeing it as a compromise of theological principle in the interest of political expediency. Moreover, the promised Western armies were too late to prevent the Fall of Constantinople to the Turks in 1453. From that time onward, the Turks encouraged separation from the West, which remained an adversary to Islamic political and military dominance.

For his stand against the filioque and compromise with papal supremacy, Mark of Ephesus came to be venerated as a saint in the Eastern Orthodox Church and is often honored as a pillar of Orthodoxy.

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.

External links

General

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

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.