The Filioque

Origins of the Filioque

The Filioque controversy, centered on the phrase “and the Son” (Filioque in Latin) added to the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, is one of the most significant theological disputes in Christian history. This addition to the Creed, which states that the Holy Spirit proceeds “from the Father and the Son,” contributed to the Great Schism of 1054, dividing Western (Roman Catholic) and Eastern (Orthodox) Christianity.  The Filioque clause was not part of the original Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, formulated at the First Council of Nicaea (325) and expanded at the First Council of Constantinople (381). The original Creed stated that the Holy Spirit “proceeds from the Father,” reflecting John 15:26: “When the Comforter comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, he will testify of me.”[^1] This verse emphasizes the Father as the source of the Holy Spirit, a position central to early Trinitarian theology. The Filioque was introduced in the West to counter Arianism, which denied the full divinity of the Son. By affirming that the Holy Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son, Western theologians sought to emphasize the co-equality of the Father and Son within the Trinity.

The earliest use of the Filioque in the West is traced to the Third Council of Toledo (589), where it was added to the Creed to reinforce Nicene orthodoxy after the Visigoths’ conversion from Arianism.[^2] The practice spread through the Frankish Church, notably under Charlemagne, whose court theologians, like Alcuin of York, promoted it at the Synod of Aachen (809).[^3] However, Rome resisted the addition for centuries, with Pope Leo III (r. 795–816) affirming the doctrine’s theological correctness but opposing its inclusion in the Creed, commissioning silver shields with the original text to be displayed in St. Peter’s Basilica.[^4] The Filioque was not universally adopted in the West until 1014, during the coronation of Henry II as Holy Roman Emperor.[^5]

Scriptural Articulation

Scriptural support for the Filioque is debated. Western theologians cite passages suggesting the Son’s role in the procession of the Holy Spirit, such as:

• John 16:14–15: “He [the Holy Spirit] will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you. All that the Father has is mine.” This implies a relationship where the Spirit receives from the Son, supporting the idea of procession from both.[^1]

• Galatians 4:6: “God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts,” suggesting the Spirit’s association with the Son.[^1]

• John 20:22: “He [Jesus] breathed on them and said, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit,’” interpreted by some as indicating the Son’s role in the Spirit’s procession.[^1]

Eastern theologians, however, argue that these passages refer to the economic Trinity (God’s actions in the world) rather than the immanent Trinity (God’s eternal nature). They emphasize John 15:26, which explicitly states the Spirit proceeds from the Father, and argue that no clear scriptural evidence supports the Son as a source of the Spirit’s eternal procession.[^6]

Early Church Fathers

The Filioque doctrine finds support in the writings of several Church Fathers, both Western and Eastern, though interpretations vary:

• Tertullian of Carthage (c. 155–240): “I believe that the Spirit proceeds not otherwise than from the Father through the Son” (Against Praxeas 4:1 [A.D. 216]). This suggests a procession mediated through the Son.[^7]

• Hilary of Poitiers (c. 310–367): “Concerning the Holy Spirit . . . it is not necessary to speak of him who must be acknowledged, who is from the Father and the Son, his sources” (The Trinity 2:29 [A.D. 357]). Hilary explicitly identifies both Father and Son as sources.[^8]

• Didymus the Blind (c. 313–398): “The Holy Spirit receives from the Son that which he was of his own nature. . . . Nor has the Holy Spirit any other substance than that given him by the Son” (The Holy Spirit 37 [A.D. 362]). As an Eastern Father, Didymus supports the Filioque theology.[^9]

• Ambrose of Milan (c. 340–397): “The Holy Spirit, when he proceeds from the Father and the Son, does not separate himself from the Father and does not separate himself from the Son” (The Holy Spirit 1:2:120 [A.D. 381]).[^10]

• Augustine of Hippo (354–430): “The Father and the Son are the principle of the Holy Spirit, not two principles, but just as the Father and the Son are one God . . . relative to the Holy Spirit, they are one principle” (The Trinity 5:14:15 [A.D. 408]). Augustine’s theology became foundational for Western Trinitarian thought, emphasizing the double procession.[^11]

Eastern Fathers like Gregory of Nyssa (c. 335–395) and John of Damascus (c. 675–749) often used phrases like “through the Son,” which some Western theologians interpret as compatible with the Filioque. For example, John of Damascus wrote, “I say that God is always Father since he has always his Word [the Son] coming from himself and, through his Word, the Spirit issuing from him” (Dialogue Against the Manicheans 5 [A.D. 728]).[^12] However, Eastern theologians argue that “through the Son” refers to the temporal mission of the Spirit, not the eternal procession, which originates solely from the Father.[^13]

Eastern Church’s Rejection of the Filioque

Theological Objections

The Eastern Church’s rejection of the Filioque is rooted in theological and procedural concerns:

1. Theological Concerns:

   • Monarchy of the Father: Eastern theology emphasizes the Father as the sole arche (source or principle) of the Trinity. The Filioque is seen as introducing two sources (Father and Son), potentially undermining the Father’s unique role and risking subordinationism or Sabellianism (confusing the persons of the Trinity). Photius, Patriarch of Constantinople (858–867, 877–886), argued that the Spirit proceeds “from the Father alone” in the eternal sense, restricting “through the Son” to the Spirit’s temporal mission.[^14]

   • Scriptural Fidelity: Eastern theologians, such as Vladimir Lossky, contend that the Filioque lacks clear biblical support for the Son’s role in the eternal procession, relying instead on speculative theology. They prioritize John 15:26 and the original Creed’s wording.[^15]

   • Distinction Between Economic and Immanent Trinity: The East distinguishes between the Spirit’s economic role (sent by the Son in time, as in John 15:26) and the immanent Trinity (eternal relations). The Filioque is seen as conflating these, leading to theological confusion.[^16]

2. Procedural Concerns:

   • The East viewed the unilateral addition of the Filioque as a violation of Canon VII of the Council of Ephesus (431), which prohibited changes to the Creed without ecumenical consent. The Western Church’s adoption, particularly by local synods like Toledo and Aachen, was seen as an overreach of authority, especially when Rome adopted it in 1014 without consulting the Eastern patriarchs.[^17]

Historical Context of Rejection

The rejection solidified in the 9th century under Photius, who issued an encyclical in 867 condemning the Filioque and accusing the Western Church of heresy.[^18] The Council of Constantinople (867) declared Pope Nicholas I anathema, escalating tensions.[^19] The Filioque became a symbol of broader East-West differences, including linguistic barriers (Greek vs. Latin), cultural divergences, and disputes over papal authority. The Council of Blachernae (1285), led by Patriarch Gregory II of Cyprus, formally condemned the Filioque, affirming that the Spirit’s eternal procession is from the Father alone, though allowing “through the Son” for the temporal mission.[^20]

Factors Leading to the Schism

The Great Schism of 1054, marked by mutual excommunications between Cardinal Humbert and Patriarch Michael Cerularius, was not solely about the Filioque but was significantly influenced by it. Key factors include:

Theological Differences

• Trinitarian Models: The West, influenced by Augustine, developed a relational model of the Trinity, where the Spirit proceeds from the Father and Son as one principle, emphasizing unity. The East, following the Cappadocians (Basil the Great, Gregory of Nyssa, Gregory of Nazianzus), prioritized the monarchy of the Father, with the Son and Spirit deriving from the Father alone. The Filioque was seen as disrupting this balance.[^21]

• Other Doctrinal Issues: Disagreements over purgatory, the use of unleavened bread in the Eucharist, clerical celibacy, and icon veneration further strained relations. The Filioque symbolized these broader theological divides.[^22]

Political Motivations

• Papal Authority: The West’s assertion of papal supremacy clashed with the East’s conciliar model, where patriarchs held equal authority under ecumenical councils. The Filioque’s unilateral addition was seen as an extension of Rome’s claim to universal jurisdiction, which the East rejected.[^23]

• Byzantine-Frankish Rivalry: The Carolingian Empire’s adoption of the Filioque under Charlemagne was partly a political move to assert Western orthodoxy against the Byzantine Empire, especially after Charlemagne’s coronation as Holy Roman Emperor in 800, which challenged Constantinople’s imperial legitimacy.[^24]

• Cultural and Linguistic Divide: The growing linguistic barrier (Latin vs. Greek) hindered theological dialogue, leading to misunderstandings. The East viewed Western Scholasticism as overly rationalistic, while the West saw Eastern theology as resistant to development.[^25]

Current Dialogues and Efforts Toward Healing

Ecumenical Efforts

Since the Second Vatican Council (1962–1965) and the Pan-Orthodox Conferences (1961–1968), dialogue between Catholic and Orthodox Churches has intensified. Key developments include:

• North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation (2003): This group issued an agreed statement declaring the Filioque no longer a “Church-dividing” issue. It recommended that the Catholic Church use the original Greek Creed without the Filioque for catechetical and liturgical purposes and suggested that the condemnation of the Filioque at the Second Council of Lyons (1274) be declared obsolete. The statement emphasized distinguishing theological issues from ecclesiological ones (e.g., papal authority).[^28]

• Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity (1995): The Catholic Church clarified that the Filioque does not imply two principles but one, aligning with the Eastern formula “from the Father through the Son” as complementary. This document sought to bridge the semantic gap, acknowledging that “proceeds” may have different nuances in Greek and Latin.[^29]

• Council of Florence Revisited: The Council of Florence (1439) temporarily achieved union, with Byzantine Emperor John VIII Palaiologos accepting the Filioque. However, the union failed due to Eastern resistance and political pressures, particularly after the Fall of Constantinople (1453). Modern dialogues reference Florence to explore past agreements.[^30]

Footnotes

[^1]: All biblical quotations are from the New Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition (NRSVCE).
[^2]: Third Council of Toledo in Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, vol. 1, ed. Norman P. Tanner (Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 1990), 233–235.
[^3]: A. Edward Siecienski, The Filioque: History of a Doctrinal Controversy (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010), 68–72.
[^4]: Ibid., 76–80.
[^5]: Ibid., 100–102.
[^6]: Vladimir Lossky, The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1976), 51–60.
[^7]: Tertullian, Against Praxeas 4:1, in Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 3, ed. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1994).
[^8]: Hilary of Poitiers, The Trinity 2:29, in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, vol. 9, ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1994).
[^9]: Didymus the Blind, The Holy Spirit 37, cited in Siecienski, The Filioque, 45–46.
[^10]: Ambrose of Milan, The Holy Spirit 1:2:120, in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, vol. 10.
[^11]: Augustine of Hippo, The Trinity 5:14:15, in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series, vol. 3.
[^12]: John of Damascus, Dialogue Against the Manicheans 5, in Writings, trans. Frederic H. Chase Jr. (Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 1958).
[^13]: Lossky, Mystical Theology, 55–57.
[^14]: Photius, Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit, trans. Joseph P. Farrell (Brookline, MA: Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 1987), 59–72.
[^15]: Lossky, Mystical Theology, 51–60.
[^16]: John Meyendorff, Byzantine Theology: Historical Trends and Doctrinal Themes (New York: Fordham University Press, 1979), 91–94.
[^17]: Council of Ephesus, Canon VII, in Tanner, Decrees, 65–66.
[^18]: Photius, Encyclical to the Eastern Patriarchs (867), cited in Siecienski, The Filioque, 105–107.
[^19]: Ibid., 108–110.
[^20]: Council of Blachernae (1285), cited in Aristeides Papadakis, Crisis in Byzantium: The Filioque Controversy in the Patriarchate of Gregory II of Cyprus (New York: Fordham University Press, 1997), 123–130.
[^21]: Meyendorff, Byzantine Theology, 180–186.
[^22]: John A. McGuckin, The Orthodox Church: An Introduction (Oxford: Blackwell, 2008), 35–40.
[^23]: Steven Runciman, The Eastern Schism (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1955), 28–35.
[^24]: Siecienski, The Filioque, 72–76.
[^25]: McGuckin, The Orthodox Church, 30–32.
[^26]: Runciman, The Eastern Schism, 45–50.
[^27]: Ibid., 100–105.
[^28]: North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation, “The Filioque: A Church-Dividing Issue?” (2003), available at http://www.usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/ecumenical-and-interreligious/orthodox/filioque-church-dividing-issue-english.cfm.
[^29]: Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, “The Greek and Latin Traditions Regarding the Procession of the Holy Spirit” (1995), available at http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/general-docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_1995_filioque_en.html.
[^30]: Joseph Gill, The Council of Florence (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1959), 250–270.

return to top ⇑