→Councils addressing the Filioque: put together councils reckoned by at least one of the two Churches |
Undid edit-warring by repeated deletion of unanswered citation request |
||
Line 157: | Line 157: | ||
The removal of [[Pope Sergius IV]] from the list of those in communion with Constantinople called the [[diptychs]] (due to Sergius IV's explicit endorsement of the Filioque) by [[Sergius II of Constantinople|Patriarch Sergius II]] has even been called a schism in itself.<ref>The Filioque: History of a Doctrinal Controversy By A. Edward Siecienski pg 112 schism between the two Sergii” [http://books.google.com/books?id=auT8VbgOe48C&pg=PA112&lpg=PA112&dq=Patriarch+Sergius+filioque&source=bl&ots=oPcqwFlCvY&sig=dWaYa9DTE87Li_c9vgEfOKdawbk&hl=en&ei=-VoGTJWnAsL88AaExpz8Cg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CBwQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=Patriarch%20Sergius%20filioque&f=false]</ref> Charlemagne's and by proxy the Wests{{Citation needed|date=June 2010}} behavior were perceived as a rejection of the explanation of the ''Filioque'' given by Maximus.<ref>''In a council of 809 Charlemagne''' had his bishops declare ''''an excommunication against anyone who did not accept the Filioque'''. In reaction to this, the Greeks laid aside St. Maximus translation of the Filioque and joined the Germans in incorporating this theological point into the political power struggle between themselves and the Germans over control of Italy and the Slavic world. The Germans won the struggle in Italy and the Greeks won most of it among the Slavs. The result has been that the Church and Europe have been badly divided ever since. John Romanides AN ORTHODOX LOOK AT THE ECUMENICAL MOVEMENT [http://www.romanity.org/htm/rom.30.en.saltonstall.htm]</ref> In reaction to this, the Greeks laid aside St. Maximus translation of the Filioque and joined the [[Franks]] in incorporating this theological point into the political power struggle between themselves and the Germans over control of Italy and the Slavic world.<ref>''In a council of 809 Charlemagne''' had his bishops declare ''''an excommunication against anyone who did not accept the Filioque'''. In reaction to this, the Greeks laid aside St. Maximus translation of the Filioque and joined the Germans in incorporating this theological point into the political power struggle between themselves and the Germans over control of Italy and the Slavic world. The Germans won the struggle in Italy and the Greeks won most of it among the Slavs. The result has been that the Church and Europe have been badly divided ever since. John Romanides AN ORTHODOX LOOK AT THE ECUMENICAL MOVEMENT [http://www.romanity.org/htm/rom.30.en.saltonstall.htm]</ref> Photius affirmed the position that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father ''alone''<ref name=Schaff4/><ref name=Meyendorff12/><ref name=Chadwick154/> to the extent of declaring the traditional Latin belief that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father ''and the Son'' to be heresy.<ref>[http://books.google.com/books?id=YTAhPw3SjxIC&pg=PA120&lpg=PA120&dq=photius+filioque+heresy&source=bl&ots=wxe6XMskqY&sig=vVKLwkXUSGyZK0ugXTzH1UZIuvM&hl=en&ei=HvoMTJioDILu0gTTzuBx&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CB8Q6AEwBDgy#v=onepage&q=photius%20filioque%20heresy&f=false Angelika E. Laiou, Roy P. Mottahedeh, ''The Crusades from the Perspective of Byzantium and the Muslim World'', pp. 120 and 133]</ref><ref>[http://www.ctsfw.net/media/pdfs/dullesthefilioque.pdf Concordia Theological Quarterly, January-April 1995, p. 32]</ref><ref>[http://books.google.com/books?id=Hje62q52XNsC&pg=PA241&lpg=PA241&dq=photius+filioque+heresy&source=bl&ots=GbDH0hBWYX&sig=IdKDCSiarBOZtw4cn8yC_OfzBEw&hl=en&ei=nfgMTLiDJI_80wSs4olw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CCEQ6AEwBTgo#v=onepage&q=photius%20filioque%20heresy&f=false Aidan Nichols, ''Rome and the Eastern Churches'']</ref><ref>[http://books.google.com/books?id=0WvgLlSKW7oC&pg=PA62&lpg=PA62&dq=photius+filioque+heresy&source=bl&ots=q2XDU2RE-R&sig=ohfY9VZPAcqMtH0URBQttK0lMO8&hl=en&ei=nfUMTLeFG4Hw0gTPiN1w&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=8&ved=0CC0Q6AEwBzgU#v=onepage&q=photius%20filioque%20heresy&f=false William J. La Due, ''The Trinity Guide to the Trinity'', p. 62]</ref> |
The removal of [[Pope Sergius IV]] from the list of those in communion with Constantinople called the [[diptychs]] (due to Sergius IV's explicit endorsement of the Filioque) by [[Sergius II of Constantinople|Patriarch Sergius II]] has even been called a schism in itself.<ref>The Filioque: History of a Doctrinal Controversy By A. Edward Siecienski pg 112 schism between the two Sergii” [http://books.google.com/books?id=auT8VbgOe48C&pg=PA112&lpg=PA112&dq=Patriarch+Sergius+filioque&source=bl&ots=oPcqwFlCvY&sig=dWaYa9DTE87Li_c9vgEfOKdawbk&hl=en&ei=-VoGTJWnAsL88AaExpz8Cg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CBwQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=Patriarch%20Sergius%20filioque&f=false]</ref> Charlemagne's and by proxy the Wests{{Citation needed|date=June 2010}} behavior were perceived as a rejection of the explanation of the ''Filioque'' given by Maximus.<ref>''In a council of 809 Charlemagne''' had his bishops declare ''''an excommunication against anyone who did not accept the Filioque'''. In reaction to this, the Greeks laid aside St. Maximus translation of the Filioque and joined the Germans in incorporating this theological point into the political power struggle between themselves and the Germans over control of Italy and the Slavic world. The Germans won the struggle in Italy and the Greeks won most of it among the Slavs. The result has been that the Church and Europe have been badly divided ever since. John Romanides AN ORTHODOX LOOK AT THE ECUMENICAL MOVEMENT [http://www.romanity.org/htm/rom.30.en.saltonstall.htm]</ref> In reaction to this, the Greeks laid aside St. Maximus translation of the Filioque and joined the [[Franks]] in incorporating this theological point into the political power struggle between themselves and the Germans over control of Italy and the Slavic world.<ref>''In a council of 809 Charlemagne''' had his bishops declare ''''an excommunication against anyone who did not accept the Filioque'''. In reaction to this, the Greeks laid aside St. Maximus translation of the Filioque and joined the Germans in incorporating this theological point into the political power struggle between themselves and the Germans over control of Italy and the Slavic world. The Germans won the struggle in Italy and the Greeks won most of it among the Slavs. The result has been that the Church and Europe have been badly divided ever since. John Romanides AN ORTHODOX LOOK AT THE ECUMENICAL MOVEMENT [http://www.romanity.org/htm/rom.30.en.saltonstall.htm]</ref> Photius affirmed the position that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father ''alone''<ref name=Schaff4/><ref name=Meyendorff12/><ref name=Chadwick154/> to the extent of declaring the traditional Latin belief that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father ''and the Son'' to be heresy.<ref>[http://books.google.com/books?id=YTAhPw3SjxIC&pg=PA120&lpg=PA120&dq=photius+filioque+heresy&source=bl&ots=wxe6XMskqY&sig=vVKLwkXUSGyZK0ugXTzH1UZIuvM&hl=en&ei=HvoMTJioDILu0gTTzuBx&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CB8Q6AEwBDgy#v=onepage&q=photius%20filioque%20heresy&f=false Angelika E. Laiou, Roy P. Mottahedeh, ''The Crusades from the Perspective of Byzantium and the Muslim World'', pp. 120 and 133]</ref><ref>[http://www.ctsfw.net/media/pdfs/dullesthefilioque.pdf Concordia Theological Quarterly, January-April 1995, p. 32]</ref><ref>[http://books.google.com/books?id=Hje62q52XNsC&pg=PA241&lpg=PA241&dq=photius+filioque+heresy&source=bl&ots=GbDH0hBWYX&sig=IdKDCSiarBOZtw4cn8yC_OfzBEw&hl=en&ei=nfgMTLiDJI_80wSs4olw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CCEQ6AEwBTgo#v=onepage&q=photius%20filioque%20heresy&f=false Aidan Nichols, ''Rome and the Eastern Churches'']</ref><ref>[http://books.google.com/books?id=0WvgLlSKW7oC&pg=PA62&lpg=PA62&dq=photius+filioque+heresy&source=bl&ots=q2XDU2RE-R&sig=ohfY9VZPAcqMtH0URBQttK0lMO8&hl=en&ei=nfUMTLeFG4Hw0gTPiN1w&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=8&ved=0CC0Q6AEwBzgU#v=onepage&q=photius%20filioque%20heresy&f=false William J. La Due, ''The Trinity Guide to the Trinity'', p. 62]</ref> |
||
In the East, the patriarch Photius responded to the practice of certain Frankish monks in Jerusalem who attempted to impose the practice of the Filioque on their Eastern brothers. <ref>The HarperCollins Encyclopedia of Catholicism By [[Richard P. McBrien]], [[Harold W. Attridge]] pg 529-530 ISBN-10: 0060653388 ISBN-13: 978-0060653385 [http://books.google.com/books?id=WlNfJC6RveAC&pg=PA529&lpg=PA529&dq=Theodoret+filioque&source=bl&ots=Tmttm_DIpZ&sig=5rzJ5I_x1cQ_Xr4cqm38yYwc1fk&hl=en&ei=DVsPTPf8AoKB8gaItOXnCA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CAgQ6AEwATgK#v=onepage&q=Theodoret%20filioque&f=false]</ref> It was in 808 or 809, before Photius was born, that controversy arose in Jerusalem between the Greek monks of one monastery and the Frankish Benedictines of another: the former reproached the latter for, among other things, singing the creed with the ''Filioque'' included.<ref>[http://escholarship.org/uc/item/3859m82c# Andrea Sterk, ''The Silver Shields of Pope Leo III'' in ''Comitatus: A Journal of Medieval and Renaissance Studies'' 1988,] p. 63]</ref><ref>[http://books.google.com/books?id=WtnR-6_PlJAC&pg=PA646&lpg=PA646&dq=Frankish+monks+in+Jerusalem+filioque&source=bl&ots=nEgW5rRjeE&sig=WS4GSMocYPPdf1ZCK28UYbNKjhc&hl=en&ei=V8gQTIq6FqG80gTLztnqBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CCcQ6AEwBTgK#v=onepage&q=Frankish%20monks%20in%20Jerusalem%20filioque&f=false Karl Rahner, ''Encyclopedia of Theology, p. 646]</ref><ref name=HarnackIV/><ref name=Agreed2003/> In fact, it was in defence of these Frankish monks in Jerusalem, whom the Greek monks had accused of heresy, that the theology of the ''Filioque'' was expressed in the 809 local council of Aachen.<ref name=HarnackIV>[http://www.ccel.org/ccel/harnack/dogma5.ii.ii.i.vi.iv.html Harnack, History of Dogma, Volume IV: ''The Controversy regarding the Filioque and Pictures'']</ref><ref name=Agreed2003/><Louth/><ref>[http://hagia-sapentia.blogspot.com/2007/07/seven-interesting-facts-about-history.html Seven Interesting Facts about the History of the Filioque in the West]</ref>[http://www.tyndalehouse.com/TynBul/Library/TynBull_1983_34_04_Bray_FilioqueInHistory.pdf Gerald Bray, ''The ''Filioque'' Clause in History and Theology'' The Tyndale Historical Lecture 1982,] p. 121</ref> This being perceived by the East as the West now setting and forcing the Filioque as dogma. The universal acceptance of the Filioque as dogma which means for the whole church rather than, simply making a linguistic clarification unique to the language of Latin.<ref>[http://books.google.com/books?id=WlNfJC6RveAC&pg=PA529&lpg=PA529&dq=Theodoret+filioque&source=bl&ots=Tmttm_DIpZ&sig=5rzJ5I_x1cQ_Xr4cqm38yYwc1fk&hl=en&ei=DVsPTPf8AoKB8gaItOXnCA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CAgQ6AEwATgK#v=onepage&q=Theodoret%20filioque&f=false]</ref> As the 1909 Catholic Encyclopedia claimed that rejection of the ''Filioque'' was one of the principal errors of the Eastern Orthodox.<ref>The rejection of the Filioque, or the double Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father and Son, and the denial of the primacy of the Roman Pontiff constitute even today the principal errors of the Greek church.[http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06073a.htm]</ref> The Filioque as a clarification that would potentially be acceptable to what is Latin (locally). Yet outside of what is acceptable to Eastern and [[ethnocentric]] churches that do not have Latin as their language{{Citation needed|date=June 2010}} (but capable of being seen by the Orthodox as a theologoumenon).<ref>"Very problematic, May be viewed as a theologoumenon by the Orthodox" His Broken Body: Understanding and Healing the Schism between the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches by [[Laurent Cleenewerck]] Chart on page 342</ref> |
In the East, the patriarch Photius responded to the practice of certain Frankish monks in Jerusalem who attempted to impose the practice of the Filioque on their Eastern brothers. <ref>The HarperCollins Encyclopedia of Catholicism By [[Richard P. McBrien]], [[Harold W. Attridge]] pg 529-530 ISBN-10: 0060653388 ISBN-13: 978-0060653385 [http://books.google.com/books?id=WlNfJC6RveAC&pg=PA529&lpg=PA529&dq=Theodoret+filioque&source=bl&ots=Tmttm_DIpZ&sig=5rzJ5I_x1cQ_Xr4cqm38yYwc1fk&hl=en&ei=DVsPTPf8AoKB8gaItOXnCA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CAgQ6AEwATgK#v=onepage&q=Theodoret%20filioque&f=false]</ref>{{Citation needed|date=June 2010|Please quote exact words}} It was in 808 or 809, before Photius was born, that controversy arose in Jerusalem between the Greek monks of one monastery and the Frankish Benedictines of another: the former reproached the latter for, among other things, singing the creed with the ''Filioque'' included.<ref>[http://escholarship.org/uc/item/3859m82c# Andrea Sterk, ''The Silver Shields of Pope Leo III'' in ''Comitatus: A Journal of Medieval and Renaissance Studies'' 1988,] p. 63]</ref><ref>[http://books.google.com/books?id=WtnR-6_PlJAC&pg=PA646&lpg=PA646&dq=Frankish+monks+in+Jerusalem+filioque&source=bl&ots=nEgW5rRjeE&sig=WS4GSMocYPPdf1ZCK28UYbNKjhc&hl=en&ei=V8gQTIq6FqG80gTLztnqBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CCcQ6AEwBTgK#v=onepage&q=Frankish%20monks%20in%20Jerusalem%20filioque&f=false Karl Rahner, ''Encyclopedia of Theology, p. 646]</ref><ref name=HarnackIV/><ref name=Agreed2003/> In fact, it was in defence of these Frankish monks in Jerusalem, whom the Greek monks had accused of heresy, that the theology of the ''Filioque'' was expressed in the 809 local council of Aachen.<ref name=HarnackIV>[http://www.ccel.org/ccel/harnack/dogma5.ii.ii.i.vi.iv.html Harnack, History of Dogma, Volume IV: ''The Controversy regarding the Filioque and Pictures'']</ref><ref name=Agreed2003/><Louth/><ref>[http://hagia-sapentia.blogspot.com/2007/07/seven-interesting-facts-about-history.html Seven Interesting Facts about the History of the Filioque in the West]</ref>[http://www.tyndalehouse.com/TynBul/Library/TynBull_1983_34_04_Bray_FilioqueInHistory.pdf Gerald Bray, ''The ''Filioque'' Clause in History and Theology'' The Tyndale Historical Lecture 1982,] p. 121</ref> This being perceived by the East as the West now setting and forcing the Filioque as dogma. The universal acceptance of the Filioque as dogma which means for the whole church rather than, simply making a linguistic clarification unique to the language of Latin.<ref>[http://books.google.com/books?id=WlNfJC6RveAC&pg=PA529&lpg=PA529&dq=Theodoret+filioque&source=bl&ots=Tmttm_DIpZ&sig=5rzJ5I_x1cQ_Xr4cqm38yYwc1fk&hl=en&ei=DVsPTPf8AoKB8gaItOXnCA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CAgQ6AEwATgK#v=onepage&q=Theodoret%20filioque&f=false]</ref> As the 1909 Catholic Encyclopedia claimed that rejection of the ''Filioque'' was one of the principal errors of the Eastern Orthodox.<ref>The rejection of the Filioque, or the double Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father and Son, and the denial of the primacy of the Roman Pontiff constitute even today the principal errors of the Greek church.[http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06073a.htm]</ref> The Filioque as a clarification that would potentially be acceptable to what is Latin (locally). Yet outside of what is acceptable to Eastern and [[ethnocentric]] churches that do not have Latin as their language{{Citation needed|date=June 2010}} (but capable of being seen by the Orthodox as a theologoumenon).<ref>"Very problematic, May be viewed as a theologoumenon by the Orthodox" His Broken Body: Understanding and Healing the Schism between the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches by [[Laurent Cleenewerck]] Chart on page 342</ref> |
||
The Eastern church did not universally impose Greek as the defacto language of Christianity, but only the use of the [[Byzantine Rite|liturgy of Constantinople]]. Where as it was only many centuries later than the period under discussion that the Latin church, after translating the church culture into Latin, set about [[Latinizing]], the churches under their power (see 18th- and 19th-century [[Liturgical Latinisation]]). Allowing a great variety of [[liturgy|liturgical]] rites in a similarly great variety of languages, such as [[Aramaic language|Aramaic]], [[Armenian language|Armenian]], [[Coptic language|Coptic]], [[Ge'ez language|Ge'ez]], [[Greek language|Greek]] and [[Church Slavonic language|Church Slavonic]], by the [[Eastern Catholic Churches]], it even allows different [[Latin liturgical rites]] to be used in areas where [[Latin]] is the traditional liturgical language, without imposing the [[Roman Rite]] on them.<!--All this paragraph seems unrelated to the situation in the period under discussion --> |
The Eastern church did not universally impose Greek as the defacto language of Christianity, but only the use of the [[Byzantine Rite|liturgy of Constantinople]]. Where as it was only many centuries later than the period under discussion that the Latin church, after translating the church culture into Latin, set about [[Latinizing]], the churches under their power (see 18th- and 19th-century [[Liturgical Latinisation]]). Allowing a great variety of [[liturgy|liturgical]] rites in a similarly great variety of languages, such as [[Aramaic language|Aramaic]], [[Armenian language|Armenian]], [[Coptic language|Coptic]], [[Ge'ez language|Ge'ez]], [[Greek language|Greek]] and [[Church Slavonic language|Church Slavonic]], by the [[Eastern Catholic Churches]], it even allows different [[Latin liturgical rites]] to be used in areas where [[Latin]] is the traditional liturgical language, without imposing the [[Roman Rite]] on them.<!--All this paragraph seems unrelated to the situation in the period under discussion --> |
Revision as of 18:31, 10 June 2010
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0b/Angelsatmamre-trinity-rublev-1410.jpg/220px-Angelsatmamre-trinity-rublev-1410.jpg)
by Andrei Rublev
Filioque, Latin for "and (from) the Son", was added in Western Christianity to the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, commonly referred to as the Nicene Creed. This creed, foundational to Christian belief since the 4th century, defines the three persons of the Trinity: the Father, the Son (Jesus Christ), and the Holy Spirit. In its original Greek form, the creed says that the Holy Spirit proceeds "from the Father". The Latin text speaks of the Holy Spirit as proceeding "from the Father and the Son".
Et in Spiritum Sanctum, Dominum, et vivificantem: qui ex Patre Filioque procedit.
(And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, and giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son.)
The word Filioque was first added to the Creed at the Third Council of Toledo (589) and its inclusion spread later throughout the Frankish Empire.[1] In the 9th century, Pope Leo III, while accepting, like his predecessor Pope Leo I, the doctrine, tried to suppress singing of the Creed, with Filioque included, at Mass .[1] In 1014, however, inclusion of Filioque in the Creed was adopted in Rome.[1] Since its denunciation by Photios I of Constantinople,[1] it has been an ongoing source of conflict between the East and West, contributing to the East-West Schism of 1054 and proving an obstacle to attempts to reunify the two sides.[2]
Present position of various churches
The doctrine expressed by this phrase is accepted and generally included in recitation of the Creed by the Roman Catholic Church,[3] by Anglicanism[4][5][6] and most other Protestant churches. Some recent "modern liturgy" Anglican service books such as the Canadian Book of Alternative Services, omit the Filioque out of respect for Eastern and Oriental Christianity; but the churches in question do not repudiate the doctrine.[7]
Nonetheless, these groups do not dispute that Filioque is not part of the original text established at the First Council of Constantinople in 381 and used by the Eastern Orthodox Church.
Roman Catholicism
The Roman Catholic Church recognizes that the original text of the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed does not include the Filioque: when quoting that text, as it did in the 6 August 2000 document Dominus Iesus, on the unicity and salvific universality of Jesus Christ and the Church, it does so without that addition.[8] In the liturgy also, the Roman Catholic Church does not add the phrase corresponding to Filioque (καὶ τοῦ Υἱοῦ) to the Greek text of the Creed, even for Latin Rite Catholics.[9] Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI have recited the Nicene Creed jointly with Patriarchs Demetrius I and Bartholomew I in Greek without the Filioque clause.[10][11][12] In addition, Eastern Catholic Churches do not necessarily include "Filioque" in their versions of the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed. Even those Eastern Catholic Churches that are not of Greek tradition and that have incorporated the Filioque into their recitation of the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed are officially encouraged to omit it.[13]
The agreement that brought about the 1595 Union of Brest expressly declared that those entering full communion with Rome "should remain with that which was handed down to (them) in the Holy Scriptures, in the Gospel, and in the writings of the holy Greek Doctors, that is, that the Holy Spirit proceeds, not from two sources and not by a double procession, but from one origin, from the Father through the Son."[14] The Roman Catholic Church understands the statement that the Holy Spirit "proceeds from the Father" – a statement that expresses the Father's character as the first origin of the Spirit – as affirming that the Holy Spirit comes from the Father through the Son.[15] And it understands the statement that the Holy Spirit "proceeds from the Father and the Son" as implying "that the Father, as 'the principle without principle', is the first origin of the Spirit, but also that, as Father of the only Son, he is, with the Son, the single principle from which the Holy Spirit proceeds",[15] and so "not from two sources and not by a double procession, but from one origin, from the Father through the Son".[14]
The belief of the West that the Holy Spirit proceeds, in this sense, "from the Father and the Son" was held in the West at an early stage. Even before Rome, at the 451 Council of Chalcedon recognized and received the 381 Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed with its expression "from the Father", Pope Leo I declared in 446 that the Holy Spirit proceeds from both Father and Son.[16] The Roman Catholic Church recognizes that, in the Greek language, the word used in the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed to signify the proceeding of the Holy Spirit cannot appropriately be used with regard to the Son, but only with regard to the Father, a difficulty that does not exist in other languages.[9]
In the view of the Roman Catholic Church, what it calls the legitimate complementarity of the expressions "from the Father" and "from the Father and the Son" does not, provided it does not become rigid, affect the identity of faith in the reality of the same mystery confessed.[15]
Anglicanism
In 1978 the Anglican Communion's Lambeth Conference requested "that all member Churches of the Anglican Communion should consider omitting the Filioque from the Nicene Creed, and that the Anglican-Orthodox Joint Doctrinal Commission through the Anglican Consultative Council should assist them in presenting the theological issues to their appropriate synodical bodies and should be responsible for any necessary consultation with other Churches of the Western tradition."[17]
In 1988 the conference "ask(ed) that further thought be given to the Filioque clause, recognising it to be a major point of disagreement (with the Orthodox) ... recommending to the provinces of the Anglican Communion that in future liturgical revisions the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed be printed without the Filioque clause."[18]
This recommendation was not renewed in the 1998 and 2008 Lambeth Conferences and has not been implemented.[19]
In 1985 the General Convention of The Episcopal Church (USA) recommended that the Filioque clause should be removed from the Nicene Creed, if this were endorsed by the 1988 Lambeth Council, but this has not been implemented.[20]
Eastern Orthodoxy
The historical use of the Filioque by the West
The core or biggest part of the issue historically in regards to the Filioque from an Eastern perspective. Is that the Western church under the conquest of the Goths (in specific the Franks)[citation needed] used the teaching of the Filioque to 1) distinguish an anti-Greek (anti-Eastern) character within the Western Christian faith. 2) To exploit that difference and then attempt to conquer the East and force the East to accept this distinction. There by submitting the Eastern Roman Christian Churches and its authorities to the Western Papacy and European Emperors. The conflict between the two parties is at its core a conflict about the authority of the European Christianity over and above the Eastern Christian communities.[citation needed] The doctrine of the Filioque is symptomatic of this power struggle for the East to be self determined over and against the perceived imperialistic behavior of the West toward the East.[citation needed]
Councils addressing the Filioque
In the Eastern Orthodox Church the councils of the church are held as the highest authority at establishing doctrine or dogma and there is no primacy given to the Patriarch of Rome over and above the Ecumenical councils (for example see the Byzantine Papacy).[21][22] As at least one of the Ecumenical councils were held to remove a Patriarch of Rome (i.e. Pope Honorius I) and a Patriarch of Constantinople (see Patriarch Nestorius).[23] Eastern Roman Emperors called each of the Seven Ecumenical Councils[24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31] and none of the seven Ecumenical councils were ever called by a Patriarch of Rome (Pope) alone.[25][26][27][28][32][33][34]
None of the Ecumenical Councils recognized by the East were ever attended in person by the Pope (i.e. the Patriarch of Rome) in all cases the Pope sent representatives or legates to the councils. Where as each of the councils were presided over by the Patriarchs of the Constantinople.[citation needed] The first Bishop to be named Patriarch of Constantinople being Metrophanes of Byzantium.[35][36][37][38] None of seven Ecumenical Councils that are universally accepted were held in the West or Rome.[39] The Eastern Orthodox position based on these historical facts has stated that the filioque has never been a universal teaching of the whole church and that Pope Benedict VIII's acceptance of the inclusion of the Filioque in the Creed is not within the entire church's tradition.
Of the seven ecumenical councils recognized by Orthodoxy (all of which are recognized also by the West as ecumenical) none explicitly rejected the Filioque.[40] On the other hand, councils recognized by the Roman Catholic Church have considered the Filioque dogma and condemned denial of it.[41]
The following councils are not recognized as ecumenical by either East or West.
Third Council of Toledo 589 AD
The Filioque were first inserted in Spain. Around the year 400 it had been found necessary at a Council of Toledo to affirm the double procession of the Holy Spirit against the Priscillianists. In an effort to combat Arianism in Spain by making the Son like the Father in all things (specifically, being a source of the Holy Spirit's procession although this subordinated the Holy Spirit). The newly converted Goths were required to sign the creed with the addition. The council added the additional phrase 'and the Son' (the Filioque) to the Nicene-Constantinoplitan Creed. Despite declarations of previous Ecumenical (Imperial) Councils that no changes were to be made in perpetuity. It was this belief in a 'double procession' of the Holy Spirit that led to the eventual separation between Orthodoxy in the East and Roman Catholicism in the West.
Eighth Council of Toledo in 653 AD
The Filioque was recited at this council.
Twelfth Council of Toledo in 681 AD
The Filioque was recited again at this council as well.
Councils of 867, 869, 879
At the 879-880 Council of Constantinople the Eastern Orthodox Church re-affirmed the condemnation of the "Filioque" phrase.[42][43] Re-affirming it from the previous council held in Constantinople in 867 condemnation, declaring it "a novelty and augmentation of the Creed". On the other hand, at the council "there was no extensive discussion of the Filioque, which was not yet a part of the Creed professed in Rome itself, and no statement was made by the Council about its theological justification."[12] Orthodox theologian John Romanides holds that, contrary to what has always been held by Western scholars, whether Roman Catholic, Anglican or Protestant, Pope John VIII did accept that the Filioque was a heresy.[44]
The council of 879 was at the time accepted[45] by Pope John VIII, who endorsed Photius being re-instated as the Patriarch of Constantinople. After Patriarch Ignatius' death in 877,[46] or was at least accepted by Pope John VIII legates but later repudiated by the Pope himself, while still accepting Photius as Patriarch.[47] Many consider the council of 879 the Eighth Ecumenical Council,[48] but it is unlikely that even the Eastern Orthodox Church will formally accept this council as ecumenical.[49]
Council at Constantinople 1285 AD
This council (also called Second Synod of Blachernae) was conveyed to confirm the Procession of the Holy Spirit according to the Eastern church's doctrine. Statement of the council. Patriarch Bekkos was condemned at the council.[50]
- "It is recognized that the very Paraclete shines and manifests Himself eternally by the intermediary of the Son, as light shines from the sun by the intermediary of rays ...; but that does not mean that He comes into being through the Son or from the Son."[51]
Council of Jerusalem of 1583 AD
The 1583 Synod of Jerusalem condemned those who do not believe the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone in essence, and from Father and Son in time. In addition, this synod re-affirmed adherence to the decisions of Council of Nicaea I in AD 325.
Council of Jerusalem of 1672 AD
Re-affirmed procession of the Holy Spirit from Father alone.
Theological contention
Eastern Orthodox theologians (e.g., Michael Pomazansky) say that the Nicene Creed as a Symbol of Faith as dogma is to address and define church theology specifically the Orthodox Trinitarian understanding of God. In the hypostases of God as correctly expressed against the teachings considered outside the church. The Father hypostasis of the Nicene Creed is the origin of all.
The Father is the eternal, infinite and uncreated reality, that the Christ and the Holy Spirit are also eternal, infinite and uncreated, in that their origin is not in the ousia of God, but that their origin is in the hypostasis of God called the Father. The double procession of the Holy Spirit bears some resemblance[citation needed] to the teachings of Macedonius and his sect called the Pneumatomachians in that the Holy Spirit is created by the Son and a servant of the Father and the Son. It was Macedonius' position that caused the specific wording of the section on the Holy Spirit in the finalized Nicene creed.[87][52]
Points of the filioque as Roman Catholic dogma seen as in contention with Eastern Orthodoxy.
- The Father is from no one; the Son is from the Father only; and the Holy Spirit is from both the Father and the Son equally. The Fourth Council of the Lateran, 1215,
- A definition against the Albigenses and other heretics [We] confess that the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son, not as from two principles, but as from one; not by two spirations but by one. The Second Council of Lyon, 1274, Constitution on the Procession of the Holy Spirit.
- The Father is not begotten; the Son is begotten of the Father; the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. The Council of Florence, 1438–45, Decree for the Jacobites
- The Council of Florence in 1438 explains: “The Holy Spirit is eternally from Father and Son He has his nature and subsistence at once (simul) from the Father and the Son. He proceeds eternally from both as from one principle and through one spiration . . . . And, since the Father has through generation given to the only begotten Son everything that belongs to the Father, except being Father, the Son has also eternally from the Father, from whom he is eternally born, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son.” Catechism of the Catholic Church, 246[53]
- In particular 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”[54]
In the judgment of these Orthodox, the Roman Catholic Church is in fact teaching as a matter of Roman Catholic dogma that the Holy Spirit derives his origin and being from both the Father and the Son, making the Filioque a double procession.[55][56] This being the very thing that Maximus the Confessor was stating in his work from the 7th century that would be wrong and that the West was not doing.[57][58][59]
They thus perceive the West as teaching through more than one type of theological Filioque a different origin and cause of the Holy Spirit. That through the dogmatic Roman Catholic Filioque the Holy Spirit is subordinate to the Father and the Son and not a free and independent and equal to the Father as an hypostasis that receives his uncreatedness from the origin of all things, the Father hypostasis. Trinity expresses the idea of message, messenger and revealer, or mind, word and meaning. Eastern Orthodox Christians believe in one God the Father, whose person is uncaused and unoriginate, who, because He is love and communion, always exists with His Word and Spirit.[60][61]
Theodoret's statement against Cyril
Since the issue of the Filioque can somewhat be dated to the 5th century where St Theodoret, Theodoret, who refused to endorse the deposition of Nestorius by the Council of Ephesus (431),[62] accused St Cyril of Alexandria of erroneously teaching that the Son has a role in the origin of the Holy Spirit,[63][64][65][66][67] Photius's position that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone has been described as only a restatement of Saint Theodoret's.
Under persistent urging by the Fathers of the Council of Chalcedon (451), Theodoret finally pronounced an anathema on Nestorius.[68] He died in 457. Almost exactly one hundred years later, the Fifth Ecumenical Council (553) declared anathema anyone who would defend the writings of Theodoret against Saint Cyril and his Twelve Anathemas,[69] the ninth of which Theodoret had attacked for what it said of the procession of the Holy Spirit.[64] (See Three-Chapter Controversy). He is considered a saint in the Eastern Orthodox Church, but is called "the excommunicate" by the Oriental Orthodox Churches.[70] Both sides consider Cyril of Alexandria a saint.
Photius and the Monarchy of the Father
As well as being called a reaffirmation of the position of Theodoret, anathematized by the Second Council of Constantinople,[69] Photius's position that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone has also been described as a restatement of the Cappadocian Antiochian school[citation needed] (as opposed to the Alexandrian)[9][71][72] teaching of the "monarchy of the Father".[73]
The monarchy of the Father is a doctrine upheld not only by those who like Photius speak of a procession from the Father alone, but also by theologians who speak of a procession from the Father through the Son or from the Father and the Son. Examples cited in the book The Filioque: History of a Doctrinal Controversy by A. Edward Siecienski (Oxford University Press 2010 ISBN 978-0-19-537204-5) include Bessarion,[74] Maximus the Confessor,[75] Bonaventure,[76] and the Council of Worms (868),[77] The same remark is made by Jürgen Moltmann.[78] The Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity also states that not only the Eastern tradition, but also the Latin Filioque tradition "recognize that the 'Monarchy of the Father' implies that the Father is the sole Trinitarian Cause (αἰτία) or Principle (principium) of the Son and of the Holy Spirit."[9]
Of Photius's formula ("from the Father alone"), Vladimir Lossky says that, while "verbally it may seem novel", it expresses in its doctrinal tenor the traditional teaching which is considered Orthodox.[79] The seeming novelty of the phrase "from the Father alone" arises from the fact that the Creed itself only has "from the Father", so that the word "alone", which Photius did not add to the Creed, has been called a "gloss on the Creed", an explanation or interpretation of its meaning.[80] Photius as well as the Eastern Orthodox, have never seen the need, nor ever suggested the word "alone" be added to the Creed itself. The Eastern Orthodox Church generally considers the phrase "from the Father and the Son" to be heretical,[81] and accordingly procession "from the Father alone" has been referred to as "a main dogma of the Greek Church".[82] In his study of the matter, Avery Dulles does not go so far and only states that the procession of the Spirit from the Father alone was the formula preferred by Photius and his strict disciples.[83]
Eastern Orthodox theologians maintain that by the expression "from the Father alone", although it was novel,[73] Photius was confirming what is Orthodox and consistent with church tradition. Drawing the teaching of the Father as cause alone (their interpretation of the Monarchy of the Father) from such expressions as that of Saint Irenaeus, when he called the Word and the Spirit "the two hands of God",[84].[73] they interpret the phrase "monarchy of the Father" differently from those who see it as not in conflict with a procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father through or from the Son, because the Father has given to the Son everything that belongs to the Father, except being Father (see examples given above of those who in this way uphold the monarchy of the Father). They say that the West appears to deny the monarchy of Father and the Father as principle origin of the Trinity, which would indeed be the very heresy of Modalism (which states the essence of God and not the Father is the origin of, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit). As such an idea of Photius having invented that the Father is sole source of cause of the Holy Trinity is to attribute to him something that predates Photius' existence (see John of Damascus. John of Damascus said that the procession of the Holy Spirit is from the Father alone, but through the Son, in this way differing from Photius.[85] "Photius never explored the deeper meaning behind the formula 'through the Son' (διὰ τοῦ Υἱοῦ), or the necessary eternal relationship between the Son and the Spirit, even though it was a traditional teaching of the previous Greek fathers".[86]
Photius did recognize that the Spirit maybe said to proceed temporally through the Son or from the Son.[85][87][88][89] Photius stated that this was not the eternal Trinitarian relationships that was actually the thing being defined in the Creed.[73] The Nicene Creed in Greek, which speaks of the procession of the Holy Spirit "from the Father", not "from the Father alone", because of the teachings of Irenaeus' Monarchy of the Father in contrast to subordinationism as the Orthodox officially condemned subordinationism in the 2nd council of Constantinople. The Monarchy of Father which is in the Nicene Creed and Photius (and the Eastern Orthodox) derived their stance and did not need to make this clarification and it requires no additions to the Creed as such.[90][failed verification][91][failed verification] As well as St John of Damascus whom taught the Holy Spirit proceeds from the being of God (as does Zizilious). Which is the Father expressed in the concept of the 'monarchy of the Father' via John 14:28 (“The Father is greater than I am”).[92]
Gregory Palamas' Tomus of 1351
In St Gregory of Palamas' Tomus (1351) on the issue of the Filioque he very clearly denotes the distinctions of the Eastern and Western churches positions on the procession of the Holy Spirit here St Gregory was not only following the Eastern Tradition of what was addressed in the Nicene Creed by the Greek Fathers but he also clarifies what the divergent phrases of those in the East whom appear to support the Filioque and what distinction is actually being made by the Eastern fathers whom oppose the use of Filioque.
- "The Great Maximus, the holy Tarasius, and even the saintly John [Damascene] recognize that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, from whom it subsists in terms of its hypostasis and the cause of its being. At the same time, they acknowledge that the Spirit is given, revealed, and, manifeste, comes forth, and is known through the Son."[93]
Orthodox theologians who do not condemn the Filioque
Not all Orthodox theologians share the view taken by Vladimir Lossky, Dumitru Stăniloae, John Romanides and Michael Pomazansky , who condemn the Filioque. The Encyclopedia of Christian Theology lists Vasily Bolotov,[94] Paul Evdokimov, I. Voronov and Sergei Bulgakov as seeing the Filioque as a permissible theological opinion or "theologoumenon",[94][95] For Vasily Bolotov this is confirmed by other sources,[96] even if they do not themselves adopt that opinion.
Sergei Bulgakov's own work The Comforter states:
- "from the Son" and "through the Son" are theological opinions which were dogmatized prematurely and erroneously. There is no dogma of the relation of the Holy Spirit to the Son and therefore particular opinions on this subject are not heresies but merely dogmatic hypotheses, which have been transformed into heresies by the schismatic spirit that has established itself in the Church and that eagerly exploits all sorts of liturgical and even cultural differences" (emphasis in the original).[97]
As an Orthodox theologian, Bulgakov acknowledges that dogma can only established by an ecumenical council.
Boris Bobrinskoy sees the Filioque as having positive theological content.[98][99] Bishop Kallistos Ware suggests that the problem is of semantics rather than of basic doctrinal differences.[100] Saint Theophylact of Ohrid likewise held that the difference was linguistic in nature and not actually theological.
Views of Eastern Orthodox saints
The Filioque was qualified as a heresy by some of the Eastern Orthodox Church's saints, including Photios I of Constantinople, Mark of Ephesus, Gregory Palamas, who have been called the Three Pillars of Orthodoxy. Saint Maximus the Confessor instead defended the Western use of the Filioque in a context other than that of the Nicene Creed.[101]
Statement of Saint Maximus the Confessor
The words with which Saint Maximus the Confessor (c. 580 – 13 August 662) declared that it was wrong to condemn the Roman use of Filioque (not yet at that time within the Nicene Creed) are as follows:
- "They [the Romans] have produced the unanimous evidence of the Latin Fathers, and also of Cyril of Alexandria, from the study he made of the gospel of St John. On the basis of these texts, they have shown that they have not made the Son the cause of the Spirit – they know in fact that the Father is the only cause of the Son and the Spirit, the one by begetting and the other by procession –but that they have manifested the procession through him and have thus shown the unity and identity of the essence. They [the Romans] have therefore been accused of precisely those things of which it would be wrong to accuse them, whereas the former [the Byzantines] have been accused of those things it has been quite correct to accuse them [Monothelitism]."[102]
The study published by the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity[9] says that, according to Saint Maximus, the phrase "and from the Son" does not contradict the Holy Spirit's procession from the Father as first origin (ἐκπόρευσις), since it concerns only the Holy Spirit's coming (in the sense of the Latin word processio and Saint Cyril of Alexandria's προϊέναι) from the Son in a way that excludes any idea of subordinationism.[103]
Orthodox theologian and Metropolitan of Pergamon, John Zizioulas, says: "For Saint Maximus the Filioque was not heretical because its intention was to denote not the ἐκπορεύεσθαι (ekporeuesthai) but the προϊέναι (proienai) of the Spirit."[104]
Metropolitan John Zizioulas also wrote:
- "As Saint Maximus the Confessor insisted, however, in defence of the Roman use of the Filioque, the decisive thing in this defence lies precisely in the point that in using the Filioque the Romans do not imply a "cause" other than the Father. The notion of "cause" seems to be of special significance and importance in the Greek Patristic argument concerning the Filioque. If Roman Catholic theology would be ready to admit that the Son in no way constitutes a "cause" (aition) in the procession of the Spirit, this would bring the two traditions much closer to each other with regard to the Filioque."[105] This is precisely what Saint Maximus said of the Roman view, that "they have shown that they have not made the Son the cause of the Spirit – they know in fact that the Father is the only cause of the Son and the Spirit, the one by begetting and the other by procession".
In this regard, the letter of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity on "The Greek and the Latin Traditions regarding the Procession of the Holy Spirit"[9] upholds the monarchy of the Father as the "sole Trinitarian Cause [aitia] or principle [principium] of the Son and the Holy Spirit" While the Council of Florence proposed the equivalency of the two terms "cause" and "principle" and therefore implied that the Son is a cause (aitia) of the subsistence of the Holy Spirit, the letter of the Pontifical Council distinguishes
- between what the Greeks mean by 'procession' in the sense of taking origin from, applicable only to the Holy Spirit relative to the Father (ek tou Patros ekporeuomenon), and what the Latins mean by 'procession' as the more common term applicable to both Son and Spirit (ex Patre Filioque procedit; ek tou Patros kai tou Huiou proion). This preserves the monarchy of the Father as the sole origin of the Holy Spirit while simultaneously allowing for an intratrinitarian relation between the Son and Holy Spirit that the document defines as 'signifying the communication of the consubstantial divinity from the Father to the Son and from the Father through and with the Son to the Holy Spirit'."[106]
Roman Catholic theologian Avery Dulles, writing of the Eastern fathers who, while aware of the currency of the Filioque in the West, did not generally regard it as heretical, said: "Some, such as Maximus the Confessor, a seventh-century Byzantine monk, defended it as a legitimate variation of the Eastern formula that the Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son."[107] Indeed, the words of Saint Maximus himself, quoted above, are: "(The Romans) have shown that they have not made the Son the cause of the Spirit ... they have manifested the procession through him" (emphasis added).
View that the Roman Catholic Church rejected Maximus's position
Orthodox theologians (e.g. Michael Pomazansky and John Romanides)[108] hold that Maximus' position does not defend the actual way the Roman Catholic Church justifies and teaches the Filioque as dogma for the whole church. While accepting as a legitimate and complementary expression of the same faith and reality the teaching that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son.[15] Maximus held strictly to the teaching of the Eastern Church that "the Father is the only cause of the Son and the Spirit"[109] and wrote a special treatise about this dogma.[110][111][112]
Maximus the Confessor had indicated that what the Latins meant when they said that the Holy Spirit "proceeds" (procedit) from the Father and the Son was what in Greek is expressed by the verb προϊέναι (as used by Saint Cyril of Alexandria), not by the verb ἐκπορεύεσθαι (as in the Nicene Creed). By translating the Latin expression into Greek categories, he calmed the worries of the Greeks and, while Filioque continued to be used in the West, both sides recognized that, in spite of the difference in terminology, they were professing the same faith.[113]
This peace ended when the claim was made in the West by a council convoked by Emperor Charlemagne in Aix-la-Chapelle (Council of Aachen) in 809 claiming that the Filioque was a dogma of faith. Rome later confirmed the addition of Filioque,[114] two centuries later, but not the council as such or its other declarations. Dogma meaning for all the churches (East and West, Greek, Slavic or otherwise) and necessary for one's salvation.[115][failed verification] This section of the West, acting without the authority of the Patriarch of the West, also adopted that to reject the filioque would be punished with ex-communication.[116][117][failed verification] Emperor Charlemagne in the council also condemned the East for omitting the Filioque from the original Nicene Creed. But Charlemagne's actions and the actions of his supporting Bishops and their respective council were rejected by Pope Leo III, who himself insisted on omitting the Filioque from the Creed and displayed the text, without that addition, in Saint Peter's Basilica on silver shields in both Greek and Latin.[118] Pope Leo III (795 -816) rejected the addition of the Filioque to the Nicene Creed's formulary on the express grounds that to do so was forbidden by the General Councils. [citation needed]
Pope Leo III's stance however was overturned by Pope Benedict VIII, who in 1014 approved the chanting of the Creed with the Filioque included. Later councils, the Fourth Lateran Council (1215), the Second Council of Lyon (1274), and the Council of Florence (1438–1445) established the Filioque as dogma.[41] Charlemagne (742 to 814) and his council's conclusions then caused [119] the East, starting with Photius (858-867 and 877-886) and continuing with Patriarch Sisinnius II (996-999) and Patriarch Serguis (1001 to 1019) to reject the Western church's teaching of the Filioque, in spite of the papal rejection of the decisions of Charlemagne's council of 809.
The removal of Pope Sergius IV from the list of those in communion with Constantinople called the diptychs (due to Sergius IV's explicit endorsement of the Filioque) by Patriarch Sergius II has even been called a schism in itself.[120] Charlemagne's and by proxy the Wests[citation needed] behavior were perceived as a rejection of the explanation of the Filioque given by Maximus.[121] In reaction to this, the Greeks laid aside St. Maximus translation of the Filioque and joined the Franks in incorporating this theological point into the political power struggle between themselves and the Germans over control of Italy and the Slavic world.[122] Photius affirmed the position that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone[85][87][88] to the extent of declaring the traditional Latin belief that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son to be heresy.[123][124][125][126]
In the East, the patriarch Photius responded to the practice of certain Frankish monks in Jerusalem who attempted to impose the practice of the Filioque on their Eastern brothers. [127][citation needed] It was in 808 or 809, before Photius was born, that controversy arose in Jerusalem between the Greek monks of one monastery and the Frankish Benedictines of another: the former reproached the latter for, among other things, singing the creed with the Filioque included.[128][129][130][12] In fact, it was in defence of these Frankish monks in Jerusalem, whom the Greek monks had accused of heresy, that the theology of the Filioque was expressed in the 809 local council of Aachen.[130][12]<Louth/>[131]Gerald Bray, The Filioque Clause in History and Theology The Tyndale Historical Lecture 1982, p. 121</ref> This being perceived by the East as the West now setting and forcing the Filioque as dogma. The universal acceptance of the Filioque as dogma which means for the whole church rather than, simply making a linguistic clarification unique to the language of Latin.[132] As the 1909 Catholic Encyclopedia claimed that rejection of the Filioque was one of the principal errors of the Eastern Orthodox.[133] The Filioque as a clarification that would potentially be acceptable to what is Latin (locally). Yet outside of what is acceptable to Eastern and ethnocentric churches that do not have Latin as their language[citation needed] (but capable of being seen by the Orthodox as a theologoumenon).[134]
The Eastern church did not universally impose Greek as the defacto language of Christianity, but only the use of the liturgy of Constantinople. Where as it was only many centuries later than the period under discussion that the Latin church, after translating the church culture into Latin, set about Latinizing, the churches under their power (see 18th- and 19th-century Liturgical Latinisation). Allowing a great variety of liturgical rites in a similarly great variety of languages, such as Aramaic, Armenian, Coptic, Ge'ez, Greek and Church Slavonic, by the Eastern Catholic Churches, it even allows different Latin liturgical rites to be used in areas where Latin is the traditional liturgical language, without imposing the Roman Rite on them.
The Eastern Orthodox did however later return to attempt to use Maximus' position as a basis of reconciliation at the Council of Florence in 1438. Which, in an Eastern interpretation, was then rejected by the Latin West.[135][136] In the interpretation generally held in the West, the two sides at the Council reached an agreement by which the formulas "from the Father and the Son" (the Western teaching) and "from the Father through the Son" (that of Maximus) were recognized as equivalent, but this agreement was then never accepted in the East.[137][138]
Potential views of Maximus' position
There are several possible ways of approaching the issue from the Maximus interpretation:
- 1). To use the original Nicene Creed without the addition of and the Son (filioque).
- 2). To use Maximus' rendition as an agreed upon interpretation of the filioque which would be through the Son..[136][139][140] Since this approach would involve applying the expression "through the Son" to what the Nicene Creed says of the eternal procession of the Holy Spirit, it is unacceptable to those who follow the strict teaching of Photius.[85][87][88]
- 3). To use the filioque as is the custom of the Roman Catholic Church which is the addition of and the Son.
- 4). Would be to allow each side to continue saying what they now say, but be in communion making it that both communities accept the Filioque as dogma declared to be a dogma of faith in the Fourth Lateran Council (1215).[41] Though there is no statement from Maximus that he believes that the Filioque should be dogma. Nor does Maximus defend its use in any language, other than Latin, the only language, other than Greek, that he is known to have spoken..
This last choice has also been presented as follows: "Certainly, the ideal position, following Congar, would be to recognize the same faith and dogmatic core in both traditions, East (Cappadocian and Byzantine: ek monou tou Patros dia tou Huiou ekporeuomenon - 'the Spirit comes from the Father alone through the Son') and West (Latin and Alexandrian: ek tou Patros kai tou Huiou proion/qui ex Patre Filioque procedit - 'the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son'), and interpret the formulae as 'not contradictory theologoumena'. This is not too far from the position of Boris Bolotov at the turn of the century ('Thesis on the Filioque') wherein he distinguished among dogmas, theologoumena, and theological opinions. By his accounting the original Nicene-Constantinopolitan Symbol (381) would be a dogma (the procession of the Holy Spirit from [ek] the Father). Photius's monopatrist addition (from the Father alone) would be reduced to a theologoumenon, and St. Augustine's filioque to a theological opinion."[141]
Later developments until the Council of Florence
Eastern Orthodox representatives, starting in at least the 8th century, recognized that the Filioque of Maximus, (called by Romanides the west Roman Orthodox Filioque) was "the official position of the Roman papacy and of all Orthodox Churches in the west" and was orthodox.[142]. Emperor Charlemagne, with the support of a council called by himself, objected to the profession of faith of Patriarch Tarasius of Constantinople at the Second Council of Nicaea (787),[143] in which Tarasius spoke of the procession of the Holy Spirit "through the Son". The Pope strongly rejected Charlemagne's protest.[12] Charlemagne then had the Libri Carolini (791-794) drafted.[144] Pope Adrian I refuted Charlemagne's Libri Carolini, while he accepted the Filioque, as taught by the Fathers of the Latin Church.
Later again at the Council of Florence in 1438, the West held that the two views were contradictory.[145]
Some of the arguments of the Libri Carolini were later used by Pope Leo IX's legates in the bull of excommunication of Patriarch Michael I in 1054. In the bull of excommunication issued against Patriarch Michael by the papal legates, one of the reasons they cited for excommunication was the Eastern Church's deletion of the "Filioque" from the original Nicene Creed (as claimed also in the Libri Carolini). However, as the Western Church itself acknowledges this as incorrect[146] the West still supported the bull of excommunication and the conduct of the pope's representative and the excommunications contents for almost a thousand years. It was the West's representatives whom, posted the bull of excommunication attacking the theology and dogma of the Eastern Churches. In specific targeting the Patriarch of Constantinople. The bull of excommunication containing the accusation the East altered the original Creed and removed the filioque was posted in the City and capitol of Eastern Rome, Constantinople, in the Empirical Holy Wisdom church, on the alter, during Empirical liturgy (church services).[147]
Though saying that they (the West) believe in exactly the opposite from what was declared by the Western legates in the 1054 bull of excommunication.[148] The Eastern Church did not delete anything. It was the Western Church that added this phrase to the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed.[149] In contradiction to the mistaken assertion of the papal legates in 1054 and the equally mistaken assertion in the Libri Carolini, which were refuted by the Pope Adrian I,[150] the Western Church teaches that "the affirmation of the Filioque does not appear in the Creed confessed in 381 at Constantinople."[151] While again also maintaining both the actions and assertions[citation needed] of the excommunication for almost a thousand years.[152]
Maximus's approach was written before the West adopted the filioque as dogma. Pope Leo III c. 810AD appears to have embraced Maximus' interpretation in his rejection of inclusion of Filioque in the Creed, while holding that the doctrine is true, only for his exclusion of the phrase from the Creed to be disregarded later. Orthodox Theologian Romanides holds that, contrary to what has always been held by Western scholars, whether Roman Catholic, Anglican or Protestant, Pope John VIII did accept that the Filioque was a heresy.[44] As starting with Pope Adrian I, Pope Leo III and continuing with Pope John VIII there was a history in the West of opposition to the Filioque as dogma.[44][failed verification]
In the ninth century, Photius insisted on the expression "from the Father alone" and excluded "through the Son" with regard to the eternal procession of the Holy Spirit : "through the Son" applied only to the temporal mission of the Holy Spirit (the sending in time).[85][87][88] And in the thirteenth century,, John Bekkos, Patriarch of Constantinople from 1275 to 1282,was condemned for "arguing that, while the Father is cause, it is through the Son that he exercises his causality".[153]
The West holds that the formulas "from the Father and the Son" and "from the Father through the Son" are equivalent,[154] as was agreed at the Council of Florence, but was then rejected by the East.[137] Since the East holds that either the creed should be recited as was accepted in 381 or should be recited with through the Son and not and the Son.[failed verification] [155][156][136] The West still recites the Creed with from the Father and the Son, claiming it is equivalent to "from the Father through the Son", a view rejected in the East.[137][157] The Eastern see the West's teaching from the Son as equivalent to through the Son as confusing and even heretical.[158]
St Mark of Ephesus proposed at the Council of Florence that, of the quotations from the Fathers offered as proof texts, only those that agreed with the explanation of the Filioque given by Maximus should be considered genuine, and did not sign the agreement at the Council of Florence.[159] The West still recites the Nicene Creed saying I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son. Rather than what has been proposed as a compromise by the East and rejected by West.[citation needed][160] In what the West claims is equivalent to I believe in the Holy Spirit the lord, the giver of life who proceeds from the Father through the Son.
In 1439, the Council of Florence, reached an "accord with the Greek delegation in which the formulas 'from the Father and the Son' and 'from the Father through the Son' were recognized as equivalent".[137][138] but this agreement was never accepted in the East.[137] As most of the Eastern delegates whom signed the agreement later retracted their endorsement.[161] Eastern Christians and clergy expressed the belief that the Fall of Constantinople to Islam, in 1453, was God's punishment for the Emperor forcing the Eastern churches into accepting the West's doctrines of Filioque, Purgatory and the supremacy of the Papacy at the Council of Florence 1439. The West did not fulfill its promise to the Eastern Emperor, of troops and support if he agreed to the reconciliation. Help so desperately needed to defend the East against the onslaught of Islam.
Orthodox theologians on Greek verbs translated as "proceeds"
Metropolitan John Zizioulas, while maintaining the explicit Orthodox position of the Father as the single origin and source of the Holy Spirit, has declared that the recent document the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity shows positive signs of reconciliation. Zizioulas states "Closely related to the question of the single cause is the problem of the exact meaning of the Son's involvement in the procession of the Spirit. Saint Gregory of Nyssa explicitly admits a "mediating" role of the Son in the procession of the Spirit from the Father. Is this role to be expressed with the help of the preposition δία (through) the Son (εκ Πατρός δι'Υιού), as Saint Maximus and other Patristic sources seem to suggest?
The Vatican statement notes that this is "the basis that must serve for the continuation of the current theological dialogue between Catholic and Orthodox". I would agree with this, adding that the discussion should take place in the light of the "single cause" principle to which I have just referred" and "constitutes an encouraging attempt to clarify the basic aspects of the Filioque problem and show that a rapprochement between West and East on this matter is eventually possible".[162]
John Romanides too, while personally opposing the Filioque, has stated that in itself, outside the Creed, the phrase is not considered to have been condemned by the 878-880 Council of Constantinople, "since it did not teach that the Son is 'cause' or 'co-cause' of the existence of the Holy Spirit"; however, it could not be added to the Creed, "where 'procession'[163] means 'cause' of existence of the Holy Spirit".[164]
Beginning of contention
The first to make a formal issue of the Latin usage were the monothelites in Constantinople, when they questioned the orthodoxy of Pope Theodore for using the Filioque'; Maximus the Confessor defended Pope Theodore's statement in a letter that he composed in 645 or 646,[165] declaring: "They [the Romans] have therefore been accused of precisely those things of which it would be wrong the accuse them, whereas the former [the Byzantines] have been accused of those things it has been quite correct to accuse them [Monothelitism]."[102]
The issue was again raised in some way at a synod held at Gentilly, near Paris, in 767[166] Later in the same century, Emperor Charlemagne accused the Patriarch of Constantinople (Saint Tarasios of Constantinople) of infidelity to the faith of the First Council of Nicaea, because he had not professed the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father "and the Son", but only "through the Son", an accusation strongly rejected by Rome, but repeated in Charlemagne's commissioned work the Libri Carolini, books also rejected by the Pope..[167] Which claimed that the Eastern Churches had removed the Filioque from the original creed. Pope Leo rejected the request of Charlemagne's emissaries for approval of inclusion of the Filioque in the Creed, which, in imitation of Eastern practice, was beginning to be used widely in West, but not in Rome itself, in the celebration of Mass. So, during the time of Pope Leo's leadership, 795-816, and for another two centuries, there was no Creed at all in the Roman Mass.
The Churches of East and West continued to coexist with the Filioque until Church events brought the problem to a head in the time of Photios I of Constantinople,[168] who declared the Filioque heretical in 867. The Churches of East and West continued to coexist with the Filioque until Church events brought the problem to a head in the time of Photios I of Constantinople,[168] who declared the Filioque heretical in 867. Photius responded to the practice of certain Frankish monks in Jerusalem who attempted to impose the practice of the Filioque on their Eastern brothers.[169]
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 known in the West with the filioque, after the Gospel. At this time, the papacy was very weak and very much under the influence of the Germans. 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.
Controversy over the phrase contributed to the East-West Schism of 1054 and, despite agreements among participants at the Second Council of Lyon (1274) and the Council of Florence (1439), reunion has not been achieved.[2] The council of Lyons (1274) sought to impose acceptance of the Filioque on Eastern Christians.[170]
The council required Eastern churches wishing to be reunited with Rome to accept the Filioque as a legitimate expression of the faith, while it did not require those Christians to change the recitation of the creed in their liturgy.[171]
The council of Lyons also condemned "all who presume to deny that the holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son, or rashly to assert that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as from two principles and not as from one. "[172][12][173]
A Greek Orthodox theologian[174] has pointed to the 1054 schism as the most striking example of how practice, rather than theological differences, causes schisms: "The local Churches coexisted for centuries with the 'Filioque' before Church events brought the problem to a head in the period of Photios the Great, but there was no schism, and in the 1054 period the 'Filioque' was dormant. It came back and was intensified after this to justify it and make it fixed."[168]
According to pro-reconciliation Orthodox theologian Sergei Bulgakov, in the early Christian centuries, "a whole series of Western writers, including popes who are venerated as saints by the Eastern church, confess the procession of the Holy Spirit also from the Son; and it is even more striking that there is virtually no disagreement with this theory."[175]
History of the insertion in the Nicene Creed
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/73/Council_of_Constantinople_381_BnF_MS_Gr510_fol355.jpg/220px-Council_of_Constantinople_381_BnF_MS_Gr510_fol355.jpg)
Origin of the Nicene Creed
The First Council of Nicaea of 325 ended its Creed with the words "And in the Holy Spirit." In 381, the First Council of Constantinople, among other additions and some omissions, added to this the words, "the Lord, the Giver of life, who proceeds from the Father …" This last phrase comes from John 15:26.
The First Council of Constantinople (381) finalized the Nicene Creed which was later quoted and formally acknowledged as binding.[12][176] This was re-asserted in the dogmatic statements of the Council of Chalcedon (451). "Within less than a century, this Creed of 381 took on a normative role in the definition of the Christian faith, and by the early sixth century was even proclaimed in the Eucharist in Antioch, Constantinople, and other regions in the East. In regions of the Western churches, the Creed was also introduced into the Eucharist, perhaps beginning with the Third Council of Toledo in 589. It was not formally introduced into the Eucharistic liturgy at Rome, however, until the eleventh century, a point of some importance for the process of official Western acceptance of the Filioque."[12]
Insertion of the Filioque
Before the sixth-century insertion of Filioque into the Nicene Creed, theologians in the Christian West, of whom Jerome, Ambrose and Augustine are representatives, asserted that the Spirit comes from the Father and the Son,[177] while the expression “from the Father through the Son” is also found among them.[178][179]
Tertullian, writing at the beginning of the third century, emphasizes that Father, Son and Holy Spirit all share a single divine substance, quality and power,[180] which he conceives of as flowing forth from the Father and being transmitted by the Son to the Spirit.[181]
One Christian source for Augustine was Marius Victorinus (ca. AD 280-365), whom in his arguments against Arians strongly connected the Son and the Spirit.
Hilary of Poitiers, in the mid-fourth century, speaks of the Spirit as 'coming forth from the Father' and being 'sent by the Son' (De Trinitate 12.55); as being 'from the Father through the Son' (ibid. 12.56); and as 'having the Father and the Son as his source' (ibid. 2.29); in another passage, Hilary points to John 16.15 (where Jesus says: 'All things that the Father has are mine; therefore I said that [the Spirit] shall take from what is mine and declare it to you'), and wonders aloud whether 'to receive from the Son is the same thing as to proceed from the Father' (ibid. 8.20).
Ambrose of Milan, writing in the 380s, openly asserts that the Spirit 'proceeds from (procedit a) the Father and the Son', without ever being separated from either (On the Holy Spirit 1.11.20).
None of these writers, however, makes the Spirit’s mode of origin the object of special reflection; all are concerned, rather, to emphasize the equality of status of all three divine persons as God, and all acknowledge that the Father alone is the source of God’s eternal being."[12]
The phrase Filioque first appears as an anti-Arian [182][183] interpolation in the Creed at the Third Council of Toledo (589), at which Visigothic Spain renounced Arianism, accepting Catholic Christianity. The practice later spread then to France, the territory of the Franks, who had adopted the Catholic faith in 496, in contrast to the other Germanic kingdoms, who followed Arianism.[184]
This led to controversy with envoys of the Byzantine Emperor Constantine V at a synod held at Gentilly in 767.[185][186] The use of Filioque was defended by Saint Paulinus II of Aquileia at the Synod of Friuli, Italy in 796, and it was endorsed in 809 at the local Council of Aachen.[1] At the beginning of ninth century in 808, John, a Greek monk of the monastery of St. Sabas, charged the monks of Mt. Olivet with heresy, they had inserted the Filioque into the Creed.
Although he approved the Filioque doctrine,[1][12][187][188] Pope Leo III in 810 opposed adding the Filioque to the Creed,[1] and had two heavy silver shields made and displayed in St Peter's, containing the original text of the Creed of 381 in both Greek and Latin,[12] adding: "I, Leo, have placed these for love and protection of the orthodox faith".[189]
However, Filioque continued to be included in the Creed where this was sung in the West at Mass, an Eastern custom that was mandated for use also in Spain in 589, was adopted (with Filioque included) in Emperor Charlemagne's court in 798, and spread through his empire, but which, although it was in use in parts of Italy by the eighth century, was not accepted in Rome until 1014.[183] By then, Photius responded to the practice of certain Frankish monks in Jerusalem in 808 or 809[190] (before Photius was born), who sang the creed with Filioque.[190][191]
It was only in 1014, at the request of the German King Henry II who had come to Rome to be crowned Emperor, and was surprised at the different custom in force there, that Pope Benedict VIII, who owed to Henry his restoration to the papal throne after usurpation by Antipope Gregory VI, had the Creed, with the addition of Filioque, sung at Mass in Rome for the first time.[183]
Since then the Filioque phrase is included in the Creed throughout the Latin Rite, except where Greek is used in the liturgy.[9][192] Eastern Catholic Churches such as the Ruthenian Catholic Church, which are in full communion with the Holy See, have never used the Filioque.[14] Though they are obligated to accept it as dogma in order to be in communion with the Pope of Rome, an acceptance that, in the view of John Romanides, makes them all, Latins and Easterners, heretics.[193]
"Filioque" is not the only phrase that the Western Christian Churches have added to the text of the Nicene Creed as drawn up by the Council of Constantinople: the Western text also has "Deum de Deo" ("God from God").[194] The Armenian Apostolic Church, one of the Churches of Oriental Orthodoxy communion which is out of communion with both the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches since the Council of Chalcedon in 451, has in its version of the Nicene Creed many more additions, specifying its belief more precisely. Examples include the phrase "By whom He took body, soul, and mind, and everything that is in man, truly and not in semblance", the specification that Jesus ascended into heaven and is to come again "with the same body", and the amplification of "who spoke by the prophets" into "Who spoke through the Law, prophets, and Gospels; Who came down upon the Jordan, preached through the apostles, and lived in the saints."[195]
Conflict
Beginning around 796 or 797, Paulinus, bishop of Aquileia, held a council for the region of Friuli (the part of Italy containing Aquileia). Paulinus was appointed the task of addressing Adoptionism and Arians as taught by a group of Spanish bishops including Elipando. Paulinus’ council spent a fair amount of time addressing the subject of the filioque, taking the position that a new council could add a valid interruption to the Creed. Paulinus primary argumentation is that filioque could be added and or subtracted if the addition or subtraction does not go against the Fathers’ “intention” and was “a blameless discernment.”
According to Eastern Orthodox theologians John Meyendorff,[196] and John Romanides[197] the Western efforts to get Pope Leo III to approve the addition of Filioque to the Creed were due to a desire of Charlemagne, who in 800 had been crowned in Rome as Emperor, to find grounds for accusations of heresy against the East. The Pope's refusal to approve the interpolation avoided arousing a conflict between East and West about this matter.
of Constantinople
Photian controversy
However, controversy about the question broke out in the course of the disputes surrounding Photius being appointed as Patriarch of Constantinople. In 858, Patriarch Ignatius of Constantinople fell out of favor with Byzantine Emperor Michael III and was removed from his position. He was replaced by the layman Photius, a distinguished Humanitarian scholar from the University of Constantinople[198], imperial secretary and ambassador to Baghdad. It was Photius' role as a humanitarian and scholar and not a strict church partisan that made him appealing to the Byzantine Imperial court over Ignatius. Ignatius was seen as not being an educated, flexible Patriarch in church matters between the Emperor and the church.[199]
Around 859 Photius and Emperor Michael as well as the partisans of Ignatius had all appealed to Pope Nicholas I to align with each participants viewpoint.[200]
After being removed by council and Emperor Michael III, Ignatius was exiled to Terebinthos and resigned his position under pressure. Photius later had Ignatius declared deposed by a synod held in 861, which was attended by two legates of Pope Nicholas I, Rodoald of Porto and Zachary of Anagni, who signed the acts of the synod, but were repudiated by the Pope, who held a synod in Rome at which the two legates were degraded and excommunicated, and Ignatius was recognized as the lawful Patriarch.[201][202]
Photius, with the support of Emperor Michael, rejected the Pope's judgment and remained Patriarch. In 867, he issued an Encyclical to the Eastern Patriarchs, and called a council in Constantinople in which he charged the Western Church with heresy and schism because of differences in practices, in particular for the Filioque and the authority of the Papacy.[203] This moved the issue from jurisdiction and custom to one of dogma. This council declared Pope Nicholas anathema, excommunicated and deposed.[200]
After the murder of Emperor Michael III, later in the same year, Photius again was deposed. Michael's replacement Basil I the Macedonian then re-instated Ignatius as Patriarch and called a Council in Constantinople in 869 confirming the condemnation of Photius. Ignatius remained Patriarch until his death seven years later, when Ignatius himself accepted that Photius should become his successor in 876.[204] Photius remained Patriarch until he was finally deposed again in 893.
Photius's importance endured in regard to relations between East and West. He is recognized as a Saint by the Eastern Orthodox Church and his line of criticism has often been echoed later, making reconciliation between East and West difficult.
Council of Constantinople in 867
At least three councils (867, 869, 879) where held in Constantinople over the deposition of Ignatius by Emperor Michael III and the replacing of him by Photius. The Pope in disagreement in 863 then held a synod at the Lateran that reversed the Eastern Churches and the Emperor's action, and this was taken by the East as an unacceptable intervention of the Pope of Rome. Due to various conflicts arising during the replacement of Patriarch Ignatius of Constantinople by Photius. The Council of Constantinople 867 was convened by Photius, so to address the question of Papal Supremacy over all of the churches and their patriarchs and the use of the filioque.[205][206][207][208]
As Pope Nicholas I was intervening in the appointing of the other Patriarchs in other jurisdictions than his own, (Patriarchs that were supposed to be equal to him) and in their confirmation process.[209] At the time of the early church [210] and these councils there were no other Patriarchs in the West other than the Pope of Rome. During the time of Photius there were the four other Patriarchs equivalent in rank to the Patriarch of Rome or the Pope. All of the Patriarchs together (including the Pope) collectively were called the Pentarchy in the East.[211] Pope Nicholas, in response to the appeal made to him by all the parties, removed Photius and declared that Ignatius had not ceased to be the Patriarch of Constantinople, by his own authority and decree. Thus the Pope was intervening in the matters of Imperial authority, and the other churches of the East and their own internal councils and authorities, outside the Popes own jurisdiction of Rome.
As it was not acceptable for Patriarchs to get involved in each others confirmation but rather only as a matter of courtesy to give their blessing to an appointment of a Patriarch. The council of 867 was followed by the Council of Constantinople 869. The Council of Constantinople in 879 then restored the conclusions of the Council of 867 this council was attended by Western legates Cardinal Peter of St Chrysogonus, Paul Bishop of Ancona and Eugene Bishop of Ostia.[201] The Roman Catholic Church rejects the councils of 867 and 879 but accept the council of 869. Pope Nicholas I was deposed and the teaching of the filioque was condemned in the council in 867.[206][207][208][212] The Council at Constantinople in 867 excommunicated Pope Nicholas I who was then replaced by Pope Adrian II (due to dying) and rejected Nicholas' claims of primacy, his efforts to convert Bulgaria, and the addition of the Filioque in parts of the Latin Church.[213]
Theology
New Testament
While the phrase "who proceeds from the Father" is found in John 15:26, no direct statement about the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son is found in the New Testament, although perhaps indirectly discernible in John 20:22 and other passages. In John 16:13–15 Jesus says of the Holy Spirit "he will take what is mine and declare it to you", and it is argued that in the relations between the Persons of the Trinity one Person cannot "take" or "receive" (λήψεται) anything from either of the others except by way of procession.[177] Other texts that have been used include Galatians 4:6, Romans 8:9, Philippians 1:19, where the Holy Spirit is called "the Spirit of the Son", "the Spirit of Christ", "the Spirit of Jesus Christ", and texts in the Gospel of John on the sending of the Holy Spirit by Jesus (14:16, 15:26, 16:7).[177]
Titus 3:6 speaks of God pouring out the Holy Spirit "through Jesus Christ our Saviour", while Acts 2:33 speaks of Jesus himself pouring out the Holy Spirit, having received the promise of the Holy Spirit from the Father. The Eastern Orthodox interpretation is that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and is sent (on Pentecost day) from the Father through the Son (ex Patre per Filium procedit). The Latin West states that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son together (ex Patre Filioque procedit).[214]
Church Fathers
All the Fathers, of both East and West, agree that the relationships of the Father with the Son and the Holy Spirit are distinct: the Son is "begotten" of the Father; the Holy Spirit "proceeds" (verbs ἐκπορεύεσθαι, προϊέναι, procedere) from the Father.[215] Father, Son and Holy Spirit are one in essence but distinct in person hood or hypostases.
Constantine Platis refers to three Greek Fathers as saying that the Holy Spirit proceeds (ἐκπορεύεσθαι) from the Father only: St. Dionysius the Areopagite, On the Divine Names 2:5: Blessed Theodoret, PG 76:432; St Gregory Palamas, A NT Decalogue 6.[216]
Saint Cyril of Alexandria spoke of the Holy Spirit proceeding (προϊέναι not ἐκπορεύεσθαι) from Father and Son.[177][217] In his struggle against Nestorianism, he spoke of the Holy Spirit as belonging to the Son (τὸ ἴδιον τοῦ Υἱοῦ) and several times spoke of the Holy Spirit proceeding (προϊέναι, not ἐκπορεύεσθαι) from the Father "and the Son", alongside the phrase preferred in the East: "through the Son", the former indicating the equality of principle, the latter the order of origin.[177] The denial in the Creed used by the Nestorians, whose author was probably Theodore of Mopsuestia, and by Cyril's opponent Theodoret that the Holy Spirit derives his existence from or through the Son was probably directed against the idea that the Holy Spirit was created by or through the Son.[186]
The formula most used in the East in relation to the Son when speaking of the procession (ἐκπορεύεσθαι) of the Holy Spirit from (ἐκ) the Father is through (διά) the Son. Platis gives as sources: Dionysius the Great of Alexandria, Letter to Dionysius, Bishop of Rome 2:8-9; Hilary of Poitiers, De Trinitate 12:57, 8:19-20, 2:1; St John of Damascus, Orthodox Faith 1:12.; St Tarasius of Constantinople, [Mansi, Sacrorum conciliorum 12:1122.]; and St Gregory of Sinai, On Commandments and Doctrines 27.[216]
Already in the fourth century the distinction was made, in connection with the Trinity, between the two Greek verbs ἐκπορεύεσθαι (the verb used in the original Greek text of the 381 Nicene Creed) and προϊέναι. In his Oration on the Holy Lights (XXXIX), Saint Gregory of Nazianzus wrote: "The Holy Ghost is truly Spirit, coming forth (προϊέναι) from the Father indeed, but not after the manner of the Son, for it is not by Generation but by Procession (ἐκπορεύεσθαι)".[218] The original is "προϊὸν μὲν ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς, οὐχ ὑϊκῶς δὲ, οὐδὲ γὰρ γεννητῶς, ἀλλ' ἐκπορευτῶς".[219]
That the Holy Spirit "proceeds" from the Father and the Son in the sense of the Latin word procedere and the Greek προϊέναι (as opposed to the Greek ἐκπορεύεσθαι) was taught by the early fifth century by Saint Cyril of Alexandria in the East[177][217] and even earlier by the fourth-century Western Fathers Ambrose,[220] Augustine[221] and Jerome,[177] all of whom taught that the Spirit "proceeds" from the Father and the Son. The Athanasian Creed, probably of the middle of the fifth century,[222] and a dogmatic epistle of Pope Leo I.[223] gives the same teaching,[224]
Constantine Platis argues: "When the early Christian writers are not unanimous, it is best to remember the words of St. Vincent of Lerins, a Church Father who says that in the universal Church we should be very careful to teach only what 'has been believed everywhere, always, and by all' or at least by 'almost all' our holy ancestors and Fathers (Commonitory 2 [6]). The filioque was not taught 'always' (it was not taught before the 5th century); nor has it been taught 'everywhere' (it has been believed only in the Latin Church)"[216] In fact, it is the combination of "and the Son" with the verb ἐκπορεύεσθαι that is unanimously objected to, not only by the Eastern Orthodox Church but also by the Roman Catholic, and there is a unanimous absence of denial of Saint Cyril of Alexandria's statement that the Holy Spirit "proceeds" (in the sense of the verb προϊέναι, not of the verb ἐκπορεύεσθαι) from the Father and the Son.
East-West controversy
The first sign of contention over the use of the filioque was when the monothelites of Constantinople questioned the orthodoxy of Pope Theodore of Rome for using it, and St Maximus defended it, saying: "They [the Romans] have therefore been accused of precisely those things of which it would be wrong the accuse them, whereas the former [the Byzantines] have been accused of those things it has been quite correct to accuse them [Monothelitism]."[102]. This was then continued when Pope Leo III rejected Charlemagne's accusation against the Patriarch of Constantinople (Saint Tarasios of Constantinople) of infidelity to the faith of the First Council of Nicaea because of not professing his faith in the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father "and the Son", but only "through the Son".[225] This was continued as a matter of controversy when Photius addressed it with an Eastern council in 867,[177] affirming that it was contrary to the teaching of the Fathers and even suspecting that the relevant passages were interpolations.[177] The opposition strengthened with the East-West Schism of 1054.
Two councils held to heal the break discussed the question.
The Second Council of Lyon (1274) accepted the profession of faith of Emperor Michael VIII Palaiologos in the Holy Spirit, "proceeding from the Father and the Son"[226] and the Greek participants, including Patriarch Joseph I of Constantinople sang the Creed three times with the Filioque addition. Though Emperor Michael had in 1261 succeeded in deposing the Roman Catholic Emperor Baldwin II of Constantinople established by force over the Orthodox, and winning back the city of Constantinople, which had been in the made into the Crusader state called the Latin Empire of the East, since the sack of Constantinople in 1204. Most Byzantine Christians feeling disgust and recovering from the Latin Crusaders' conquest and betrayal,[227] refused to accept the agreement made at Lyon with the Latins. In 1282, Emperor Michael VIII died and Patriarch Joseph I's successor, John XI, who had become convinced that the teaching of the Greek Fathers was compatible with that of the Latins, was forced to resign, and was replaced by Gregory II, who was strongly of the opposite opinion.
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/24/Palaio.jpg/220px-Palaio.jpg)
by Benozzo Gozzoli
Another attempt at reunion was made at the fifteenth-century Council of Florence, to which Emperor John VIII Palaiologos, Ecumenical Patriarch Joseph II of Constantinople, and other bishops from the East had gone in the hope of getting Western military aid against the looming Ottoman Empire. Thirteen public sessions held in Ferrara from 8 October to 13 December 1438 the Filioque question was debated without agreement. The Greeks held that any addition whatever, even if doctrinally correct, to the Creed had been forbidden by the Council of Ephesus, while the Latins claimed that this prohibition concerned meaning, not words.[228]
In fact, what this third Ecumenical Council prohibited was:
"It is unlawful for any man to bring forward, or to write, or to compose a different (ἑτέραν) Faith as a rival to that established by the holy Fathers assembled with the Holy Ghost in Nicæa. But those who shall dare to compose a different faith, or to introduce or offer it to persons desiring to turn to the acknowledgment of the truth, whether from Heathenism or from Judaism, or from any heresy whatsoever, shall be deposed, if they be bishops or clergymen; bishops from the episcopate and clergymen from the clergy; and if they be laymen, they shall be anathematized".[229]
The acts of the council of 431 contain the creed in its original 325 form, as adopted at Nicaea, without the additions made in 381 by the First Council of Constantinople, such as the clause "who proceeds from the Father",[230] additions to the text established by the Holy Fathers in Nicaea, but accepted without question by both East and West.
During the council of Florence in 1439, accord continued to be elusive, until the argument prevailed among the Greeks themselves that, though the Greek and the Latin saints expressed their faith differently, they were in agreement substantially, since saints cannot err in faith; and by 8 June the Greeks accepted the Latin statement of doctrine. On 10 June Patriarch Joseph II died. A statement on the Filioque question was included in the Laetentur Caeli decree of union, which was signed on 5 July 1439 and promulgated the next day, with Mark of Ephesus being the only bishop to refuse his signature.[228]
The Eastern Church refused to consider the agreement reached at Florence binding, since the death of Joseph II had for the moment left it without a Patriarch of Constantinople. There was strong opposition to the agreement in the East, and when in 1453, 14 years after the agreement, the promised military aid from the West still had not arrived and Constantinople fell to the Turks, neither Eastern Christians nor their new rulers wished union between them and the West.
Differences in views
In the late sixth century, the Latin-speaking churches of Western Europe began to add the words "and the Son" (Filioque) to the description of the procession of the Holy Spirit.
Eastern theologians (see John Romanides) have argued that this is a violation of Canon VII of the Third Ecumenical Council, which, after quoting the Creed in the form given to it by the First Ecumenical Council, that of Nicaea,[231] "decreed that it is unlawful for any man to bring forward, or to write, or to compose a different (ἑτέραν) Faith as a rival to that established by the holy Fathers assembled with the Holy Ghost in Nicæa". The Council of Ephesus thus explicitly referred to and itself used the Creed established at Nicaea, which did not speak of the procession of the Holy Spirit. The differences between the original Nicene Creed, approved at Ephesus, and the now familiar Niceno-Constantinopolitan form (mostly additions, but with some omissions) include the addition of "who proceeds from the Father", and the omission of "God from God",[232] which was preserved in the Latin text of the Creed ("Deum de Deo").
In great part, the disagreement comes from the difference in meaning between the Greek verb "ἐκπορεύεσθαι" (ekporeuesthai), which has no exact equivalent in Latin, and the Latin verb "procedere", which has a broader meaning and corresponds rather to the Greek verb προϊέναι (proienai), which some of the Greek Fathers also used when speaking of the Holy Spirit's coming from the Son.[9] The first of the two Greek verbs denotes the Holy Spirit's "relationship of origin to the Father alone as the principle without principle of the Trinity", while the Latin "procedere" and the second Greek verb "is a more common term".[9] "Procedere" thus does not specify the Holy Spirit's coming from the Father and the Son in the precise way in which "ἐκπορεύεσθαι" denotes the Holy Spirit's coming from the Father. As the Greek Saint Maximus the Confessor declared, the Western theologians "do not make the Son Cause of the Spirit. They know, indeed, that the Father is the sole Cause of the Son and of the Spirit, of one by generation and of the other by "ἐκπόρευσις" - but they explained that the latter comes (προϊέναι) through the Son, and they showed in this way the unity and the immutability of the essence".[233]
It would be heretical to link "and the Son" with the Greek verb "ἐκπορεύεσθαι" of the Nicene Creed as revised later than the Council of Nicaea in a form that echoes the words of Jesus in John 15:26, "the Spirit of Truth, which proceeds (ἐκπορευὀμενον) from the Father”. And so the Roman Catholic Church does not permit the addition of these words to the Creed recited in Greek, in association with the word "ἐκπορευόμενον". But it is not heretical to link "and the Son" with the Latin verb "procedere", which corresponds instead to the Greek verb "προϊέναι", which some of the Greek Fathers also associated with the relationship between the Holy Spirit and the Son. Accordingly, the North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation issued in 2003 an agreed statement that recommended that both Catholics and Orthodox refrain from labeling as heretical the traditions of the other side, while also recommending that the Catholic Church use the Greek text of the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed (in which two phrases found in the Latin version, "Deum de Deo" and "Filioque", are absent) in making translations of that Creed for catechetical and liturgical use.[234]
Eastern theologians (for example V. Lossky) have objected to the teaching that the Holy Spirit proceeds ("procedere") from the Father and the Son, saying that it conflicts with biblical and accepted doctrine: John 15:26 speaks only of a proceeding ("ἐκπορεύεσθαι") from the Father, and no ecumenical approval had been granted to the teaching. Western theologians have stated that the teaching safeguards the vital Nicene truth that the Son is consubstantial with the Father; and since the Son as well as the Father sends the Spirit in John 15:26, analogy with this relationship to us justifies inferring that the Spirit proceeds from both Father and Son in the intratrinitarian relationship; to say anything different is to divorce the Spirit from the Son in contradiction of the passages that speak of him as the Spirit of Christ (cf. Rom. 8:9; Gal. 4:6).[235]
Eastern theologians like John Romanides have pointed out that the Latin church was at the Council of Nicaea 325, (and also the First Council of Constantinople 381 and the Council of Ephesus 431) and that the East and West both agreed on the original wording of Creed, against the Arians, at Nicaea. Eastern theologians contend that the Latin Church then later acted unilaterally, without council or consensus with the East and added the filioque. They contend further that this is an alteration of the faith in such a way as to show that the Eastern Churches are not equal with the West but are rather subordinate to the Western Church.[236] Subordinate to whatever alterations to the faith the Western Churches arrive upon and see as beneficial to its own opinion. This can be seen in the words of Archbishop Nicetas of Nicomedia of the Twelfth Century:
My dearest brother, we do not deny to the Roman Church the primacy among the five sister patriachates and we recognize her right to the most honorable seat at the Ecumenical Council. But she has separated herself from us by her own deeds when through pride she assumed a monarchy which does not belong to her office… How shall we accept decrees from her that have been issued without consulting us and even without our knowledge? If the Roman pontiff seated on the lofty throne of his glory wished to thunder at us and, so to speak, hurl his mandates at us from on high and if he wishes to judge us and even to rule us and our churches, not by taking counsel with us but at his own arbitrary pleasure what kind of brotherhood, or even what kind of parenthood can this be? We should be the slaves not the sons, of such a church and the Roman see would not be the pious mother of sons but a hard and imperious mistress of slaves.
Eastern theologians state for the Holy Spirit to proceed from the Father and the Son in the Creed, there would have to be two sources in the deity (double procession),[55] whereas in the one God there can only be one source of divinity. Which in the case of the East, is the Father hypostasis of the Trinity, not God's essence per se. ("Oneness of Essence": it is absolutely essential to distinguish this from another dogma, the dogma of the begetting and the procession, in which, as the Holy Fathers express it, is shown the Cause of the existence of the Son and the Spirit. Like the cited document of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity,[9] all of the Eastern Fathers acknowledge that the Father is monos aitios, the "sole Cause" of the Son and the Spirit.)[238][239] This behaviour - groups defining doctrine and acting unilaterally within Christianity as a whole - was supposed to have been addressed, resolved and condemned by councils.
Eastern theologians[who?] have 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. Western theologians say that, since both Greeks and Latins agree in attributing everything as common to the Father and the Son except the relation of Fatherhood and Sonship, the Spiration (breathing forth) of the Holy Spirit, which does not involve this relation, must also be common to both Father and Son.
The Roman Catholic Church has expressed this by saying that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and Son as from a single principle or beginning: "We declare that the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son, not as from two beginnings, but from one beginning, not from two breathings but from one breathing."[240]
The Western tradition does not see itself as merging and confusing the persons of the Father and the Son, as it has been accused of doing: it has always held that the Holy Spirit proceeds, in a principal, proper and immediate manner, from the Father, not the Son.[241] Augustine of Hippo admits that the Holy Spirit takes his origin from the Father principaliter (as principle).[9][242] Doing so however, outside of the actual creed, which with the filioque appears to state quite directly the contrary.[citation needed] As with the addition of the Latin word Filioque the Creed states explicitly that the Holy Spirit proceeds (Latin procedit, corresponding to Greek προϊέναι, not to Greek ἐκπορεύεσθαι) from the Father and the Son.
Even if the Catholic doctrine affirms that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son in the communication of their consubstantial communion, it nonetheless recognizes the reality of the original relationship of the Holy Spirit as person with the Father, a relationship that the Greek Fathers express by the term ἐκπόρευσις."[9][243] This again is done so outside the Creed and how the Creed is recited and worded in English for example. This position is perceived as confused and missing the unique causality of the Father and makes no mention or clarity to the distinct difference between εκπορεύεσθαι and προείναι.[244]
The West appears in the eyes of Eastern theologians as wrong in its clarification of the procession of the Holy Spirit.[245]
Although the Western teaching speaks of the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Persons of the Father and the Son, it has been accused of making the divine essence itself the source of deity in God,[246] thereby suggesting a form of Semi-Sabellian that the Holy Spirit proceeds from himself, since he is certainly not separate from the divine essence.
In the East however the filioque has never been accepted or used. This also includes Eastern Christian churches that did not remain in communion with the Greeks or Rome, including the Oriental Orthodox and the Assyrian Church of the East, which broke from communion with the Byzantine and Roman Churches after the fourth and third ecumenical councils respectively.
The Armenian Apostolic Church, which is part of Oriental Orthodoxy and not the Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox communion, uses a version of the Nicene Creed that makes no mention of the procession of the Holy Spirit, either from the Father or from the Father and the Son.[247] The use and defense of the filioque has been condemned by Eastern Orthodox theologians.[239] Its text has many more additions, specifying more precisely the belief of the Church: examples are the phrase "By whom He took body, soul, and mind, and everything that is in man, truly and not in semblance", the specification that Jesus ascended into heaven and is to come again "with the same body", and the amplification of "who spoke by the prophets" into "Who spoke through the Law, prophets, and Gospels; Who came down upon the Jordan, preached through the apostles, and lived in the saints."
The heart of the conflict from the Eastern perspective is that the Eastern Orthodox detect modalism, specifically the Sabellian heresy of modalism (see Photius) in the West's over all approach and teaching of the Trinitarian God.[246] This, first, by the use of the word person by the Latin West in its translation of the Greek work hypostasis which is sometimes translated as existence or reality..[246] Then the Latin East unilaterally inserted the filioque into the Universal declaration of faith or Nicene Creed, causing open conflict when the Latin Church attacked the East's rejection of this as heretical and in its continued treatment of the issue, after being confronted for adding to the Nicene Creed the "filioque", which appears to the Eastern Orthodox as further solidifying a modalistic teaching of the Trinitarian God.[246][248] (The Filioque was the main subject discussed at the 62nd meeting of the North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation, which met at Holy Cross Greek Orthodox School of Theology (Brookline, Massachusetts) from June 3 through June 5, 2002, for their spring session. In October 2003, the Consultation issued an agreed statement, The Filioque: A Church-Dividing Issue?, which provides an extensive review of Scripture, history, and theology. The recommendations include: 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.)
Saint Maximus the Confessor wrote in defense of the Roman use of the Filioque,[102] maintaining that it was a legitimate variation of the doctrine that the Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son.[107] Orthodox theologian Michael Pomazansky insists that Maximus' use and definition are different than what was established by the West.[249] What Maximus wrote was as follows:[250]
They [the Romans] have produced the unanimous evidence of the Latin Fathers, and also of Cyril of Alexandria, from the study he made of the gospel of St John. On the basis of these texts, they have shown that they have not made the Son the cause of the Spirit - they know in fact that the Father is the only cause of the Son and the Spirit, the one by begetting and the other by procession - but that they have manifested the procession through him and have thus shown the unity and identity of the essence.
They [the Romans] have therefore been accused of precisely those things of which it would be wrong the accuse them, whereas the former [the Byzantines] have been accused of those things it has been quite correct to accuse them [Monothelitism].
From Maximus and John Damascene[251] the East draws the conclusion that the Holy Spirit derives its existence and being from God the Father alone as it feels was originally expressed in the Final version of the Creed accepted by East and West.[252] However if the Roman Catholic Church changed its addition to say "through the Son" rather than "from the Son" then such a compromise by the West would then clarify inside the Creed the true nature and sovereignty of each hypostases of God.(As a result of the above mentioned 62nd meeting of the North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation and other similar 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 Fathers call a theologoumenon, a theological opinion. Similarly, the late Edward Kilmartin, S.J., proposed as a theologoumenon a "mission" of the Holy Spirit to the Church.)[253]
Recent discussion
Orthodox theologian Vasily Bolotov published in 1898 his "Thesen über das Filioque", in which he maintained that the Filioque, like Photios's "from the Father alone", was a permissible theological opinion (a theologoumenon, not a dogma) that cannot be an absolute impediment to reestablishment of communion.[94][254] This thesis was supported by Orthodox theologians Sergei Bulgakov, Paul Evdokimov and I. Voronov, but was rejected by Vladimir Lossky.[94]
In 1995 the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity published in various languages a study on The Greek and the Latin Traditions regarding the Procession of the Holy Spirit,[9] which pointed out an important difference in meaning between the Greek verb ἐκπορεύεσθαι and the Latin verb procedere, both of which are commonly translated as "proceed".
A train destined for Paris can in English be said to be proceeding from Berlin, but if the train originally came from Moscow, it can be said, in the sense of the Greek verb ἐκπορεύεσθαι, which implies ultimate origin, to be proceeding from Moscow only, not from Berlin. To speak of the train as proceeding from Berlin, Greek would use, not ἐκπορεύεσθαι, but a different word, προϊέναι. The Latin verb procedere, used in the Latin version of the Nicene Creed, has a broader meaning than the verb ἐκπορεύεσθαι, which is used in the Greek text, and corresponds rather to the meaning of προϊέναι and of the Latin-derived English verb "proceed" in the analogy of the train proceeding from Berlin to Paris.
Saint Gregory of Nazianzus used the Greek word ἐκπορεύεσθαι to distinguish the Spirit's form of coming from the Father from that of the Son from the Father, but used another Greek verb προϊέναι when speaking of the origin of both Son and Spirit from the Father.[255] Προϊέναι was the word used by Greek Fathers of Alexandria when saying, as Saint Cyril of Alexandria did: "Since the Holy Spirit makes us like God when he has come to be in us, and since he also proceeds (προεῖσι) from the Father and the Son, it is clear that he is of the divine substance, proceeding (προϊόν) substantially (οὐσιωδῶς) in it and from it"[256]
Latin does not have two words, one of which corresponds to the precise meaning of ἐκπόρευσθαι and the other to the broader meaning of προϊέναι. Procedere is used for both these Greek verbs.
In this view, to say that the Holy Spirit proceeds (in the sense of the Greek word "ἐκπορευόμενον") from the Father and the Son can be considered heretical; but to say the same, giving to the word "proceeds" the meaning of the Latin word "procedere" (or of the Greek "προϊέναι"), is not heretical.
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/31/Maximus_Confessor.jpg/220px-Maximus_Confessor.jpg)
The difficulty or near impossibility of finding in another language words that will reproduce with complete accuracy certain words of another language was remarked on by Saint Maximus the Confessor in the seventh century precisely with regard to the Filioque expression. Of the Latins he wrote: "It is true, of course, that they cannot reproduce their idea in a language and in words that are foreign to them as they can in their mother-tongue, just as we too cannot do."[257]
Metropolitan John Zizioulas of Pergamon concluded his examination of the Pontifical Council's study by saying: "The Vatican document on the procession of the Holy Spirit constitutes an encouraging attempt to clarify the basic aspects of the Filioque problem and show that a rapprochement between West and East on this matter is eventually possible. An examination of this problem in depth within the framework of a constructive theological dialogue can be greatly helped by this document."[258]
On the basis of the distinction between the verbs ἐκπορεύεσθαι and προϊέναι, Western theologian Jean-Miguel Garrigues had already in 1981 proposed the formulation: "I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and giver of life, who issuing from the Father (ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς ἐκπορευόμενον), proceeds from the Father and the Son (ex Patre Filioque procedit, ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ Υἱοῦ προϊόν)".[94]
Even before the publication of the Pontifical Council's study, several Orthodox theologians had considered the Filioque anew, with a view to reconciliation of East and West. Theodore Stylianopoulos provided in 1986 an extensive, scholarly overview of the contemporary discussion.[259] Twenty years after writing the first (1975) edition of his book, The Orthodox Church, Metropolitan Kallistos of Diokleia said that he had changed his mind and had concluded that "the problem is more in the area of semantics and different emphases than in any basic doctrinal differences": "the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone" and "the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son" may both have orthodox meanings if the words translated "proceeds" actually have different meanings.[260] For some Orthodox, then, the Filioque, while still a matter of conflict, would not impede full communion of the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches if other issues were resolved. But many Orthodox consider that the Filioque is in flagrant contravention of the words of Christ in the Gospel,.[239] has been specifically condemned by the Orthodox Church, and remains a fundamental heretical teaching which divides East and West.
Eastern Christians also object that, even if the teaching of the Filioque can be defended, its interpolation into the Creed is anti-canonical..[239] The Roman Catholic Church, which like the Eastern Orthodox Church considers the teaching of the Ecumenical Councils to be infallible, "acknowledges the conciliar, ecumenical, normative and irrevocable value, as expression of the one common faith of the Church and of all Christians, of the Symbol professed in Greek at Constantinople in 381 by the Second Ecumenical Council. No profession of faith peculiar to a particular liturgical tradition can contradict this expression of the faith taught and professed by the undivided Church",[9] but considers permissible additions that elucidate the teaching without in any way contradicting it,[261] and that do not claim to have, on the basis of their insertion, the same authority that belongs to the original. It allows liturgical use of the Apostles' Creed as well of the Nicene Creed, and sees no essential difference between the recitation in the liturgy of a creed with orthodox additions and a profession of faith outside the liturgy such that of the Patriarch of Constantinople Saint Tarasius, who developed the Nicene Creed as follows: "the Holy Spirit, the Lord and giver of life, who proceeds from the Father through the Son".[9]
Some theologians have even envisaged as possible acceptance of Filioque by the Eastern Orthodox Church (Vladimir Lossky) or of "from the Father alone" by the Roman Catholic Church (André de Halleux).[94]
The Roman Catholic view that the Greek and the Latin expressions of faith in this regard are not contradictory but complementary has been expressed as follows:
- At the outset the Eastern tradition expresses the Father's character as first origin of the Spirit. By confessing the Spirit as he "who proceeds from the Father", it affirms that he comes from the Father through the Son. The Western tradition expresses first the consubstantial communion between Father and Son, by saying that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son (Filioque). … This legitimate complementarity, provided it does not become rigid, does not affect the identity of faith in the reality of the same mystery confessed.[15]
For this reason, the Roman Catholic Church has refused the addition of καὶ τοῦ Υἱοῦ to the formula ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς ἐκπορευόμενον of the Nicene Creed in the Churches, even of Latin rite, which use it in Greek with the Greek verb "έκπορεύεσθαι".[9]
At the same time, the Eastern Catholic Churches, even if they do not use the Filioque, are in full communion with the Latin Church, which, in association with the Latin verb "procedere", does not use it, but accepts it as right and correct dogma.[262]
Joint statement in the United States in 2003
The Filioque was the main subject discussed at the 62nd meeting of the North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation, in June 2002. In October 2003, the Consultation issued an agreed statement, The Filioque: A Church-Dividing Issue?, which provides an extensive review of Scripture, history, and theology. The recommendations include:
- That all involved in such dialogue expressly recognize the limitations of our ability to make definitive assertions about the inner life of God.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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. It is for the bishops of the Catholic and Orthodox Churches to review this work and to make whatever decisions would be appropriate.
Summary
The Filioque was originally proposed 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. When the Filioque came into use in Spain and Gaul in the West, the local churches were not aware that their language of procession would not translate well back into the Greek.[citation needed] Conversely, from Photius to the Council of Florence, the Greek Fathers were also not acquainted with the linguistic issues.[citation needed]
The origins of the Filioque in the West are found in the writings of certain Church Fathers in the West and especially in the anti-Arian situation of seventh-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 over and above the Ecumenical councils called to do this very thing.
Ironically, 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.[citation needed] In this case, a common adversary, namely, Arianism, had profound, far-reaching effects, in the orthodox reaction in both East and West.
Church politics, authority conflicts, ethnic hostility, linguistic misunderstanding, personal rivalry, mass murder and mass destruction during several crusades, the large scale theft of the Easts material and religious wealth, forced conversions, large scale wars, political intrigue, unfilled promises and secular motives all combined in various ways to divide East and West.
As regards the doctrine expressed by the phrase in Latin (in which the word "procedit" that is linked with "Filioque" does not have exactly the same meaning and overtones as the word used in Greek as in Latin), any declaration by the West that it is heretical (something that not all Orthodox now insist on) would conflict with the Western doctrine of the infallibility of the Church, since it has been upheld by Councils recognized by the Roman Catholic Church as ecumenical and by even those Popes who, like Leo III, opposed insertion of the word into the Creed.
References
- ^ a b c d e f g Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church (Oxford University Press 2005 ISBN 978-0-19-280290-3), article Filioque
- ^ a b Wetterau, Bruce. World history. New York: Henry Holt and company. 1994.
- ^ Catechism of the Catholic Church, 246-248
- ^ .1662 Book of Common Prayer
- ^ 1979 Book of Common Prayer, Episcopal Church
- ^ Common Worship, Church of England (2000)
- ^ Lutheranism (Book of Concord, The Nicene Creed and the Filioque: A Lutheran Approach), Presbyterianism (Union Presbyterian Church, Presbyterian Church of Aotearoa New Zealand, Reformed Presbyterian Church); Methodism (United Methodist Hymnal)
- ^ Dominus Iesus
- ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity: The Greek and the Latin Traditions regarding the Procession of the Holy Spirit and same document on another site
- ^ programme of the celebration
- ^ Video recording of joint recitation
- ^ a b c d e f g h i j k Agreed Statement of the North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation, 25 October 2003
- ^ "Though it is quite true to say that the Spirit proceeds from both the 'Father and the Son', the Eastern Church, encouraged by the Holy See, has asked us to return to the original form of the Creed" (Q & A on the Reformed Chaldean Massl form of the Creed").
- ^ a b c Article 1 of the Treaty of Brest
- ^ a b c d e Catechism of the Catholic Church, 248
- ^ Catechism of the Catholic Church, 247
- ^ Resolutions from 1978: Resolution 35 (see item 3)
- ^ Resolutions from 1988: Resolution 6 (see item 5)
- ^ See, for instance, The Nicene Creed - texts
- ^ General Convention Sets Course For Church September 19, 1985
- ^ "For the East, the highest authority in settling doctrinal disputes could by no means be the authority of a single Church or a single bishop but an Ecumenical Council of all sister churches"[1]
- ^ We have already had occasion to mention the Papacy when speaking of the different political situations in east and west; and we have seen how the centralized and monarchical structure of the western Church was reinforced by the barbarian invasions. Now so long as the Pope claimed an absolute power only in the west, Byzantium raised no objections. The Byzantines did not mind if the western Church was centralized, so long as the Papacy did not interfere in the east. The Pope, however, believed his immediate power of jurisdiction to extend to the east as well as to the west; and as soon as he tried to enforce this claim within the eastern Patriarchates, trouble was bound to arise. The Greeks assigned to the Pope a primacy of honour, but not the universal supremacy which he regarded as his due. The Pope viewed infallibility as his own prerogative; the Greeks held that in matters of the faith the final decision rested not with the Pope alone, but with a Council representing all the bishops of the Church. Here we have two different conceptions of the visible organization of the Church.[2]
- ^ [3]
- ^ Ecumenical Councils were convened by the Emperors as Church senates to inform the government what the Church's faith and practice are. The Emperor signed their decisions into law. The council of 381 included only East Roman Bishops invited by the Emperor. It was, nevertheless, elevated to ecumenical status both legally and ecclesiastically. The decisions of 381 were accompanied by an imperial edict listing the Bishops with whom all others are to be in agreement. The three Great Cappadokian Fathers had carried the Council. Basil the Great's Friend, Gregory the Theologian, now archbishop of New Rome/Constantinople, presided over the council during part of its work. Basil's brother, Gregory of Nyssa, was a main force behind the composition of the Creed, as is evident from his being listed in the imperial edict mentioned. John Romanides [4]
- ^ a b "attention of the Emperor Constantine was called to the controversy, ... suggestion of certain bishops, he called the first ecumenical council of the Church, ..."The new Schaff-Herzog encyclopedia of religious knowledge: embracing ... - Page 279 [5]
- ^ a b "The Second Ecumenical Council was called together by the Emperor without the knowledge of the Roman Pontiff. Nor was he invited to be present." A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church ... Page xiii [6]
- ^ a b The Third Ecumenical Council, which opened on June 22, 431. It was called by the Emperor Theodosius II at the request of the orthodox, represented by Cyril [7]
- ^ a b The Fourth (Ecumenical Council. — The orthodox doctrine of the Person of Christ, while denying the ... called together by the Emperor Marcian (450-457 AD)[8]
- ^ The confident emperor called the fifth ecumenical council, Constantinople II, to meet in 553 under his presidency. To the emperor's surprise, many bishops.[9]
- ^ The sixth ecumenical council, 680-681, which was convened by the emperor Constantine Pogonatus [10]
- ^ Empress Irene who was regent for her son Constantine VI (780-797). ... called the Second Council of Nicaea, the Seventh (Ecumenical Council,[11]
- ^ The confident emperor called the fifth ecumenical council, Constantinople II, to meet in 553 under his presidency. To the emperor's surprise, many bishops.[12]
- ^ The sixth ecumenical council, 680-681, which was convened by the emperor Constantine Pogonatus [13]
- ^ Empress Irene who was regent for her son Constantine VI (780-797). ... called the Second Council of Nicaea, the Seventh (Ecumenical Council,[14]
- ^ The emperor Constantine once came to Byzantium, and was delighted by the beauty and comfortable setting of the city. And having seen the holiness of life and sagacity of St Metrophanes, the emperor took him back to Rome. Soon Constantine the Great transferred the capital from Rome to Byzantium and he brought St Metrophanes there. The First Ecumenical Council was convened in 325 to resolve the Arian heresy. Constantine the Great had the holy Fathers of the Council bestow upon St Metrophanes the title of Patriarch. Thus, the saint became the first Patriarch of Constantinople.[15]
- ^ [16]
- ^ [17]
- ^ A History of the Holy Eastern Church: The Patriarchate of Alexandria. By John Mason Neale ISBN 978-1-110-11818-2 [18]
- ^ (1st council was in Nicaea in Modern day Turkey, 2nd in Constantinople in Modern day Turkey, 3rd in Ephesus in Modern day Turkey, 4th in Chalcedon in Modern day Turkey, 5th in Constantinople in Modern day Turkey, 6th in Constantinople in Modern day Turkey, 7th in Nicaea in Modern day Turkey.)
- ^ Paul Valliere, Modern Russian Theology (T & T Clark 2000 ISBN 0-567-08755-7), p. 182
- ^ a b c "The rejection of the Filioque, or the double Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father and Son, and the denial of the primacy of the Roman Pontiff constitute even today the principal errors of the Greek church. While outside the Church doubt as to the double Procession of the Holy Ghost grew into open denial, inside the Church the doctrine of the Filioque was declared to be a dogma of faith in the Fourth Lateran Council (1215), the Second council of Lyons (1274), and the Council of Florence (1438-1445). Thus the Church proposed in a clear and authoritative form the teaching of Sacred Scripture and tradition on the Procession of the Third Person of the Holy Trinity" (Catholic Encyclopedia (1909): Filioque
- ^ "It (the Council of 879-880) readopted the Nicene Creed with an anathema against the Filioque, and all other changes by addition or omission" (Schaff, Philip, History of the Christian Church, (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.) 1997, Chapter V. The Conflict of the Eastern and Western Churches and Their Separation).
- ^ THE FILIOQUE IN THE DUBLIN AGREED STATEMENT 1984 By John Romanides "The Roman Popes fully accepted the dogmatic and legal authority of all Roman Ecumenical Councils, including the eighth of 879 which condemned the Filioque in the Nicene Creed and annulled the Council of 869 by accepting the restoration of Photius as Patriarch of the New Rome. The Franks and Germans rejected this Council because it condemned their addition to the Creed. They of course could not accept Photius since he had been attacking their Filioque. So they continued accepting the Council of 869."[19]
- ^ a b c 8.) It is always claimed by Protestant, Anglican, and Latin scholars that since the time of Hadrian I or Leo III, through the period of John VIII, the Papacy opposed the Filioque only as an addition to the Creed, but never as doctrine or theological opinion. Thus, it is claimed that John VIII accepted the Eight Ecumenical Synod's condemnation of the addition to the Creed and not of the Filioque as a teaching. However, both Photios and John VIII's letter to Photios mentioned above testify to this pope's condemnation of the Filioque as doctrine also. Yet the Filioque could not be publicly condemned as heresy by the Church of Old Rome. Why? Simply because the Franks were militarily in control of papal Romania, and as illiterate barbarians were capable of any kind of criminal act against Roman clergy and populace. The Franks were a dangerous presence in papal Romania and had to be handled with great care and tact.[20]
- ^ East and West: the making of a rift in the Church : from apostolic times By Henry Chadwick Publisher: Oxford University Press, USA ISBN 978-0-19-926457-5, p. 176)
- ^ Durant, Will. The Age of Faith. New York: Simon and Schuster. 1972. p. 529
- ^ Schaff, Philip, History of the Christian Church, (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.) 1997, Chapter V. The Conflict of the Eastern and Western Churches and Their Separation
- ^ In 879, two years after the death of Patriarch Ignatius, another council was summoned (many consider it the Eighth Ecumenical Council), and again St Photius was acknowledged as the lawful archpastor of the Church of Constantinople. Pope John VIII, who knew Photius personally, declared through his envoys that the former papal decisions about Photius were annulled. The council acknowledged the unalterable character of the Nicean-Constantinople Creed, rejecting the Latin distortion ("filioque"), and acknowledging the independence and equality of both thrones and both churches (Western and Eastern). The council decided to abolish Latin usages and rituals in the Bulgarian church introduced by the Roman clergy, who ended their activities there.Orthodox Church in America
- ^ Orthodox Answers: Documents
- ^ [21]
- ^ Crisis in Byzantium: the Filioque controversy in the patriarchate of Gregory II of Cyprus (1283 - 1289) By Aristeides Papadakis pg 124 [22]
- ^ "However, the chief of the heretics who distorted the apostolic teaching concerning the Holy Spirit was Macedonius, who occupied the cathedra of Constantinople as archbishop in the 4th century and found followers for himself among former Arians and Semi-Arians. He called the Holy Spirit a creation of the Son, and a servant of the Father and the Son. Accusers of his heresy were Fathers of the Church like Sts. Basil the Great, Gregory the Theologian, Athanasius the Great, Gregory of Nyssa, Ambrose, Amphilocius, Diodores of Tarsus, and others, who wrote works against the heretics. The false teaching of Macedonius was refuted first in a series of local councils and finally at the Second Ecumenical Council of Constantinople in 381. In preserving Orthodoxy, the Second Ecumenical Council completed the Nicaean Symbol of Faith with these words: “And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Giver of Life, Who proceedeth from the Father, Who with the Father and the Son is equally worshiped and glorified, Who spake by the Prophets,” as well as those articles of the Creed which follow this in the Nicaean-Constantinopolitan Symbol of Faith." Orthodox Dogmatic Theology: A Concise Exposition Protopresbyter Michael Pomazansky St Herman of Alaska Brotherhood press 1994 (ISBN 0-938635-69-7
- ^ His Broken Body: Understanding and Healing the Schism between the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches by Laurent Cleenewerck pg 335 ISBN 978-0-615-18361-9 [23]
- ^ [24]
- ^ a b The Procession of the Holy Spirit in Orthodox Trinitarian Doctrine; in Image and Likeness of God by Vladimir Lossky “If the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone, as the hypostatic cause of the consubstantial hypostases, we find the ‘simple Trinity,’ where the monarchy of the Father conditions the personal diversity of the Three while at the same time expressing their essential unity.” In the Image and Likeness of God, NY: St Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1974, p. 88.[25]
- ^ The Teachings of Modern Orthodox Christianity on Law, Politics, and Human Nature by John Witte Jr, Frank S. Alexander, Paul Valliere Publisher: Columbia University Press ISBN 978-0-231-14265-6 [26]
- ^ THE FILIOQUE by John S. Romanides "During the ensuing centuries long course of the controversy, the Franks not only forced the Patristic tradition into an Augustinian mold, but they confused Augustine's Trinitarian terminology with that of the Father's of the First and Second Ecumenical Synods. This is nowhere so evident as in the Latin handling of Maximos the Confessor's description, composed in 650, of the West Roman Orthodox Filioque at the Council of Florence (1438-42). The East Romans hesitated to present Maximos' letter to Marinos about this West Roman Orthodox Filioque because the letter did not survive in its complete form. They were pleasantly surprised, however, when Andrew, the Latin bishop of Rhodes, quoted the letter in Greek in order to prove that in the time of Maximos there was no objection to the Filioque being in the Creed. Of course, the Filioque was not yet in the Creed. Then Andrew proceeded to translate Maximos into Latin for the benefit of the pope. However, the official translator intervened and challenged the rendition. Once the correct translation was established, the Franks then questioned the authenticity of the text. They assumed that their own Filioque was the only one in the West, and so they rejected on this ground Maximos' text as a basis of union. When Maximos spoke about the Orthodox Filioque, as supported with passages from Roman Fathers, he did not mean those who came to be known as Latin Fathers, and so included among them Saint Cyril of Alexandria." [27]
- ^ It is obvious that Anastasios the Librarian did not at first understand the Frankish Filioque, since on this question he reprimands the "Greeks" for their objections and accuses them of not accepting Maximos the Confessor's explanation that there are two usages of the term; the one whereby procession means essential mission, wherein the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and Son (in which case the Holy Spirit participated in the act of sending, so that this is a common act of the whole Trinity), and the second, whereby precession means casual relation wherein the existence of the Holy Spirit is derived. In this last sense, Maximos assures Marinos (to whom he is writing), that the West Romans accept that the Holy Spirit proceeds casually only from the Father and that the Son is not cause.[28]
- ^ This interpretation of the Filioque, given by Maximos the Confessor and Anastasios the Librarian is the consistent position of the Roman popes, and clearly so in the case of Leo III. The minutes of the conversation held in 810 between the three apocrisari of Charlemagne and Pope Leo III, kept by the Frankish monk Smaragdus, bear out this consistency in papal policy. Leo accepts the teaching of the Fathers, quoted by the Franks, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, as taught by Augustine and Ambrose. However, the Filioque must not be added to the Creed as was done by the Franks, who got permission to sing the Creed from Leo but not to add to the Creed.[29]
- ^ In the Byzantine period the Orthodox side accused the Latin speaking Christians, who supported the Filioque, of introducing two Gods, precisely because they believed that the Filioque implied two causes--not simply two sources or principles--in the Holy Trinity. The Greek Patristic tradition, at least since the Cappadocian Fathers, identified the one God with the person of the Father, whereas, St. Augustine seems to identify Him with the one divine substance (the deitas or divinitas).[30]
- ^ Gregory Palamas proposed a similar interpretation of this relationship in a number of his works; in his Confession of 1351, for instance, he asserts that the Holy Spirit “has the Father as foundation, source, and cause,” but “reposes in the Son” and “is sent – that is, manifested – through the Son.” (ibid. 194) In terms of the transcendent divine energy, although not in terms of substance or hypostatic being, “the Spirit pours itself out from the Father through the Son, and, if you like, from the Son over all those worthy of it,” a communication which may even be broadly called “procession” (ekporeusis) (Apodeictic Treatise 1: trans. J. Meyendorff, A Study of Gregory Palamas [St. Vladimir’s, 1974] 231-232).
- ^ David Rohrbacher, The Historians of Late Antiquity, p. 128
- ^ The HarperCollins encyclopedia of Catholicism By Richard P. McBrien, Harold W. Attridge pg 529
- ^ a b Against Anathema IX of Cyril
- ^ "This idea is clearly expressed by Blessed Theodoret: 'Concerning the Holy Spirit, it is said not that he has existence from the Son or through the Son, but rather that He proceeds from the Father and has the same nature as the Son, is in fact the Spirit of the Son as being One in Essence with Him' (Bl. Theodoret, 'On the Third Ecumenical Council')." Orthodox dogmatic theology by Michael Pomazansky [31]
- ^ The pronouncements of the years following confirmed that the final result; see the epistle of the Council of Constantinople of 382, but above all, the anathemas of Damasus. The doctrine of the homousia of the Spirit from the this time onward was as much a part of orthodoxy as the doctrine of the homousia of the Son. But since according to the Greek way of conceiving of the matter, the Father continued to be regarded as the root of the Godhead, the perfect homousia of the Holy Spirit necessarily always seemed to be inferior to the Son and thus to be a grandchild of the Father, or else to possess a double root. Then, besides, the dependence of the Spirit on the Son was obstinately maintained by the Arians and Semi-Arians on the groung that the certain passages in the Bible supported this view, and in the interest of their conception of a descending Trinity in three stages. Thus the Greeks had constantly to watch and see that the procession of the Spirit from the Father alone was taught, and after the revised Creed of Jerusalem became an ecumenical Creed, they had a sacred text in support of their doctrine, which came to be as important as the doctrine itself. History of dogma, Volume 4 By Adolf von Harnack pgs 18-119 [32]
- ^ "If ... the expressions of Theodoret directed against the ninth anathema by Cyril of Alexandria, deny that the Holy Ghost derives His existence from or through the Son, they probably intend to deny only the creation of the Holy Ghost by or through the Son, inculcating at the same time His Procession from both Father and Son" [33]
- ^ Theodoret and Chalcedon
- ^ a b [http://books.google.com/books?id=2m5Xnlarz8UC&pg=PA1&lpg=PA1&dq=theodoret+%22third+ecumenical+council%22&source=bl&ots=VEfdhxZpiQ&sig=xnHftplpz-06-a140mrTUv3vd_Q&hl=en&ei=ndYPTM-_MI380wTP1-WQDg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CCcQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=theodoret%20%22third%20ecumenical%20council%22&f=false Paul B. Clayton, The Christology of Theodoret of Cyrus (Oxford University Press 2007 ISBN 978-0-19-814-398-7), p. 1
- ^ Metropolitan Bishoy of Damiette, The View of the Coptic Orthodox Church concerning Theodore of Mopsuestia and Nestorius of Constantinople (1998)
- ^ George C. Berthold, "Cyril of Alexandria and the Filioque" in Studia Patristica XIX, Papers presented to the Tenth International Conference on Patristic Studies in Oxford 1987
- ^ Paul D. Molnar, Thomas F. Torrance, Theologian of the Trinity (Ashgate Publishing Company 2005 ISBN 9780754652281), p. 65
- ^ a b c d Crisis in Byzantium: The Filioque Controversy in the Patriarchate of Gregory II of Cyprus (1283-1289) Aristeides Papadakis St. Vladimir's Seminary Press ISBN 978-0881411768 [34]
- ^ "This teaching neither denied the monarchy of the Father (who remained principal cause) nor did it imply two causes, since the Latins affirmed that the Son is, with the Father, a single spirating principle" (p. 163)
- ^ "Maximus affirmed that the Latin teaching in no way violated the monarchy of the Father, who remained the sole cause (μία αἰτἰα) of both the Son and the Spirit" (p. 81)
- ^ "In advocating the filioque, Bonaventure was careful to protect the monarchy of the Father, affirming that the 'Father is properly the One without an originator,... the Principle who proceeds from no other, the Father as such'" (p. 127)
- ^ "While clearly affirming the monarchy of the Father, who remained 'fountain and origin of the whole Trinity (fons et origo totius Trinitatis), so too is the Latin teaching" (p. 105)
- ^ Similarly Moltmann observes that “the filioque was never directed against the ‘monarchy’ of the Father” and that the principle of the “monarchy” has “never been contested by the theologians of the Western Church.” If these statements can be accepted by the Western theologians today in their full import of doing justice to the principle of the Father’s “monarchy,” which is so important to Eastern triadology, then the theological fears of Easterners about the filioque would seem to be fully relieved. Consequently, Eastern theologians could accept virtually any of the Memorandum’s alternate formulae in the place of the filioque on the basis of the above positive evaluation of the filioque which is in harmony with Maximos the Confessor’s interpretation of it. As Zizioulas incisively concludes: The “golden rule” must be Saint Maximos the Confessor’s explanation concerning Western pneumatology: by professing the filioque our Western brethren do not wish to introduce another αἴτον in God’s being except the Father, and a mediating role of the Son in the origination of the Spirit is not to be limited to the divine Economy, but relates also to the divine οὐσία. The Filioque: Dogma, Theologoumenon or Error?, Fr. Theodore Stylianopoulous[35]
- ^ Vladimir Lossky, The Procession of the Holy Spirit in Orthodox Trinitarian Doctrine
- ^ Gerald Bray, The Filioque Clause in History and Theology
- ^ "Such are some of the reasons why Orthodox regard the filioque as dangerous and heretical. Filioquism confuses the persons, and destroys the proper balance between unity and diversity in the Godhead. ... Such in outline is the Orthodox attitude to the filioque, although not all would state the case in such an uncompromising form" (Bishop Kallistos Ware, The Orthodox Church (extracts).
- ^ Karl Rahner, Encyclopedia of Theology (Burns & Oates 1975 ISBN 81-7109-697-2), p. 646
- ^ Avery Dulles, The Filioque: What Is at Stake? in Concordia Theological Quarterly, January-April 1955, p. 38
- ^ Nevertheless, the overall Eastern tradition, because it stresses the Scriptural and pre-Nicene teaching of the Monarchy of the Father, prefers St. Irenaeus’ pyramid vision of the Word and Spirit as “the two hands of God”. His Broken Body: Understanding and Healing the Schism between the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches by Laurent Cleenewerck
- ^ a b c d e "John of Damascus, who gave the doctrine of the Greek fathers its scholastic shape, about a.d. 750, one hundred years before the controversy between Photius and Nicolas, maintained that the procession is from the Father alone, but through the Son, as mediator. The same formula, Ex Patre per Filium, was used by Tarasius, patriarch of Constantinople, who presided over the seventh oecumenical Council (787), approved by Pope Hadrian I., and was made the basis for the compromise at the Council of Ferrara (1439), and at the Old Catholic Conference at Bonn (1875). Photius and the later Eastern controversialists dropped or rejected the per Filium, as being nearly equivalent to ex Filio or Filioque, or understood it as being applicable only to the mission of the Spirit, and emphasized the exclusiveness of the procession from the Father" (Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, volume IV, §108).
- ^ A. Edward Siecienski, The Filioque: History of a Doctrinal Controversy (Oxford University Press 2010 ISBN 978-0-19-537204-5), p. 10
- ^ a b c d "In general, and already since Photius, the Greek position consisted in distinguishing the eternal procession of the Son (sic: recte Spirit?) from the Father, and the sending of the Spirit in time through the Son and by the Son" (John Meyendorff, Theology in the Thirteenth Century: Methodological Contrasts).
- ^ a b c d "Photius could concede that the Spirit proceeds through the Son in his temporal mission in the created order but not in his actual eternal being" [Henry Chadwick, East and West: The Making of a Rift in the Church (Oxford University Press, 2003 ISBN 0-19-926457), p. 154]
- ^ Photios’ famous formula, “the Spirit proceeds from the Father alone,” intends not to deny the intimate relations between the generation of the Son and the procession of the Spirit, but only to make utterly explicit that the Father alone causes the existence of both the Son and the Spirit, conferring upon them all his being, attributes, and powers, except his hypostatic property, i.e., that he is the Father, the unbegotten, the source, origin, and cause of divinity. His Broken Body pg 331 [36]
- ^ Nevertheless, the overall Eastern tradition, because it stresses the Scriptural and pre-Nicene teaching of the Monarchy of the Father, prefers St. Irenaeus’ pyramid vision of the Word and Spirit as “the two hands of God”. His Broken Body: Understanding and Healing the Schism between the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches by Laurent Cleenewerck [37]
- ^ The Pontifical Council for the Promotion of Christian Unity affirms: "The Greek Fathers and the whole Christian Orient speak, in this regard, of the “Father’s Monarchy,” and the Western tradition, following St Augustine, also confesses that the Holy Spirit takes his origin from the Father “principaliter,” that is, as principle (De Trinitate XV, 25, 47, PL 42, 1094-1095). In this sense, therefore, the two traditions recognize that the “Monarchy of the Father” implies that the Father is the sole Trinitarian Cause (αἰτία) or Principle (principium) of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.[38]
- ^ Sergei Nikolaevich Bulgakov, The Comforter (Wm. B. Eerdmans 2004 ISBN 0-8028-2112-X), p. 48
- ^ Crisis in Byzantium: the Filioque controversy in the patriarchate of Gregory II of Cyprus (1283 - 1289) By Aristeides Papadakis pg 124 [39]
- ^ a b c d e f Encyclopedia of Christian Theology: article Filioque, p. 583
- ^ A theologoumenon has been defined as a theological opinion in a debate where both sides are rigorously orthodox (Theology Glossary)
- ^ Ralph Del Cole, Reflections on the Filioque in Journal of Ecumenical Studies, Spring 1997, page 2 of online text
- ^ Sergei Nikolaevich Bulgakov, The Comforter (Wm. B. Eerdmans 2004 ISBN 0-8028-2112-X), p. 148
- ^ Ralph Del Cole, Reflections on the Filioque in Journal of Ecumenical Studies, Spring 1997, page 3 of online text
- ^ "The+Filioque+Yesterday+and+Today&dq=Bobrinskoy,+"The+Filioque+Yesterday+and+Today&cd=5 Nicolas Lossky, Lancelot Andrewes the Preacher (1555-1626): The Origins of the Mystical. Theology of the Church of England, p. 236, footnote 992
- ^ "The Filioque controversy which has separated us for so many centuries is more than a mere technicality, but it is not insoluble. Qualifying the firm position taken when I wrote The Orthodox Church twenty years ago, I now believe, after further study, that the problem is more in the area of semantics than in any basic doctrinal differences" (Bishop Kallistos Ware, Diakonia, quoted from Elias Zoghby's A Voice from the Byzantine East, p.43).
- ^ "Desiring to defend the Westerners, (he) justified them precisely by saying that by the words “from the Son” they intended to indicate that the Holy Spirit is given to creatures through the Son" (Orthodox Dogmatic Theology: A Concise Exposition Protopresbyter Michael Pomazansky St Herman of Alaska Brotherhood press 1994 ISBN 0-938635-69-7) and "defended the Filioque as a legitimate variation of the Eastern formula that the Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son" (Concordia Theological Quarterly, January-April 1995, p. 32, and cf. p. 40).
- ^ a b c d Maximus the Confessor, Letter to Marinus – on the Filioque
- ^ The study says: "The Filioque does not concern the ἐκπόρευσις of the Spirit issued from the Father as source of the Trinity, but manifests his προϊέναι (processio) in the consubstantial communion of the Father and the Son, while excluding any possible subordinationist interpretation of the Father's monarchy".
- ^ One Single Source
- ^ [40]
- ^ Ralph Del Cole, Reflections on the Filioque in Journal of Ecumenical Studies,Spring 1997, page 4 of online text
- ^ a b Concordia Theological Quarterly, January-April 1995, p. 32, and cf. p. 40
- ^ 6. Neither the Roman papacy, nor the East Romans ever interpreted the council of 879 as a condemnation of the west Roman Filioque outside the Creed, since it did not teach that the Son is "cause" or "co-cause" of the existence of the Holy Spirit. This could not be added to the Creed where "procession" means "cause" of existence of the Holy Spirit. Neither Maximus the Confessor (7th century), nor Anastasius the Librarian (9th century) say that the west Roman Filioque "can be understood in an orthodox way," as claimed by the DAS (45, 95). They both simply explain why it is orthodox. Also neither uses the term "EKFANSIS" in their texts (DAS 45). Maximus uses the Greek term "PROΪENAI" and, being a west Roman and Latin speaking, Anastasius uses "Missio". Both point out that the Roman "procedere" has two meanings, "cause" and "mission". When used as "cause", like in the Creed, the Holy Spirit proceeds only from the Father. When used as "mission", the Holy Spirit, proceeds from the Father and the Son as denoting the consubstantiality of the Son with the Father. All East Roman Fathers say the same, but do not use the term "EKPOREYSIS" to do so. This mission of the Holy Spirit is not servile, but free since he has the same essence and its natural will, and by nature, from the father through/and the Son. Anastasius the Librarian, who was for a time pope, played an important role in the papacy's preparations for the council of 879 in New Rome. One would have to either conclude that the Roman papacy from the time of Leo III (795-816) had become schizophrenic, both supporting and condemning the Filioque, or else come up with some such analysis as this writer has been proposing.[41]
- ^ His own words, quoted above; cf. "Adhering to the Eastern tradition, John (of Damascus) affirmed (as Maximus had a century earlier) that "the Father alone is cause [αἴτιος]" of both the Son and the Spirit, and thus "we do not say that the Son is a cause or a father, but we do say that He is from the Father and is the Son of the Father" ([http://books.google.com/books?id=auT8VbgOe48C&pg=PA81&dq=Maximus+%22father+alone%22&lr=&cd=11#v=onepage&q=filioque%20first%20raised&f=false A. Edward Siecienski, The Filioque: History of a Doctrinal Controversy, p. 90).)
- ^ "7. Not one West Roman Father ever said that the Son is either "cause" or "co-cause" of the Holy Spirit. This appears in Latin polemics and was promulgated as dogma at the council of Florence. This Filoque is a heresy, both as a theologoumenon and as a dogma. The Uniates accept this Filioque as a condition of being united to the Latin Papacy." John Romanides [42]
- ^ When the Eastern Church first noticed a distortion of the dogma of the Holy Spirit in the West and began to reproach the Western theologians for their innovations, St. Maximus the Confessor (in the 7th century), desiring to defend the Westerners, justified them precisely by saying that by the words “from the Son” they intended to indicate that the Holy Spirit is given to creatures through the Son, that He is manifested, that He is sent — but not that the Holy Spirit has His existence from Him. St. Maximus the Confessor himself held strictly to the teaching of the Eastern Church concerning the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and wrote a special treatise about this dogma.Orthodox Dogmatic Theology: A Concise Exposition Protopresbyter Michael Pomazansky St Herman of Alaska Brotherhood press 1994 (ISBN 0-938635-69-7)
- ^ This confusion is nowhere so clear than during the debates at the Council of Florence where the Franks used the terms "cause" and "caused" as identical with their generation and procession, and supported their claim that the Father and the Son are one cause of the procession of the Holy Spirit. Thus, they became completely confused over Maximos who explains that for the West of his time, the Son is not the cause of the existence of the Holy Spirit, so that in this sense the Holy Spirit does not proceed from the Father. That Anastasios the Librarian repeats this is ample evidence of the confusion of both the Franks and their spiritual and theological descendants. [43]
- ^ "St. Maximus the Confessor, calmed Greek suspicions by translating it into Greek categories. At this early stage each side realized that the other was professing the same faith but by the use of different terms. However, the enthusiasm of later Frankish theologians led the West to the claim that the Filioque is not only an admissible way of speaking about the Trinity, but an article of faith necessary for the salvation of the soul.
- ^ [44]
- ^ "7. Not one West Roman Father ever said that the Son is either "cause" or "co-cause" of the Holy Spirit. This appears in Latin polemics and was promulgated as dogma at the council of Florence. This Filoque is a heresy, both as a theologoumenon and as a dogma. The Uniates accept this Filioque as a condition of being united to the Latin Papacy." John Romanides [45]
- ^ In a council of 809 Charlemagne had his bishops declare an excommunication against anyone who did not accept the Filioque. In reaction to this, the Greeks laid aside St. Maximus translation of the Filioque and joined the Germans in incorporating this theological point into the political power struggle between themselves and the Germans over control of Italy and the Slavic world. The Germans won the struggle in Italy and the Greeks won most of it among the Slavs. The result has been that the Church and Europe have been badly divided ever since. John Romanides AN ORTHODOX LOOK AT THE ECUMENICAL MOVEMENT [46]
- ^ "7. Not one West Roman Father ever said that the Son is either "cause" or "co-cause" of the Holy Spirit. This appears in Latin polemics and was promulgated as dogma at the council of Florence. This Filoque is a heresy, both as a theologoumenon and as a dogma. The Uniates accept this Filioque as a condition of being united to the Latin Papacy." John Romanides [http://www.romanity.org htm/rom.17.en.the_filioque_in_the_dublin_agreed_statement_1984.01.htm]
- ^ Andrea Sterk, The Silver Shields of Pope Leo III
- ^ In a council of 809 Charlemagne had his bishops declare an excommunication against anyone who did not accept the Filioque. In reaction to this, the Greeks laid aside St. Maximus translation of the Filioque and joined the Germans in incorporating this theological point into the political power struggle between themselves and the Germans over control of Italy and the Slavic world. The Germans won the struggle in Italy and the Greeks won most of it among the Slavs. The result has been that the Church and Europe have been badly divided ever since. John Romanides AN ORTHODOX LOOK AT THE ECUMENICAL MOVEMENT [47]
- ^ The Filioque: History of a Doctrinal Controversy By A. Edward Siecienski pg 112 schism between the two Sergii” [48]
- ^ In a council of 809 Charlemagne had his bishops declare ''an excommunication against anyone who did not accept the Filioque. In reaction to this, the Greeks laid aside St. Maximus translation of the Filioque and joined the Germans in incorporating this theological point into the political power struggle between themselves and the Germans over control of Italy and the Slavic world. The Germans won the struggle in Italy and the Greeks won most of it among the Slavs. The result has been that the Church and Europe have been badly divided ever since. John Romanides AN ORTHODOX LOOK AT THE ECUMENICAL MOVEMENT [49]
- ^ In a council of 809 Charlemagne had his bishops declare ''an excommunication against anyone who did not accept the Filioque. In reaction to this, the Greeks laid aside St. Maximus translation of the Filioque and joined the Germans in incorporating this theological point into the political power struggle between themselves and the Germans over control of Italy and the Slavic world. The Germans won the struggle in Italy and the Greeks won most of it among the Slavs. The result has been that the Church and Europe have been badly divided ever since. John Romanides AN ORTHODOX LOOK AT THE ECUMENICAL MOVEMENT [50]
- ^ Angelika E. Laiou, Roy P. Mottahedeh, The Crusades from the Perspective of Byzantium and the Muslim World, pp. 120 and 133
- ^ Concordia Theological Quarterly, January-April 1995, p. 32
- ^ Aidan Nichols, Rome and the Eastern Churches
- ^ William J. La Due, The Trinity Guide to the Trinity, p. 62
- ^ The HarperCollins Encyclopedia of Catholicism By Richard P. McBrien, Harold W. Attridge pg 529-530 ISBN-10: 0060653388 ISBN-13: 978-0060653385 [51]
- ^ Andrea Sterk, The Silver Shields of Pope Leo III in Comitatus: A Journal of Medieval and Renaissance Studies 1988, p. 63]
- ^ Karl Rahner, Encyclopedia of Theology, p. 646
- ^ a b Harnack, History of Dogma, Volume IV: The Controversy regarding the Filioque and Pictures
- ^ Seven Interesting Facts about the History of the Filioque in the West
- ^ [52]
- ^ The rejection of the Filioque, or the double Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father and Son, and the denial of the primacy of the Roman Pontiff constitute even today the principal errors of the Greek church.[53]
- ^ "Very problematic, May be viewed as a theologoumenon by the Orthodox" His Broken Body: Understanding and Healing the Schism between the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches by Laurent Cleenewerck Chart on page 342
- ^ 8. At this union council of Florence the East Romans insisted that the Latins remove the Filioque from the Creed and accept the teaching of the Fathers. The Latins unexpectedly sprung the Maximus text upon the council to prove that the "Greeks" had always accepted the Filioque in the Creed of Rome, but, since Photius, had changed their position for non doctrinal reasons. The East Romans picked up the text and made it their own. After it was shown and accepted that the text had been mistranslated, the East Romans proposed it as the basis of union. This they had already planned to do, but hesitated since the context of the text had not survived. Now the Latins themselves gave them the opening they were waiting for. But the Latins flatly refused and went on demanding that the East Romans accept the Son as one "cause" with the Father of the Holy Spirit's existence. On how to determine the genuineness of the Latin manuscripts being used as proof texts, Mark of Ephesus suggested that only what is in agreement with Maximus' description of the papal filioque should be accepted as genuine. But he did not agree that Latin acceptance of this text is sufficient for union, since there are other essential differences. Most of the East Romans finally accepted the Son as "one cause" with the Father and signed the union. Some like Mark refused. Neither Mark nor any of the others proposed a theologoumenon as "the" dogma of union, nor a kind of Filoque buried in a book. They had proposed the old west Roman Orthodox Filioque defended by such Popes as Leo III which is an integral part of the Orthodox tradition. By John Romanides THE FILIOQUE IN THE DUBLIN AGREED STATEMENT 1984 [54]
- ^ a b c In the second quarter of the fourteenth century the Turks were preparing for what proved to be their final assault on the walls of Constantinople. As was normal at that time the East Roman Greek Christians appealed to the West Roman Latin Christians to help stem the tide of Islam. The answer was affirmative, but on condition that the Greeks make their submission to the Papacy. In 1437 the Council of Ferrara-Florence was called to bring about the union of the Churches. The Filioque was debated. The Greeks remembered St. Maximus the Confessor and offered his interpretation of the Filioque as basis of union. However, it was too late. Latin theologians had been engaged for eight hundred years in an effort to prove that the Greeks of the period of the First and Second Ecumenical Councils taught the Filioque and they rejected the interpretation of St. Maximus. Now Roman Catholics are bound to the Filioque as infallible doctrine by the decisions of two of their own Ecumenical Councils (of Lyons 1274 and Florence 1437-1439). On the other hand, the Orthodox in the person of St. Maximus the Confessor are able to speak about the Trinity in two sets of categories without any compromise to their fundamental beliefs. Thus, one of the basic questions will be whether each side will be willing to recognize the right of the other to remain faithful to its own terminological tradition and at the same time to acknowledge in the other's language one's own faith.John Romanides [55]
- ^ a b c d e Concordia Theological Quarterly, January-April 1995, p. 33}
- ^ a b Henry Chadwick: East and West: The Making of a Rift in the Church (Oxford University Press 2003 ISBN 0-19-926457-0), p. 270
- ^ Within this text, the Carolingian view of the Filioque also was emphasized again. Arguing that the word Filioque was part of the Creed of 381, the Libri Carolini, which were rejected by the Pope, reaffirmed the Latin tradition that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, and in addition rejected as inadequate the teaching that the Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son. An Agreed Statement of the North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation Saint Paul’s College, Washington, DC October 25, 2003 [56]
- ^ 8. At this union council of Florence the East Romans insisted that the Latins remove the Filioque from the Creed and accept the teaching of the Fathers. The Latins unexpectedly sprung the Maximus text upon the council to prove that the "Greeks" had always accepted the Filioque in the Creed of Rome, but, since Photius, had changed their position for non doctrinal reasons. The East Romans picked up the text and made it their own. After it was shown and accepted that the text had been mistranslated, the East Romans proposed it as the basis of union. This they had already planned to do, but hesitated since the context of the text had not survived. Now the Latins themselves gave them the opening they were waiting for. But the Latins flatly refused and went on demanding that the East Romans accept the Son as one "cause" with the Father of the Holy Spirit's existence. On how to determine the genuineness of the Latin manuscripts being used as proof texts, Mark of Ephesus suggested that only what is in agreement with Maximus' description of the papal filioque should be accepted as genuine. But he did not agree that Latin acceptance of this text is sufficient for union, since there are other essential differences. Most of the East Romans finally accepted the Son as "one cause" with the Father and signed the union. Some like Mark refused. Neither Mark nor any of the others proposed a theologoumenon as "the" dogma of union, nor a kind of Filoque buried in a book. They had proposed the old west Roman Orthodox Filioque defended by such Popes as Leo III which is an integral part of the Orthodox tradition.
- ^ Ralph Del Cole, Reflections on the Filioque in Journal of Ecumenical Studies, Spring 1997, page 2 of the online text
- ^ "Also the west Roman Orthodox Filioque is such an expression and not the private opinion of either Maximus the Confessor or Anastasius the Librarian. They both report it as the official position of the Roman papacy and of all Orthodox Churches in the west" (John S. Romanides, The Filioque in the Dublin Agreed Statement 1984).
- ^ ["through+the+son"&source=bl&ots=ZnOhq96ztp&sig=Z0KwNRBY6yKLqffVDPRf5SqQslo&hl=en&ei=COMJTO2EIqj40wS67KVe&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CBcQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=Charlemagne%20Tarasius%20%22through%20the%20son%22&f=false John Farrelly, The Trinity: Rediscovering the Central Christian Mystery (Rowman & Littlefield 2005 ISBN 0-7425-3225-9), p.102]
- ^ Charlemagne commissioned the so-called Libri Carolini ... Within this text, the Carolingian view of the Filioque also was emphasized again. Arguing that the word Filioque was part of the Creed of 381, the Libri Carolini reaffirmed the Latin tradition that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, and rejected as inadequate the teaching that the Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son. An Agreed Statement of the North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation Saint Paul’s College, Washington, DC October 25, 2003 [57]
- ^ During the ensuing centuries long course of the controversy, the Franks not only forced the Patristic tradition into an Augustinian mold, but they confused Augustine's Trinitarian terminology with that of the Father's of the First and Second Ecumenical Synods. This is nowhere so evident as in the Latin handling of Maximos the Confessor's description, composed in 650, of the West Roman Orthodox Filioque at the Council of Florence (1438-42). The East Romans hesitated to present Maximos' letter to Marinos about this West Roman Orthodox Filioque because the letter did not survive in its complete form. They were pleasantly surprised, however, when Andrew, the Latin bishop of Rhodes, quoted the letter in Greek in order to prove that in the time of Maximos there was no objection to the Filioque being in the Creed. Of course, the Filioque was not yet in the Creed. Then Andrew proceeded to translate Maximos into Latin for the benefit of the pope. However, the official translator intervened and challenged the rendition. Once the correct translation was established, the Franks then questioned the authenticity of the text. They assumed that their own Filioque was the only one in the West, and so they rejected on this ground Maximos' text as a basis of union. (John S. Romanides, The Filioque: Historical Background).
- ^ Catechism of the Catholic Church, 247
- ^ "The choice of Cardinal Humbert was unfortunate, for both he and Cerularius were men of stiff and intransigent temper. . . . After [an initial, unfriendly encounter] the patriarch refused to have further dealings with the legates. Eventually Humbert lost patience, and laid a bull of excommunication against Cerularius on the altar of the Church of the Holy Wisdom. . . . Cerularius and his synod retaliated by anathematizing Humbert (but not the Roman Church as such)" (The Orthodox Church by Kallistos Ware, pg 67).
- ^ In a council of 809 Charlemagne had his bishops declare ''an excommunication against anyone who did not accept the Filioque. In reaction to this, the Greeks laid aside St. Maximus translation of the Filioque and joined the Germans in incorporating this theological point into the political power struggle between themselves and the Germans over control of Italy and the Slavic world. The Germans won the struggle in Italy and the Greeks won most of it among the Slavs. The result has been that the Church and Europe have been badly divided ever since. John Romanides AN ORTHODOX LOOK AT THE ECUMENICAL MOVEMENT [58]
- ^ Norwich, John J. (1992). Byzantium, The Apogee. pp. 320–321.
- ^ Catholic Encyclopedia: Pope Adrian I
- ^ Catechism of the Catholic Church, 247
- ^ JOINT CATHOLIC-ORTHODOX DECLARATION OF HIS HOLINESS POPE PAUL VI AND THE ECUMENICAL PATRIARCH ATHENAGORAS I DECEMBER 7, 1965 [59]
- ^ Peter Gilbert, Not an Anthologist: John Bekkos as a Reader of the Fathers, p. 270)
- ^ Catechism of the Catholic Church, 248
- ^ Patriarch of Constantinople Saint Tarasius, who developed the Nicene Creed as follows: "the Holy Spirit, the Lord and giver of life, who proceeds from the Father through the Son".[60]
- ^ 8. At this union council of Florence the East Romans insisted that the Latins remove the Filioque from the Creed and accept the teaching of the Fathers. The Latins unexpectedly sprung the Maximus text upon the council to prove that the "Greeks" had always accepted the Filioque in the Creed of Rome, but, since Photius, had changed their position for non doctrinal reasons. The East Romans picked up the text and made it their own. After it was shown and accepted that the text had been mistranslated, the East Romans proposed it as the basis of union. This they had already planned to do, but hesitated since the context of the text had not survived. Now the Latins themselves gave them the opening they were waiting for. But the Latins flatly refused and went on demanding that the East Romans accept the Son as one "cause" with the Father of the Holy Spirit's existence. On how to determine the genuineness of the Latin manuscripts being used as proof texts, Mark of Ephesus suggested that only what is in agreement with Maximus' description of the papal filioque should be accepted as genuine. But he did not agree that Latin acceptance of this text is sufficient for union, since there are other essential differences. Most of the East Romans finally accepted the Son as "one cause" with the Father and signed the union. Some like Mark refused. Neither Mark nor any of the others proposed a theologoumenon as "the" dogma of union, nor a kind of Filoque buried in a book. They had proposed the old west Roman Orthodox Filioque defended by such Popes as Leo III which is an integral part of the Orthodox tradition. By John Romanides THE FILIOQUE IN THE DUBLIN AGREED STATEMENT 1984 [61]
- ^ 8. At this union council of Florence the East Romans insisted that the Latins remove the Filioque from the Creed and accept the teaching of the Fathers. The Latins unexpectedly sprung the Maximus text upon the council to prove that the "Greeks" had always accepted the Filioque in the Creed of Rome, but, since Photius, had changed their position for non doctrinal reasons. The East Romans picked up the text and made it their own. After it was shown and accepted that the text had been mistranslated, the East Romans proposed it as the basis of union. This they had already planned to do, but hesitated since the context of the text had not survived. Now the Latins themselves gave them the opening they were waiting for. But the Latins flatly refused and went on demanding that the East Romans accept the Son as one "cause" with the Father of the Holy Spirit's existence. On how to determine the genuineness of the Latin manuscripts being used as proof texts, Mark of Ephesus suggested that only what is in agreement with Maximus' description of the papal filioque should be accepted as genuine. But he did not agree that Latin acceptance of this text is sufficient for union, since there are other essential differences. Most of the East Romans finally accepted the Son as "one cause" with the Father and signed the union. Some like Mark refused. Neither Mark nor any of the others proposed a theologoumenon as "the" dogma of union, nor a kind of Filoque buried in a book. They had proposed the old west Roman Orthodox Filioque defended by such Popes as Leo III which is an integral part of the Orthodox tradition. [62]
- ^ With such a presentation, it not surprising that the Orthodox reject that version of filioque as confusing and heretical. On the other hand, the recent high-level clarifications are useful and constructive.The Orthodox impression is that historically, “principle” principium) was presented as equivalent to aitia, and “proceed” (procedit) equivalent to ekporevsis. This seems to have been the intent of the council of Florence, where the Greeks were asked to recognize “the procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father and the Son as from one “principium” (arche) and from one cause (aitia).” As a result, the Latin insistence on the filioque, affirming both the ‘single cause’ and the ‘common or collective cause’ seemed somewhat schizophrenic. It can certainly be admitted that Photios’ simple ‘pyramid scheme,’ which admittedly seems to ignore the unity of Father and Son in the Spirit, did not lead to such acrobatics of theologial nuancing. His Broken Body: Understanding and Healing the Schism between the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches by Laurent Cleenewerck ISBN 978-0-615-18361-9 [63]
- ^ 8. At this union council of Florence the East Romans insisted that the Latins remove the Filioque from the Creed and accept the teaching of the Fathers. The Latins unexpectedly sprung the Maximus text upon the council to prove that the "Greeks" had always accepted the Filioque in the Creed of Rome, but since Photius had changed their position for non doctrinal reasons. The East Romans picked up the text and made it their own. After it was shown and accepted that the text had been mistranslated, the East Romans proposed it as the basis of union. This they had already planned to do, but hesitated since the context of the text had not survived. Now the Latins themselves gave them the opening they were waiting for. But the Latins flatly refused and went on demanding that the East Romans accept the Son as one "cause" with the Father of the Holy Spirit's existence. On how to determine the genuineness of the Latin manuscripts being used as proof texts, Mark of Ephesus suggested that only what is in agreement with Maximus' description of the papal filioque should be accepted as genuine. But he did not agree that Latin acceptance of this text is sufficient for union, since there are other essential differences. Most of the East Romans finally accepted the Son as "one cause" with the Father and signed the union. Some like Mark refused. Neither Mark nor any of the others proposed a theologoumenon as "the" dogma of union, nor a kind of Filoque buried in a book. They had proposed the old west Roman Orthodox Filioque defended by such Popes as Leo III which is an integral part of the Orthodox tradition. [64]
- ^ 8. At this union council of Florence the East Romans insisted that the Latins remove the Filioque from the Creed and accept the teaching of the Fathers. The Latins unexpectedly sprung the Maximus text upon the council to prove that the "Greeks" had always accepted the Filioque in the Creed of Rome, but since Photius had changed their position for non doctrinal reasons. The East Romans picked up the text and made it their own. After it was shown and accepted that the text had been mistranslated, the East Romans proposed it as the basis of union. This they had already planned to do, but hesitated since the context of the text had not survived. Now the Latins themselves gave them the opening they were waiting for. But the Latins flatly refused and went on demanding that the East Romans accept the Son as one "cause" with the Father of the Holy Spirit's existence. On how to determine the genuineness of the Latin manuscripts being used as proof texts, Mark of Ephesus suggested that only what is in agreement with Maximus' description of the papal filioque should be accepted as genuine. But he did not agree that Latin acceptance of this text is sufficient for union, since there are other essential differences. Most of the East Romans finally accepted the Son as "one cause" with the Father and signed the union. Some like Mark refused. Neither Mark nor any of the others proposed a theologoumenon as "the" dogma of union, nor a kind of Filoque buried in a book. They had proposed the old west Roman Orthodox Filioque defended by such Popes as Leo III which is an integral part of the Orthodox tradition.[65]
- ^ Christ in Eastern Christian thought By John Meyendorff ISBN 978-0913836279 [66]
- ^ One Single Source: An Orthodox Response to the Clarification on the Filioque
- ^ ἐκπορευόμενον
- ^ John S. Romanides, The Filioque in the Dublin Agreed Statement 1984
- ^ A. Edward Siecienski. The Filioque: History of a Doctrinal Controversy, pp. 9-11, 78-79
- ^ Siecienski p. 90
- ^ Among the points of objection, Charlemagne’s legates claimed that Patriarch Tarasius of Constantinople, at his installation, did not follow the Nicene faith and profess that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, but confessed rather his procession from the Father through the Son (Mansi 13.760). The Pope strongly rejected Charlemagne’s protest, showing at length that Tarasius and the Council, on this and other points, maintained the faith of the Fathers (ibid. 759-810). Following this exchange of letters, Charlemagne commissioned the so-called Libri Carolini (791-794), a work written to challenge the positions both of the iconoclast council of 754 and of the Council of Nicaea of 787 on the veneration of icons. Again because of poor translations, the Carolingians misunderstood the actual decision of the latter Council. Within this text, the Carolingian view of the Filioque also was emphasized again. Arguing that the word Filioque was part of the Creed of 381, the Libri Carolini reaffirmed the Latin tradition that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, and rejected as inadequate the teaching that the Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son. An Agreed Statement of the North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation Saint Paul’s College, Washington, DC October 25, 2003 [67]
- ^ a b c Ἐκκλησία -Επίσημον Δελτἰον τῆς Ἐκκλησίας τῆς Ἑλλάδος (Ekklisia - Official Bulletin of the Church of Greece), June 2008, p. 432: "Εἶναι δυνατὴ ἡ ἑνότητα στὴν ἐκκλησιαστικὴ πράξη; Ἡ ἐμπειρία ἀπέδειξε ὅτι αὐτὴ εἶναι πολὺ πιὸ δύσκολη ἀπὸ ὅ,τι ἡ θεολογική. Καὶ αὐτὸ γιὰ δύο βασικοὺς λόγους: α) γιὰ χάρη της γἰνονται τὰ σχίσματα καὶ ὄχι γιὰ τὶς θεολογικὲς δογματικὲς διαφορές. Ἁπλῶς αὐτὲς ἐπιστρατεύονται γιὰ νὰ κατορθωθεῖ, νὰ ἐμπεδωθεῖ καὶ νὰ διατηρηθεῖ ἡ σχισματικὴ κατάσταση. Τὸ σχίσμα τοῦ 1054 εἶναι τὸ χαρακτηριστικότερο παράδειγμα. Προηγήθηκαν αἰῶνες συνύπαρξης τῶν κατὰ τόπους Ἐκκλησιῶν μὲ τὸ φιλιόκβε, τὸ πρόβλημα κορυφώθηκε τὴν ἐποχὴ τοῦ Μ. Φωτίου μὲ ἀφορμὴ καὶ πάλι ἐκκλησιαστικὰ γεγονότα, ἀλλὰ σχίσμα δὲν ἔγινε, τὴ δὲ ἐποχὴ τοῦ 1054 τὸ φιλιόκβε ἦταν σὲ νάρκη. Ἐπανῆλθε καὶ ἐντάθηκε μετὰ ἀπὸ αὐτὸ γιὰ νὰ δικαιολογήσει καὶ νὰ τὸ ὁριστικοποιήσει."
- ^ pg 529 [68]
- ^ pg 529 [69]
- ^ The HarperCollins Encyclopedia of Catholicism By Richard P. McBrien, Harold W. Attridge pg 529-530 ISBN-10: 0060653388 ISBN-13: 978-0060653385 [70]
- ^ Constitution II of the Second Council of Lyons
- ^ pg 529 [71]
- ^ Professor Apostolos Nikolaidis, Professor of the Sociology of Religion and Social Ethics at the University of Athens
- ^ Sergei Nikolaevich Bulgakov, The Comforter (Wm. B. Eerdmans 2004 ISBN 0-8028-2112-X), p. 90
- ^ Ecumenical Councils were convened by the Emperors as Church senates to inform the government what the Church's faith and practice are. The Emperor signed their decisions into law. The council of 381 included only East Roman Bishops invited by the Emperor. It was, nevertheless, elevated to ecumenical status both legally and ecclesiastically. The decisions of 381 were accompanied by an imperial edict listing the Bishops with whom all others are to be in agreement. The three Great Cappadokian Fathers had carried the Council. Basil the Great's Friend, Gregory the Theologian, now archbishop of New Rome/Constantinople, presided over the council during part of its work. Basil's brother, Gregory of Nyssa, was a main force behind the composition of the Creed, as is evident from his being listed in the imperial edict mentioned. John Romanides [72]
- ^ a b c d e f g h i Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church (Oxford University Press 2005 ISBN 978-0-19-280290-3), article Double Procession of the Holy Spirit
- ^ Tertullian, Adversus Praxeas IV
- ^ Ad Praxeas V
- ^ Ad Praxaes II
- ^ Ad Praxeas, XIII
- ^ Dale T. Irvin, Scott Sunquist, History of the World Christian Movement (2001), Volume 1, p. 340
- ^ a b c Gregory Dix, The Shape of the Liturgy (2005), p, 487
- ^ The Conversion of Clovis
- ^ Hinson, E. Glenn, The Church Triumphant, Mercer University Press (1995), ISBN 0-86554-436-0, p.315
- ^ a b Herbermann, Charles, ed. (1913). Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. .
- ^ "Leo defended the Filioque outside the Creed. At the same time he posted the Creed without the Filioque on two silver plaques in defense of the Orthodox Faith" (John S. Romanides, The Filioque in the Dublin Agreed Statement 1984).
- ^ Catholic Encyclopedia: Filioque
- ^ "Haec Leo posui amore et cautela orthodoxae fidei" (Vita Leonis, Liber Pontificalis (ed. Duchêne, t. II, p. 26); cf. Treatise of Adam Zoernikaff, quoted in William Palmer: A Harmony of Anglican Doctrine with the doctrine of the catholic and apostolic church of the East (Aberdeen 1846)
- ^ a b Andrew Louth, Greek East and Latin West: The Church AD 681-1071 (St Vladimir's Seminary Press 2007 ISBN 978-0-88141-320-5), p. 142
- ^ [73]
- ^ Ρωμαϊκό Λειτουργικό (Roman Missal), Συνοδική Επιτροπή για τη θεία Λατρεία 2005, I, p. 347
- ^ 7. Not one West Roman Father ever said that the Son is either "cause" or "co-cause" of the Holy Spirit. This appears in Latin polemics and was promulgated as dogma at the council of Florence. This Filoque is a heresy, both as a theologoumenon and as a dogma. The Uniates accept this Filioque as a condition of being united to the Latin Papacy [74]
- ^ Forma Recepta, Ecclesiae Occidentalis
- ^ Text in Armenian, with transliteration and English translation
- ^ The Orthodox Church, Crestwood, NY, 1981 quoted in On the Question of the Filioque
- ^ [75]
- ^ The Byzantines By Averil Cameron pg 142 ISBN 978-1-4051-9833-2
- ^ East and West: The Making of a Rift in the Church: From Apostolic Times until the Council of Florence by Henry Chadwick (Oxford History of the Christian Church) Publisher: Oxford University Press, USA ISBN 978-0-19-928016-2 [76]
- ^ a b Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church (Oxford University Press 2005 ISBN 978-0-19-280290-3), article Photius
- ^ a b The Catholic Encyclopedia: An International Work of Reference on the Constitution, Doctrine, Discipline and History of the Catholic Church Volume 12 page 44 Charles G. Herbermann, Edward A. Pace, Conde B. Pallen, Thomas J. Shahan, John J. Wynne Publisher: Encyclopedia Press, Inc. (1915) ASIN: B0013UCA4K [77]
- ^ The Filioque: History of a Doctrinal Controversy pg103 By A. Edward Siecienski Publisher: Oxford University Press, USA (May 12, 2010) ISBN 978-0-19-537204-5
- ^ The Patriarch and the Pope. Photius and Nicolas
- ^ East and West: the making of a rift in the Church : from apostolic times By Henry Chadwick pg 172 Publisher: Oxford University Press, USA ISBN 978-0-19-926457-5
- ^ A. Fortescue, The Orthodox Eastern Church, pages 147-148;
- ^ a b Andrew Louth, Greek East and Latin West, pg171
- ^ a b S. Tougher, The Reign of Leo VI, pg69
- ^ a b The Filioque: History of a Doctrinal Controversy pg103 By A. Edward Siecienski Publisher: Oxford University Press, USA (May 12, 2010) ISBN 978-0-19-537204-5 [78]
- ^ "The bishop of New Rome shall enjoy the same honour as the bishop of Old Rome, on account of the removal of the Empire. For this reason the [metropolitans] of Pontus, of Asia, and of Thrace, as well as the Barbarian bishops shall be ordained by the bishop of Constantinople."[79]
- ^ The different political situations in east and west made the Church assume different outward forms, so that people came gradually to think of Church order in conflicting ways. From the start there had been a certain difference of emphasis here between east and west. In the east there were many Churches whose foundation went back to the Apostles; there was a strong sense of the equality of all bishops, of the collegial and conciliar nature of the Church. The east acknowledged the Pope as the first bishop in the Church, but saw him as the first among equals. In the west, on the other hand, there was only one great see claiming Apostolic foundation - Rome - so that Rome came to be regarded as the Apostolic see. The west, while it accepted the decisions of the Ecumenical Councils, did not play a very active part in the Councils themselves; the Church was seen less as a college and more as a monarchy- the monarchy of the Pope.[80]
- ^ The bishop of New Rome shall enjoy the same honour as the bishop of Old Rome, on account of the removal of the Empire. For this reason the [metropolitans] of Pontus, of Asia, and of Thrace, as well as the Barbarian bishops shall be ordained by the bishop of Constantinople.Ancient Epitome of Canon XXVIII of the Council of Chalcedon
- ^ A. Fortescue, The Orthodox Eastern Church, pages 147-148
- ^ Encyclopedia of the Middle Ages, Volume 2 By André Vauchez, Richard Barrie Dobson, Adrian Walford, Michael Lapidge Publisher: Routledge; 1 edition (April 1, 2001) ISBN 978-1-57958-282-1 Product Dimensions: 11.1x9 [81]
- ^ Barbero, Alessandro, 2004, Charlemagne: Father of a Continent. Allan Cameron, trans. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press
- ^ cf. John 15:26 and Nicene Creed
- ^ a b c Platis, Constantine. (2000). Dance, O Isaiah: Questions and Answers On Some of the Differences between Eastern Orthodox Christianity and Other Faiths (Boston, MA: Orthodox Metropolis of Boston).
- ^ a b Thesaurus, PG 75, 585
- ^ Translation in Christian Classics Ethereal Library
- ^ Oratio 39, 12
- ^ "The Holy Spirit also, when He proceeds from the Father and the Son, is not separated from the Father nor separated from the Son" - in the original Latin "Spiritus quoque sanctus cum procedit a Patre et Filio, non separatur a Patre, non separatur a Filio".(De Spiritu Sancto, 1.11.120 (emphases added); "As the Father is the Fount of Life, so, too, many have stated that the Son is signified as the Fount of Life; so that, he says, with Thee, Almighty God, Thy Son is the Fount of Life. That is the Fount of the Holy Spirit, for the Spirit is Life, as the Lord says: 'The words which I speak unto you are Spirit and Life', for where the Spirit is, there also is Life; and where Life is, is also the Holy Spirit" (De Spiritu Sancto, 1.15.172.
- ^ Augustinus, Contra Sermonem Arianorum Liber Unus, 4.4 "Whence it is clear that neither the Father without the Son, nor the Son without the Father sent the Holy Ghost, but Both sent Him equally". In the original Latin "Ubi ostenditur quod nec Pater sine Filio, nec Filius sine Patre misit Spiritum Sanctum, sed eum pariter ambo miserunt"
- ^ The Origin and Terminology of the Athanasian Creed by Robert H. Krueger
- ^ Ep. 15, c. 1
- ^ "The Holy Ghost is from the Father and the Son, neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding". In the original Latin:"Spiritus Sanctus a Patre et Filio: non factus, nec creatus, nec genitus, sed procedens".
- ^ Among the points of objection, Charlemagne’s legates claimed that Patriarch Tarasios of Constantinople, at his installation, did not follow the Nicene faith and profess that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, but confessed rather his procession from the Father through the Son(Mansi 13.760). <emphasis added outside of source> The Pope strongly rejected Charlemagne’s protest, showing at length that Tarasius and the Council, on this and other points, maintained the faith of the Fathers (ibid. 759-810). Following this exchange of letters, Charlemagne commissioned the so-called Libri Carolini (791-794), a work written to challenge the positions both of the iconoclast council of 754 and of the Council of Nicaea of 787 on the veneration of icons. Again because of poor translations, the Carolingians misunderstood the actual decision of the latter Council. Within this text, the Carolingian view of the Filioque also was emphasized again. Arguing that the word Filioque was part of the Creed of 381, the Libri Carolini reaffirmed the Latin tradition that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, and rejected as inadequate the teaching that the Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son. An Agreed Statement of the North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation Saint Paul’s College, Washington, DC October 25, 2003 [82]
- ^ Denzinger, 853 (old numbering 463) Latin text English translation
- ^ John Paul II asked, "How can we not share, at a distance of eight centuries, the pain and disgust."Pope Expresses “Sorrow” Over Sacking of Constantinople This has been regarded as an apology to the Greek Orthodox Church for the terrible slaughter perpetrated by the warriors of the Fourth Crusade. Phillips, The Fourth Crusade and the Sack of Constantinople, intro., xiii).
- ^ a b Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church (Oxford University Press 2005 ISBN 978-0-19-280290-3), article Florence, Council of
- ^ Herbermann, Charles, ed. (1913). Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company., 7th canon .
- ^ Extracts from the Acts of the Council of Ephesus, The Epistle of Cyril to Nestorius]
- ^ "The Nicene Synod set forth this faith: We believe in one God, etc." (emphasis added) - Extracts from the Acts, Session I
- ^ See comparison between the two version
- ^ Letter to Marinus of Cyprus, PG 91:136, quoted in Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity: The Greek and the Latin Traditions regarding the Procession of the Holy Spirit; cf. text of the letter of Saint Maximus
- ^ Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of North America: Agreed Statement on Filioque
- ^ G W Bromiley (Elwell Evangelical Dictionary), quoted in Filioque Controversy
- ^ Aleksey Khomyakov History of Russian Philosophy by Nikolai Lossky ISBN 978-0-8236-8074-0 p. 87: "The legal formalism and logical rationalism of the Roman Catholic Church have their roots in the Roman State: these features developed in it more strongly than ever when the Western Church without consent of the Eastern introduced into the Nicean Creed the filioque clause. Such arbitrary change of the creed is an expression of pride and lack of love for one's brethren in the faith. "In order not to be regarded as a schism by the Church, Romanism was forced to ascribe to the bishop of Rome absolute infallibility." In this way Catholicism broke away from the Church as a whole and became an organization based upon external authority. Its unity is similar to the unity of the state: it is not super-rational but rationalistic and legally formal. Rationalism has led to the doctrine of the works of superarogation, established a balance of duties and merits between God and man, weighing in the scales sins and prayers, trespasses and deeds of expiation; it adopted the idea of transferring one person's debts or credits to another and legalized the exchange of assumed merits; in short, it introduced into the sanctuary of faith the mechanism of a banking house."
- ^ The Orthodox Church London by Kallistos Ware St. Vladimir's Seminary Press 1995 ISBN 978-0-913836-58-3
- ^ Orthodox Dogmatic Theology Michael Pomazansky [83]
- ^ a b c d Quoting Aleksey Khomyakov pg 87 "The legal formalism and logical rationalism of the Roman Catholic Church have their roots in the Roman State. These features developed in it more strongly than ever when the Western Church without consent of the Eastern introduced into the Nicean Creed the filioque clause. Such arbitrary change of the creed is an expression of pride and lack of love for one's brethren in the faith. "In order not to be regarded as a schism by the Church, Romanism was forced to ascribe to the bishop of Rome absolute infallibility." In this way Catholicism broke away from the Church as a whole and became an organization based upon external authority. Its unity is similar to the unity of the state: it is not super-rational but rationalistic and legally formal. Rationalism has led to the doctrine of the works of superarogation, established a balance of duties and merits between God and man, weighing in the scales sins and prayers, trespasses and deeds of expiation; it adopted the idea of transferring one person's debts or credits to another and legalized the exchange of assumed merits; in short, it introduced into the sanctuary of faith the mechanism of a banking house." History of Russian Philosophy by Nikolai Lossky ISBN 978-0-8236-8074-0 p. 87
- ^ Denzinger 850 (old numbering, 460): Latin text, English translation
- ^ This terminology is that of Thomas Aquinas in Summa Theologica, part I, q. 36, art. 3, responses to objections 1 and 2
- ^ De Trinitate, XV, 25, 47: PL 42, 1094-1095
- ^ "Corresponding to the two relations of the Son and of the Holy Ghost by which they are related to the Father, we must understand two relations in the Father, whereby He is related to the Son and to the Holy Ghost" (Summa Theologica, pars I, q. 32, art. 2).
- ^ The confusing and objectionable aspect of these dogmatic statements is that the Monarchy of the Father as “sole origin (arche, aitia)” of the Son and Spirit is never mentioned. Roman Catholic theologians assure us that there is a good reason for this: what is being discussed in those documents is not ultimate causality (since the issue is settled), it is the collective or shared dimension of the Spirit’s origin. As St. Maximos explained, the orthodox filioque is not about the ekporevsis but the proienai. The Eastern Orthodox concern, as we have seen in John Zizioulas, is that “the distinction between εκπορεύεσθαι and προείναι was not made in Latin theology, which used the same term, procedere, to denote both realities.” This is obvious in popular Roman Catholic defenses of the filioque, where the strong affirmation of the unique causality of the Father is absent and where no mention is made of the difference between εκπορεύεσθαι and προείναι.
- ^ Orthodox dogmatic theology by Michael Pomazansky Part I. God in Himself 2. The dogma of the Holy Trinity On the procession of the Holy Spirit: "All of the Eastern Fathers acknowledge that the Father is monos aitios, the sole Cause” of the Son and the Spirit. Therefore, when certain Church Fathers use the expression “through the Son,” they are, precisely by means of this expression, preserving the dogma of the procession from the Father and the inviolability of the dogmatic formula, “proceedeth from the Father.” The Fathers speak of the Son as “through” so as to defend the expression “from,” which refers only to the Father. To this one should add that the expression, “through the Son,” which is found in certain Holy Fathers, in the majority of cases refers definitely to the manifestations of the Holy Spirit in the world, that is, to the providential actions of the Holy Trinity, and not to the life of God in Himself. When the Eastern Church first noticed a distortion of the dogma of the Holy Spirit in the West and began to reproach the Western theologians for their innovations, St. Maximus the Confessor (in the 7th century), desiring to defend the Westerners, justified them precisely by saying that by the words “from the Son” they intended to indicate that the Holy Spirit is given to creatures through the Son, that He is manifested, that He is sent — but not that the Holy Spirit has His existence from Him. St. Maximus the Confessor himself held strictly to the teaching of the Eastern Church concerning the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and wrote a special treatise about this dogma."
- ^ a b c d pgs 50-53 The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church, by Vladimir Lossky SVS Press, 1997. (ISBN 0-913836-31-1) James Clarke & Co Ltd, 1991. (ISBN 0-227-67919-9)
- ^ Armenian Church Library
- ^ Orthodox Theological Dogma Michael Pomazansky: "However, in Latin dogmatic works, intended for internal use, we encounter a definite treatment of the Orthodox dogma of the procession of the Holy Spirit as a “heresy.” In the officially approved Latin dogmatic work of the doctor of theology, A. Sanda, we read: “Opponents (of the present Roman teaching) are the schismatic Greeks, who teach that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone. Already in the year 808 Greek monks protested against the introduction by the Latins of the word Filioque into the Creed . . . Who the originator of this heresy was, is unknown” (Sinopsis Theologiae Dogmaticae Specialis, by Dr. A. Sanda, vol. 1, p. 100; Herder edition, 1916). However, the Latin dogma agrees neither with Sacred Scripture nor with the universal Sacred Tradition of the Church; and it does not even agree with the most ancient tradition of the Local Church of Rome."
- ^ Orthodox dogmatic theology by Protopresbyter Michael Pomazansky [84]: "When the Eastern Church first noticed a distortion of the dogma of the Holy Spirit in the West and began to reproach the Western theologians for their innovations, St. Maximus the Confessor (in the 7th century), desiring to defend the Westerners, justified them precisely by saying that by the words “from the Son” they intended to indicate that the Holy Spirit is given to creatures through the Son, that He is manifested, that He is sent — but not that the Holy Spirit has His existence from Him. St. Maximus the Confessor himself held strictly to the teaching of the Eastern Church concerning the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and wrote a special treatise about this dogma."
- ^ Maximus the Confessor, Letter to Marinus - on the Filioque
- ^ "We do not speak of the Spirit as from the Son." St. John Damascene pg 61 The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church By Vladimir Lossky Published by St Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1976 ISBN 978-0-913836-31-6 [85]
- ^ "The Orthodox Church" Sergey Bulgakov [86]: "However, the Latin dogma agrees neither with Sacred Scripture nor with the universal Sacred Tradition of the Church; and it does not even agree with the most ancient tradition of the Local Church of Rome. Creation God is the Creator of the World, which He created from the void. God does not seek to complete Himself by means of the world; but, in His goodness, He wishes non-being to share in being and to have His image reflected there. The creation of the world ex nihilo is the work of love, of almighty power and of divine wisdom. The creation is the work of the Holy Trinity. The Father creates by the Word in the Holy Spirit. The Holy Trinity is immediately directed towards the world by the Word, by means of which all things were made (John 1:3). The Son is the divine hypostasis who created, in announcing it, the ideal existence of the world. But the Holy Spirit finishes, vivifies, gives to the world reality."
- ^ Orthodox Wiki filioque article
- ^ Aspects of Church History, Volume 4 in the Collected Works of Georges Florovsky, Emeritus Professor of Eastern Church History, Harvard University
- ^ "προϊὸν μὲν ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς, οὐχ ὑϊκῶς δὲ, οὐδὲ γὰρ γεννητῶς, ἀλλ' ἐκπορευτῶς" (Oration 39, 12, English translation).
- ^ Ὅτε τοίνυν τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον ἐν ἡμῖν γενόμενον, συμμόρφους ἀποδεικνύει Θεοῦ, πρόεισι δὲ καὶ ἐκ Πατρὸς καὶ Υἱοῦ, πρόδηλον ὅτι τῆς θείας ἐστὶν οὐσίας, οὐσιωδῶς ἐν αὐτῇ καὶ ἐξ αὐτῆς προϊόν. (Thesaurus de sancta consubstantiali trinitate 75.585)
- ^ St Maximos Confessor to Marinus on the Filioque
- ^ One Single Source
- ^ Theodore Stylianopoulos: The Filioque: Dogma, Theologoumenon or Error?
- ^ The Father as the Source of the Whole Trinity
- ^ The Armenian additions to the Nicene Creed are much more numerous.
- ^ "The original form of the Nicene Creed says that the Holy Spirit proceeds 'from the Father'. The phrase 'and the Son' was added, in the West, in the following centuries. Though it is quite true to say that the Spirit proceeds from both the 'Father and the Son', the Eastern Church, encouraged by the Holy See, has asked us to return to the original form of the Creed" (Q&A on the Reformed Chaldean Mass). (emphasis added) Citation retrieved 12 May 2010
Bibliography
Much has been written on the Filioque; what follows is selective. As time goes on, this list will inevitably have to be updated.
- This article incorporates text from a publication now in the public domain: Wood, James, ed. (1907). The Nuttall Encyclopædia. London and New York: Frederick Warne.
{{cite encyclopedia}}
: Missing or empty|title=
(help) - "Filioque", article in the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church Oxford University Press, 2005, p. 614.
- David Bradshaw. Aristotle East and West: Metaphysics and the Division of Christendom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004, pp. 214–220.
- Laurent Cleenewerck. His Broken Body: Understanding and healing the schism between the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches. Washington, DC: Euclid University Press, 2008, pp. 321–347.
- Joseph P. Farrell. God, History, & Dialectic: The Theological Foundations of the Two Europes and Their Cultural Consequences. Bound edition 1997. Electronic edition 2008.
- 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 bibliography 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.
- Sergius Bulgakov The Comforter Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company (June 2004) ISBN 978-0-8028-2112-6
External links
- Orthodox/Catholic joint statement
- Filioque at OrthodoxWiki
- full-length article at OrthodoxAnswers.org
- Herbermann, Charles, ed. (1913). Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. .
- Christian Cyclopedia entry
- Agreed statement of the North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consulation