The Filioque clause refers to an addition made to the Nicene Creed regarding the procession of the Holy Spirit. The original creed stated that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father. However, in the 6th century, the Roman Catholic Church added the phrase “and the Son” (Latin: Filioque) so that the creed stated the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father “and the Son.”
This addition was very controversial and was one of the major factors leading to the Great Schism between the Eastern Orthodox and Western Roman Catholic churches in 1054. The Orthodox Church has always rejected the Filioque addition as incorrect theology and an unauthorized change to the ecumenical Creed.
The main biblical passages cited regarding the procession of the Holy Spirit are:
- John 15:26 – “But when the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, he will bear witness about me.”
- Galatians 4:6 – “And because you are sons, God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, ‘Abba! Father!'”
Based on John 15:26, the Eastern Orthodox Church teaches that the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father alone. The Roman Catholic Church, based on Galatians 4:6 and other passages, teaches that the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son (Latin: Filioque).
The Development of the Filioque Controversy
In the early centuries of the church, the doctrine of the procession of the Holy Spirit was not definitively articulated. The Nicene Creed adopted in 325 simply stated that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father. However, debates began to emerge over whether the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone or also from the Son.
In the late 6th century, the Third Council of Toledo in Spain added the phrase “and the Son” (Filioque) to the Nicene Creed when reciting it. This was to explicitly affirm the double procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and Son. Other local councils in Spain followed suit. This procession from the Son was based on interpreting passages like John 16:15 and 20:22 to indicate the Spirit is sent by both the Father and Son.
By the 8th century, the Filioque was incorporated into the Nicene Creed throughout the Frankish Kingdom. When Charlemagne was crowned emperor in 800 AD, this creed was adopted in Rome. Controversy increased between Eastern and Western churches, with Eastern theologians arguing the phrase had been added without the authority of an ecumenical council.
In 1014 AD, Rome officially adopted the Filioque into the Latin Rite despite the objections from Constantinople. The dispute over the Filioque was one of the primary doctrinal differences leading to the East-West Schism of 1054 AD between Orthodox and Catholic Christianity.
Orthodox Objections to the Filioque
The Orthodox Church objected to the Filioque addition based on the following arguments:
- It was inserted unilaterally without the consent of an ecumenical council.
- It represents an erroneous and distorted Trinitarian theology.
- It implies two causes or sources of divinity in the Trinity.
- It leads to subordination of the Holy Spirit in relation to the Son.
- The actual word “filioque” is inaccurate and misleading in expressing the real relationship between Son and Spirit.
For the Orthodox, the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father alone as the sole principle and cause in the Godhead. The Son is begotten eternally from the Father, while the Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father. According to John 15:26, the Spirit proceeds from the Father alone.
While the Orthodox accept that the Spirit is sent from the Son (John 14:16, 20:22), they distinguish between the eternal procession of the Spirit from the Father alone and the temporal mission of the Spirit by the Son. To say the Spirit proceeds from both Father and Son threatens the monarchy of the Father and implies two causes in the Trinity.
Roman Catholic Arguments for the Filioque
Roman Catholic theologians provided extensive defenses of the Filioque addition based on the following reasoning:
- The Father and Son are one in nature, so the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and rests in the Son.
- Anything the Father has, He has given to the Son (John 16:15), including being able to spirate the Spirit.
- Jesus breathes the Spirit on the disciples, showing His role in the procession (John 20:22).
- The Spirit is Spirit of both the Father and the Son (Romans 8:9; Galatians 4:6).
- The Latin term proceedere refers to origination, not ultimate source.
- Affirming the monarchy of the Father is preserved by the Father being the ultimate source within the Trinity.
For Roman Catholic theology, the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the one principle of the Father and through the Son. The Father alone is the ultimate origin, font and cause, but the Spirit proceeds through both Father and Son.
Ongoing Dialogue Between Catholic and Orthodox Churches
In recent decades, extensive ecumenical dialogue has led to growing consensus between Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches on some aspects of the Filioque controversy:
- Both accept a single spiration of the Holy Spirit from the Father, but articulate it differently.
- There is agreement on the monarchy of the Father as the sole ultimate cause in the Trinity.
- Differences remain regarding whether the Father is the sole source from which the Spirit proceeds.
- Some propose distinguishing eternal procession from the Father alone and temporal mission from the Son.
In 1995, Pope John Paul II and Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I issued a joint statement that expressed hope the Filioque language would no longer be a point of division between East and West. However, the controversy has not yet been fully resolved.
The debate continues between Eastern and Western Christianity over whether the Filioque clause should remain in the Creed. But the pilgrimage of ecumenical dialogue has brought greater understanding of the mystery of the Trinity and how the Holy Spirit eternally proceeds.
Key Points of Difference
In summary, the key differences between the Eastern Orthodox and Western Roman Catholic positions on the procession of the Holy Spirit include:
- Orthodox: The Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father alone as the sole principle and cause.
- Catholic: The Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father as the ultimate source, and through the Son from the Father’s being.
- Orthodox: The Father alone is the source of the Spirit. The procession is from the Father alone (monarchy of the Father).
- Catholic: The Father and the Son are one source. The procession is from the Father, through the Son.
- Orthodox: The generation of the Son by the Father is distinct from the procession of the Spirit from the Father.
- Catholic: Generation and procession are parallel. The Spirit proceeds as the Son is begotten.
Understanding these key differences helps explain why this dispute over the eternal origins of the Holy Spirit contributed to Christianity’s greatest schism. While progress has been made, full agreement has not yet been reached on the orthodoxy of the Filioque.
Implications for Christian Unity
The Filioque controversy highlights two important lessons for Christian unity:
- The danger of making unauthorized changes to ecumenical creeds and councils.
- The need for all sides to deeply understand different theological perspectives.
While language regarding the Trinity must be precise, charity towards those who articulate the faith differently is essential. Continuing dialogue ultimately has the potential to reconcile this centuries-old dispute over the procession of the Spirit.
The Filioque conflict shows that even the most technical theological issues can have profound implications for the unity of Christ’s church. Only through mutual understanding and the guidance of the Holy Spirit can progress be made toward the unity that Christ intended among all believers (John 17:20-21).
The Biblical Foundation
What does the Bible itself reveal about the procession of the Holy Spirit? There are a few key passages that provide insight:
John 15:26
“But when the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, he will bear witness about me.”
This verse explicitly states the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father. However, it does not necessarily exclude procession from the Son as well.
John 16:13-15
“When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you. All that the Father has is mine; therefore I said that he will take what is mine and declare it to you.”
These verses indicate a close relationship between the Son and the Spirit in the Spirit’s role of glorifying Christ.
Galatians 4:6
“And because you are sons, God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, ‘Abba! Father!'”
This verse connects the Spirit to both the Father and the Son.
Romans 8:9
“You, however, are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if in fact the Spirit of God dwells in you. Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him.”
Again, the Spirit is described in close connection with both the Father and Son.
In the end, the biblical text alone does not provide definitive evidence for either side of this debate. VERSES WHICH SUPPORT BOTH SIDES OF THE DEBATE. Through prayer and continuing dialogue, may Christians come to greater unity in understanding this profound mystery of our Triune God.
Historical Perspectives
Looking at how key figures in Christian history understood the procession of the Holy Spirit provides helpful perspective on the Filioque controversy:
Athanasius of Alexandria (298-373)
Athanasius defended the full divinity of the Son against Arianism. He spoke of the Spirit as proceeding from the Father through the Son according to the Father’s will.
Hilary of Poitiers (300-368)
Hilary was an early Western theologian who directly influenced Augustine. He spoke of the Spirit as proceeding from both the Father and the Son.
Basil the Great (330-379)
One of the Cappadocian Fathers, Basil expressly described the Spirit as proceeding from the Father alone. But he avoided philosophical speculation about the Trinity.
Gregory of Nazianzus (329-390)
Gregory was another Cappadocian Father. He taught the procession of the Spirit from the Father, but allowed for biblical language of the Spirit being “of the Son.”
Ambrose of Milan (340-397)
Ambrose’s writing shows simultaneous influences from East and West. He avoided detailed philosophical reflection on the Trinity.
Augustine of Hippo (354-430)
Augustine articulated the Western view of the Filioque most completely. He taught the indivisibility of operations among the Trinity.
Cyril of Alexandria (376-444)
Cyril defended the full divinity of Christ against Nestorianism. He emphasized the Father as the sole cause in the Trinity.
John of Damascus (676-749)
John accepted biblical language of the Spirit proceeding “through the Son.” But he affirmed the Father alone as cause of the Spirit.
This historical overview shows a diversity of perspectives, even among the Church Fathers. It also makes clear the dispute did not suddenly arise, but had complex roots going back centuries.
Theological Perspectives
Examining some key theological issues related to the Filioque provides further insight into this complex debate:
Monarchy of the Father
The Eastern emphasis on the Father as the single principle and cause (Greek: monarchia) in the Trinity is a core issue. Catholics argue that while the Father remains the ultimate source, the Spirit proceeds through the Son from that one principle.
Trinitarian Relations
Eastern theology distinguishes between the Son’s generation from the Father, and the procession of the Spirit from the Father alone. Catholics see a closer parallel between the two relations.
Divine Unity
Catholics emphasize the oneness of operations in the Trinity. The Spirit proceeds from Father and Son as one principle. Orthodox see the monarchy of the Father as ensuring divine unity.
Economy vs. Theology
The Orthodox distinguish the temporal mission (economy) of the Spirit from the eternal relationships within the Trinity (theology). Eternal procession is from the Father alone, but the Spirit is sent also by the Son.
Uncreated Energy
Orthodox theology emphasizes the distinction between God’s uncreated essence and His eternal, uncreated energies. The Spirit as energy proceeds from the Father alone.
These perspectives illustrate the nuances that lie beneath the surface in this historically complex debate over the Trinity and pneumatology.
Implications for Pneumatology
The Filioque has implications for the theology of the Holy Spirit (pneumatology) in several key ways:
Relationship to Christ
Orthodox pneumatology emphasizes the close relationship between Christ and the Spirit while preserving the monarchy of the Father. Catholic pneumatology makes the bond between Son and Spirit more directly parallel to that between Father and Son.
Divine Personhood
Orthodox theology is concerned that the Filioque can subordinate the personhood of the Holy Spirit to the Son. Catholics argue the Filioque rightly expresses the unity of operations.
Spirit’s Distinct Identity
Some Orthodox theologians believe Filioquism obscures the Holy Spirit’s distinct hypostatic identity by too closely associating the Spirit with the Son.
Economic Activity
Orthodox theology emphasizes that while there is interrelationship between the persons in the economy of salvation, the Trinity’s inner life must be distinguished.
Human Salvation
Both sides believe their position better expresses the Spirit’s role in human salvation. The dispute has implications for views of grace, deification, and the Christian life.
These pneumatological concerns add important dimensions to understanding the deeper implications of the Filioque for theology and the Christian experience of the Spirit.
Conclusions
The Filioque controversy has a complex historical, theological, and biblical background. Key points to remember include:
- It was a source of major contention between Eastern and Western Christianity.
- It involves intricate issues in Trinitarian theology.
- Both sides can claim some biblical support for their position.
- The debate continues today, but significant progress has been made in mutual understanding.
- There is still a need for careful biblical and theological reflection as well as dialogue.
While divisions remain, the Filioque debate ultimately reminds Christians of the mystery of the Triune God. It should spur believers on to seek greater unity in how we articulate the relationships within the immanent Trinity.
