St. Peter's Foot: The Filioque

The Filioque

Fr. Rand York

Background

“And I believe in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and giver of life, who proceeds from the Father, who with the Father and the Son together is worshiped and glorified.”

So reads the Nicene Creed in its original universally adopted form. In 589, the Third Council of Toledo, in Spain, added the words, “and the Son,” (commonly referred to as the filioque) to the passage regarding the procession of the Holy Spirit, igniting one of the most ancient running theological battles to plague the church.[1] The Spanish bishops did it, however, with the best of intentions.

Some three hundred years earlier, there was a presbyter in Alexandria, Egypt who denied the divine nature of Jesus Christ, saying of him, “There was a time when he was not.” This presbyter’s name was Arius, hence his doctrine became known as Arianism. He was condemned by the Council of Nicaea in May of 325 upon his refusal to sign a statement of faith that Christ is of the same divine substance as God the Father. His doctrine split the church, with powerful politicians, clergy, and theologians lining up on both sides of the issue. Arianism was ultimately defeated by allies of the indefatigable St. Athanasius, followed up by the great Cappadocians, St. Basil the Great, St. Gregory the Theologian, and St. Gregory of Nyssa.[2]

But lingering in the distant corners of the Christian world, Arianism continued to pose a threat to a true understanding of Christ and his divinity. Enter the Spanish bishops at the Third Council of Toledo. In an effort to emphasize the inherent divinity of Christ as God the Son, they included him in their recitation of the Nicene Creed as a source for the procession of the Holy Spirit, in contravention of the creed as it then existed. While Arianism died out as a serious threat to the Faith throughout Christendom, the filioque was retained in Spain and spread to Gaul, as the next great threat to Christianity emerged: the Moslem, or Moorish, invasion, lasting from the 8^th to the 13^th centuries. The filioque proved to be an effective weapon against the Moslem charge that Christians worshipped not one, but three gods, by further integrating the distinctive persons of the Holy Trinity. Spain was finally and permanently united as a Christian kingdom in 1479 through the marriage of Ferdinand II of Aragon and Isabella of Castille, the same couple who financed Christopher Columbus, and the last Moorish stronghold was eliminated in 1492, the year Columbus sailed.[3]

Originating in Spain, and supported by the Frankish kings, the filioque still failed to gain acceptance in Rome, even four centuries after its introduction. Pope Leo III supported the doctrine, but rejected the addition.[4] By the year 1000, silver plates were in place at the doorposts of St. Peter’s in Rome, engraved with the original Nicene Creed, sans filioque, lest anyone be in doubt regarding the position of the church on this matter. A century later, following the final break with the Eastern Church in the Great Schism of 1054, Rome finally accepted the filioque as part of the Nicene Creed, and the Western Church, both Catholic and Protestant, retain the amended form of the creed to this day.

We must not, at this point, overlook the earlier “Schism of Photius” in 867.[5] Photius became patriarch of Constantinople upon the overthrow of Patriarch Ignatius. They both turned to Rome to settle the matter once and for all, as an objective and disinterested party, which had been the role of the Bishop of Rome many times in the past in settling disputes between Eastern sees. When Pope Nicholas sided with the deposed Ignatius, Photius countered that the verdict was tainted because the West held to a heretical version of the Nicene Creed (i.e. it included the filioque). One result of this was that Rome dusted off an old Roman creed that we know as the Apostles Creed, and began using it instead, so as not to offend the East. In the end, Ignatius and Photius patched things up between them so that Photius would be successor to Ignatius, but the relationship with Rome was irreparably damaged.

The scope and size of this paper necessarily limits any extended discussion of pre-Nicene Trinitarian debate, other than to say that the church owes much to Irenaeus, Hippolytus, and Tertullian for their dual approach in understanding the Trinity: “(a) as He exists in His eternal being, and (b) as He reveals Himself in the process of creation and redemption.”[6] In the second sense, filioque is backed by Scripture in John 15:26 & 16:7,[7] but even there the Holy Spirit “proceeds” from the Father and is “sent” by the Son.

Additionally, Origen greatly impacted the foundation of the later debate through his insistence that the Father is the sole fountain-head of deity, from whom the Son is eternally begotten and the Spirit eternally proceeds.[8] Other teachings, such as the modalism expressed by Sabellius,[9] will not be considered here, though variants of modalism continue to be taught in Sunday Schools across America to this day.

After Nicaea, it was St. Augustine who first went beyond the Nicene Creed to teach that the Holy Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son,[10] and since the creed itself does not refute this by saying the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone, Augustine was not at that time (and the western church would say not at any time) treading on heretical ground by teaching a double procession of the Spirit. It is in Augustine that we see more emphasis on the Holy Spirit as love or as activity or as relationship, and less emphasis on the Holy Spirit as person.[11]

It is this Augustinian understanding that lies behind what the Eastern church sees as the devaluing of the Holy Spirit. +Kallistos Ware covers this ground succinctly in laying out the Orthodox position (all italics are Ware’s):[12]

· “First, the Spirit is a person. He is not just a ‘divine blast’…”

· “Secondly, the Spirit as the third member of the Holy Triad, is coequal and coeternal with the other two; he is not merely a function dependent upon them or an intermediary that they employ. One of the chief reasons why the Orthodox Church rejects the Latin addition of the filioque…is precisely our fear that such teaching might lead men to depersonalize and subordinate the Holy Spirit.”

Ware’s fear is well founded. I remember taking a class in Trinitarian theology in which we were assigned five books to read. Of the five, only two authors emphasized the personhood of the Holy Spirit, both of them professors at Asbury Theological Seminary. The other three, a Roman Catholic from St. John’s Seminary, an Evangelical from Fuller Theological Seminary, and a Calvinist from the University of Aberdeen, all presented the Holy Spirit as activity or force or love. Of course, one might expect the Methodists of Asbury to be more in line with their Anglican forbears (and therefore with the Orthodox), and so they are.

Both Eastern and Western churches are in agreement that the filioque was not explicitly a part of the original Nicene Creed. However, Roman Catholicism understands an implicit presence of such a doctrine from the time the creed was formulated. According to this understanding, when Council III of Toledo adopted it, the bishops there were simply giving expression to what was understood as already being present in the Christian faith, and so, implicitly in the Nicene Creed.[13]

If such an understanding was indeed present at the formation of the Nicene Creed, it was never spelled out, and that at a time when every other article of the Faith was being spelled out. The Eastern church never recognized this “mutual understanding,” though Rome would say it was they (the Eastern church) who had deviated from the Faith. In fact, according to Roman Catholic historian Paul Johnson, “In 1054, when the final breach with the East came, the papal legates were so ignorant of the true story that they accused the Greeks of having deliberately omitted the filioque from their creed centuries before.”[14]

Implications

Given that the entire Eastern church, as well as many in the West, saw this addition as a new development in the understanding of the nature and role of the Holy Spirit, what are some of the implications of this development?[15]

1. The Nicene Creed can be changed only by another Ecumenical Council. This would imply that no part of the church has the authority to change a statement of faith adopted by the whole. For the Roman church, this is not a problem because they see themselves as the universal church. For them, councils such as Vatican I and Vatican II have standing as representative of the whole church on earth. For the Eastern Orthodox, no church council is complete without representation from the Roman church, and so there has never been a post-Schism Ecumenical Council, and there never will be until: a) the Orthodox change their view on what constitutes an Ecumenical Council, or b) communion between the Eastern and Western churches is restored.

2. The filioque depersonalizes the Holy Spirit by making him dependent on the other two persons of the Trinity for existence, implying a Holy Spirit that is an emanating function of the love between the Father and the Son, rather than a person coexisting with them.

3. The filioque de-emphasizes the Holy Spirit by making the Father and the Son each an eternal source of the Holy Spirit’s existence, but making the Holy Spirit a source of nothing within the Godhead. Over the centuries, this diminishing of the Spirit has resulted in a greater emphasis in the West of the church becoming increasingly institutional in its basis, and looking increasingly to earthly power for its authority.

4. Unity triumphs over diversity in the Western Creed and is reflected in Roman Catholicism through power and authority shifting from the diversity of bishops to the monolith of the Papacy.

5. If each person of the Trinity is unique, how are they unified into one God? The Cappadocian fathers teach that unity is to be found in the Father, as the single source of the Godhead, from whom the Son is eternally begotten and the Spirit eternally proceeds. Under this original understanding of the source of the Godhead as personal, the addition of filioque results in a Godhead that suddenly has two sources, the Father and the Son. Thus, Roman Catholicism must find a new, single source for unity. They find it in “divine essence,” which is shared by all three persons in the Trinity. So that, “In Orthodoxy, the principle of God’s unity is personal, in Roman Catholicism it is not.”[16] It should be noted here that the Anglican Communion specifically rejects the notion of divine essence as the source of Trinitarian unity.

Conclusion

The Anglican-Orthodox Dialogue held in Dublin in 1984 reaffirmed their 1976 Moscow agreement, “that (the filioque) should not be included in the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed. Certain Anglican churches have already acted upon this recommendation, whilst others are still considering it.”[17] In the dialogues between the Anglicans and the Orthodox, the Anglicans in 1976 recognized the validity of the Orthodox position and adopted it as their own. Putting it into practice in the churches, however, would be another thing altogether. So, in 1984, the Orthodox returned the favor by finding a way to understand the Creed in an Orthodox and Nicene way while allowing the filioque to stay in it. This requires hearing the word “proceeds” in two different ways at the same time. With regard to the Father, proceeds refers to emanation; with regard to the Son, proceeds refers to shining forth.[18] This elegant solution put the disagreement to bed without disturbing the worship experience of the average parishioner.

Since the original Nicene Creed does not say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father “alone,” it should be acceptable to the Western church. If at some time in the future a genuine Ecumenical Council is held, satisfying the churches of both the West and the East, and it is the will of the Holy Spirit to move upon those assembled to include the filioque in the creed, at that time it will be appropriate to add it. Until then, the original Nicene Creed should stand as written. That being said, in churches where such a change would be disruptive, education is appropriate to help people understand the filioque in a Nicene and Orthodox sense.

Bibliography

Anglican-Orthodox Dialogue: The Dublin Agreed Statement 1984. Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1985.

González, Justo L. The Story of Christianity (Volume I). San Francisco: Harper, 1984.

Grenz, Stanley J. Theology for the Community of God. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000.

Grudem, Wayne. Systematic Theology. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2000.

Harakas, Stanley+. The Orthodox Church: 455 Questions and Answers. Minneapolis: Light & Life, 1988.

Hardon, John A.+, S.J. The Catholic Catechism. New York: Doubleday, 1981.

Johnson, Paul. A History of Christianity. New York: Atheneum, 1976.

Kelly, J.N.D. Early Christian Doctrines. New York: Harper & Row, 1960.

Schmemann, Alexander+. The Historical Road of Eastern Orthodoxy. Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1977.

Ware, +Kallistos. The Orthodox Way. Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1986.

Ware, Timothy (before becoming +Kallistos). The Orthodox Church. London: Pelican, 1964.

[1] Stanley Harakas+ (The Orthodox Church: 455 Questions and Answers. Minneapolis: Light & Life, 1988) 92.

[2] Alexander Schmemann + (The Historical Road of Eastern Orthodoxy. Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1977) 93.

[3] It is interesting to note that where the filioque was added to the Nicene Creed, Islam receded; where the Nicene Creed remained in its original form, Islam spread like wildfire. How much this may have had to do with the creed vis-à-vis other factors would be an interesting topic for a dissertation.

[4] Timothy Ware (The Orthodox Church. London: Pelican, 1964) 59.

[5] Justo L. González (The Story of Christianity (Volume I). San Francisco: Harper, 1984) 264-265.

[6] J.N.D. Kelly (Early Christian Doctrines. New York: Harper & Row, 1960) 110.

[7] Wayne Grudem (Systematic Theology. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2000) 246.

[8] J.N.D. Kelly. Op. cit. 128-131.

[9] E.g. ice, water, steam / the sun gives light and warmth / etc.

[10] Stanley J. Grenz (Theology for the Community of God. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000) 63.

[11] Stanley J. Grenz. Op. cit. 70.

[12] +Kallistos Ware (The Orthodox Way. Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1986) 121-122.

[13] John A. Hardon+, S.J. (The Catholic Catechism. New York: Doubleday, 1981) 64-65.

[14] Paul Johnson (A History of Christianity. New York: Atheneum, 1976) 180.

[15] Please note that here we are speaking here of the eternal relationship within the Godhead, not the Trinity’s expression in relation to the created order.

[16] Timothy Ware. Op. cit. 219.

[17] Anglican-Orthodox Dialogue: The Dublin Agreed Statement 1984. (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1985) 26.

[18] Anglican-Orthodox Dialogue: The Dublin Agreed Statement 1984. Op. cit. 27.