Filioque clause

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding reliable references. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (January 2008)

In Christian theology the filioque clause (filio meaning "from the son", while que means "and" in Latin) is a heavily disputed clause added to the Nicene Creed in 589. It forms a divisive difference in particular between the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church centered on the relative divinity of the Father compared to the Son. In the place where the original Nicene Creed reads "We believe in the Holy Spirit ... who proceeds from the Father", the amended, Roman Catholic version reads "We believe in the Holy Spirit ... who proceeds from the Father and the Son". The addition is accepted by the Roman Catholic Church but rejected by Eastern Orthodoxy. Many Eastern Catholic churches (Eastern in liturgy but in full communion with the pope) do not use the clause in their creed, but profess the doctrine it represents, as it is a dogma of the Roman Catholic faith. Insofar as Protestant churches take a position on the doctrine, acceptance of the filioque has been historically normative as seen in the their authorized liturgies and confessions. (Church of England- see Book of Common Prayer 1549 - 1662; Episcopal Church- see Book of Common Prayer 1789 - 1979; Lutherans- see Lutheran Book of Worship 1978.) However, in light of the many ecumenical dialogues between Protestants and the Orthodox Churches today, this historic position can no longer be taken for granted.

After the schism of 1054, the Eastern and Western churches attempted to reunite at two separate medieval councils, and the filioque was an issue at each. Despite Greek concessions, neither the Second Council of Lyon (1274) nor the Council of Ferrara-Florence (1438 - 1535) achieved the desired union.^[1]

The clause is most often referred to as "the filioque" or simply filioque.

Contents 1 Explanation of the creed 2 Origins 2.1 As an addition to the Nicene Creed 2.2 The Franks and the filioque 3 The beginning of conflict 3.1 The Photian controversy 3.2 The Franks in Rome 4 The East-West Schism and attempts at reconciliation 4.1 Complicating factors 4.2 The Council of Florence 5 The Filioque Clause in the Theology of the Church Fathers 5.1 The Filioque and the Doctrine of the Trinity 5.2 Reconciling the Eastern and Western Traditions 6 Modern positions 6.1 Eastern Orthodox Church 6.2 Roman Catholic Church 7 Recent discussions and joint statements 8 Summary 9 Notes 10 References 11 External links

[edit] Explanation of the creed

Following John 15:26b, the First Council of Constantinople in 381 modified the statement of the First Council of Nicea in 325 by stating that the Holy Spirit "proceeds from the Father". The Council had not elaborated on the origin of the Holy Spirit. Hence, the Nicene Creed is often called "Nicene-Constantinopolitan" or "Niceno-Constantinopolitan." This creed was not officially received until the Council of Ephesus in 431.

In thinking about God as Father, Son and Spirit: the Trinity, Christians following Jesus (Matt 28:19), from early times have made some important distinctions. The Son and the Spirit are said to have their eternal origin from the Father; the Son, the eternal Divine Logos (John 1:1) is "generated" ("begotten") of the Father, while the Spirit "proceeds" from the Father. These statements are made in reference to the being of God, from all eternity, "before all ages" in the words of the Nicene Creed.

On the one hand, the Nicene Creed and the Bible do not explicitly say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son as well as the Father; that is, there is no statement that the Spirit's eternal origin is found anywhere but in the Father. However, various Christian groups including Roman Catholics and most Protestants find implicit evidence for this in other statements about the connection between the Son and the Spirit. For example, the New Testament teaches that the Spirit testifies to the Son (1Jn 5:6) and is called the "Spirit of Christ" (Rom 8:9; Rom 15:5; Phil 1:19; 1Pet 1:11) and "Spirit of [the] Son" (Gal 4:6). The Son, Jesus, also says he will "pray to the Father, and he will give you another comforter to be with you forever, the Spirit of truth" (John 14:16), and that He Himself will send the Spirit (John 16:7). The Church Fathers further explained that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are of one "being" ("substantia"/"ousia") and have one common will and activity, with regard to their external actions (actiones ad extra). This tradition continued to be reaffirmed in both East and West, unanimously in medieval times by the Scholastic theologians. (See Scholastic Philosophy). In this second, "economic" sense, the Father is said to send us the Spirit through the Son (Acts 2:33; Titus 3:6). Scholasticism is explicitly rejected in the East as a form of any validation of theological doctrine.^[2]

On the other hand, while the New Testament teaches that there is a connection between the Son and the Spirit, the divinity of the Son and the Spirit may not be entirely clear from Scripture alone. Many theologians historically have been unconvinced by the texts, and readily quote Scripture in defense of their denials of the Trinity.

The Eastern Orthodox position 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 equally from the Father and the Son (ex patre filioque procedit). ^[3]

[edit] Origins

As Johannes Grohe^[4] has pointed out, a regional council in Persia in 410 introduced one of the earliest forms of the filioque in the Creed; the council specified that the Spirit proceeds from the Father "and from the Son."^{[citation needed]}. Coming from the rich theology of early East Syrian Christianity, this expression in this context is authentically Eastern. Therefore, according to Grohe, the filioque cannot be attacked as a solely Western innovation, nor as something created by the Pope.

In the West, St. Augustine of Hippo followed Tertullian and Ambrose^[5] in teaching that the Spirit proceeded from the Father and the Son^[6], though subordinate to neither. His theology, including his theology of the Trinity, was dominant in the West through the Middle Ages. Other Latin fathers also spoke of the Spirit proceeding from both the Father and the Son. While familiar in the West, this way of speaking was virtually unknown in the Greek-speaking, Eastern Roman Empire^{[citation needed]}.

[edit] As an addition to the Nicene Creed

Although there were earlier hints of the double-procession of the Holy Spirit, including an expression in the Athanasian Creed^[7] and a dogmatic epistle of Pope Leo I^[8], it was first officially added to the Nicene Creed at the Third Council of Toledo in 589.^[9] This was done primarily to oppose Arianism, which taught that the Son was a created being and which was prevalent among the Germanic peoples. The local Visigothic rulers had been Arians until this time. As such, they held the Arian tenet that the Holy Spirit proceeded from the Son. They accepted the Nicene Creed, originally composed in opposition to Arius, with the inclusion of the filioque.

So the filioque was introduced in the West first of all in Spain, then in Gaul, not in Rome, and not by the Pope's initiative. Eastern Churches, for example, the Maronites, while in communion with the Holy See, never used the filioque. Moreover, the phrase was in wide use in the West, following the language of many Latin fathers, outside the Mass, especially in Spain and Gaul.

[edit] The Franks and the filioque

After the Visigoths, the filioque was also accepted as part of the Creed by the Franks, which under the leadership of Pippin the Younger and his son Charlemagne rose to dominance in the West, with Charlemagne being crowned Emperor in 800.

Pope Leo III forbade the addition of "filioque" to the Nicene Creed which was added by the Franks in Aachen in 809. He also ordered that the original Nicene creed be engraved on silver tablets so that his conclusion might not be overturned in the future. He wrote «HAEC LEO POSVI AMORE ET CAVTELA ORTHODOXAE FIDEI» (I, Leo, put these here for love and protection of the orthodox faith).^[10]

However, among the Franks the filioque was widely thought to be an integral part of the Creed. Frankish predominance put pressure to adopt the filioque on Rome, which resisted for some two hundred years.

[edit] The beginning of conflict

[edit] The Photian controversy

The filioque came to unprecedented prominence in the controversy surrounding Photius of Constantinople. In 858, Patriarch Ignatius of Constantinople fell out of favour with the Byzantine Emperor Michael III and was removed from this position. He was replaced by the layman Photius, a distinguished scholar, Imperial secretary and ambassador to Baghdad. Ignatius was exiled to Terebinthos and resigned his position under pressure. Later Photius even had a synod declare Ignatius' patriarchate invalid. Both Photius and Emperor Michael as well as the partisans of Ignatius appealed to Pope Nicholas, who eventually deposed and excommunicated Photius and recognized Ignatius as the legitimate patriarch in 863.

Photius, with the support of Emperor Michael, rejected the Pope's judgment. To rally the Eastern churches to his course he issued Encyclical to the Eastern Patriarchs denouncing the Latin church for differences in customs and, most importantly for the filioque, which he deemed heretical. This latter element, appearing for the first time, is of special importance, as it moved the issue from jurisdiction and custom to one of dogma. In 867, he assembled a synod excommunicating Nicholas and condemning Latin "aberrations."

Photius' importance endured in regard to relations between East and West, as he was the first theologian to raise the filioque clause to an issue of contention and to accuse Rome of heresy in the matter. This line of criticism was later often echoed and made reconciliation between East and West a difficult matter. Photius is recognized as a Saint by the Greek Orthodox Church.

[edit] The Franks in Rome

Throughout the 9th and the 10th centuries, Popes had refused to adopt the filioque clause. This position came to an end in 1014, when the German King Henry II visited Rome to be crowned Emperor. At this time, the papacy was very weak and for the sake of survival, the Pope needed the military support of the Emperor.

Henry found that the Creed was not being recited during the Mass, as was customary in the Frankish lands. So, at his request, Pope Benedict VIII had a recitation of the Creed placed after the Gospel, and the filioque was used in the Mass at Rome for the first time.

[edit] The East-West Schism and attempts at reconciliation

In 1054 the argument about the filioque contributed to the Great Schism of the East and West. There were many issues involved, in large part based on misunderstandings between Greek and Latin traditions, as well as the irascible temperament of the antagonists. The papal legate Cardinal Humbertus of Silva Candida, sent by Pope Leo IX to Constantinople to reach an agreement with the Easterners, excommunicated Patriarch Michael Cerularius instead, to which the Patriarch answered by excommunicating Humbertus.

For many years, large numbers of Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholics did not think of themselves as being in schism;^{[citation needed]} neither Church, in fact, had excommunicated the other. Many Slavic Christians saw the whole episode as a dispute among individuals.^{[citation needed]} Also, the validity of Michael's excommunication has been questioned^{[citation needed]} because Pope Leo, who had authorized Humbertus, had already died by then.

[edit] Complicating factors

In 1274, the Second Council of Lyon, with the Patriarch of Constantinople in attendance, said that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, in accord with the filioque in the contemporary Latin version of the Nicene Creed. Remembering the crusader's 1204 sack of Constantinople, most Byzantine Christians did not want to be reconciled with the West. In 1282, Byzantine Emperor Michael VIII Palaeologus died, and Patriarch John XI, who supported reconciliation with the Latin Church, was forced to abdicate; reunion failed.

For much of the fourteenth century, there were at least two claimants to the papacy, each excommunicating the other. The Western Schism was ultimately resolved at the Council of Constance, but in the meantime the East could hardly seek reconciliation with a Western Church divided amongst itself.

[edit] The Council of Florence

At the Council of Florence, in the fifteenth century, Byzantine Emperor John VIII Palaeologus, Joseph, the Patriarch of Constantinople, and other bishops from the East traveled to northern Italy, in hope of reconciliation with Rome and the aid of Western armies against the looming Ottoman Empire.

After extensive discussion, in Ferrara, then in Florence, they acknowledged that some Latin Fathers spoke of the procession of the Spirit differently from the Greek Fathers. Since the consensus of the Fathers was held to be reliable, as a witness to common faith, and since the Byzantine Empire desperately needed the military aid of the West, the Latin usage was held not to be a heresy and not a barrier to restoration of full communion. The emperor indeed wished to secure the support of the West in the face of the Ottoman danger, and pressured some Eastern bishops to sign a decree of union between East and West, Laetentur Coeli in 1439.

Now, briefly, the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches were officially and publicly in communion. The Council of Florence helped establish a fundamental principle: the Church must be unified in its essential beliefs, but may be diverse in its culture, customs, and rites. The dispute over the filioque did not seem at the time to violate that uniformity.

However, the reconciliation achieved at Florence was soon destroyed. One of the Orthodox bishops present at the Council, Mark of Ephesus, refused to sign the decree on the grounds that Rome was in both heresy and schism as a result of its acceptance of the filioque and the papal claims of universal jurisdiction over the Church. Many other Orthodox faithful and bishops rejected the union, and would not ratify it. To many in the East, the agreement of Florence seemed to be an imposition of scholastic theology and a desperate plea for help.

The promised Western armies were too late to prevent the 1453 Fall of Constantinople to the Turks. From that time onward, the Turks fostered separation from the West, which remained an adversary to Islamic political and military dominance.

Although the filioque controversy had been in theory "officially" resolved for both Orthodox and Roman Catholic, the resolution at Florence was neither fully received nor permanently sustained.

[edit] The Filioque Clause in the Theology of the Church Fathers

[edit] The Filioque and the Doctrine of the Trinity

The filioque clause became integral to the Western theology of the Trinity in part because the writings of Western Church fathers such as St. Augustine of Hippo, Anselm of Canterbury and Thomas Aquinas contain statements that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. On the other hand, Eastern Church fathers such as St. John of Damascus and Gregory Palamas carried on the tradition of the original Creed promulgated at Constantinople in 381 and thus the filioque was seen as alien to the theology of the Eastern Church. Theologians in the East such as Patriarch Photius objected to the teaching it expressed, as conflicting with biblical and accepted doctrine. They said that for the Holy Spirit to proceed from the Father and the Son there would have to be two sources in the deity, whereas in the one God there can only be one source of divinity or deity.

Western theologians answered this objection by saying that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and Son "as from one principle."^[11] The East, however, again objected that this formulation would merge and confuse the persons of the Father and the Son. It was also pointed out that if the Father and the Son are sources of deity and only the Holy Spirit is not, it follows that the status of the Spirit is diminished relative to the Father and the Son. However defending the Western tradition, Thomas Aquinas argues that the Holy Spirit is both the Spirit of the Father and the Spirit of the Son and that the other two are implied in Holy Spirit's very existence, thus making the filioque clause a theological necessity.^[12] He finds their Personal distinctiveness in their relationships of opposition (the Father is the active generator of the Son and spirator of the Spirit, the Son is passively generated of the Father and actively spirates the Spirit, and the Spirit is passively spirated from the Father and from the Son thus linking them all in opposing relationships, which distinguish them from one another) and he finds their full equally in the common divine nature.^[13] Since Aquinas sees the power to spirate (or breathe) the Holy Spirit as something that comes from the divine nature he views this ability as necessarily shared by the Father and the Son.^[14]

However, the Eastern theologians pointed out that if the divine essence itself is the source of deity in God, then another problem is created: the suggestion that the Holy Spirit proceeds from himself, since he is certainly not separate from the divine essence. Yet Western scholastic theologians, such as Anselm of Canterbury in his Monologion, use Scripture and reason to respond to this point and show that there is indeed an order of procession in the Godhead that rules out the procession of the Spirit from himself.

Despite these arguments by the Western Fathers, the filioque clause, and the theology that became associated with it in the West, remained unacceptable to the Eastern Church. This was because its prominent theologians understood the distinctions between the Persons of the Trinity in a manner that required the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father alone. John of Damascus, in his work An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith argues that the distinction between the Son and the Holy Spirit stems from their unique modes of origin from the Father, who alone is the unoriginate cause of the other two Divine Persons. He explains that the Son is uniquely "begotten" of the Father while the Spirit alone "proceeds" from the Father, and that the difference between these two manners of generation cannot be understood by humans ^[15].

[edit] Reconciling the Eastern and Western Traditions

Western theologians such as Anselm of Canterbury and Thomas Aquinas critiqued the East for not adequately addressing the eternal relationship and order between the Son and the Spirit^[16]. Aquinas argues, that if indeed the Spirit is eternally "of" the Son then to some degree he must also eternally be "from" the Son, as the filioque clause states^[17]. The relationship between the Son and the Holy Spirit however is addressed by the Eastern Fathers in a manner which does not require the filioque. John of Damascus states that the generation of the Son and the procession of the Spirit are simultaneous and that the Holy Spirit eternally proceeds from the Father and rests on the Son.^[18]. The modern Eastern Orthodox theologian Dumitru Stăniloae see a fuller answer to this relationship between the Son and the Spirit in the theology of Gregory Palamas, for he finds in Palamas' theology the idea that Spirit proceeds from the Father and rests on the Son and then returns from the Son as his love for the Father.^[19]. Palamas' argument may be viewed in the framework of the controversy around Hesychasm, exemplifying subtle but deep differences between Roman and Orthodox theology.

[edit] Modern positions

[edit] Eastern Orthodox Church

To this day, the Orthodox Church uses the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed of 381 without the filioque. Many times, the Eastern Churches have rejected the phrase as an unauthorized interpolation, an example of what they consider to be Western hubris.

Both Patriarch Photius in 862 and Patriarch Michael I in 1054 accused the West of heresy for introducing the filioque in the Creed. In general, except for reconciliatory pauses in 1274 and 1439, at the Second Council of Lyons and the Council of Florence, many Orthodox have repeated the charge of heresy, up to the present day.

Orthodox Patriarch Gregory II of Cyprus, successor and opponent of post-Lyon filioque supporter John XI, proposed a different formula which has been considered an Orthodox "answer" to the filioque, though it does not have the status of official Orthodox doctrine. Gregory spoke of an eternal manifestation of the Spirit by the Son. In other words, he held that the Son eternally manifests (shows forth) the Holy Spirit.

In general, even up to the time of the Council of Florence, the writings of Latin fathers were not widely read in the East; the language was not understood. Hence, the formulation of the filioque, let alone its meaning, was not readily understood in the East. Up to the present, some Western practices are still condemned as heresy by some in the East, even disciplinary customs such as mandatory celibacy for priests or the use of pouring water for baptism, rather than triple immersion. Again and again, the filioque is brought up as the first example of heresy.

In the recent past, however, several Orthodox theologians have considered the filioque anew, with a view to reconciliation of East and West. Theodore Stylianopoulos, for one, provides an extensive, scholarly overview of the contemporary discussion. Twenty years after first writing The Orthodox Church, Metropolitan Kallistos of Diokleia says that he has changed his mind; now, he considers the filioque dispute to be primarily semantic. Many faithful Orthodox consider that by degrading the importance of the filioque, Metropolitan Kallistos has accepted its heretical teaching, which is in flagrant contravention of the words of Christ in the Gospel, and has been specifically condemned by the Orthodox Church. For some Orthodox, then, but by no means all, 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. For others, the filioque remains the fundamental heretical teaching which divides East and West.

The gravamen of the Orthodox charge of heresy regarding the filioque has as much to do with its origins as its theology. The Eastern Orthodox Church firmly believes that Ecumenical councils are infallible. (This position was also held by the Roman Catholic Church until the First Vatican Council (1869) when the doctrine of papal infallibility was promulgated.) After the council debates have concluded, a final vote is taken on proposed decrees. The Orthodox Church believes that the Holy Spirit inspires the final votes. Thus, the council edicts are divine, and cannot be altered by humans (which Orthodoxy terms an "innovation"). Therefore, no matter how benign a subsequent amendment might be, it is rejected out of hand. This is especially true of the filioque, as its mainstream inclusion in the West came about from Frankish kings, a thoroughly secular body with no authority over dogma.

[edit] Roman Catholic Church

In 1274, at the Second Council of Lyons, the Roman Catholic Church condemned those who "presume to deny" that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. In the recent past, many Roman Catholic theologians have written on the filioque, with an ecumenical intention. Yves Congar, O.P., argues that varying formulations may be seen not as contradictory but as complementary. Irenee Dalmais, O.P. points out that East and West have different, yet complementary, pneumatologies, theologies of the Holy Spirit. Avery Dulles, S.J., traces the history of the filioque controversy and weighs pros and cons of several possibilities for reconciliation.

From an official standpoint, the Roman Catholic Church does not impose the recitation of the filioque on the East. The Eastern Catholic Churches, for example, the Melkites, Byzantine Catholic, and the Ruthenians do not include the filioque. Others who returned to communion with the Roman Catholic Church made it a prerequsite of communion that they were not required to include the "and the Son" formula in their recitation of the Creed. The common understanding among the Eastern Catholic Churches is that the filioque is to be understood in a way that is consonant with the Eastern traditions.

In many liturgies, when celebrating with Eastern bishops, the Pope has recited the Nicene Creed without the filioque. It is certain that Pope Paul VI and Pope John Paul II regarded the text of 381 to be entirely correct on its own merit and that using filioque in Eastern liturgies would not even be appropriate.^{[citation needed]}

Of special importance is a recent clarification of the filioque by the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity. This document was prepared at the specific request of the Bishop of Rome. It is entitled The Greek and Latin Traditions Regarding the Procession of the Holy Spirit.^[20]

[edit] Recent discussions and joint statements

A little-known sign of shifting Roman Catholic policy in the ongoing story of this controversy can be found in an official document published on August 6, 2000 and written by Pope Benedict XVI, when he was Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, and assisted by the Congregation's then secretary, Tarcisio Bertone. This document, Dominus Iesus, (Latin for "Lord Jesus"), and subtitled "On the Unicity and Salvific Universality of Jesus Christ and the Church" contains a remarkable gesture, as in the official Latin text of this document,^[21] (second paragraph in the first section), the filioque clause is quietly left out without notice or comment. This document takes on increased significance with the elevation of one of its authors from cardinal to pope.

The filioque clause was the main subject discussed at the 62nd meeting of the North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation, in June 2002. As a result, 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. 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, for example:

1. That all involved in such dialogue expressly recognize the limitations of our ability to make definitive assertions about the inner life of God.
2. That, in the future, because of the progress in mutual understanding that has come about in recent decades, Orthodox and Catholics refrain from labeling as heretical the traditions of the other side on the subject of the procession of the Holy Spirit.
3. That Orthodox and Catholic theologians distinguish more clearly between the divinity and hypostatic identity of the Holy Spirit (which is a received dogma of our Churches) and the manner of the Spirit's origin, which still awaits full and final ecumenical resolution.
4. That those engaged in dialogue on this issue distinguish, as far as possible, the theological issues of the origin of the Holy Spirit from the ecclesiological issues of primacy and doctrinal authority in the Church, even as we pursue both questions seriously, together.
5. That the theological dialogue between our Churches also give careful consideration to the status of later councils held in both our Churches after those seven generally received as ecumenical.
6. That the Catholic Church, as a consequence of the normative and irrevocable dogmatic value of the Creed of 381, use the original Greek text alone in making translations of that Creed for catechetical and liturgical use.
7. That the Catholic Church, following a growing theological consensus, and in particular the statements made by Pope Paul VI, declare that the condemnation made at the Second Council of Lyons (1274) of those "who presume to deny that the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son" is no longer applicable.

In the judgment of the consultation, the question of the filioque is no longer a "Church-dividing" issue, one which would impede full reconciliation and full communion. It is for the bishops of the Catholic and Orthodox Churches to review this work and to make whatever decisions would be appropriate.

[edit] 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. Conversely, from Photius to the Council of Florence, the Greek Fathers were also not acquainted with the linguistic issues.

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 7th-century Spain. In this context, the filioque was a means to affirm the full divinity of both the Spirit and the Son. It is not just a question of establishing a connection with the Father and his divinity; it is a question of reinforcing the profession of Catholic faith in the fact that both the Son and Spirit share the fullness of God's nature.

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. In this case, a common adversary, namely, Arianism, had profound, far-reaching effects, in the orthodox reaction in both East and West.

The filioque issue has been the only real theological point of dispute between the Eastern and Western churches. All other extant differences between the churches are non-theological in nature; they do not concern the Deity, but the human and earthly aspect of the Church and are largely matters of canonical interpretation and jurisdiction.

Church politics, authority conflicts, ethnic hostility, linguistic misunderstanding, personal rivalry, and secular motives all combined in various ways to divide East and West. Foremost among these are the intertwined issues of papal infallibility and papal primacy. Any rescinding of the filioque clause on behalf of the Western Church will in essence undermine the two aforementioned issues, since the filioque has been pronounced ex cathedra by successive generations of popes.

More than once, the filioque dispute was used to reinforce such division. Now, with a growing spirit of charity, in accord with the will of Christ, that there be one flock (Jn 10:16; Jn 17:22), perhaps the filioque dispute will be resolved, so that the Catholic and the Orthodox Churches may be reconciled, or perhaps divisions will grow deeper and it will not be possible to reach such a high ideal.

[edit] Notes

[edit] References

There is a great deal written on the topic of the filioque; what follows, therefore, is selective. As time goes on, this list will inevitably have to be updated.

• "Filioque", Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church. Oxford, 1997, p. 611.
• David Bradshaw. Aristotle East and West: Metaphysics and the Division of Christendom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004, pp. 214–220.
• 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.

This article incorporates text from the public domain 1907 edition of The Nuttall Encyclopædia.

[edit] External links

• Orthodox/Catholic joint statement
• Filioque at OrthodoxWiki
• Catholic Encyclopedia entry
• Christian Cyclopedia entry
• Agreed statement of the North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consulation