I have done a bit of work on the area of the Filioque Clause, and I felt that I should clarify a few issues in the discussion, with no disrespect intended.
The issue is about The Nicene Creed.
In 321 the Holy Fathers gathered in assembly in Nicaea at the behest of the Emperor, Constantine, in order to settle the Arian Dispute. The creed of that council formulated to specifically address that question and included anathemas.
Some years later Constantine in the last year of his life baptised by Eusebius, an Arian Bishop.
Between the Council of Nicaea and the First Council of Constantinople, the Cappadocian Fathers did a lot of theological work on the Creed, Trinitarian Belief, and the role of the Spirit. Their work, together with the Creed of the Council of Nicaea formed the basis of the great work of the 1st Council of Constantinople, The Nicene Creed.
In 381 the Holy Fathers gathered in assembly in Constantinople. The Creed of this Council is now referred to as the Nicene Creed, and it is the Nicene Creed we say today, except that in much of the western church the Filioque has been inserted.
Following the Council of Constantinople, Ambrose of Milan wrote to the Pope arguing for the Apostles Creed. It may well be that Ambrose maintained a good relationship with the Arians, although he himself was clearly and upholder of the Catholic Faith. The Creed Ambrose promoted, is generally accepted as the baptismal symbol in the West, whereas in the East the only Creed is the Creed of the Councils.
In 435 the Council of Ephesus was called. Following an outbreak of the Nestorianism, who had developed their own version of the Nicene Creed. The Council of Ephesus condemned the Nestorian position. It was the Council of Ephesus that pronounced anathemas on those who added to, or took away from, the Nicene Creed.
In 451 the Council of Chalcedon met to discuss heresies surrounding the nature of the relationship between the divinity and the humanity of Christ. This led to what is called the Chalcedonian Definition. This Council affirmed the Nicene Creed and the anathemas of Ephesus.
Arianism had continued to spread and in the mid-6th century much of Iberia (Spain Portugal and parts of Gaul) was Arian. In the wake of a number of events, Reccared the King, renounced Arianism and embraced the Holy Catholic Faith. In 587 at the Third Council of Toledo Reccared formerly renounced Arianism and embraced the Catholic Faith. This was strategically important and improved the Roman influence, and diminished Byzantine influence in the Western region of the Empire. There are suggestions that this was the Council that inserted the Filioque Clause to the Creed. The record of the Council, which is now accessible on-line shows this to not be the case. Link is below, the text is in Latin. What this Council did do, however, was require that the Nicene Creed be sung on Sundays and Holy Days. It is possible (maybe even likely) that following this the Church in Iberia may have lost version control of the Nicene Creed. There are a number of variations around Iberia following this.
http://www.benedictus.mgh.de/quellen/chga/chga_045t.htm
680 and the Synod of Hatfield is sometimes suggested as the introduction of the Filioque into England. The Venerable Bede is sometimes cited as the authority for this conclusion, however this is based on the Toledo argument. Without Toledo, and with Theodore, Archbishop of Canterbury, having his background in the East, and no real evidence in Bede or The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, I have concluded it probably did not happen at Hatfield.
Charlemagne’s father, Pepin the Short, thought the Byzantines had dropped the Filioque from the creed. The logical conclusion of this is that by the md 700’s the Filioque was being said in Gaul. The Synod of Frankfurt in 794 required the Filioque to be inserted in the Nicene Creed. The reason given was to combat an outbreak of the heresy ‘Spanish Adoptionism’ which is a distortion of Paul’s kenotic Christology. Some part of this must be seen in the light of Charlemagne’s determination to differentiate and dominate the Byzantines.
In 796 at the Synod of Friuli, again under the auspices of Charlemagne the position of the Nicene Creed in the liturgy was moved from the traditional position before the Sursum Corda to the western position, after the Gospel.
In 809 following a local Council in Aix la Chappelle (near Paris) Charlemagne sent emissaries to ask the Pope to allow the insertion of the Filioque in the Nicene Creed. The mind of the Pope on this was clear, and indeed he ordered the Nicene Creed be inscribed on two silver shield (one in Latin one in Greek) and hung beside the tomb of Peter. This is without the Filioque. The French continued to include the Filioque.
Following a fairly secular period in the Papacy saw the rise of the Tusculan Popes. In 1014 the Papal States were under great territorial pressure from the Saracen in the South and the Normans in the North, and Benedict sought the assistance of Henry II (Germany) to free the Papal States, and when he crowned Henry Holy Roman Emperor (and generally thought to be at Henry’s request) The Nicene Creed was part of the liturgy including the Filioque for the first time in Rome.
The East objected and a discussion ensued concerning the Pope’s authority to add something to the Creed of the Councils. In 1054 Pope Leo excommunicated the Patriarch of Constantinople Michael I Celarius however before it was delivered to the Patriarch in Hagia Sophia, Leo died. When the Patriarch received it he excommunicated, the now dead, Leo (though the Patriarch was unaware of the Pope’s physical condition). The great Schism had come to pass.
Twelve years later in 1066 the Norman’s, at the Popes authority and carrying Papal Banners, invaded England. Following the conquest William deposed the English Bishops and replaced them with Norman and Italian Bishops, and the Bishop of Salisbury was asked to draw up a new Sarum rite in keeping with the Latin rite used in Rome. We do know that from that time the Filioque was part of the English liturgical environment. I have now evidence it was used in England in any widespread way before that.
At the time of the Separation of the English Church, (perhaps more like an Ecclesiastical Brexit than a Reformation) and the rendering of the liturgy in the vulgar tongue (English), practice seems universally to have included the Filioque in the Nicene Creed. It should be remembered that 1549 was developed from the existing rites, but in English, perhaps less elaborate in ritual, and a notable balance between the liturgy of the Word and the Liturgy of the Sacrament.
Since the rise of the Oxford movement, and a growing appreciation of the Eastern Orthodox position/s, there has been a growing whisper about that perhaps the Filioque Clause should not be in the creed. On three occasions the Lambeth Fathers have met and called upon member Churches to give serious consideration to dropping it as they revise their liturgies. This has had a lukewarm response generally, however to the mood to drop it I believe is growing. Several documents from the Communion, especially in dialogue with the East, suggest dropping the Filioque. I suspect that part of the reason for the lukewarm response is that significant change to the Nicene Creed in Common Worship (the new e-rite resource) though there is an option to omit it, it is a bit hard to find.
This link is a search of the Anglican Communion documents referencing the Filioque clause.
http://www.anglicancommunion.org/resources/document-library/DocLibSearchResults.aspx
This is the link to alternatives to the Creed, including the Nicene Creed without the Filioque.
https://www.churchofengland.org/pra...ter,-collects-and-other-resources/creeds.aspx
Hopefully these will help people who want to search further.
It should be noted that it is quite reasonable to embrace a theology of double procession and not include the Filioque in the Nicene Creed. The two are separate issues. To my mind, one of the problems is that the meaning of the word ‘and’ has shifted slightly, and for some it may have taken their theology with it.
It is quite clear that the Holy Spirit originates in and proceeds from the Father always. It is also clear that there are clear examples where it is makes sense to speak of Holy Spirit proceeding from the Son, such as where he breathed on them and said ‘Receive the Holy Spirit’. What we should be reluctant to say is that the Holy Spirit always proceeds from the Son, and such an understanding makes hard reading of the annunciation and the Baptism of Jesus. In a sense this may be about a distinction between point of departure, and point of origin.
Both Augustine and Aquinas are quite clear on this point. And only one of them used the Filioque.
For Myself.
I no longer say the Filioque, and I have got quite used to taking a breath after Father as the Creed rolls along. My reasons for this are,
- It is the faith of the Whole Church
- It is the faith of the Councils
- The Lambeth Fathers on three occasions have encouraged me in this
- I don’t like how it got to be there.
- I do not think it is the right way to express double procession
- On this point I think the Eastern Orthodox are correct
- Having read and prayed about it my inner conviction is to omit it.
- It adds little value and takes away much unity.
I have many friends who say it, and I am not aware of anybody else in the congregation I attend who does not say it. There are people in the congregation who are aware that I do not say it, however nobody asks why, they just accept it. I have discussed it with my Parish Priest, and she seemed to feel it was of little consequence.
I have discussed it with a number of friends (mainly in orders), and have been surprised to discover that a number of them also never say it themselves, though they happily run off liturgies that include it. A couple of them have taken the approach of including it in the liturgy in italics.
At one stage I thought not saying it was radical, I now see it as conservative.