I am an Anglican. The Anglican Church says or doesn't say the filioque, it is certainly as the Nicene Creed is printed in The Book of Common Prayer 1661-2. I have been research it for some time, and as a result of that research I have come to a position where I no longer say it, and realistically I don't think it should be there at all.
There are three issues that the argument swings around. Those issues are:
Proceedure
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, though it is doubtful that Constantine himself was Arian.
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.
In 390 after 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 (some of which were very family), 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, especially in light of the acknowledgement of the anathemas of Ephesus.
Charlemagne’s father, Pepin the Short, apparently thought the Byzantines had dropped the Filioque from the creed. The logical conclusion of this is that by the mid 700’s the Filioque was being said in Gaul. The Synod of Frankfurt (Charlemagne) 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 from 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. Later, around 849 a monk in Jerusalem complained that it was not used by some monks in Jerusalem, as attested by Ado of Vienne, and the Pope confirmed, as he had soem 40 years before that it should not be used.
Following a fairly secular period in the Papacy (often referred to as saeculum obscurum) 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.
Primacy
When the ten heard it, they were angry with the two brothers. But Jesus called them to him and said, ‘You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones are tyrants over them. It will not be so among you; but whoever wishes to be great among you must be your servant, and whoever wishes to be first among you must be your slave; just as the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life a ransom for many.’
Matthew 20:20-28
There are three issues that the argument swings around. Those issues are:
- The matter of Procedure - as in how did it get there, was that procedure sound or questionable. This really has to do with the history of the process.
- The matter of Procession - and in a sense this is irrelevant, and yet it remains apposite, as the matter that the filioque addresses is the matter of the Procession of the Holy Spirit.
- The matter of Primacy of the Petrine Office, and what that might mean, and what authority is attached to the Office of the Bishop of Rome, and especially in relation to decisions made my the Councils of the Church.
Proceedure
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, though it is doubtful that Constantine himself was Arian.
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.
In 390 after 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 (some of which were very family), 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, especially in light of the acknowledgement of the anathemas of Ephesus.
Charlemagne’s father, Pepin the Short, apparently thought the Byzantines had dropped the Filioque from the creed. The logical conclusion of this is that by the mid 700’s the Filioque was being said in Gaul. The Synod of Frankfurt (Charlemagne) 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 from 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. Later, around 849 a monk in Jerusalem complained that it was not used by some monks in Jerusalem, as attested by Ado of Vienne, and the Pope confirmed, as he had soem 40 years before that it should not be used.
Following a fairly secular period in the Papacy (often referred to as saeculum obscurum) 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.
Primacy
The Request of the Mother of James and John
Then the mother of the sons of Zebedee came to him with her sons, and kneeling before him, she asked a favour of him. And he said to her, ‘What do you want?’ She said to him, ‘Declare that these two sons of mine will sit, one at your right hand and one at your left, in your kingdom.’ But Jesus answered, ‘You do not know what you are asking. Are you able to drink the cup that I am about to drink?’ They said to him, ‘We are able.’ He said to them, ‘You will indeed drink my cup, but to sit at my right hand and at my left, this is not mine to grant, but it is for those for whom it has been prepared by my Father.’When the ten heard it, they were angry with the two brothers. But Jesus called them to him and said, ‘You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones are tyrants over them. It will not be so among you; but whoever wishes to be great among you must be your servant, and whoever wishes to be first among you must be your slave; just as the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life a ransom for many.’
Matthew 20:20-28
The passage from Matthew including what Anglicans often call the deacons text "You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones are tyrants over them", while the Bishop sits quietly trying not to be seen and not to blush too much. Frivolity aside, the passage, I believe, clearly shows the mind of Jesus when it comes to the ways in which we exercise leadership. The servant role, the servant model, the diakonia of the church walking in the footsteps of Jesus is clear.
The Council at Jerusalem
The apostles and the elders met together to consider this matter. After there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them, ‘My brothers, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that I should be the one through whom the Gentiles would hear the message of the good news and become believers. And God, who knows the human heart, testified to them by giving them the Holy Spirit, just as he did to us; and in cleansing their hearts by faith he has made no distinction between them and us. Now therefore why are you putting God to the test by placing on the neck of the disciples a yoke that neither our ancestors nor we have been able to bear? On the contrary, we believe that we will be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will.’The whole assembly kept silence, and listened to Barnabas and Paul as they told of all the signs and wonders that God had done through them among the Gentiles. After they finished speaking, James replied, ‘My brothers, listen to me. Simeon has related how God first looked favourably on the Gentiles, to take from among them a people for his name. This agrees with the words of the prophets, as it is written,
“After this I will return,
and I will rebuild the dwelling of David, which has fallen;
from its ruins I will rebuild it,
and I will set it up,
so that all other peoples may seek the Lord—
even all the Gentiles over whom my name has been called.
Thus says the Lord, who has been making these things known from long ago.”
Therefore I have reached the decision that we should not trouble those Gentiles who are turning to God, but we should write to them to abstain only from things polluted by idols and from fornication and from whatever has been strangled and from blood. For in every city, for generations past, Moses has had those who proclaim him, for he has been read aloud every sabbath in the synagogues.’
Acts 15
The first major issue the Church had to address was the matter of circumcision for gentile (male) converts. It asked the question of the Church 'how Jewish are we' and the response is interesting, in that they decided that they were not that Jewish in a very Jewish kind of way. In terms of Primacy the role of James is quite instructive. The question is resolved in a conciliar manner, with the case being discussed, and Paul and Barnabas clearly speak to their experience in the matter. Simeon has clearly advised James, using Septuagint OT references to support the case. James then speaks for the whole Council, as first among equals. This is the spirit of colnciliar leadership in the Church. In falls in line with the mind of Jesus expressed in Matthew, and it clearly shows and consultative process that leads to a decision - the mind of the council - and a clear expression of the mind of the council by the leadership.
At this stage of the Churches life, you would have to feel that we have got some things right. There is a loyalty to the principles of the Old Covenant, a commitment to unity and the common mind, A spirit of listening to the mind of God, No lording it over people, and a primacy expressed in a conciliar fashion as first among equals.
In 308 AD Constantine was declared Caesar (West) in York, following the death of his Father, and on the acclaimation of the legions in York. This news was not greeted with quite as much joy in Rome, and on his return to Rome in 312 he defeated Maxentius at the battle of Milvian Bridge - a crossing of the Tiber in the North of Rome, and so became Caesar Augustus. This victory was significant for a number of reasons, in that Constantine was outnumbered, and Constantine attributed the victory to the Christian God, as he had seen a vision of the Chi Rho in the sky on the eve of the battle. It also marked the beginning of the end of the Diocletian Tetrarchy.
In 313 he met with Licinius and the Edit of Milan was issued, declaring a new understanding of religious pluralism in the Empire, and requiring the return to the Christians of that which had been taken from them. Whilst the edict did not of it self make the Empire any more Christian, it provided an environment where the Church could grow and take it's place more obviously in the life of the community.
One of the great problems the Church faced in the period following this was the rise of Arianism, and the level of problems this created led to the calling of the 1st Council of Nicaea, which Constantine participated, and some 300 or so Bishops from all through the empire. The Patriarchs of Rome, Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, all assented to the decisions. The First Oecumenical Council had happened. The Bishop of Rome clearly had a point of precedence not doubt simply if not only by virtue of the fact that Rome was the seat of Empire. Petrine theory was not especially well developed, and more would be made of it between the councils. The association of the Keys and Rome as the see of Peter, were certainly beginning to take shape.
One of the reasons why the discussion no doubt took a new context was that in 330 Constantine founded a new capital on the foundations of the old Byzantium, he new city originally called Nova Romanum, and later called in honour of its father Constantinople. This city was dedicated to the Christian God and placed under the patronage of the Holy Mother of God. Clearly the Bishop of such a City was going to have a new prominence, and there was discussion about this. Based on the Petrine theory it was largely ascertained that the Bishop of Constantinople.
In 381 at the First Council of Constantinople some consideration was given to the order of the Metropolitans and it was determined that Constantinople was second only after Rome. By this stage the notion of the Peterine Theory has been accepted and understood to be a reference to Rome, and even though the seat of Imperial power and authority had moved East, the primacy of Rome, as first among equals was intact and the established order.
In 431 the Council of Ephesus addressed Nestorianism and although there was clearly tension between Antioch and Alexandria, they both signed off on the expulsion of Nestorius, and it seems that all quite clearly understood the primacy of Rome, and the issue the John of Antioch had was with Cyril of Alexandria, and not with Celestine of Rome. Following this Council the Nestorian Church went forward, somewhere largely East of Antioch and no longer in communion.
In 451 the Council of Chalcedon was help with the reluctant approval of the Pope, Leo the Great. One of the things set more formally in place was that the See of Constantinople was second only in honour to the See of Rome. Whilst most of the Church affirms and adheres to the Chalcedonian definitions - the two natures of Christ being absolutely united in the person of Christ - there was an uneasiness with the Tombe of Leo the Great fearing that in some sense it wandered a little too close to the Nestorian position. This led to the breach in communion between the Copts which despite several efforts has not been truly resolved. In a sense the Tombe of Leo might be seen as the Pope trying to direct the Council, or it might be seen as the Pope having a voice in the Council as first among equals, (with there possibly being more emphasis on first than on equals).
In 858 the Emperor (Byzanitine) Michael and Caesar Bardas found themselves in opposition to Igantius the Patriarch of Constantinople in all likelihood on a moral issue. The deposed Ignatius and imprisoned him of a charge of treason and appointed Photios , kinsman of Bardas and layman, who was ordained through several steps day by day and enthroned Patriarch of Constantinople on Christmas Day 858. A scandal ensued and the Pope intervened deposing Photios and reinstalling Ignatius. Four years later Photios called a Synod for the excommunication of the Pope for the Heresy of Double Procession. Bardas was murdered in 866 and Michael in 867 and Photios was removed (again) as the new Emperor Basil tried to gain favour with the Pope. Photios gained favour with the Emperor and tutored his children, and there is a lot going on, however following Ignatius death in 877 Photios was the The Patriarch of Constantinople. In 879 Photios called a council and the Popes legates appeared to enforce the Eastern claim to Bulgaria, and though the victory was nominal, it did make it clear that Rome could not enforce its claims. When Basil died in 886 (injured while hunting) the new emperor deposed Photios who was then exiled. There is evidence that he was later rehabilitated, however kept well out of the political life of the empire.
Whilst this is a messy time in the history, it does in some way indicate that the Pope was gaining in an understanding of a sense of authority that accompanied a sense of primacy, and the Patriarchy of Constantinople was growing in an understanding of the need to make sure that the Pope knew their were boundaries to that authority. It is also clear that it this stage the East had grown suspicious of the West on the matter of the theology of procession, given the awareness that the Filique was being used in some parts of the Western Church. The West was undoubtedly aware of concerns about this issue in the East, and no doubt through the next 150 years this matter festered and essentially unresolved. For the East the essential question was that the Father was the ultimate source of all things, and the eternal generation of the Son and the eternal procession of the Spirit suggested that nothing should compromise the monarchical integrity of the Father. The East was always clear that when Jesus said 'Receive the Holy Spirit' that the Holy Spirit proceeded from the Father, whilst in the West there was a response that the Holy Spirit proceeded from the Son. The careful among the Western Theologians were always ready to point out that though the Holy Spirit did proceed from the Son, that the Holy Spirit in the first instance always proceeded from the Father. Some where not so careful in this expression and indeed the insertion of the Filioque into the Nicene Creed does not make this apparent all all.
The Papacy was do move through an 'interesting' period, often referred to as saeculum obscurum (the hiding of holiness) and indeed the Crescenti Popes as well, where the command of the Papacy fell into the hands of leading Italian families, where perhaps the concern for the Papal States exceeded the concern for the Kingdom of God, and it is apparent that these were dark days. The Papal States were under pressure, on and off during this period, with pressure from the Saracen in the South and the Normans in the North.
Following the death of Sergious IV in 1012, Gregory VI laid claim to the Papal See, though declared an Anti-Pope, and Benedict VIII was the declared Pope. Henry enlisted the help of Henry II (of Germany) who had Gregory VI evicted and Benedict VIII installed. in 1014 Henry was crowned Holy Roman Emperor. It would seem that it was at Henry's request that the Nicene Creed was said with the Filioque inserted for the first time in Rome. In light of the history one may conclude that either Benedict was unconcerned with the matter, or that he was happy to incense the Byzantines, who had been making some inroads in the Southern parts of Italy.
The ensuing discussions between the Patriarchs of Constantinople and and the Popes centred around the question of the Pope's authority to override the decisions of the Councils, especially given the anathemas of Ephesus which had been confirmed at Chalcedon. The Popes took the line that they had the authority of the Petrine Office, whilst the Patriarchs took the view that this authority had a number of limits, one of which was undoubtedly the express understandings of the Councils. The Popes increasing required the Patriarchs to submit, and the Patriarchs increasingly stood up for the Councils. Finally in 1054 the Pope had had enough, and issued the writ of excommunication and assigned legates to deliver it to Michael Celarious in Hagia Sophia. By the time the legates arrived, the Pope was already dead, but nobody knew that. The patriarch responded by excommunicating the now dead Pope and removing Rome from the Diptychs. The Great Schism had come to pass.
Whilst there is no doubt a lot of peripheral information, the development of the theory of Papal Primacy and it's meaning clearly changed over this 1000 years or so. Maybe part of this is about the Church becoming more of an institution that the movement which had once been the people on the way. Perhaps part of this is the conforming to the structures that surrounded the imperial understanding of Rome with legions and ranks, and authority structures which seemingly unnoticed made their way into the Church. Maybe partly it reflects a Church that had become over secularised during the period of the Saeculm Obscurum. Perhaps there was a lack of humility, and a loss of the desire to maintain the bonds of faith.
Whist in many ways the Filioque was the match that lit the fuse of the Great Schism, the fuse was almost certainly the development of a Petrine theory that had moved from first among equals to 'I am Peter'. This matter then gains further development in history as we come to understand what is called the Magesterium.
I am quite certain that there is a Latin Story which will account this is a different way, and I for one am ready to listen. No doubt there is an Orthodox Story as well to which i will gladly listen as well. I am simply recounting the story as I have come to understand it, in the hope that it will help others think about the story, and understand it for themselves more fully.
Procession
And yet it is not without reason that in this Trinity only the Word of God is called Son, only the Gift of God the Holy Spirit, and only He of whom the Word is begotten and from Whom principally the Holy Spirit proceeds is called God the Father. I have added the term "principally" because the Holy Spirit is found to proceed also from the Son. But this too the Father gave the Son, not as if the Son did not already exist and have it, but because whatever the Father gives the Son, He gives by begetting. He so begat Him, then, that the Gift might proceed jointly from Him, and so that the Holy Spirit would be the Spirit of both (XV, 17:29) St Augustine of Hippo On the Trinity
Augustine of Hippo laid much of the Patristic Foundation of a theory of double procession. And you would be right to note that he is a Western Theologian and wrote in Latin. I think that some writers have missed Augustine's intent here, or carried it further than it was meant to go. The origin and source of the Holy Spirit is always primarily the Father, though the scriptures are clear that there is a time when it makes sense to say that the Spirit may be said to proceed from the Son. As I understand it the balance of the theology is that the Holy Spirit is eternally proceeding from the Father, and our experience of the Spirit may well be from the Son, yet that does not imply that the Spirit has not immediately proceeded from the Father. This I think was the position that the Cappadocians were trying to set forward, and why the Fillioque was no part of the Creed of Constantinople in 381.
In my understanding there is very good reason to accept a theology of double procession. I can do that and I can accept the Creed of the 1st Council Constantinople. A great part of the Filioque debate then is about who has the right to change the Creed of the Council.
Isidore of Spain following Leander, were great proponents of Augustine. The evidence of the records of the Thirst Council of Toledo leads me to conclude that Isidore of Seville accepted a theology of double procession, and yet was accepting of the creed of the council without amendment in accordance with the council of Ephesus.
